One American's Rage Spills Over: Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile
Submitted by Jeremy Choate via Sufficient Reason blog,
This essay is a bit of departure from my usually reasonable and logical approach to important issues. That’s not to say that the essay isn’t well-reasoned and is bereft of logical argumentation, but I freely admit that it’s polemical, in nature. Sometimes you’re just pissed, and you need to vent. Here’s my vent…
Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically. No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers. I know that you’ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think. Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government. As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.
Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation. You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor. The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem – it’s our attitude towards the solution. We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved. For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began. You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away. We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,
Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.
Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are. While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect. However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.
Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda. First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”. In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress. What is the ideal towards which you are striving? An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away. So, what is your ideal society?
Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. The rights that FDR cited are:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
- The right to a good education.
At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you? What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”
I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America. After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right? Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human? Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.
If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list – none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being. Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet – and it is unconditional.
FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”. It’s a list of demands. If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me? If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me? If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?
You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he? If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not? Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.
You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy. It’s quite simple – your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well. I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.
How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents. If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you. If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.
The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish. You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.
Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty – it’s an axiomatic truth.
What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi. Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.
I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom. What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.
I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:
“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.
In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?
In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.
Bring it.
(84 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The president is a powerless figurehead.
WE can safely ignore his executive orders then right?? The argument that the President does not matter is one of dis empowerment formulated by the left, of course it matters, as a figurehead if nothing else otherwise vote for Trump, Cruz or Paul but of course you will not so shut up..
Whoever you vote for, the government gets in.
Gives a big clue as to how much voting matters.
Ha! I love that line. I'm going to use it
(and just because I'm stealing it does not mean I'm from the government ;) )
I see where your confused, YOU will follow because your a slave. It does not apply to the master.............
It's like everytihng else in the West now. Laws and rules are for the little people. So, it depends on who. Some people easily can ignore executive orders. Pentagon does it repeatedly, for example. But that's not surprising because even when our elite leaders get caught breaking the law, the government can't be bothered to go after them.
Chris Hedges does the best to describe how dour the situation really is.
The cost of food stamps is NOT in dollars but in DEPENDENCY. A cancer that threatens the entire body.
Fully agree except for one thing; there is no "left" in America. Not in the number for it to matter anyway. USSA is USSA and it didn't happen because of "liberalism", whatever the fuck that means.
Honestly it's impossible to even have this conversation with most people, least of all the author of this "diatribe" who claims to be independent but quite obviously was educated at Rush/AIM university back in the 90s like all of the other "conservative" fucktards. Talk about a hive mind. Labels labels labels. FUCK ALL OF THAT.
Who in the Sam Hill fuck do you think elected "Barry Soetoro", Tea Partiers? You progcommies are responsible for turning this country into a moral cesspool and none of your idiotic yammering will change that.
.... moral cesspool. Because before the Libs, all conservative Nixon was doing was dropping chemical warfare on defenseless little slants in Vietnam.
And Laos. And Cambodia. There's morality for you.
And Reagan... weapons out and drugs in merry-go-round. Conservative enough for you?
Desert Storm. Desert Shield. Afghanistan. Shock-n-Awe.
Hope and Change sucked. But I'd rather have that dropped on my head than Agent Orange.
So Obama was the lesser of evils then in your opinion?
You really believed he was going wave his magic hand and the oceans would recede, he would heal racial tensions and not make them even worse by sitting in Rev Wrights "church" all those years, bring peace to the Arab world by loaning out an air force to al Sharia and putting CIA boots on the ground in Libya, cuz, Arab Spring or some shit, that a tax/fine/penalty paid to the government through the tax code was the surest way to get the young & healthy to buy crap they don't need or want.
You really believed all that shit at some point in time?
You are fucking "Hopeless".
Which is why this ends one way, you have said it yourself in so many words..
"Because before the Libs, all conservative Nixon was doing was dropping chemical warfare on defenseless little slants in Vietnam."
Because before all conservative Nixon, the leftard all liberal Presidents Kennedy and LBJ, that took us there in the first place, weren't dropping chemical warfare on defenseless little slants in Vietnam.
And WWI - Liberal Enoguh for you?
And WWII - Liberal Enough? And nuking "defenseless little slants". And firebombing defenseless little goose steppers. And rounding up of same to put in wonderful little camps.
And Korea - Liberal Enough for You?
And Kosovo, and Somalia, And Libya, and Desert Storm and Iraq, and Afghanistan and are we there yet?
Oh and "defenseless little slants ". And here I thought it was automatically and always the right that's racist because of that same President despite 150 years of overt and terroristic racism effectuated by the left thru it's culture and it's politics.
'conservative' Nixon? Who knew? Certainly not trickie.
I love the pretense that republicans or so called conservatives are the WAR party, while completely ignoring history. And please DO NOT call Nixon a CONSERVATIVE, or really ANY of recent republicans for that matter.
We have a far right Repulbican party and a center-right Democratic Party and both are run by the same group of billionaires.
Don't be a fucking idiot.
The republican party...the RNC is ANYTHING but far right. Conservatives would love to change that, but at this point those actually holding office have done little more than lick Obama's boots, even if growling while they do so. Undoubtedly however, YES, billionaires run the game.
There is no Amerika, left. FIFY.
The people on the right are "collectivists"? Hahaha hahaha. God damn bro.....put down the bong.
Its true "bro" put down the budweiser and have a look at the utter cartoonishness of the right. Or are you too busy watching a country music video for pointers?
You are talking about the Republican party? They haven't represensented the right in decades. The political left, which the Democratic party does still represent, does adhere to all of the bullshit laid out in the editorial. Budweiser? "Country music"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Nigga please. .
By cartoonish, do you mean President Redline Obama, Czar Harry Reid, Nana Del Monte Pelosi, Zio Schumer, Bernie Marx or Crony Clinton?
dumb. No I mean donald "gordon gecko" trump. And the Nazi US military that unquestioningly believes everything they are told and invades foreign countries and kills innocents to be found there.
You do realize Obama is the "head Nazi of the military", right? It goes with the title of Commander in Chief.
He also has the dubious distinction of droning the first American citizen without any sort of a trial.
Left, Right...
Left, Right...
Left, Right...
Marching to the wrong tune.
Not a defence, in any way, but the only reason Obama has that distinction is that drones became available during his presidency. Do you think any of the previous puppets would have said no to the use of drones? As for using them on an American citizen, you can't possibly believe that anyone in government gives a fuck about you, surely.
+1
I have never believed anyone in government gives a flying fuck about me nor did I ever want them to. All I ever asked from them is to leave me the fuck alone.
But the Hope-n-Change crowd "changed" all that, for-fucking-ever.
They created a FUCKING LAW that requires me to participate in private commerce and DOCUMENT IT ON MY TAX FORM or have a little face down with their storm troopers. THEY have made it abundantly clear THEY will not leave me alone.
Well fine then, THEY created the monsters, THEY'LL just have to deal with the millions of monsters THEY created in the only way THEY can, won't THEY?
Now a question to all my prog "friends", how does it feel seeing your country burn right in front of your eyes? How does it feel knowing you have created millions of enemies living right next door to you who know who you are and what you have done?
It is fucking over, you don't do this shit to your fellow countrymen under any "pretense" and then say you will walk beside me.
Left, right, left, right.
@nmewn,
regretfuly, that connection will never be made by prog's until it's banging on their front door.
Once upon a time, we had the right to be left alone (we still do, rights are forever and by birth not granted by the state for some indertimante span of time & infringed on) but that too, they seek to infringe on.
That's fine, they can consider whats about to happen a learning experience and one they won't soon forget.
Wake the fuck up!
we nuked Japan...was that republicans?
We occupied Korea and sided in civil war...was that republicans?
We occupied Vietnam and sided in civil war...was that republican?
Clinton called for regime change in Iraq.....was that republican?
We invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq with support from BOTH houses of congress....was that republican?
We bombed and deposed the leader of Libya and have been trying to do so in Syria and other countries for years now, while government was largely dominated by progressives....was that republicans?
Depends entirely on 'where you look' dumbass.
In a propaganda saturated police state...
MEDIA MATTERS.
You are talking about neo-cons, who are anything BUT conservative. The right has "believed the official story of 9/11"? Generalize much? "The left are individualistic ones". Wrong, asswipe. You are the ones who, like a heard of retarded sheep, bought the whole "hope and change" mantra of Obongodinga. See you on the front lines!
This is a perfect example of projection- you accuse me of genaralizing and then you say we bought hope and change. generlize much? Seriously fuckface neocons are conservatives. and tea partiers are neocons! how are you going to have libertarianism without police and military?
Ok @TeamDepends. Obama was lying with Hopium and Changium. In the end it carried on what the conservatives started. Only much worse. Fixed it.
Better now?
The point you are right on is that the right started the wars, but Obammy sure made them worse
W was a puking buffon on the international stage. Obama is a disgrace.
Healthcare problems were started by Republican corporatism, Obama took it to a whole new level.
The Republicans got the Patriot act, Obozo made it 100 time worse
where youre missing it is on the points of race and civil liberties..... This is all on Obozo.
THX left/right divide and rule controlled narrative ? Yawn , if they are theiving ...sorry "taxing" with the threat of violence and assumed right to rule over me then I dont give a toss which brand name they do it under , they are tyrants and criminals. How is this hard to understand ?
Yeah, that "NAZI hiveimind". That would be the National Socialist German Workers' Party. They are only to the right of the Soviet Socialist who collectivized all people and property.
The "far right" are anarchists (no government) and Libertarians. None of them are pro-war which is a central part of why they are the far right.
Your history sucks, too. It is self-serving, as leftists always are.
WWI-Wilson
WWII-FDR
Korea-Truman
Vietnam-Kennedy and Johnson, ended by Nixon.
Iraq I-Bush I.
Bosnia-Clinton
Iraq II/Afghanistan-Bush II & Obama
I see no real evidence of antiwar in the last 100 years. In fact, it looks pretty pro-war. Where are leftists anti-war except as a useful point of civil protest? Nowhere.
You are a complete ignoramus on collectivism and who supports it. Try reading the article a few more times or doing some study. You just throw terms around and redefine it as useful. My favorite is the idea that leftists are "liberal". In what, exactly? Everything is by force, including civil rights. Grant gays rights as a protected minority and suddenly you can prosecute anyone who disagrees with the practice. Only dumbass leftists can make civil rights a zero-sum game.
There is a war within the Republican party. Neocons are semi-real (they are not the ubiquitous boogeymen often used as a straw man). The Republicans will hopefully go to the right and the libertarian wing will win out...just as the socialist wing won out in the Democrat party. Then we might have a real two-party system.
It would be more productive for you to defend the use of force in redistribution, the creation of fake rights and give evidence or rationale that government can do anything well. I'd listen to that, but not necessarily agree, of course.
Your err, sir. I blame both sides as they are political belief systems you are speaking of, not truth. Both sides of the belief systems have had their minds hijacted into thinking the myths the political parties spin is truth.
Did you fkrs stumble onto the wrong blog? They need volunteers down at the welfare office. Make yourselves useful.
Do you just make shit up? I'm gonna say that you ain't a history major.
This is what happens when words get hijacked. The word liberal is related to "liberate", to be set free. Hardly the case anymore. Likewise, conservative is derivative of "conserve", as opposed to waste. Today we have the bastardization of both. We are now being pitted against each other under false pretence.
One thing Americans aren't taught, ever; is to scrutinize their own education.
To call what many American children receive "education" is probably stretching the meaning of the word.
Yup. That's a hijacking bigger than the "liberal" and "conservative" hijack.
And these Red v. Blue guys. Like a Slinky toy walking down stairs; each end taking turns in a race to the bottom.
Good luck and God bless.
How about "indoctrination"?
You are correct. We don't have education. We have indoctrination.
You are absolutely right, the word he is searching for is "progressive".
Get with the times, meanings are so 20th century.
Feelings matter. Safe spaces matter.
If you disagree then you must be publicly shamed and destroyed.
Lean Forward.
Sincerely,
The Tolerant Left
"welfare for bankrupting and deswtroying"...it most certainly does...but let's understand what "welfare" really is...
~$100 of SNAP money into the pockets of MILLIONS of people = $BILLIONS into the pockets of a FEW people!!
The "poor" are USED to "redistribute wealth" from the "Middle Class" to CORPORATE AMERICA's EXECUTIVES!
Welfare recipients DO NOT LOBBY IN DC!
CORPORATE AMERICA LOBBY'S IN DC!
Welfare spending grows, year, after year, after year....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who was the "Chief Architect" of ObamaCare?
A. President Obama.
B. "Liberals".
C. Nancy Pelosi.
D. The CEO of Johnson and Johnson.
Hint: It's not A, B, or C
Who spent ~$500,000,000 in 2009 "Lobbying" to "Shape" ObamaCare?
A. Obama.
B. "Liberals".
C. "Poor, Lazy" welfare slouches that always vote Democrat.
D. The Corporate "Health Industry".
Hint: It's not A, B, or C
https://youtu.be/hZ5tj4cN9Jk
Corection from above, Fowler isn't the CEO of J&J, she's the "Vice President of Global Health Policy".