The Condescending Liberal
.....by Richard Koss
I'm really tired. No, actually I'm exhausted. Worn out. I've spent too
many years trying to win arguments with liberals or people who deny they're
liberals, but sure act like them.
Most everyone including myself, has strong liberal notions when they're
young. In my youthful days, being a liberal was synonymous with freedom
of speech, religion, and a tolerance for others, particularly those who
disagreed with us. It also meant rooting for the underdog, the little guy.
It was "hip" to be a liberal. Conservatives were either old people or
"squares."
Historians told us that great achievements in science, art, and literature
were made possible by liberal thinkers. Our great political revolutions
were spearheaded by liberals, whose progressive attitudes helped bring about
change and reform.
As I got older, I soon realized that being a liberal didn't guarantee you
anything. It didn't get you a better job unless you were in public life and
it sure didn't prove you were smarter than anyone else. I also discovered
that the people doing all the talking about rights and protesting the
injustices surrounding us were accomplishing very little because they only
talked about it. Another thing I learned was that it was better for a
person to set realistic goals for himself and thereby accomplish something,
rather than stubbornly pursue idealistic utopian goals which can never be
achieved.
How many times have I heard the argument that it doesn't matter if the goals
are unattainable. We must keep trying, no matter what. Unfortunately, the
ultimate consequence of the relentless pursuit of these goals is that the
illusion of accomplishment replaces real progress, most notably in the areas
of social, economic, and political reform. As a result, consistent failure
to achieve anything measurable is not only tolerated, but rewarded, as long
as such futile efforts are deemed necessary to correct social and economic
injustice, preserve civil and human rights, and protect the environment.
Eventually, symbolism far outweighs substance.
Ill-conceived legislation, with its aftermath of federal and state
governmental policies and programs practically guarantees failure because
society consists of groups of people who vary significantly in terms of
social, economic, and moral lifestyles. Solutions that focus on isolated
segments of society, such as any targeted "minority" group, invariably have
adverse effects associated with their implementation.. This often results in
polarization and fosters a continuum of tensions among these various groups,
because when one group or segment or class of people is overcompensated for
whatever reason, one or more of these other groups will have to pay the
price.
Any government program designed for a specific type of beneficiary required
to "qualify" for some form of financial assistance, will invariably, far
exceed its original budget limitations because chronic "abuse" of these
programs is inevitable. History has proven this time and time again. Yet
liberals will argue that if we spend billions of dollars on a program, even
when there is evidence that only 30% of the money reaches deserved
recipients, we still should continue the program and the spending. This
has been a perpetual dilemma because to implement controls in many of these
programs, which would eliminate these abuses, would also force us to
increase spending even more.
The willingness of our society to accept symbolism and rhetoric, which
include contemporary attitudes and behavior patterns manifested in a sea of
political correctness, seems to have taken precedent over practical and
effective common sense solutions to today's social, economic, and political
problems.
Perhaps with all the broken homes and single parents wallowing in guilt out
there, we want to believe that we can substitute new, more benign,
descriptions for the disgusting behavior of some of our youth which will
help them to find a new sense of self-esteem and eventually, turn out fine.
I don't think so.
This opens the door for the charlatans, carpetbaggers, and frauds in the
political and academic arenas to join in forming an elite corps of leaders.
They are successful because they are charismatic and know how to use
symbolism and rhetoric a hell of a lot better than those boring,
conservative, catering to the rich, Republicans. They know it's not
necessary to do very much.. Today, what you say and how you say it are
more important than what you do. As a result, these masters of spin are
blindly embraced by their many sincere, but naïve liberal constituents.
The goals of these imposters are simply power and self-aggrandizement.
Power enables them to carry out their overall agenda, which is the
escalation of government control over our lives, specifically our basic
freedom and our right to ownership of private property and the accumulation
of wealth. Does this sound like communism or socialism? You bet it does.
Remember, in a communist or socialist society, as the average person sees
his personal property rights slowly vanish, only the elite segment of the
society - the government leaders, the academicians, the distinguished
scientists, physicians, artists, athletes, and glorified celebrities of the
society loyal to those leading the way to this government dominated new
order - only these chosen few will continue to maintain a lifestyle
comparable to that of royalty. The rest of us will be helpless to stop the
depletion of our assets, possibly through direct government confiscation,
but most likely through re-distribution to others via increasing taxation
at all levels.
George Will wrote an excellent syndicated column on June 5th which
referred to the "condescending" liberal and the continuous attenuation of
American competence. By their proposed policies and actions, liberal
politicians who espouse to champion the rights of the underprivileged and
disadvantaged, actually demonstrate quite clearly, that they consider the
average American to be incompetent, ignorant, and incapable of knowing what
is in his or her best interests, and for that matter, the best interests of
(our) children.
This is nothing new, for most of the elite alumni of the sophisticated
liberal institutions of higher learning are convinced that anyone who's not
a member of their club has little, if any clue, about what they should be
doing with their life. Consequently, from their perspective, it is their
leadership, their guidance, their plan alone, which can keep the rest of
us from doing damage to ourselves and the rest of society.
If anyone doubts this, you only have to witness the public service
commercials on radio and television admonishing us not to hurt ourselves.
Don't plug in electronic devices while in the bath or shower. Wash your
hands before you unwrap meat and other food products.
They've child-proofed everything from cigarette lighters to aspirin and
anything else found in a container. This has made life more difficult for
everyone - except kids. I heard of a sign posted on the wall of a U.S.
Post Office branch. It read: "No Dogs Allowed, (except seeing eye dogs
accompanying blind people.)"
The biggest reason given for not refunding a portion of the "surplus" this
administration says exists, in the form of tax cuts, is because we would
only "blow" it. The same reasoning applies to why we shouldn't be allowed
to control any portion of our own social security account balances. We're
too damned incompetent.
As much as I resent big government and its constant attempt to interfere in
my life, I must admit that the condescending liberals are not entirely wrong
in covertly labeling the American public as overall, a pretty incompetent
bunch. After all, how did these guys get elected? Not once, but twice,
mind you.
So I'm done arguing with liberals. But I really don't believe that most
Americans are as dumb as the liberals think they are. I know one thing for
sure. I'll find out in November.
Ed Note: Please see the Editorial Page
