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 -
You left out IL.
Where are taxes highest? Your havens. Where are most of the C-Suite cronies using said tax codes to to their advantage? Your havens. Where do you HAVE to make 6 and 7 figures to live day to day? Your havens. All because the lobbyists figured out where the money is and exploit weak/shameless politicians. Where are 8 of the top 10 richest counties in America? DC area. In your havens, people make a lot of money but most aren't rich.
Where we bumpkins live we don't make as much money but are far richer, read affluent, than your havens. You madam, are not a genius.
Even if you live there and look down on us here. We know and you think you do. Big difference.
Oh, and Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush clan had nothing to do with that, right?
Divide and conquer...left versus right...big government-no government....colored-white....and this great fool thinking some ideological utopia is tne answer.
paraphrasing Rocco Galati's words and thoughts; on a scale from benevolence to genocidal by government actions there is only one instituion which protects All the citizens from chaos or an elite class masquerading as government and that is just laws All abide adminstered by a just judiciary in a just manner. If the answer is negative to this axiom then what you have is dictatorship and elections become shams where the illegitimate seek to govern illicitly despite any argument of rep by pop. If the citizenry cannot get redress of greivances or protest from a government mistaken as to its duties then the people must dissolve the government however it is done and begin anew unless tyranny by an minority is to walk the land. All the ideological claptrap imposed by politicians, but not on themselves, is just that while their thinly veiled corruption and cognitive dissonance reveals that they do not serve the people. So instead of this over blown verbage here we need only ask if society is being operated with just laws for all by a just judiciary in just manner across the broad spectrum of societal order, anything else like the corruption of just law suggests tyranny is present and acting on some interest's agendas.
Dear No Talent Ass Clown- if a community in a state is a religious community they have the right to teach their children according to those beliefs because it's their taxes that pays for them. You don't have to send your children to those schools if you do not wish to. Hell you don't even have to live their if you don't want to. You are free to live else where. You are free to use your taxes along with others that believe what you do or don't believe and build your own school. Would care to make a bet on whose children would be more and better educated?
You progressive pinko commies just need to stop trying to take away the rights of others to teach their kids accordingly. If you don't like that then tell the federal government to stop usiing federal tax dollars on public education just like planned parenthood using federal tax dollars to fund the killing of babies that FORCE those that don't believe in it based upon their religious views to do likewise.
No where in the constitution does it say separation of church and state as many utter so incorrectly in this country. It says that the government shall not establish a religion.
This is not a adhominem attack because you are self described but, you truly are a No Talent Ass Clown!!
For the record I tried!
Teach them what, that Jesus is coming back soon and will solve all their problems? Or worse, that since Jesus is coming back soon we don't need to worry about pushing the Big Red Button, sinc'e it's God's Will anyway that corrupt humanity be destroyed..again? Sorry, I listen to what the TV preachers say, and it is truly frightful. And when you religious nutcases get the upper hand you are not the least bit hesitant to shove your idological crap down other people's throats, so: too damn bad for you, you lose.
Yeah, goobmint is baaad. That's why during those good old days before the birth of the modern state, humans mostly died at the hands of other humans and you couldn't travel 100km without going through lawless wastelands and your chance of making it through such a trip were less than 50% (except by sea, somewhat). Oh you evil goobmint you so bad.
The birth of the modern state? Which one? The Greeks? Romans? The monarchies of Nortern Europe?
Forced collectivism is not needed for a Limited Govt to ensure individual rights and the Rule of Law.
No Mr. The Modern State was born with the unification of Spain during the reign of Isabel of Castilla and Fernando of Aragón. (XVc.AD)
It's true, Humans mostly died at the hand of humans... I'll put my faith in the fact that if you died at the hands of the other human, you probebly wronged him and deserved it.... Lawless wastelands are murder on people whos intentions are immoral.... Your odds on safe travel, either improved, or were reduced based on your attitude towards your fellow man.... So I can see how how Liberals would veiw such a trip as dangerious.
Wishful thinking. Where there was no law it was the law of the jungle. It had nothing to do with "attitude towards", it had to do with lawlessness.
If you are confused why this writer is referring to Paul Ryan in this op-ed piece, that's because the article is from 2012. It's was part of right-wing election propaganda machine queued to white male voter angst.
The Koch brothers bribed Rommey to put up Ryan in return for campaign donations. Ryan was their guy because he was proposing to cut Social Security by changing the way government was calculating inflation cost of living adjustments.
I'm so angry, I want to import thousands of fanatical foreign assassins to massacre unarmed liberals at their schools, workplaces, and shopping malls.
Oh, wait, the liberals are already doing that. Carry on!
Reading the comments.. Looks like the gimmiedats have found ZH.
The minute they started calling them 'entitlements'.
Hey, you stole your avatar off the top of my avatar! LOL
The minute they started calling them 'entitlements'.
Hear hear!
Attacking the USPS is as unAmerican as it gets.
WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING CONSERVATIVE/NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIC, TAX, TRADE, MILITARY AND DEREGULATORY POLICIES FOR 35 YEARS: THE RESULTS ARE ALL AROUND US.
And you want to double down on them?
Wake up, and stop listening to propaganda outlets like Fox. They are employing the oldest trick in the book: turning your rage against the conditions their policies created against its victims.
With our fantastic new technologies destroying traditional jobs, and the climate rapidly changing and requiring coordinated world action, if we don't start cooperating and yes, sharing, we are screwed.
Like it or not, we are entering a new age: sticking our heads in the sand and wishing it was 1980 are useless.
Your ignoance has no bounds. Since 1988 (read my lips) we have been on the Progressive Hell Train headed towards a Wile E. Coyote cliff moment. Wars, skirmishes, taxing, reulating, spending has come from all of the conservative presidential dynasties. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama: all progressive, New World Order types. Fox and CNN are two sides of the same propognda coin. Weather changes. Heard of the Ice Age? Technology always obsoletes jobs. Heard of Henry Ford? Wait, I know that it's different today. Meh. Your arguments are sophomoric.
Like it or not, YOU are the ostrich. Answer this question: If you and I agree to a transaction and are satisfied with the results, what is that called? CAPITALISM. The Progressive Hell Train and its MSM cheerleaders haven't allowed us to make such transactions. To wit: go start a business. Please, just try. Impossible to do without government approval. Freedom and liberty are the solution. Tyranny, which you seem to support, even if you are unaware that is what is called, leads to the conditions we now "enjoy".
You are clueless parrot. Brawk. If you hate what I just wrote, go somewhere else. We can't use or help you.
Pretty good rant. Lot's of comment from semi-literate, semi-functionals.
Appreciate your effort and passion for Truth and Justice.
That being said, hope your "hunkered down" on a rural, unencumbered piece of arable dirt "far from the madding crowds".
Cuz it's probably going to get really ugly, particularly for the "Urbs" with no survival skills other than boosting others and gun point.
Well, if you don`t like liberals, then you would have to be against 80% of the women in country.....Voting for someone who promises cradle to grave care is been going on since they got the vote......
And, the gravy train has been pretty good......They will not want it to end......
Republicans are about as conservative as Democrats are liberal.
Sshhh. Don't wake the sheep. They are dreaming they are eagles.
Good piece. Brought the trolls out.
Yes, go back where you came from.
Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.
And so does every other statist ideology.
It's like religion: Catholics verses Protestants. They all believe in the same god.
.GOV is very good at three things : theft, lies and murder... Everything else, not so good.
TL;DR "I hate paying taxes because I'm a small-minded prick."
Dear No Talant Ass-clown,
I understand your perception of exceptionalisim. That could be why your post leaves conservatives scratching their heads... You do realize that the mantra you are preaching goes against the liberal narrative. You may want to touch base with your liberal friends, Just to make sure what you post, it really in line with what your liberal leaders believe...
The cool thing about Liberals commenting, is that they dont bother to find out what their liberal leaders agenda is...They just blather on in one direction.. while their leaders march in a different direction
Affirmative action is a liberal policy... you can hire whoever you want, as long as you pick from the list liberals make.
Remember this?, " They dont want to take your guns"... Did you bother to find out what your leaders are saying about guns?. I wont bother with links... whats the point really?
If memory serves me correctly, Katrina was your golden opportunity to show the Nation that Liberalisim really is about embracing your collective Government Idea that " it takes a village". Instead you used the opportunity to fritter away your " good citizen" image away with shootings, lootings, and killings.supporting a crook for a mayor, and liberals waiting for someone else to save you..And you wonder why we are so insensitive?
It seems to me that Conservatives have been waiting a long time for Liberals to show Conservatives the virtues of embracing Big government.. So far every opportunity presented to you has been met with failure.. Just how many times does a liberal have to fall face first without putting their hands down, before you expect us conservatives to embrace the act?.
Excellent rant, it's spot on.
I notice in the comments many libtards responding with nonsense like, 'but it's ok to spend billions on wars' and other crap similar to that. No, of course it's not, but that's what happens when govt becomes a power in itself with no restraint from congress or the Constitution.
Libtards, try to read what the man is saying (although reading and understanding must be hard for you). He's saying that his way of life imposes no requirements on you but yours imposes your requirements on him.
See how that works? Stop drinking kool-aid for just a few minutes and THINK.
Two quick notes: Reagan's statement "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." was/is utterly cynical. What was Reagan? THE GOVERNMENT. With the destruction of the labor unions the only counterweight to pure economic power of big business is governmental. If they can erode people's faith in government (and I'd say the cons have done a good job of that so far), corporations are the last man standing and no one can stop them, except another corporation.
More cynicism: "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." 'should' is one of the most insidious words in the English language. The FACT is that government DOES have the power, money people know it, and they are not shy about applying it. This is a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument.
You only demean yourself and your beliefs using terms like libtards. It reeks of small-mindedness.
You only demean yourself and your beliefs using terms like libtards. It reeks of small-mindedness.
Still, the big difference between true liberals and typical conservatives is this:
conservatives believe in conformity; in general, they have straightforward, black and white moral viewpoints, and since they believe they are right, they think others should say, do, think, and believe as they do. In short, they beleive conformity and homogeneity to certain ideals will best serve society.
Liberals (of the true Jeffersonian stripe) believe not so much in diversity as in live-and-let-live morality. They generally just don't want someone else telling them what is right or wrong.
The good thing about it all is that it would become afrightening country if we only had or allowed or tolerated one side or the other. The bad thing about it all is that politicization of all issues has led to more and more division among Americans.
These days, what Republican politicians mostly sell is fear of...well, just about everything. What Democrats sell is mostly...fear of Republicans. Sad.