by Sam Pierce
Life would be more satisfying, I imagine, if I were a thinking liberal. At the very least, it would be somewhat easier. Happiness would be more attainable, because some portion of my happiness would be a function of misery borne by others. I make the distinction of the "thinking liberal" to separate him from those (likely the majority) who thoughtlessly (and therefore without malice) believe in the actions and proposals of liberal leaders.
I suppose it is possible for thinking liberals to be acting without malice. If this is the case, then there is reason to be terrified. If we are so far removed from liberty and reason that a man can be educated and experience life in such a manner that he can thoughtfully support liberal ideals and do so with no ill intention, then we are in dire straits.
The state of our nation and the world as a whole would be a satisfying challenge for me and my ideology. I would see the conditions stemming, in part, from the practice of my ideology and I would see the need to "correct" those conditions with a healthier dose of the same. While my goals might not be clear, the path would be defined with a crystalline clarity.
I could despise the polluting energy providers and hate the thought they may profit from their endeavors. It would be obvious that a campaign should be waged in order to force them to provide the necessary service to society at a price determined to be "fair." It would be equally obvious that the manner of energy production is not ecologically or socially correct and therefore must be restricted and if not completely throttled, should at least be made as expensive as possible to perform. Of course, others would be badgered to conserve energy, so I could feel secure in maintaining my own lifestyle.
The very thought of a person not having enough to eat or a roof over his head would stir a need to act. I would exuberantly pursue a system under which human misery would be addressed and those necessities of life be granted as rights to all. I need not exhibit any curiosity as to the cause of the person's need or the origin of the assistance provided. All I know is that he has a right to food and shelter. Well... I also know that there are those who have more than what satisfies their basic needs, so it is obvious that resources are not distributed evenly. How could it be fair, if there exists such an uneven distribution? (Do I ask if I have more than what I need? Don't be silly, we are talking about the rich, not me.)
I need not think that any program implemented to address the glaring need may have consequences, intended or otherwise. I should not have to consider that children raised in homes in which the state is the provider may learn that their experience is as it should be. Generational welfare recipients would not be an issue since all that matters is that needs are met. If I have to think about the consequences of the actions I support, I can look at the positive side. Dependants will not likely vote against their provider (or who is fleecing the actual provider on their behalf).
What about those who want opportunities, but believe that some personal characteristic they possess should be a sufficient alternative to effort in achievement? Obviously, they have indeed earned any opportunity they desire... assuming the personal characteristics on which they rely fall into the chic victim category of the moment. What could be more deserving? Reward is not to be earned. Why should it if it can be granted? Those who receive something for nothing (except, of course, the existence of the favored characteristic) would certainly express their gratitude at the ballot box.
Sometimes the public notices unemployment statistics. At these moments, we liberals must speak on the subject of jobs. We need not consider the jobs lost as consequences of our noble programs, regulations, and resource distribution equalization measures. We must find a balance on the subject as we know that people should not have to work for their sustenance, yet they seem to believe that jobs are necessary, at least for a good portion of the population. What do we do to calm the masses and maintain the integrity of our ideology? Public projects! The perfect solution to the demand for jobs can be found in the trusty public works program. Union labor can be utilized with the least possible amount of efficiency to compensate for the fact that some work is being done when by all rights it should not be required. Resources are required for public projects, so there exists the opportunity to take from the enemy, the fruit of his labor. Who is the producer to luxuriate in his property when there is the public good to serve?
Of course, the productive are still allowed to keep some of their earnings while there are those who are not receiving as much as they desire. We can address this problem with a two-pronged approach. War must be waged on those who earn... excluding of course, those who earn but play along out of fear or a belief that they can benefit from the crushing of their competitors. The war will be won when it is no longer socially acceptable for any entity to enjoy earnings without at least professing that those earnings are ill-gotten and should be subject to confiscation if it were required for the satisfaction of the common good. Concurrent with the war on the earner, we can just distribute benefits. Do not bother asking from where the benefits come! It does not concern me and it shouldn't concern you. Butt out! If the debt we incur ever comes due, we may not be around to deal with it, so who cares?
Do you believe all the above is possible in a moral society? I don't, which is why we must strive to be certain that any residual morality is expunged from every possible corner and crevice. We can facilitate this in so many ways... too many, in fact, to attempt to list them all. Our very programs designed to subjugate the masses and create ever-increasing dependence aid us in our quest. As we cultivate dependents, we can displace religious beliefs in some of those who rely on our benevolent distribution of other people's money. We, being the state, can be known as provider, care-taker, protector, and if we play our cards right: god-like.
We must continue to desensitize the public to any traditional, old-fashioned, or rustic ideas of morality by promoting carefully selected lifestyles and ideas while damning any that can be attributed to what some view as traditional. "Intellectuals" will aid our cause by haughtily asking "whose tradition?" or proclaiming discussion-ending statements such as "slavery was once tradition." Take, for example, the trite notion that marriage has anything to do with mating and reproduction. How could we be expected to be viewed as enlightened if we were to bitterly cling to such flat-earth ideas? Marriage is whatever an individual wants it to be. We cannot leave it there, however, because there is morality to be destroyed and benefit to be gained by forcing preferred modern definitions of marriage on those who would otherwise view life through a more natural lens. (Here again we rely on our friend, the "intellectual" to point out that man is not qualified to state what is or is not natural.)
If we must ever confront the hardships or disadvantages faced by families without fathers, for instance, we must do so quickly and redirect attention at the earliest possible opportunity. We must do our best to promote single mother families as a perfectly fine alternative to those arrangements which the anti-intellectual might deem traditional. Of course, single motherhood is not the only family structure en vogue. We can make the case for any combination of parenting unit or team... as long as we do not get bogged down in the less than intellectual vision of a natural family. (You know, the unenlightened view that a man and a woman create children via sexual intercourse and thus are the father and mother to those children? )
If I were a liberal, I might find it beneficial to work toward a demonization of Chritianity and even pretend that any public personality who is not ashamed to display his Christian faith seeks to impose a draconian theocracy on society and must be stopped at any cost. In fact, we need to work toward the goal of not allowing any display which may be in some way construed to have any basis in Christianity from ever again being seen or heard in public. Perhaps it isn't clear what I mean by "public," so I should clarify. Public includes private property if the property serves any purpose other than shelter for a single family. If we can dictate that smoking cannot be allowed on private property, there should be no limit to what we can mandate.
Yes, I think it would be fun to be a thinking liberal. Unfortunately ethics, morality, and a respect for rights along with an understanding that they are not separate from responsibility preclude me from having this good time.
Cross-posted from "POLITISLIME"