Wouldn't It Be Fun to be a Liberal?
You know, sometimes I just think about how easy, and how much fun, it must be to be a liberal. Witness this tremendous article, The Tolerance Enforcers, by Mark Steyn–excuse the redundancy there; as best I can tell, everything the man writes is tremendous–as a great example of the fact that, if you are a contemporary liberal, being burdened (as conservatives are) by things like consistency, or a respect for the Constitution, is not considered an issue. And so modern Fascists like Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Boston mayor Tom Menino, can both be huge supporters of Barack Obama (whose stance on “gay marriage” matched Dan Cathy’s only a few short months ago), and can do things like being in cahoots with Louis Farrakhan (in Emanuel’s case), and readily granting a municipal license to one Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whose views on dealing with homosexuals (not “gay marriage”, mind you, just homosexuals) varies from believing they should be burned alive to believing they should be thrown off tall buildings. I am not making that up, folks…
So consistency is not a concern for contemporary liberals, nor is the Constitution (which were Misters Emanuel or Menino to actually consult it, they’d find that they can’t deny a license to a business because they happen to find a personal opinion distasteful). Neither is hypocrisy a concern; need I even bother to illustrate this?
Now, that’s not to say that everyone who calls himself or herself a liberal is without scruples; there are a few liberals for whom I have real respect, even while disagreeing on policy. Names like Juan Williams, Joe Lieberman, and Bob Beckel come to mind. These men, and some others, have the decency not to drink the liberal Kool-Aid, but to call out their own, to approach issues with something other than a mere knee-jerk reaction–even while themselves holding strong opinions. If most contemporary liberals were more like these guys–and less like the Meninos and Emanuels–we could have decent conversation without demonizing one another (oh, and yeah, let me go ahead and say it: there are certainly some conservatives who are flame-throwers rather than honest debaters–though some who get accused of being that, in fact, are not).
But as long as things like hypocrisy, consistency, and the Constitution don’t seem to matter to so many contemporary liberals, it’ll be difficult to have civilized conversation. But it sure is interesting to imagine how much fun it’d be not to carry those burdens…
No, I don’t think it would be ‘fun’. One of the small rewards of life as a conservative is that I can look myself in the mirror in the morning and, however I make it through the day, can look myself in the mirror at night before retiring. I guess what would be the ‘fun’ of being a liberal, as I would never know what principles I will espouse from one day to the next, if any, thus the word ‘hypocrisy’, like ‘bigot’, would be wholly anathema to my vocabulary. In comprehending my own double-standards, I simply remember that they are not double-standards from my point of view, but only in others, so the observations of others is entirely pointless to me. On the other hand, I grew up thinking, before the loss of innocence, that all people are the same and think alike, that the average person understands morality and what makes sense and what doesn’t.
Unfortunately, I learned very quickly that no, people do NOT think the same. Logic to one is not the same logic to another, and no amount of reasoning will change that fact. What makes perfect sense to one is senseless to another, and it is perfectly rational for one to have a double standard when there are no standards at all within.
As Fan Cathy noted in his interview: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”
Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan says the equivalent of Cathy’s statement and worse – and with the support of Dem leaders, such as Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Why aren’t those clowns out picketing the Nation of Islam? Or Chicago City Hall, for on the same day that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel condemned the statement by CEO Cathy, he was embracing Louis Farrakhan in his city, that quixotic gadfly who has a very clear record of discriminatory, inflammatory rhetoric against Jews, women, gays, and other groups in our society. Yet Emanuel did not discourage or condemn Farrakhan. He embraced him. Then he attacked a very successful CEO for expressing his personal views that are in conflict with a part of the Democratic base that has risen in influence in the party. http://www.markserrano.com/index.php/chik-fil-a-and-free-speech-eat-more-chikin-not-crow/
Pertaining to the Politically Correct Person of the Month Award bestowed by the No Kool-Aid Zone upon Councilman Jim Kenney of Philadelphia, a staunch defender of the progressive stand pursuant his attacks upon Chick-Fil-A, if this was a southern mayor threatening companies like Apple, Amazon, and Starbucks because their CEOs have contributed large sums of money to the gay marriage cause, according to former Governor Huckabee, the hue and cry from the left would be absolutely deafening.
Thus, such glaring double standard hypocrisy which portrays a complete disconnect between one ear and the other, I don’t think I could have the kind of fun which liberals obviously have with a thought process that, at times, completely transcends the bounds of logic, however, intelligent people are willing to call their bluff and call a spade a spade…..
Or, in other words; eating more chicken…… and less crow….
I guess I should have added that apparently, many contemporary liberals also have little conscience, such that they do not look in the mirror and feel the same sense of guilt upon looking in the mirror that conservatives would if we engaged in the nonsense we’ve described. “Consciences seared, as with a hot iron”, I think, is how the King James version puts it.
Touche’ Byron. Touche’
the answer NO! Maybe if it came with rose colored glasses I might think about it. lol
The examples you give are of politicians not liberals. Politicians who are jumping on a bandwagon to score political points. To suggest that what they are doing exemplifies liberal ideology is as bad as calming Fred Phelps exemplifies christian ideology.
And for the record, refusing to issue Chick-a-fil building/zoning permits based on Cathy’s statements is unconstitutional. And I think these politicians know it, they are just blowing hot air to get in the news.
OK, Ken, that’s a reasonable response, but my problem with just attributing these things to politicians is that I’ve been on sites like the Huffington Post and I read much the same thing. Now again, there are certainly principled liberals, as I readily admit, but I’m not sure I agree that the outrageous thinking is confined to politicians trying to score points. There seem to be a lot of nuts out there.
And for the other side of the coin, see my next post, hopefully coming tomorrow.
Sunday August 12th 2012 at 7:58 pm
“Now again, there are certainly principled liberals, as I readily admit, but I’m not sure I agree that the outrageous thinking is confined to politicians trying to score points. ”
You are right, it isn’t just politicians spotting nonsense. In any group you will find extreme cases. What I’m saying is that these extremes do not represent the normative case, as you are implying with your post.