Friday, April 13, 2007

Why It's Easier to be a Liberal (part 2)

Another one of the great hallmarks of liberals is their lack of consistency. To some extent, this is true of all politicians, but the liberal leadership has it in spades. It is much easier to skate through life when your position can change from minute to minute. Conservatives find this much harder, the base holds them to their position. President Bush campaigned one way on the issue of illegal immigration, ask him about the support he received from conservatives when he proposed a modified form of amnesty.

When you don't have to stick to a single position on a broad issue, you're free to pander to the political group of the moment, and proclaim agreement with a differing position the very next day. Liberals refer to this process as "triangulation," and seek it in their candidates for high office. Thanks to an obliging mainstream media, liberals are seldom called to the carpet - even when their very words show them to be guilty of hypocrisy. Think I'm crazy? Let's look at a few examples.

Liberals loathe the use of the military in the protection of the US, or in regions of US interest, but have no problem with sending troops off to places like Darfur – to serve as police officers (and get shot), for no real purpose. I suppose the genocide in Iraq didn’t count; and the chemical weapons (categorized as “weapons of mass destruction”) were conveniently ignored as well.

Use a label to describe a liberal (“emotion-driven” comes to mind), they’ll shout you down. After all, “there is no such thing as a typical liberal.” Ah, but there is a typical conservative – heartless, money stealing polluters, if you believe the hype. I suppose that liberals detest labels like the plague because they serve to pin down people and tie them to their positions. And, in case you were wondering, they (inconsistently) feel free to decry conservatives as ”racists” and “homophobes” – the “no typical conservative” argument doesn’t make it through the wash.

And yesterday, liberals cheered the firing of Don Imus. Don't get me wrong, he owed an apology for his remarks. But, I suspect I'll be waiting for an apology from Al Sharpton to the Duke Lacrosse players falsely indicted by a Democrat prosecutor trying to win re-election. I'm still waiting for the liberals do demand that Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others that impugned the accused players offer to meet with the victims of this injustice - offer sincere remarks, and public ally make amends.

Soon, we'll look at how liberals justify their positions.

6 comments:

Right Wing Toledo said...

To those who have already had their comments rejected: try to stay on topic. Insults will get you nowhere, and they only seek to give me much amusement.

Kurt said...

You make some very interesting and good points. While my general position is that democrats think more unalike as a combined group than republicans, you are certainly correct in the historical democratic hypocrisy. All of the sudden, democrats are low government spenders. However, I have to ask, is this merely a response to the Bush administration's excessive government spending? Is this merely an attempt to attract true low tax, low spending conservatives? Probably.

As to your Al Sharpton argument, I entirely agree. But one thing you forgot to mention is that the Rutgers players were not even aware of this issue until Al Sharpton exploited them. While your parellel argument concerning the Duke Lacrosse players is certainly valid, I think we should also concentrate on how Al Sharpton exploited this issue for his own benefit, while ignoring the language of rap music and other things of black culture that demean women and minorities. How can black culture expect no such language from white people if they themselves use that language? How can a term be endearing for one, and be racist for another?

Right Wing Toledo said...

Kurt,

Could you be saying that the liberals use of language is inconsistent? The Al Sharptons and Jessie Jacksons have been race-baiting for decades - they have no vested interest in seeing "racial equality." Once that exists, they're out of a job. (Hmmm, perhaps another column here.)

As to the position of Democrats as low spenders, the only position (currently and historically) that they have cut the budget in is defense spending. While the Bush Administration certainly has been generous with my tax dollars, and expanded government - their efforts pale in comparison to the promises made by Dems. When Nancy Pelosi advocates cuts in public broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, and "term limits" to welfare; I'll stand up and take notice.

Hooda Thunkit said...

"When Nancy Pelosi advocates cuts in public broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, and "term limits" to welfare; I'll stand up and take notice"

You meant to say Princess Pelosi, didn't you? But I digress.

Regardless of the label du jour, they're all acting like drunken sailors on shore leave; but just watch for the finger pointing when the bill comes due.

-Sepp said...

Imus owes an apology to the ballplayers at the very most and not one damned person more. Who besides them is owed anything? Or, does he owe the apology for using some word that is only sanctioned for use by black people?

"I'm sorry and I apologize for being a white guy who used "your" word without official approval from Jesse and Al"?

What ever happened to free speech? What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you say but, will defend your right to say it"???

I'm also hard pressed to find words in any other language on the planet that are illegal for one speaker but, commonly used by another. Sounds like equality and special rights have bled onto one another and created a gray area of inequality.
And, who is in charge of the list of verbotten vernacular? Jesse? Al? Who?

Barb said...

What about Darfur? If Bush had gone there instead of Iraq, they'd be just as angry about that. He's in trouble no matter what he does.

Whatever problem exists in the world --it's the fault of the GOP and Bush.

I can imagine that a compassionate conservative like bush would send troops to Darfur militarily for humanitarian reasons --if we thought we could prevail in peacekeeping on their behalf --to fight militant Islam just as we went to Viet Nam to fight communism --but we can't afford to be there and Iraq at the same time --and we had more reason pertaining to self-defense to go to Iraq --where Al kaida admits blowing up the 8 guys in parliament. Al Kaida is our enemy for sure who needs to be defeated --we can't ignore them as the Dems seem to want us to do.

Dems want the war to just go away --and think if we walk away from the middle east, all will be well. So short-sighted as usual! And forgetful. never learning from history--even recent history.

They are playing up the war issue as Bush's (GOP's) big mistake (the blade is full of democrats speaking out) in hopes it will gain them the presidency. I still think, however, that all they really care about right now are the social issues and the courts --which I admit, are really important to me, as well, but I also care about our national survival where Jihadists are concerned --and the dems seem oblivious.