This morning a friend posted the following cartoon:
Her comment along with the posting indicated she thought the clip was funny.
I watched it, hoping to find humor, but instead found the bulk of the clip a line by line standard monologue of a liberal and their target. Their representation of the “Tea Partier” spews off a handful of statements, some legitimate, most bizarre, and all unsubstantiated. “They are making our healthcare socialistic” is repeated, exaggerated, etc., in an attempt to make the Tea Partier look like a mindless robot.
To those who actually listen to and examine the ideologies of both segments, there is an irony in the liberal voice being calm and collected and the conservative voice being shallow and repetitive.
Toward the end, the monotone robo-voiced liberal begins matter-of-factly stringing together profanities. I suppose this is supposed to be the climax of this “funny” clip. Personally, I found it to be the only part of the clip vaguely attached to a truth: that the left loves the profane, the rude, the obscene, and the shocking.
I wanted to comment back against my friend’s post, but quickly realized that nothing I could say would educate her. She’s entrenched in this counterfeit philosophy.
As I explained in a prior post, the “Democratic Party” was conceived for the express purpose of winning elections. It had no underlying moral values, no consistent structure. It thrived (and thrives) on popular emotion – it exploits the lazy, the undereducated, the poor and the prideful. At a few times in its past it has slyfully re-written history: reversing the term “Federalism”, promoting slavery and later claiming racial equality as its platform, and more recently taking the “Blue” that has historically (and internationally) been reserved for conservative organizations and republics and leaving the “Red” – internationally the color of communists, radicals, and socialism – for their opposition. They continue to steal, misuse and eventually reverse meanings of other things: “Pro-Choice”, “bigot”, “diversity”, “rights”, “Separation of Church and State”.
Despite their cherry picking, violence, attacking people for their beliefs (or intelligence), their affiliation with the most scandal-ridden party ever to win a US election (Tammany Hall, Wilson’s “Great White Spirit”, the Japanese internment, Atomic Bombs, JFK, Carter’s deals with Housing, Clinton, anyone?), the Left is constantly pointing their bony, joint-stained fingers at the Right, tossing their own traits as accusations.
Why is this?
I realized today that the Right comes from tradition, from moral codes, from structure. Of course much of the Right is “religious”. Of course much of the right is “Traditional”. Of course much of it is “conservative” or “slow” – it has history behind it, reminding of patience and virtue and caution and truth. Truth is a consistency between past, present and future.
The Left, on the (literally) other hand, is “Here, now!”, "quick”, largely unplanned. The Left uses “last night” to justify the “now”. With the Left, it is always someone else’s fault … Reagan, Bush … the rich, big oil … religion or tradition. They want change NOW, and don’t bother with those dusty old conventions – honesty, planning, right/wrong, sometimes even legality – to accomplish it. In all – and I mean ALL – things liberal, there is always fallout. Someone always has to clean up the mess. The grand plan always creates a bigger mess than existed before it. This is the consistent and natural consequence of rushing into something.
I do realize all of this is too much of a simplification, but that brings me to my next point: Those things which drive the right – religion, history, tradition, values, ethics, culture – are incredibly complex. Each of these parts is, itself, complex. Some, contrary to contemporary belief, require and acceptance of a concept before the mechanisms supporting that concept become apparent. Because of this, those raised “Right” study before they judge, and judge before they leap. There is an order for all things. There are moments when faith is required and moments where tolerance and patience are required. There are elements of self-sacrifice, love, and obedience. This list doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.
In contrast, the philosophy of the left is simple: Selfishness. All parts of the liberal ideology are rooted in individual selfishness. Abortion is the mother’s want of an uninterrupted life through the act of murder. Welfare is the want of something for nothing. Even “volunteerism” in the liberal realm is an act of selfishness – it is a way to prove “selflessness”. Where a true religious conservative would do the job and move on, a liberal “volunteer” wears a T-shirt, sports a mug, proclaims on their website their act of “kindness”. Ever notice most liberal volunteers volunteer in another country? That’s because the travel benefit of going to India is more interesting than helping the elderly widow next door. Third-world countries are especially appealing because many things considered inappropriate or illegal in our own land are accepted or permitted elsewhere. Liberals always want to volunteer to work in South America and backpack Europe. Why is that?
You can’t argue “our rights are in danger” to a person on the Left. As is mentioned in the clip, few are aware their rights are in danger. They can’t see history as recent as 30 years ago. Few have read the Constitution objectively or with historical context. They may have a few passages memorized, but those were sought for to prove a point that was already firm in their mind. Though many vocal liberals sport a nice degree and a thick resume, few can be bothered to research the contentious political points if it is going to use much of their time.
There was a recent book, “The Roots of Obama’s rage”, which suggests the President has “anti-colonialist” ideals. In the Amazon.com reviews of the book, one reviewer points out that the bulk of the reviews (122 at this writing) are favorable for the book, while the second-highest set of reviews (47) rated it only one star. The reviewer further points out an interesting point – something that won’t shock anyone who has gone through the trouble to review material posted online: those who rated the book unfavorably were not “verified purchasers” of the book, while those who rated it favorably were. While this could mean that it “just happened that” people who didn’t like the book bought it elsewhere (and those who did like it all bought it on Amazon), it’s not too hard to see that it is more likely that those most vocal in opposition to the book simply hadn’t read it, and are instead blindly defending an icon of their faith.
A “Tea Partier” cannot defend themselves in the small amount of time a “Liberal” needs in order to concentrate.