What kind of track record do the ideas espoused by Liberals really have? by R.J. Moeller
(conservative)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."
-Winston Churchill
An accepted definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. I'd like to amend the working definition of "deranged" to include the description "the insanity one exhibits in voting for either Democratic presidential candidate in 2008." Welcome to the wonderful world of modern liberalism.
But why do so many American voters keep making the same mistake of voting for distinctly collectivist, socialistic policies espoused by grossly inadequate contenders for the highest office in the land? How is it that a nation as blessed and prosperous and free as this can continue to chase after categorically refuted systems of government and economy? How does liberalism remain a legitimate intellectual political philosophy after leaving for itself such an objectionable track record in the United States, to say nothing of the world at-large?
We have no problem in identifying a monarchy as being undesirable and untenable. We've moved past bartering as the standard way in which we conduct business. We no longer use leeches to cure the common cold. So why is the socialist's ideology still so prevalent in modern American political discourse?
The simple answer is that this nation has been both unwilling (due to personal predilections or intellectual laziness) and unable (due to biases or intellectual dishonesty inherent in most key positions of influence) to seriously investigate the consequences of Leftist positions and decisions in foreign, domestic, and monetary policy.
You've likely heard it said that the best trick the devil ever played was convincing people he didn't exist. Well, the best trick socialism ever played was convincing the average voter that its own past sins don't exist, and that with enough "hope" and "change" the heaping helping of blame for past national mistakes can be lumped on to the already cleaned plate of the only eater (i.e. free-market democracy) at the ideological table who lived up to expectations and got the job done.
Every idea, every word, every implication that proceeds from the mouth of a conservative is held up to a level of scrutiny that liberal politicians, professors and pundits only can experience in their nightmares. When anyone on the Right, whether it be our President or Rush Limbaugh, makes what liberals' own self-aggrandizing sensitivities tells them is an offensive or inflammatory statement, every assignable consequence related to the topic at hand are laid at the feet of the Conservative unfortunate enough to open his or her mouth.
And to be fair, this is, to an extent, very fitting and perceptive of an otherwise witless band of liberal pundits and ideologically driven lap dogs. One of the media' most important jobs are to hold elected officials and policy makers accountable for the things they say, do, and vote for. But they ought to also be impartial and cognizant enough to recognize what works from what doesn't, and what is "incendiary" from what is "appropriate" (or even "commendable").
When President Bush says that "radical Islam is the enemy of freedom" in front of the United Nations general assembly, I have no doubt that Al Qaeda recruiters (at this rate, the only kind of "recruiter" the city council board of San Francisco will allow on high school campuses) from Jakarta to Hamburg are inundated with applications from malleable young Muslim men ready to kill innocent infidels. When Rush Limbaugh tells his audience of 30 million listeners to disrupt the Democrats coronation of Barack Obama by voting for Hillary Clinton in the Texas and Ohio primaries, and many do, it is fair and reasonable for liberal Democrats to lambaste the portly political prognosticator for playing what could defensibly be interpreted as "dirty politics."
I have no problem with the media, with liberals, with Democrats, assigning culpability to any fellow Conservative or Republican or even Evangelical Christian (see: the reaction by the Left to anything Jerry Falwell ever said) for the perceived or literal consequences of their particular words, actions, and ideas. We all know that ideas, specifically, have real and potentially serious consequences that aren't always apparent without thoughtful inquiry and contemplation.
Idea: The Founding Fathers chose to value liberty over equality.
Consequence: Equality of opportunity, not outcome, becomes our national ethos and subsequently many investors, entrepreneurs, and hard-working stiffs die wretchedly poor (but equally free) because they took a voluntary chance on free-market capitalism.
Idea: Liberty and freedom in the Middle East could enable peace-seeking Muslims the opportunity to rise above their current totalitarian existence and will put pressure on Iran and Syria to relinquish their hateful, terrorist-sponsoring ways.
Consequence: 3,800 American soldiers have given their life so that 50 million citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan could have the chance to change the destiny of their homelands and the entire region. Many Americans remain understandably unhappy and the final results are not in on the ultimate success (or failure) of the Bush Doctrine.
You see, my beef with the modern American Left is not that they incessantly critique the ideas of the Right, or even that they extrapolate those ideas in order to make far-reaching, non-sequitir accusations. What gets this guy's goat is their flagrant unwillingness to seriously acknowledge the ideological ancestry of their own ideology (Marxism begets Socialism begets Liberalism) or concede that any of even the most blatant and devastating consequences of the ideas they champion are in any way, shape, or form their responsibility. You know, no matter how strong the ivory soap was he used to wash those hands of his, Pontius Pilate won't be let off the hook either.
Idea: A women's right to choose trumps the right to life guaranteed by our Constitution.
Consequence: 50 million babies since 1973 "never are" before they "ever were."
Idea: The War in Vietnam is no longer worth fighting so there must be immediate troop withdrawal and funding must be cut in order to force the South Vietnamese to stand on their own.
Consequence: 3 million of our allies in Southeast Asia are slaughtered almost immediately upon our exit from the region.
Idea: Welfare and entitlements for even the able-bodied poor are moral necessities.
Consequence: Generational poverty and governmental dependence for the same groups that were suppose to benefit from LBJ's "Great Society". By 1996, Bill Clinton, with the support of more than 95% of Americans and Congress signs Welfare Reform into law, signifying, in part, the monumental failures of the liberal penchant for social planning.
We're all, even conservatives, accountable for the decisions we make and the ideas we embrace. I recognize that this, accountability, is an unpopular concept in contemporary times, but the refusal to honestly appraise the profits (or losses) of our intellectual investments is a recipe suited only for the nation comfortable with being doomed to repeat the same avertable mistakes of the past. What's worse, such a nation is never able to distinguish the ideas that have actually, measurably worked in the past and could make life easier in the future.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of R.J. Moeller only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
R.J. Moeller is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-20 01:33:39
I suppose this is an article condemning the ideas of "the left" while paying lip service to the failings of "the right".
Fair enough.
From one's own vantage point, all other vantage points seem far away.
One of the greatest things one can realize in the world, is this-- If somethinig is argued over for a long time, and general consensus is never reached, you can be sure you are looking at an ambiguous dilemma.
Abortion, is one such dilemma. The war in Iraq, another. Welfare to the poor is another...
Growing up means learning to live with the ambiguity of morality, and the imperfection of any system designed by man.
Scott- Thanks for reading my piece, and thanks even more for taking the time to respond. Your comments are appreciated and duely noted. You are right to say that "growing up means learning to live with the ambiguity of morality" as it pertains to most things in life...but I am also a firm believer in objective truth. Not in the hard-and-fastened way that extremists on either side of an issue often take, but in the sense that there are better ways to do things than other in almost any situation. My quest is for truth, for answers, and most pragmatically of all, the best way forward as a nation. My individual moral positions on things such as abortion are defensible, as are say someone who is pro-choice...but that doesn't make us equally wrong or equally right. I'm not looking for perfect remedies any more than I am looking for perfect politicians. What holds us together as a nation is the Rule of Law as FA Hayek famously wrote in Road to Serfdom. We do need to know as citizens what our government can and cannot do within the parameters of the law (Constitution). While conservatives and Republicans have lost sight of this as of late, I still earnestly believe that our end of the spectrum (which includes libertarians most certainly) is the better end. In that light, and recognizing the brazen manner in which the media, academia, etc are decidedly tilted towards the Left and have a predilection to ignore their own ideology's conclusions, those who cherish liberty, de-centralization of the federal government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a reverting to Constitutionally defined powers for the three branches of government...then a vote for Obama or Hillary is madness and a vote for McCain is at the very least a step in the right direction.
Thats just my two cents and I look forward to engaging you more on these matters. God Bless.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-20 15:14:00
Years back I read a study that reported that "personality type" was the single biggest factor in determining whether someone swung left or right in the political scale.
Personality. (An even bigger factor than geographical and sociological pressures).
Not "objective truth". Personality. Which highlights my point that you could swear you were in possession of "objective truth" and stand next to someone who would swear to a truth directly opposed to your truth. Both would claim the superior truth, and the reason would not be truth, but subjectivity based on personality.
Then of course, mix in upbringing, religious indoctrination (for example, what if you were brought up in Pakistan in the mountains?) and plain old pig-headedness, and you get to see what I mean by messy and ambiguous...
Scott- Thanks once again for responding, and again, I hear what you're saying and understand your point...I just happen to disagree with it. That is interesting what you bring up about "personality" in how it pertains to political affiliation. But in your world of subjective truth, wouldn't even the study you cited be potentially false or at least misleading if the personality of the researcher was this or that?
You bring up the example of being reared in the hills of Pakistan...does that mean we should consider Sharia Law on par with English Common Law or the American Constitution simply because if we had been born somewhere else we would hate America's foreign policy? Does that mean Socialism's quantifiable failures shouldn't be highlighted in contrast to capitalism's undeniable successes? Objective truth must exist for math, science, etc. to work, so is it so unreasonable for us to think that there are objective truths when it comes to morals, ethics, and values? I'm not here trying to win the argument that my brand of morals or values are the "right" ones, simply that it is foolish for us to say that the pursuit of them is unnecessary and a dead-end chase.
It isnt by mistake that the same country who has for 232 years championed liberty over equality, prized economic competition over economic security, and based its argument for the right to autonomy on the principle that "all men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights", that this nation of all in the history of Mankind became the freest, most prosperous, most unique in human history. We've lost sight of some of those things, and some dont share the Framers' same collective belief in a Creator...but that doesnt change the reality of our national experience and historical narrative .
I'm not trying to convince you to think my way, only to have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that this place is special, and to investigate why/how it became so...as well as be willing to stand with people like me who more than anything else want to ensure our children's children are allowed to sit and have debates such as these in a free country that has not succumbed to the deceptively alluring siren-calls of European-style Socialism . This requires a strong military, a strong economy, a de-centralized government, and the combination of personal responsbility/civic duty that Thomas Jefferson said embodied the "republican ideal" (little r).
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-21 11:34:32
Ummm... Again, things are not as simple as you make them out to be...
Did you ever consider factors such as Natural resources, in your assessment of America? As a new country, population density has not become the problem it is in older societies such as what one finds in Europe. That means that a per capita wealth is much easier to attain, here, and has other attributions besides system of government. Resources per person is much higher than say Sweden. Or England. It makes your comparison unfair.
And if you tried to make the comparison you just made 150 years ago, you would have to say that a Monarchy is the best form of system to produce wealth, because just look at the British Empire!
So no, I do not buy your absolutist stance one iota.
It would be like me claiming the Patriots have the best possible coaching in football without exception.
Better than Lombardi? Walsh? Some future coach we have never met? See? It's a silly stance to take.
I've noticed, while reading a couple of your articles, that you do like to take swings at collectivism -- especially for someone whose Nolan Chart score places him in the collectivist camp.
Collectivism manifests itself in more than just way. National Socialism is just as collectivist as Marxist socialism. The warfare state is just as collectivistic as the welfare state. Intrinsic individual rights are violated just as much in the name of so-called "national greatness" and alleged "national security," as they are in the name of the so-called "social welfare" and the alleged "common good."
Wanting to apply the coercive power of the state to enforce "traditional values" is just as collectivistic as wanting it to enforce compulsory charity. The paternalist police-state tramples just as much liberty as the maternalist nanny-state.
The pot probably just never took the time to realize exactly how similar he and the kettle really are.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
