I've always found some of the combinations of views very strange. People's individual ideologies are not always consistent. Here are a few examples:
Death penalty & abortion.
Historically, many catholics & other religious liberals were opposed to both, which is somewhat consistent... a sanctity of life issue. But the left has morphed the classic liberal position of protecting the lives of the unborn into a women's reproductive rights issue. So many liberals have embraced the position of abortion, while still keeping their opposition to the death penalty. So for them, it is alright to kill unborn innocent babies, who they deem inhuman, while protecting murderers & anti-human criminals.
It is a definition problem. Instead of seeking a moral or even scientific basis for human life, the left merely 'defines' the unborn as 'not human', so they do not deserve protection. Yet they grieve & are filled with great compassion for the plight of a mass murderer on death row. I find it very ironic that they can dismiss an innocent unborn without any consideration of rights or value, yet fight for the life of a sociopathic killer.
The welfare state, evolution, & racism.
Most liberals are horrified at any suggestion of racism. Yet many promote a racist policy of welfare, that keeps the ghetto poor trapped in a gulag of dependence & racial discrimination. Many in the eugenics movement, including Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, were at least consistent in their views.
'Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.' ~Margaret Sanger
Sanger saw charity to the poor as destructive to the human race. She & other 'social biologists' preferred working with evolution to strengthen the human genetic pool, & through abortion & population control, limit the 'undesireables' who did most of the populating. They did not favor helping the poor, but sterilizing them. Social engineers saw aid to the poor as weakening the gene pool, since the fittest should survive, not the weak.
'It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.' ~Margaret Sanger
Classic liberals were more libertarian in their views of individual rights, & opposed the eugenics movement. Their roots were mostly religious.. helping the poor & needy. They saw social biology as an enemy of humanity. But now that it has been sanctified by the progressives & the left as a 'women's rights' issue, liberals can support eugenics, abortion, population control, & all their racist roots without having to worry about the label of 'racist'.
Register guns, not voters.
Most on the left are highly committed to restricting guns. They want stricter regulations preventing people from buying a 22 at walmart. A picture id is minimal, & registration of the firearm is essential.. they want inspections from law enforcement & a close watch over all sales.. and having strict regulations (or forbidding entirely) of the purchase of a handgun.
Yet to vote, they don't want a picture id. They favor very loose registration of voters (if any), which leads to voter fraud & political corruption.
The irony of this is that the consequenses of voting are much more serious than an individual buying a gun. Elected politicians start world wars, can ruin the economy, & get us all killed. Buying a shotgun won't start a nuclear war, voting can. Intellegent voting is a lot more serious than owning a revolver.
Anti war; pro UN.
Most on the left oppose the american military establishment, yet they support the UN. They want the us military cut, & removed from all worldwide conflicts. This is a classic, anti-war position from traditional liberals. But the left has substituted the UN for american involvement. It is ok for the un to engage in police actions in other parts of the world, & they want the american military (the taxpayers) to provide manpower, equipment, & financing for their projects. They seem to fear american elected officials, with american based intelligence, but trust foreign appointed bureaucrats to send our servicepeople into danger.
Modern liberals have a very confusing set of ideals they must adhere to. Many have abandoned the religious roots of their views to embrace the political expediency of the progressive left. Instead of well thought out opinions based on a consistent world view, they swallow bumper sticker slogans & emotional hysteria. The new political left has redefined the classic liberal view through fear & hatred of the conservatives, the liberals' arch enemy.
'It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.' ~Margaret Sanger
"The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking." ~J. K. Galbraith
They were touched not so much with love of the many as with hatred of the few. ~Sidney Webb
No comments:
Post a Comment