What Is A Liberal?

Author Tony Demaio

For many years, I had no idea what “liberal” or “conservative” meant. I had even less of a clue as to the meaning of “left wing” or “right wing”. I DID know my beliefs, though. I believed one should keep their word (contract), let others have their say (free speech), and tell the truth (be honest). I believed that I should not be subjected to theft. (I.e. I should not be compelled to support others.) I knew that the two statements, “This car cost $3,000.” and “This car is expensive.” were “different” (fact versus opinion), even if they were intended to convey the same meaning. I knew that one was “supposed to help others,” but not meddle in their affairs. I was quite surprised to discover that these beliefs were not all that common, and that I “thought differently” than many others.

I have given some thought to this liberal/conservative dimension lately. One of the first things I concluded was that one must distinguish between “Democrats” and “Liberals”, much as one must distinguish between “Republicans” and “Conservatives”. Liberals (as Conservatives, Socialists, Fascists, Libertarians, Communists, etc.) are ideologues. They believe in certain principals and ideas and can often express them quite passionately and vehemently. Elected officials do not have that luxury. They must get elected, so must bend and sway with the times and electorate. They must appeal to “the middle”.

While, in general, “Democrats are left wing” and “Republicans are right wing”, one notes that neither can be too extreme and still be (re)elected. Ideologues do not have such a constraint. (While not a topic of this paper, I perceive that the left wing ideologues are “taking control” of the Democratic Party—and probably steering it to extinction.)

I have attempted many times to converse with liberals. In general, it is a difficult task. Liberals tend to be excitable, and are easily stimulated to yelling and swearing. They often attempt to monopolize the conversation with a constant stream of “canned” speeches, slogans, epitaphs, adverbs, and adjectives. When they pause for breath and their “opponent” gets in a word and presses them for specifics, they tend to resort to arguments ad hominem (as, “You’re just a brainwashed neocon.”—or, the classic one, “I don’t want to be bothered with details.”) They appear to have no sense of logic, and oftentimes revert to “I don’t believe it.” Or, “I believe it.” (Much like the “despised” Christian who states, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That’s the end of it.”) They have few facts at their disposal, preferring to “just know” or “to believe”. They are expert at diverting the topic and/or changing the subject once they perceive they are “losing”. Sometimes they verbally attack their “tormentor” personally; other times, they swear and/or raise their voice—sometimes they cry. To them, discussions are not to expand knowledge, share information, or solve a problem; discussions are arguments to be “won” or “lost”, or chats with like-minded people to confirm their beliefs and prejudices. It is apparent to me that they believe that in winning the argument they have changed or confirmed reality. (As one talk show host stated: “If you control the language, you control the argument. If you control the argument, you control the situation.”) I suspect they believe that if they can convince someone that water runs uphill, then indeed water will run uphill; if they can convince enough people to vote “correctly”, they can repeal the law of gravity. Their perception is their reality.

They speak of “good” and “right”, but cannot define the terms. They often confuse fact with opinion. Most often their “argument” consists of stating the reason something has been said/done (thus implying they can read minds), then attacking that reason. Straw men and rhetorical questions make up the vast preponderance of their “reasoning” power. If the adjectives and adverbs are removed from their speech, there is little left. They are heavy with persuasion, light on logic; long on passion, short on objectivity; deep on opinion, shallow on fact; big on authority, small on evidence.

In chatting with liberals and observing them, I thought it “strange” that people who professed “free speech” would shout down those they disagreed with. I thought it “strange” that those who deplored “hate speech” would heap names and foul language upon those who “thought differently”. I thought it “strange” that those who professed “tolerance” would be so intolerant (consider the left’s view of smokers, smoking, and guns). I thought it “strange” that those who were for “peace” would engage in “peaceful demonstrations” that tied up traffic, clogged switchboards, spit on returning servicemen, closed business establishments, and engaged in other such behavior. I thought it “odd” that those who professed “compassion” would so viciously turn on people—including their own (Zel Miller, Lawrence Summers, Imus, Joe Lieberman.) I found it “peculiar” that those who professed to believe in “democracy” would turn on “the people” when they did not vote “correctly”, and attempt to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot. I had difficulty when people who claimed “intelligence” could not hold a reasoned discussion and resorted to foul language, yelling, and epitaphs. I could not understand how those that disparaged money and claimed they didn’t care about it could be so obsessed with it. I found it inconceivable that those who believed in “academic freedom” would desire to strip credentials from climatologists that disagreed with their view on global warming, or call for their dismissal or demand the removal of professors that espoused a differing point of view from theirs. I had concern that those who claimed to “love” could espouse so much hatred—indeed, a “hatred” for Nixon, Reagan, Bush, conservatives, guns, religion, smokers, “pro-life” proponents, the “rich”, Limbaugh, polluters, big tobacco, big oil, drug companies, and any other entity that “disagreed” with them.

I had ceased trying to converse with such people on any intellectual level, and had given up any hope of ever understanding their philosophy.

Of late, a new hope materialized—Air America. I eagerly tuned in to Air America to listen to the hosts give their version of America and American politics. It was my opinion and hope that these people would be the intelligentsia of the left—those with the ability to intelligently, objectively, and accurately espouse the left wing philosophy. I was bitterly disappointed. The hosts used the same slogans, sarcasm, foul language, name calling, innuendo, rhetorical questions, hate speech, adjectives, and adverbs, etc. that I had come to expect from the “rank and file”. They were (and are) just as arrogant, ignorant, hateful, irrational, egotistical, egocentric, sarcastic, intolerant, harsh, bitter, and “intellectually challenged” as their rank and file—although as I point out later, I do not believe these people have a particularly low I.Q. Although I cannot claim they are deceitful, dishonest, or lying, I CAN claim that they are quite often incorrect. (In retrospect, I should have known better. In order to be “successful” the network has to appeal to its base. As such, I should have expected that they would reflect the customs, mores, values, and intellect of that constituency.)

I DID get a few insights, though. When Randi Rhodes said, when referring to the Democrats being civil to the Republicans, “I understand being good to someone. You might need a favor sometime.” I got a glimmer of the philosophy of the left. I obtained another glimpse when Al Franken said something about not being able to use a certain word on the radio, then went on for five minutes saying “chicken bleep” (the second word was bleeped out), “bull bleep”, “horse bleep”, etc. as he and his assistant laughed and giggled about it. I thought, “How childish. Just like a child that has just learned a naughty word and goes around saying it to be ‘in your face’ and shock people.” Like a child saying, “You can’t tell ME what to do.”

Where I REALLY achieved insight into the left was listening to the callers. HERE I was able to listen to a broad range of the “intellectual left”—actually eavesdropping in on the conversations between the callers and host; and to observe the host’s response to the (infrequent) right wing callers. While I was quite disappointed with the product, I believe I finally achieved some understanding of the left.

THE LEFT IS YOUNG

One thing I observed (from the sound of their voice or from some statement) is that most of the callers (and, I suspect, the left) are young. For the most part, they appear to be sufficiently inexperienced that they don’t know enough to know they don’t know enough. I cannot help but recall the statement from Winston Churchill.

“If you are not a liberal at twenty, you don’t have a heart.
If you are still a liberal at forty, you don’t have a brain.”

As with most young people, they have very strong emotions—love, hate, etc. Many young people believe they are indestructible—as such they fear no consequences of their actions and “plunge ahead”. They seldom look back, since if they have caused any destruction, their “parents” will “fix it”. Anyone who had attended a liberal “happening” will note the tremendous amount of litter left behind. “Someone” will pick up after them. The lack of concern for money is understood if one realizes that parents supply money. Since money is given to them, it has no value. They have no real knowledge of the origin or value of money—indeed even its meaning.

They tend to be oriented in the present and hedonistic. The cry of “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” is still alive and well.

I found it quite amusing that one talk show host’s guest stated that he gave talks to high schools and colleges and he had “hope” because most of the people he talked to were liberals. I suggest that many of the conservatives of today were liberals at the age of the people to whom he is speaking. There is ample research that shows that as one ages, one is likely to become more conservative. (As an aside, there is also considerable evidence that shows that as one achieves more education, one becomes more conservative. It “makes sense” since those that are older have “something to lose”; those with some education have even MORE to lose as they get older.)

YOUTH IS IMPATIENT

If there is one universal characteristic of American youth, it is impatience. Most young people have little patience with anything—especially complexity—and have a tendency to oversimplification. (The less you know about a topic, the easier and faster one can make decisions about it.) Such an observation explains the preoccupation with slogans. (“Nobody died when Clinton lied.”—which overlooks the fact that people on three continents died when Clinton lied.) Their impatience leads them to be action oriented, as opposed to being introspective. They are present oriented and see little use for planning. They are usually in a hurry and want “results NOW”. (One of their major criticisms of drilling in Alaska is that it won’t have any effect for ten years. Of course, being single minded as most young are, the do not apply the same logic to solar power or other alternative energy. They refuse to consider Social Security “a problem” because it will not materialize for 25 years.) Because they have over-simplified the situation, they see no reason why they should not get “results NOW”. If they are frustrated, they are perfectly capable of launching a “sit in”, a “sleep-in”, a “demonstration”, tying up traffic, or blocking a bridge—very much like a child throwing a tantrum—instead of working through the problem.

YOUTH IS ARROGANT

The arrogance of youth is such that they “know their efforts will work”. They have little patience with those more experienced that caution care and thought. (Wot’s the old saw?? “It’s a funny thing, but the older the children get, the smarter their parents become.”) They are much like a child taking apart a clock. They jump to conclusions and forge ahead rather than carefully assessing and analyzing the situation and possible consequences. Such behavior has lead to some real disasters over the years (school bussing, Vietnam war, head start, war on poverty, oil shortage, etc.) These disasters are never acknowledged—indeed they are not even noted. Youth, having a short attention span, abandons that event, refocuses with tunnel vision on the next “happening” and goes off to another adventure without ever looking back. They never notice that the parents have picked up the clock pieces and purchased a new clock.

There is no need to evaluate what you know will work. Consequently, their programs are implemented wholesale rather than on a small scale or “pilot” basis to test them. They are not evaluated or examined for improvement since they are “already perfect”. Anyone who would challenge the success of one of their programs (e.g. school bussing) or suggest an evaluation is subjected to vicious attacks (e.g. being called a racist).

They know “The people must be led”, and “The people are not voting their own self interest.” (Translation: The people are not voting the way we think they should be voting, and WE know how they SHOULD vote.) They “know” that “corporations are not paying their fair share”, but cannot define “fair share”. They have no concept of ROI or market capitalization. Strangely enough, they seem to believe they have no need for such knowledge to make decisions. They have the arrogance born of inexperience and youth. As stated, they do not know enough to know they do not know enough.

They also have the frustration of youth when it becomes obvious that their tactic or strategy did NOT work. When they lost the last two presidential elections, they attacked various aspects of the election process, ranging from the voting machines to the legal system to the very electoral process. They also attacked the voters, claiming they were duped (were stupid)—clearly shortsighted (a case of being present oriented?) and self-defeating. Ironically enough, in the 2000 election, they attacked the electoral system because their candidate received more popular votes; in the 2004 election they attacked the electoral system because they claimed their candidate “really” got more electoral votes. It did not seem to disturb them in the slightest that they argued both sides of the argument. They cannot accept defeat or failure—they cannot accept the possibility that they are “wrong”. Like children, THEY are “right” and everyone else is “wrong” or “stupid”. It is no accident that their favorite name for the President is “idiot”. The lack of evidence for such a label troubles them not at all; nor does the existence of contrary evidence. (I suggest that an “idiot” cannot be taught to fly an F-15.)

YOUTH NEEDS TO BELONG

In general, youth is gregarious and communal. They congregate in cliques. Peer pressure is a major force in their lives. Although claiming to delight in individualism, it takes little effort to “recognize” a liberal since they wear the “same” clothes, drive the “same” car, speak the “same” language in the “same” style (accent), and demand the “same” things. One notes the great dependence that youth (and the left) has on “voting” and “consensus”. It is important that “the group” express a view.

Such a statement does reinforce my perception that the left has adopted what I term a “gangland mentality”. Specifically, in a “gang” one supports their fellow gang members—no matter what they have done. One is free to attack any other “gang” at will—knowing he will have the support of his gang. One “breaks ranks” and goes against the gang at one’s own peril. One speaks the gang language, and adopts the gang mores. There is a great need to be a member—to belong. Most gangs consist of adolescents and/or very young adults. Adults or authority figures are considered “the enemy”—hence the slogan, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” (Consider their name for the police is “pigs”; consider their hatred for the military.) There is little individuality in a gang—little individual courage or perseverance. (It is noteworthy that seldom do any Democrats “break ranks” in Congress. As previously pointed out, even the talk show hosts reflect the mores of the “gang” or clique. It is instructive to consider Senator Ted Kennedy’s question to the Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. “If a small person is fighting a large corporation, which side would you be on?” Roberts replied, “The side of the Constitution.” One should note the “disconnect” here. Kennedy talks about “being on a side” and “supporting” a PERSON; Roberts talks about supporting “justice”.)

Since they only communicate in their own clique, there is little challenge to their precepts. As one talk show hostess said, “I don’t know anyone who voted for Bush.” Such a statement is damning for a talk show host when one considers that over half the population so voted. (One must wonder at the breadth of her experience and social contacts. One must wonder at her ability to bring a variety of ideas to her show. One must wonder at her tolerance.) The gang member can always retreat back into the gang and obtain reassurance when challenged by an “outsider”. Furthermore, they may bring the full weight of the “gang” to bear on the “outsider”. Consider Billie Dale, Paula Jones, Kate Willey, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, etc.

YOUTH IS DEPENDENT

Youth has few skills and great dependency. They resent their dependency and rebel against it, but have no real inclination and/or ability to do what is necessary to eliminate that dependency. Instead, they (inadvertently?) grasp at more dependency, lauding institutions and programs like food stamps, business/farm subsidies, “safety nets”, government health/disability/unemployment insurance, rent subsidies, unions, etc. One notes that even their radio station (Air America) is seeking DONATIONS. Even THEY are dependent.

They are in the unenviable position of wanting autonomy, self-determination, and “freedom” (does that word sound familiar?), yet they require the support of their “parents”. They tend to DEMAND rather than ask, since “asking” is a sign or dependency. Then they demand more and more—much like a spoiled child. If their “demands” are not met, they throw a tantrum (demonstration).

They have been the recipient of charity all their lives and know no other way. To accept the “charity” of their parents or society is to acknowledge their weakness—so they claim to have a “right” to the charity—then shift the focus from the parents to “society”. With such a paradigm shift, they now have a “right to be taken care of”, and can sustain the fiction of “independence”. As one talk show host stated: “I think everyone has a right to a free house, free medical care, free clothing, and free food.” The resentment of their dependence is exhibited in their rebellious behavior, as they rebel against and reject the very society that is supporting them. (I believe the correct phrase is “Biting the hand that feeds them.”) Since they are present oriented, they do not look ahead to see the consequences of a major change in society along the lines they propose. They do not perceive that they are merely changing masters—most likely to a less benevolent one.

They look to their “parents” (society, government) to provide them with everything from a guaranteed pension (Social Security) to a job; with food stamps and payment for NOT working (unemployment). They look for the government to protect them from high prices and high winds. When the government tells them how much water their toilet can flush or who can play professional golf or who they can hire/fire or sell their house to, they believe that is a responsible function of government.

WHAT IS A LIBERAL?

One night during a past election campaign I was watching a John Kerry town hall meeting on television. One young pony tailed male stood up and proclaimed:

“Senator Kerry, we are your CHILDREN. We need you to take care of us.”

That was when the great epiphany occurred—I finally UNDERSTOOD. It was THAT statement that made my observations coalesce. In essence, the left are CHILDREN, and see themselves as such. Although they have the body of young (and sometimes not so young) adults, they have not grown up. They are simply IMMATURE. They have maintained the mores, customs, and way of life of youth and their dependent status, while simultaneously resenting it and rebelling against it. They have languished in the sex, drugs, and rock and roll phase of their lives.

THE INTELLECT OF THE LEFT

It is clear that there is no “problem” with the intellect of these folks. They are not stupid, though there is great ignorance among them. They are quite adept at exploiting people by means of persuasion or force—either by kicking ass or kissing ass. (Recall the previously mentioned statement by Randi Rhodes: “I understand being good to someone. You might need a favor sometime”. Recall the miseries heaped upon Billie Dale, Paula Jones, Kate Willey, Randy Weaver, et al.) They are quite skillful at manipulating words to where it appears that they are more knowledgeable than what they are—more in a pseudo intellectual manner than true knowledge. (I once had a liberal manager with whom I occasionally discussed Ayn Rand’s works. One day he made a rather peculiar comment. I asked, “Which of her works have you read.” He stammered a bit, and then said, “I haven’t read ANY—but I started some.” For TWENTY YEARS he had me convinced that he was knowledgeable about her works.) They can manipulate adjectives quite adroitly (as in “corporate greed”, “greedy rich”, “obscene profits”, “lying Republicans”). Beneath the thin surface, there is no knowledge—but there is much bluff and bluster. They can memorize a vast number of slogans.

They do not have the maturity and patience to seek true knowledge. They tend more to false logic, reverse causality, arguments ad hominem, false analogies, etc. They tend to make up “facts” as needed without regard for their veracity—or even consistency with their last argument (see the above reference to the 2000 and 2004 election and the electoral college). Like a child, they adopt a superior attitude and consign all those that disagree with them to the ranks of the ignorant and/or stupid. Oftentimes, they cavalierly relegate whole groups (e.g. conservatives) to the ranks of the “stupid”. (I cannot imagine anyone knowledgeable calling Goldwater, Rand, Hawthorne, Buckley, or others of a similar ilk “stupid”.)

When “cornered”, they use foul language, name calling, and epitaphs. They often express opinion as fact, and fact as opinion. Like a child, they are obsessed with “why”, as in “Why did he do it?” or “Why did he say that?” never acknowledging that the question is unanswerable. (No one can tell why anyone [else] has done/said anything. Too often the person himself does not know why he did something.) Piaget’s works document these actions and thought processes as characteristic of adolescents and very young adults.

They lean toward the arts rather than the sciences in terms of interests. However, when one observes their tastes one notes that their “art” consists of elephant dung on a picture, or an American flag covered with feces, or a crucifix in a jar of urine; their “poetry” consists of disjointed sentences with little obvious meaning; their “literature” consists of foul language and swear words tied together with some adjectives and adverbs; and their music is a collage of discordant notes tied together with the hope that no one will notice. They observe their “art” and exclaim enthusiastically on the great hidden meaning(s). Their “art” does not require the time, skill, knowledge, self-discipline, patience, and dedication of traditional art. It is much like the “art” produced by a (rebellious) child. If you cannot appreciate their “art”, you are insensitive and/or stupid. The emperor has no clothes. In many cases, the art produced was funded by the government—even their “artists” are dependent.

While they may have a relatively high Intelligence Quotient, their intelligence lacks maturity. As a group, not only do they lack maturity, but they also lack wisdom.

THE LEFT IS REBELLIOUS

Like children, they use foul language—thinking it makes them “mature”—to show their rebellion. Like children, they are somewhat obsessed with sex (particularly aberrant sex)—rebelling against traditional values. Like children, they are quite susceptible to peer pressure, will not deviate from “the gang”, and will follow the gang in rebellious ways. Since, in many cases, they are old enough to purchase alcohol legally, drinking is not a sign of rebellion; thus the left has turned their attention to using illegal drugs in their efforts to rebel. Their philosophy of “You don’t have to obey an immoral law.” is well known. In essence, since there is no way to determine an “immoral law”, they have given themselves license to break (rebel against) ANY law. They invariably side against their country in any situation—thus openly rebelling against established authority. As previously stated, they are adept at demonstrations, sit-ins, sleep-ins, shop-ins, tying up traffic, and many other assorted methods of rebellion—both legal and illegal.

THE LEFT IS EGOCENTRIC

Like children, they are quite egocentric. They believe THEY have the answers (though they do not even know the questions)—that THEY can do things others can’t (like fix a clock). Like children, they are dependent and have no real power, so they rely on persuasion, tantrums, and any other childish method available to be the center of attention. They are perfectly capable of extortion. (“If you don’t get me birth control pills, I’ll have sex anyway and get pregnant.” Since THEY are all important, their demand will be granted so they do not hurt themselves.) Once the authority (adult?) grants the demand, the child demands MORE (and more and more), thus remaining the center of attention. (Consider Cindy Sheenan who wished “only” to meet with the president; then demanded that all troops be pulled out of Iraq—then New Orleans.)

They see no need to put themselves in the position of another person—which is fortunate since they are incapable of doing so. It is THEIR wants and desires that are paramount. It is THEIR need to have a “smoke free” environment; it is THEIR need to “protect our farmland”; it is THEIR need to “protect the environment”; it is THEIR need to “help the poor”; it is THEIR need for “diversity”; it is THEIR need for “health insurance”. It is THEIR idea that is correct. To them, there IS no “other side”. Those who are the victims of their “needs” (those paying the bill) are simply “greedy” and “uncaring”. Their favorite argument is, “There IS no argument!”

Like children, they want to be liked (their word is “love”), but have no concept that respect must come before “like”; which is fortunate because there is little to respect them FOR. They have traded genuine respect for gang acceptance. They tend to personalize everything, believing THEY are the cause of various events.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE LEFT

For many years, I tried to understand the philosophy of the left. I have failed. It is only recently I have determined the reason for my failure. There IS no philosophy of the left.

The “philosophy” of the left is strictly pragmatic—what will “work” to get them what they want at this minute. It is a childlike philosophy geared to the present time and the present situation (situation ethics?). It has no relation to points of view, opinions or positions taken in the past, i.e. there are no ethics. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable for the left to argue “popular vote” in the 2000 election, and “electoral vote” in the 2004 election. It is perfectly proper to consider Jim Jeffords a “hero” for switching parties; and Zel Miller a “traitor”. It is perfectly legitimate for the left to scream “obstructionist” about Republican behavior in 1992 and then filibuster in 2000. When the polls agree with them, they scream, “The people must be listened to”; when the polls disagree with them, they quietly state, “The people must be led and educated.” and go to court. Like a child, the left is not bothered by “doublethink” and/or hypocrisy. They live in the “here and now”. (Does the phrase “THE NOW GENERATION” sound familiar?)

They have a childlike view of economics and politics. It is a dependent’s view of ME and GIMME. They have no concept of business—other than “business doesn’t pay its fair share of taxes”. When asked, “What is a fair share?” they have no answer—other than “More than they now pay.” If asked, “How much do they now pay?” they answer “Not enough.” They are smug about their answers, believing that being glib is an adequate substitute for true knowledge. One liberal was “protesting” a book. I asked him if he had read it. His response was, “I don’t read trash.” They view the total amount of money a business makes and believe that if they only had that money, they could do so much good. They do not look at the history of harm they have caused by spending such money in the past, nor the consequences of eating your seed wheat. They have no concept of return on investment—either financial or social.

They have no concept of private property or business. They believe that they should have control of all property. Hence, when a caller to a talk show said, “We have to save our farmland.” The host agreed. It never occurred to either of them to question just why it was “our” farmland—why was it not the FARMER’S farmland. They see no reason why they should not direct a business to prohibit smoking nor why they should not tell a business owner the minimum wage he must pay or how big his bathroom must be. Yet, if you ask them any questions about business, they look at you blankly and wonder why you believe it is necessary to have such knowledge. They simply don’t know enough to know they don’t know enough.

Their philosophy (such as it is) does not permit alternatives or “downside”. Like a spoiled brat, they expect perfection. It is not uncommon to hear a member of the left complain, “Our jobs are going overseas.” and also, “Increase the minimum wage.” They will clamor for “instant action” to help the victims of hurricane Katrina, then object to suspending the federal bidding rules. They will vehemently state that the “locals” should get the rebuilding jobs, then complain bitterly when laws and rules are suspended to allow it. They will demand “equal pay for equal work” today; then clamor for employer paid child care expenses tomorrow. They are oblivious to any relationship between any two statements and are never aware of (or care) about any inherent contradiction(s). They are totally focused on the immediate statement.

They will agree to a “compromise”, then use their new position as a launching pad to seek their original goal. Hence, in their war against smokers, they agreed to allow smoking in outside areas if 25% of the space is open. They are NOW seeking 50% open space, totally unconcerned at the expense the restaurants and bars have incurred in complying with their previous “compromise”. As an added example, one need only observe the progression of banning smoking over the past 20 years.

If the opposition makes a decision, it is a wrong decision (since it is the opposing “gang”), and the consequences are searched for a negative—which is then loudly proclaimed, while denigrating and disparaging any positive effect. Alternatively, if a member of their gang makes a decision, no downside consequence is allowed to be uttered—while loudly proclaiming any positive results, minimal as they may be. One need only note the speech of the left during and after hurricane Katrina to be well aware of the truth of the above.

The left is perfectly capable of lying. In many cases their lies are quite childlike. Thus, in order to secure votes and good will, they can (and did) claim, “The Republicans want to poison the air and water, take away your grandmother’s Social Security, and starve your children.” Childish? Perhaps. Outlandish? Perhaps. Believable? Obviously by some. The left has learned from Goebbles. Tell a lie! Tell it loud! Tell it often! They believe their “intentions” are good, so the end justifies the means. Their smear tactics are legendary (Billie Dale, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, Kate Willey, Richard Jewel, Paula Jones, etc.) Ironically enough, often the left starts believing their own lies.

To those who would “understand” the philosophy or “ethics” of the left, the only thing I have to say is,

“Good Luck”.

THE POWER OF THE LEFT

It would be a mistake to consider the left to be powerless because they are childlike. Even children have power—consider a 14 year old with a spray can of paint; consider a promiscuous 16 year-old son/daughter; consider a gang of five or six 18 year old thugs.

When 18 year-olds were given the right to vote, many students on the college campus I attended registered in the college town where they went to school. They took over the city council and imposed many taxes on business and also imposed rent controls on the landlords. They destroyed that city as business left, the middle class fled, and landlords abandoned apartment houses and other rental property. That city is now one huge slum. The “children”, of course, did not “look back” after they graduated and left. I suspect they still believe that they “done good”.

Anyone who has been tied up in traffic for hours while 10-15 “kids” ride their bicycles down a busy city street during rush hour (all perfectly legal) knows that these “children” can be a bit of a bother. Any storeowner who has been subject to 10-20 picketing, chanting “children” and driven out of business knows they can “cause problems”. Any business that could not receive calls because 5 children were constantly dialing their number and tying up their telephone lines knows what a nuisance they can be.

While these children do not have the power to create, they have the power to loot and plunder. While they do not have the power to build, the have the power to demolish. While they do not have the power to accomplish, they DO have the power destroy. While they do not have the power to achieve, they do have the power to annihilate. They are in a position to use extortion quite effectively. I suspect that the Democratic Party will soon be a victim.

THE SOLUTION

I suspect that there are two groups of left wing ideologues—the leaders and followers. I consider the leaders to be simply evil. They know what they are doing and expect to profit greatly by their actions. They hope to cause vast changes in this country and, like scum, they believe they will rise to the top in the ensuing chaos. One need only read “Animal Farm” to learn how people (the pigs) can rise to power by eloquent speech and little else. Completing Animal Farm will allow one to ascertain the results of such a takeover.

I believe the vast majority of the left are followers. These followers sincerely believe they are “doing good”; I suspect they also believe in fairy tales, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus. Eventually, most will grow up. Stalin called such people “useful idiots.” Stalin was a smart man. Hopefully, as time goes on, they will become somewhat educated, mature, and knowledgeable. What’s the old joke?

QUESTION: How do you turn a liberal into a conservative?
ANSWER: Get him a job.

Could this simply be another way of saying: “Remove the dependency?”

This entry was posted on Monday, February 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm and is filed under Authors, Opinion, Politics, Tony Demaio. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.