Are Liberals Intolerant?

Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant of a variety of human behaviors.  For instance, people commit crimes because they’re poor.  So who are we to judge?  You want to burn the American flag?  Just free speech in action.  Unmarried motherhood?  Do what you want.

Of course, good liberals (aren’t they all?) recognize that people do require guidance in some areas.  You need to be protected from yourself, don’t you?  If you’re in an automobile, put on your seatbelt.  It’s for your own good.  You don’t want to buy health insurance?  That’s a bad choice you shouldn’t be permitted to make.    

In fact, how can any among us oppose policies of well-motivated liberals who have only our best interests at heart?  After all, how can reasonable and good people disagree with liberal policies?

**********

In today’s America, for most liberals, the answer is that those who disagree (also known as conservatives) are neither reasonable nor good.  Rather, they’re afflicted with deficient intelligence and/or moral character.

Is that a caricature of the left’s view of those on the right?  No.

A recent Newsweek magazine (owned by The Washington Post) featured an article on the successes of the Obama administration which, the writer contended, weren’t given appropriate credit by the President’s foes.  The issue cover bore the title “Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?”  Huh?

If you don’t like ill-conceived spending projects, burgeoning deficits and a naïve view of our nation’s enemies, of course, your smarts aren’t up to par.  Of course.

Since liberals know they are well motivated and so obviously in the right (small “r”, to be sure), there must be something wrong with those in opposition.  What other explanation could there be?

**********

In reality, liberals are an insular, arrogant lot.  (Smug, sanctimonious and supercilious, some might say.)  If you were privy to revealed truth, wouldn’t you be, too?

Thus, to challenge liberal dogma is to invite blistering attacks of bigotry (if the liberal proponent is black, you’re a racist), stupidity (don’t you understand, you idiot?), and greed (you must be a vulture capitalist). 

Even for liberals, tolerance does have its limits.

The Path to Fiscal Sanity - Stop Spending What We Don't Have!

The Greeks, the Italians and the Spanish don’t need to be told that.  They’re already paying a price for their profligate ways.  The cost for these countries to borrow more money is rising to high-risk levels (Greece is already there).  Because their economies are on the Euro, meaning they can’t simply print more currency on their own, there is a real possibility that they won’t be able to pay their debts.  In effect, they’ll be bankrupt.  Thus, lenders are demanding higher interest rates for loans which, in turn, makes repaying them more difficult.  

Nonetheless, these examples give little pause to President Obama and his congressional allies.  Demands for greater spending still mark the administration’s fiscal policies despite public relations claims to the contrary.

Note the recent brouhaha over Congress’s “super budget” committee.  It floundered on the shoals of budget-cutting because Democrats refused to sanction significant reductions in government expenditures.  So our nation’s debt continues to mount. 

Are they so smug (or unconcerned?) to think that European examples of spending more than one takes in can’t lead to financial catastrophe here? 

A respected measurement to assess a nation’s financial health is to calculate debt as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product  (GDP).  Last year Greece was at 166%.  Portugal and Ireland, other troubled economies, were 106% and 109% respectively.  The U.S.?  102%!

During the entire Twentieth Century, the GDP percentage in the U.S. exceeded 100% only during World War II (120% plus).  At the end of World War I, it was about 25%.  During the Vietnam War era, it was well under 50% and in 2001 the GDP ratio was only 56%.

Sure, the U.S. is not Europe.  We are attracting lenders willing to accept low interest rates because of our perceived national strength relative to others.  And we can always print more dollars to pay our bills (hyper-inflation, anyone?).

Does arrogance prevent some from recognizing that inevitably we, too, will pay a steep price for our profligate ways? 

An anonymous pundit overcome with common sense once remarked “to stop making the hole deeper, stop digging”.

Stop spending what we don’t have!

But today’s liberal is likely to respond “Don’t worry, we’re looking for the money tree”.

What To Do With Illegal Immigrants?

By most estimates, there are at least 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. That’s roughly 3% of the country’s total population.  What should we do?

Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry got himself into considerable hot water by his support for educational aid for “illegals.”  [One of the more humorous “PC” euphemisms is to describe them as “undocumented aliens”.  What happened?  Did they misplace their paperwork?]

Yet, he has a very good point.  Wishing that illegal immigrants go home is not a policy.  Many have lived here for decades and have children who are certainly American by experience.

Efforts to legalize this reality make sense, so why is there so  much hostility to proposals such as “The Dream Act” which, for instance, offers lawful status to those willing to serve in the military or successfully pursue higher education?  Certainly, those objectives would serve our national interest by promoting our defense and increasing the educational level of our populace.

The problem is this:  benefits available to illegals are a magnet to others  entering the country.  Of course, there can be many incentives for people from Mexico and Central America (the source of the vast bulk of illegal immigration) to cross our border: job opportunities, welfare benefits, reuniting families, among others.  And those factors can rise or fall depending upon circumstances here and below the Rio Grande.  (For example, the dip in the U.S. economy has, apparently, made America a somewhat less attractive destination for now.)

In 1986, when the illegal population was 5 million or so (2% of total U.S. population), the Federal Government granted amnesty which approximately sixty percent received.  The law was touted as a long range solution.  It was not.

Understandably, the American people are skeptical of efforts such as The Dream Act which appear to be amnesty by another name.  And what did that accomplish twenty-five years ago?

It is rather obvious that efforts to deal with our internal “illegal” situation will go nowhere until the external problem of “undocumented aliens” continuing to enter the country is largely resolved.

To put it succinctly – we must first secure our borders.

Afterwards, we can try to fashion a real, long term solution in dealing reasonably with the illegals among us.  Then, the suggestions of Gov. Perry and proposals like The Dream Act may be appropriate and timely.

What Did We Accomplish in Iraq?

Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead.  But the hope is that after the loss of five thousand American lives, many more wounded, and billions of dollars spent, the U.S. has firmly set Iraq on the path of stability and democracy. 

That hope is already being dashed.

Shia v. Sunni conflict is heating up, bombs are exploding with increasing frequency and Kurds in the north are growing anxious without the security fostered by U.S. troops.  In sum, historical ways and tensions are reasserting themselves.

Is it reasonable to hope – much less expect – an optimistic outcome?

Why should eight years of on-the-ground American involvement, guidance and tutelage reverse attitudes many, many centuries in the making?  Sunnis have been at loggerheads with Shites since the seventh century when they fought over who were the rightful heirs of the Prophet Mohammed. 

In a very important sense, since America’s being is intertwined with the ideas of individual liberty and self rule, we expect that our values of liberal (with a small “l”!) democracy will be embraced by the world’s people if only they can be given the opportunity to do so.

After World War I,  President Woodrow Wilson made this view formal policy with his proposal to “make the world safe for democracy”.  We know how that turned out.

Nearly a century later, President George W. Bush had the same hope for the Middle East.  It is highly likely the outcome will be the same.

We Americans forget how different we are from most of the earth’s human inhabitants.  I am not talking about some innate or genetic disposition.  After all, our land is populated by people from all over the world.  Rather, America is the product of ideas which have developed over the centuries.

Immigrants, as distinguished from explorers, first came to our shores four hundred years ago to seek economic prosperity and/or to escape religious persecution.  The opportunity to enjoy “liberal democracy”, non-existent everywhere, was not then the attraction. 

For those who believe America’s political ideals and practices of today are the best prescription for what ails the non-Western world, remember these humbling facts:

          1432 – starting in England (American’s political forefather), adult males were allowed to vote… but only if they were rich landowners.  The Magna Carta (1215), limiting the power of the English sovereign, was far from an individual bill of rights.

          1787 – at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, enshrining our charter of individual freedom, only real estate owning white males (with few exceptions) were able to vote.

          1870 – all adult male citizens granted the right to vote (15^th Amendment).

          1920 – women were given the right to vote (20^th Amendment).

Viewed from this perspective, our present idea of democracy took several centuries to come to pass – and we expect eight years to do the trick in Iraq?

Why Complain of Media Bias? Do Something!

Watch Fox News, as many conservatives do, and you will hear frequent complaints of liberal bias in the media.  Michelle Malkin will be irate on Fox & Friends, Bill O’Reilly will pontificate on its presence and Sean Hannity will be appalled by its persistence.

But what’s the point, other than agitating the audience?

Since the early 1960’s, when the conservative movement truly came to life, the media (in all forms) has focused negative attention on conservatism and figures on the right side of the political spectrum.  Early targets included Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, for instance, and no prominent conservative (strongly committed or merely leaning right) since then has escaped hostile scrutiny.

The media treatment of John McCain is illustrative on that point.  When, in 2000, he bid for the GOP nomination as a moderate alternative to George W. Bush, coverage of his campaign was almost always laudatory.  However, eight years later, as the Republican nominee running against the more liberal Barack Obama, his press clippings were hardly as glowing. 

Of course there is liberal media bias.  Because (duh?) most journalists are liberals.

Instead of lamenting unfair and malicious press treatment and wallowing in self pity, let’s do something about it!

A suggestion (and example of positive action):  Fox News personalities could feature guests who are promoting educational programs (etc.) aimed at journalism school students to expose them to conservative attitudes and arguments.  This would accomplish two things:  give the audience hope that media political coverage might be less hostile in the future, and generate financial support to broaden the reach of the conservative “media outreach” programs.

Conversion need not be the objective.  Rather, persuading budding journalists of the respectability of a conservative perspective should be enough to at least temper the leftward bias in years to come.

Or, we conservatives can continue to pound our heads against the walls of liberal media bias… and have nothing but splitting headaches to show for our efforts.