One of the many conundrums about liberalism is that it requires failure to be successful.
This goes beyond the War in Iraq, although that can be a starting point. It goes to the core of what liberalism is, that being a philosophy that requires problems and misery to survive.
Starting with the War in Iraq, liberals need the USA to lose in Iraq. I am not going to question the patriotism of American liberals. I am sure many of them truly believe that their solutions are noble. However, their view on Iraq is destructive.
The liberals love to say that this war is President Bush’s war. On this point, they are absolutely right. Therefore, if it succeeds, he will get the credit. Therefore, it needs to fail so he gets the blame. The problem with this strategy is that it sacrifices a chance at historical greatness for short term political gain. The democrats won in 2006, but what have they done since?
If the liberals could get beyond their hatred for President Bush, imagine what could happen if the President turns out to be right. A democracy in Iraq…and Afghanistan…the dominoes could fall, and the Middle East in 2020 could be like Eastern Europe in 1989. Is this difficult to imagine? Of course. However, why not dream big dreams? Isn’t the point of life to make the world better? The President may turn out to be wrong, but isn’t his attempt noble? Shouldn’t we try to succeed? Yes, absolutely.
If the liberals end up being right, and Iraq turns out to be a failure, what will be the joy of this empty victory? Nothing. We will be a nation humiliated. The world will laugh at us. We will be weaker than at any time since 1979. It will be open season on America. We will have been challenged, and we will have blinked. We will cease to be a great nation.
It is not just the war where liberalism requires misery, although at this stage in history it is the most serious. The other area is the economy.
Liberals truly believe in an activist government and an expansive array of new social programs. This does not make liberals bad people. It is an honest philosophical disagreement. However, the consequences of enacting the leftist philosophy into law would be crippling to American society.
The reason for this is because governments have power when their citizens are dependent on government for their survival. The conservative philosophy of self reliance is meant to get people off of government dependence, and truly be free.
The democrats have managed to set up enough programs so that a certain percentage of voters are dependent on the government to survive. 43%-46% is the approximate percentage of the vote that democrats typically win. They have not topped 50% since 1964, although they did win a couple of elections without a majority. If the democrats can manage to have 51% of voters dependent on the government, then they can perpetually win elections. The downward spiral will never end until America collapses, but when people are thinking of short term electoral victories, eventual decline is not relevant.
It is for these reasons that when blacks become republicans, they are deemed “sellouts,” and “Uncle Toms.” Conservative solutions such as welfare reform have helped some families break the cycle of dependency. Black home ownership rates are at an all time high. Faith based initiatives and school choice vouchers for inner city families have been absolute successes. Public schools have done nothing to protect students from guns and drugs. What these issues all have in common is that conservative solutions worked, and liberal solutions achieved more dependency, failure, and hopelessness.
The democratic party has become a variety of special interest groups demanding more from government. There was a debate solely for black issues. There was a debate solely for gay issues. The republicans held debates for all people, and are focusing on a War on Terror that affects black and white, gay and straight, with equal importance.
Every conservative solution that works creates a weakening in the liberal cycle of dependency. Whether it is welfare reform, school choice, faith based initiatives, etc, the debate is how far to implement conservative ideas. It is not whether to implement them.
Conservatives want to abolish tenure for teachers. Other professions require people to be judged on merit. Why should teachers not be required to meet standards? Liberals rush to the defense of the teachers’ unions, but at what price? Our students are not learning. They are dependent on public schools, and education is declining everywhere except in religious schools. By keeping families down, they will be forced to attend public school because they will not be able to afford private schools. The cycle of dependency continues.
At the risk of invoking the most painful chapter in American history, it can be argued that liberalism enslaves people. I know slavery is a loaded word, but what else would one call people that have no hope of ever achieving the America dream because they are locked into an endless dependency cycle? I would call that being an indentured servant. Republicans freed the slaves, and now conservatives are trying to free people from the shackles of tyranny, be it a government program, or a brutal 3rd world dictator.
Liberalism occasionally succeeds electorally because it successfully portrays republicans and conservatives as cold, heartless, mean spirited people that want to simply eliminate the weakest from society. That story plays well on occasion, but it is a lie. When calling conservatives mean is not effective enough, the next step is to call them evil. Republicans are called Nazis, Brownshirts, Hitler, Conservative Concentration Campers, and other epithets that no human being in America should ever be subjected to hearing.
Republicans and conservatives should not, to quote Lady Thatcher, “go wobbly.” We must be willing to lose elections in the short run for a better world in the long run.
We must tell the truth. Liberalism is poison. It destroys people. It rips their insides out. It is parasitic. It leeches onto victims, sucks them dry, leaves them with nothing, and then forces the victims to beg for more liberalism in the hope of being cured. It is a drug and a disease, all rolled into one. I am not saying liberals are evil people. I am saying that their methods of helping people hurt them.
When was the last time a liberal program ever worked? I define “worked” as on time, under budget, and produced positive results that benefitted society. Corporations consist of people with incentives to succeed. Therefore, they often succeed. Government is set up with incentives to fail. If it succeeds, people will no longer need government. This is why outside of a strong military, where success is defined by actual success, government fails.
This is not about winning elections. Elections are temporary. It is about looking back and realizing we made the world better.
Failing government schools mired in drugs and guns versus successful private schools bringing children closer to God. People trapped on welfare forever, or a tough love welfare reform law that forces people to make in this world, which they do. An America where people own their own homes, or an America where government housing traps them. An America that led to a Middle East filled with peace loving democracies, or an America that gives up when the going gets tough.
Liberalism tells people what they cannot achieve. Conservative tells people they can achieve anything, and backs it up. Liberalism is pessimism. Conservatism is optimism.
Liberalism had 40-70 years, and it hurt so many people. Liberals now say that the conservatives will not succeed. How will they know until they let us try?
Conservatives do not always get it right, but we usually do. Liberalism succeeds through failure, and fails when there is sustained success.
Conservatism succeeds through actual success. It must be implemented. The fate of free people everywhere depends on this.
eric
Liberalism is poison. It destroys people. It rips their insides out. It is parasitic. It leeches onto victims, sucks them dry, leaves them with nothing, and then forces the victims to beg for more liberalism in the hope of being cured. It is a drug and a disease, all rolled into one. I am not saying liberals are evil people.
HAHAHAH
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 08/22/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
When was the last time a liberal program ever worked?
The Internet
Apollo
Federal Highway System
FDR’s expansion of the electrical grid
An America that led to a Middle East filled with peace loving democracies, or an America that gives up when the going gets tough.
I’d prefer an America that doesn’t get bogged down in unwinnable and pointless conflicts while the homeland rots.
Therein lies the mantra of the Left, “I’d prefer an America that doesn’t get bogged down in unwinnable and pointless while the homeland rots.” Perhaps we should add that the Left also does not want to actually fight an enemy either, but rather make concessions and use “diplomacy” in the vain hope that the terrorists will somehow listen to reason…
http://rightisright.squarespace.com
I’d just prefer that my tax dollars fix American bridges before they fix Iraqi bridges.
Eric !
You gotta frame this one ! It’s great !
Thing said;
“I’d just prefer that my tax dollars fix American bridges before they fix Iraqi bridges.”
Do some homework, the money was and still is there.
Unfortunatly some of it probably went to put a plaque on a tree with your name on it.
http://mises.org/story/2670
Thing said;
When was the last time a liberal program ever worked?
The Internet
Apollo
” Federal Highway System”
FDR’s expansion of the electrical grid
Notice that you picked out the Highway system, it is the liberal program that stole from the funds intended to fix the bridge before it collapsed
Apollo 13 was a disaster.
Electrical grid cant fart without falling apart.
Oh yea, Al Gore invented the internet.
“If the liberals end up being right, and Iraq turns out to be a failure, what will be the joy of this empty victory? Nothing. We will be a nation humiliated. The world will laugh at us. ”
We’ve been there before and survived as a nation. It’s preferrable to continuing with this ridiculous idea that we can ‘create’ democracies in the desert.
“When was the last time a liberal program ever worked?”
The Internet
SAY WHAT?
Leonard Kleinrock was the first to publish a paper about the idea of packet switching, which is essential to the Internet. He did so in 1961.
Dr. Leonard Kleinrock created the basic principles of packet switching, the technology underpinning the Internet, while a graduate student at MIT.Packet switching is the idea that packets of data can be “routed” from one place to another based on address information carried in the data, much like the address on a letter. Packet switching replaces the older concept of “circuit switching,” in which an actual electrical circuit is established all the way from the source to the destination.
With packet switching, packets destined for thousands or millions of users can share a single physical connection to the Internet.
J.C.R. Licklider was the first to describe an Internet-like worldwide network of computers, in 1962. He called it the “Galactic Network.” Larry G. Roberts created the first functioning long-distance computer networks in 1965 and designed the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the seed from which the modern Internet grew, in 1966.
ARPA is now DARPA- A defense agency. The linking up of users occurred in this project. This was not a ‘liberal’ program. Let me guess, you think Al Gore headed the project.
Continuing my comments from your Town Hall blog, George Will also had a couple more things to say about active government.
“Conservatives argue just as fatuously that “only people produce wealth; government does not.” Government produces the infrastructure of society – legal, physical, educational, from highways through skills – that is a precondition for the production of wealth.”
Also: “A structure of public entitlements can do what private property alone cannot do: given everyone a stake in the stability and success of the social system.”
I couldn’t find the best quote, also written before Reagan too office. But he says that Reagan will find a congress with 245 constituencies for governmental programs. Will notes that the reason we have so many government programs is that the people want them.
One thing Craig. I seem to remember that the first use for something like the Internet was from CERN and that it was a free method of communication for scientists. The free part is certainly a liberal idea.
Micky2, Apollo 13 was a *near* disaster.
Tell me, do you hate Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17?
Eric, let me get back to you on one thing. What is victory in Iraq?
I start with a belief and some information. The belief is that I know how ingrained religion is for many individuals. It’s who they are and you can’t separate the person from his religion.
The information is that most Iraqis want a society based on Sharia law. But there are at least four competing groups. First the Sunnis versus the Shiites. They both want Sharia law, but their own Sharia law. Second, each of those is divided into two different groups, each wanting power for themselves.
I conclude from that that no one but a small group of secular people in Iraq want anything but a Sharia society. Democracy is far down on their list if at all. I conclude that these four, at least, groups will decide among themselves, either by negotiation or force of arms what Iraqi society will ultimately look like. All pending interference from outside countries.
Now, is it defeatism to say that the United States will not be able to change the hearts of Islamist Iraqis and make them want something else than what they want?
I should note than I’m one liberal who follows Colin Powells observation that if you broke it you own it and I think we need to prevent civil war to the extent we can do so, by staying for 10-50 years with our military.
But I return to the conservative concept of “victory.” Do you argue that the U.S. can indeed change the heart and passion of religious Iraqis and that victory lies in our doing this (democracy following the chage of heart)?
If not this, then what will constitute victory for the U.S. And doesn’t the meaning of defeatism change with our objectives? If we give up the idea of changing the hearts and passions of religious Iraqis then we aren’t defeatist if we say we don’t think this can be done.
If we say we don’t think that the four branches of religious belief can reach a negotiated settlement, is this defeatest? See what I’m getting at?
Basically, I want you to tell me what victory will look like, so we can recognize it when we see it.
Thing said; Micky2, Apollo 13 was a *near* disaster.
Tell me, do you hate Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17
First of all I never said I hated anything, so I guess it’s fair to say I don’t hate the missions.
Not knowing how you will return to earth is disasterous, and they survived the disaster, without anyone coming to help them.
If they had a liberal frame of mind they probably would of sat on their butt’s and waited for a rescue.
But it is fitting to say the liberals were” batting for the moon” .
The point the autor is making is that the accomplishments of the right far out weigh those of the left.
Besides that , it would be really nice if their was a democrat like Kennedy around these days. If he could see the landscape today he would probably cry.
Only having one success is nothing to jump up and down about.
“The liberals love to say that this war is President Bush’s war. On this point, they are absolutely right. Therefore, if it succeeds, he will get the credit.”
And if it fails, you’ll most likely blame the Democrats anyway for not supporting it even though most of them did.
“If the liberals end up being right, and Iraq turns out to be a failure, what will be the joy of this empty victory? Nothing. We will be a nation humiliated.”
The Iraq war was a mistake from the get-go. Sadly, only a handful of liberals (100,000 or so, if the NY demo was any indication) seemed to realize that at the time. We’re already humiliated, pal, and there ain’t a damn thing you can do about it except e-mail the President and insist that he nuke Iran. Or maybe you can organize a pro-Iraq war demo yourself. Go on, do it., you might even get 1,000 people to support you. What are you waiting for?
“Conservatives do not always get it right, but we usually do. Liberalism succeeds through failure, and fails when there is sustained success.
Conservatism succeeds through actual success. It must be implemented. The fate of free people everywhere depends on this.”
Thanks, that’s the biggest laugh I’ve had all day. “Conservatism succeeds through actual success.” You take yourself way too seriously, pal.
Ugh, I had to take my time reading the entire piece and didn’t really feel like trudging through all the replies. So this is how I feel:
First of all, in my eyes, and I really hate to get all Zen on you all but – you always need balance. For every crazy right-winger out there like Karl Rove or the late Jerry Falwell, you really do need a nutty left winger out there (names fail me at the moment, sorry, but I know they are out there) to keep things in check, to make sure that neither side gets too big or powerful by always questioning ideas and actions, and vice versa.
That said, I’d really love to say an extremist on either side is really poison to the whole process – especially since when either is in power, and since power corrupts, the status quo will be shifted unfairly. You really can’t say the inner cities are getting better through Faith handouts and are held back by the Public School’s inability to protect against drugs and alcohol. Are you nuts? The same conservatives in office right now seemingly ignored schools in Ohio and NW USA begging for some federal Aid. Now they are closed and god knows what happened to the kids. When schools are run down, under-funded, they offer the students absolutely no alternative to a life of crime.
But also, you have to admit, the Government is required as a safety net in case Free Markets immoral hand bitch-slaps you into debt. And the space program, while to a certain extent, here and there, a moneypit, it helped spawn a knowledge revolution that I’m so happy to keep up to date with.
Joe – Nice rant though
Eric’s main point – about how liberal success requires failure – is well taken when one thinks about what liberalism has become; a haven for victims…that wish to remain victims. The truly saddest thing I’ve observed in the so-called ‘people’s party’ is the continued appeal that government will ride to the rescue of the ‘downtrodden’…which requires there to continue to BE ‘downtrodden’ to remain in power. While perhaps Eric becomes a bit passionate in his distaste for this quality of the democratic/socialist agenda, he is nevertheless dead on.
The comment made by someone later about balance is also dead on. The heart of both parties may actually be the same; to provide what is needed for success for a free people. While this is an oft used illlustration, it is nevertheless not any less appropos:
A starving man first needs food; then, he needs a way to provide food for himself. The liberal mindset wishes to provide the food. The conservative mindset wishes to enable the man to provide food for himself. Neither one of these solutions will work with out the other.
So the balance comes when our government utilizes the different gifts of its viewpoints to provide for the whole.
The reason we are no longer in balance is it takes both sides respecting the need and worth of the other in order to work in concert for the good of the whole. Politics/government has become way too self serving, and has forgotten who and what it is there for.
Until hearts are changed, there will be no balance.
Well said Carole.
yeah damn, Carole, well said. helped clarify quite a few things.
Liberalism is the reason why America exists today. It is the reason we have child labor laws. It is the reason we have schools and hospitals and laboratories. It is the reason we have habeas corpus. It is the reason we have freedom of and from religion. It is the reason our scoiety became the greatest nation on Earth.
Flippin’ idiots.
JMJ
TPL:
“I seem to remember that the first use for something like the Internet was from CERN and that it was a free method of communication for scientists. The free part is certainly a liberal idea.”
That’s funny, considering the true ancestor for the internet was the ARPANET, which incidentally far predated any sort of networking system used by CERN. The first use for something ‘like’ the internet was to make a de-centralized network to connect various computers (at first 3, then hundreds) together without obstructions.
When CERN attempted, decades later, to modify a protocol FOR a pre-existing network, they came up with Hypertext. Incidentally, the internet existed LONG before hypertext–which is the basis of the WWW. The WWW and the Internet are not the same thing. The WWW is merely the graphical veneer that covers the topmost layer… a majority of the information travelling over the net does not even use it.
As for the ‘free’ part being a ‘liberal idea’, I can barely list the ways this statement is wrong. Are things ‘free’ by definition liberal? Is something liberal if it demands something be free? Assuming you mean ‘free access to the WWW is a liberal idea’, I’d have to say that’s a specious argument on several counts. To USE the WWW, you have to have access to the Internet. Unless you’re some big government-funded bigwig, you have to pay money to even access the thing, usually through some ISP or another. Indeed, you even have to pay for the connection somehow, whether cable or DSL, through whatever company has made the infrastructure. Also, what do you consider all the other forms of information distribution that don’t access the WWW to be? Pay-for-Packet? The only ‘reasons’ the WWW that CERN instituted is free is because it’s darn near impossible to find a way to charge money for it, the scientists were likely government funded and not running their own company, and the fact they were using someone ELSE’s packet technology (TCP/IP was not their baby, and was already in use) to adapt to using the same Internet that other nations (ie: the USA) already used.
“Politics/government has become way too self serving, and has forgotten who and what it is there for.”
Could not have said it any better!!
I would rather look at the internet as a beautiful combination of Conservatism and Liberalism. I mean, if you look at the ENTIRE history of the Internet (From ARPANET to present day), you’d have to be blind not to see how it has evolved to what it is now.
And if anything, the thing that REALLY pisses me off about some Liberals – is the Political Correctness that has come into our culture nowadays. I’m not really sure who the fault lies on, but frankly, the Special-Interest groups have WAY too much power to ruin people’s reputations than they should. It really pisses me off how handcuffed some people are in expressing their true opinions because an Interest group may go off and boom – career over.
While the ACLU and NAACP were great achievements to counter Conservative/Traditional ideas and themes – now all they do is magnify the smallest of injustices to ‘prove’ their worthiness. As horrible as it is to say, the same Organizations and People who fought SO hard for Women’s rights, and Black/Minority Rights – are going to keep racism and sexism alive forever, for the groups cannot exist without them.
Hrm, maybe I don’t know the true definition of a Liberal/Conservative person from a Liberal/Conservative idea or plan. But I always thought of my previously mentioned topics as mostly Liberal in nature. Either way – they suck and really piss me off.
And following the Internet silliness of it being a great Liberal discovery – I feel silly for throwing the space program under the Liberal Umbrella too. Really, anything that has made significant impact, really has to be a compromise of both ends of the spectrum – or else by the time the other half was in power, the program would be over.
Oh, and Malcor:
You pwned TPL. And I mean you pwned him gooood.
(sorry for another double post)
At this point, I’d really have to say that the Internet, as we know it (with graphics and all), is a Capitalistic Idea now. Really, doesn’t matter if it’s Liberal or Conservative in creation/application – what made the Internet blossom were companies who began investing to upgrade the Infrastructure. Whenever anything makes it into the Private Sector, money is the only way to keep things going.
So the concept of a Free Internet now? It isn’t Liberal or Conservative, it is one of the brilliant ideas of Google (and Bill Gates, but I don’t think I know his system as much as Google’s) to offer Free Internet for the price of its super smart AD placement.
You receive intelligently placed ads that would probably result in better business for the Advertisers, which results in the cashflow required to maintain a Free Internet Infrastructure. Liberal idea? Conservative idea? Nah, it’s the Free Market at work.
Unfortunately, while Liberals and Conservative both have morals and ethics that guide them throughout life, the Free Market is ruthless and contains to right or wrong – it is more about the bottom line, regardless of what it takes to get there. One of the most eye-opening ads I’ve seen, that really showed me that those Marketeers really know what they are doing was a full page ad for Product(red):
They admitted that it isn’t a charity, it is a Business Plan, profits are made, but a portion of the revenue does go directly to helping those in Africa – so it’s basically a great Business Plan that creates a Profit for a company by taking advantage of people’s willingness to help. Eventually it’ll be a fad and people won’t care where the money goes, but it’s a great idea to translate our lust for toys into helping those who need it.
And Malcor, I love your little history blurb on the Internet, I’m sure you know it’s 100% accurate so I won’t tell you it is. Oh wait, I just did. I personally started laughing when you explained the difference between ARPANET, what CERN did, and how WWW doesn’t mean “The Internet.” Intelligent Right wingers are always favorable to me than idiotic-narrow minded Lefties. And vice versa.
Two Reagan quotes aptly sum up the Dhimmicrats.
1. A Liberal’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
2. Liberals fought poverty and poverty won.
If you really want to generalize ignorantly then here’s a single Joe quote:
Reagan and his Conservative Republican cronies supported Poverty by using fear to make to turn Static the Status Quo.
I think that’s just as ignorantly general, but better worded (in my opinion).
..actually no. my quote gives me a headache towards the end.
I think I wanted it to be more like:
Reagan and his Conservative Republican cronies supported Poverty by using fear to make Static, the Status Quo.
Take it easy, you guys, we all gotta live here. (But you f#@kin’ ditto-heads gotta sit down in front – you’ve helped siphon off the nation’s capital into these pinhead military ventures long enough.)