The More Liberalism -
the Heavier the Load

A Case Against Liberalism

Commentary for Sunday 01/14/2007 Defining Liberalism (Democrats)

A Case against Liberalism: Writing about liberalism is a lot like herding cats. Even the definitions are not without controversy, but to make any assessment about Liberalism, there has to be at least a perceived position that can be summarized.

What I won't explore: Ancient arguments, which have been in existence for hundreds of years. Even Confucian adherents from Old China could not agree whether or not the profit motive was good or bad. There have been adherents to both sides throughout human history. These comments are directed only to the late 19th century to the present.

Modern Conservatism: A non-secular derivative of capitalism. Today's Conservatives are 'capitalist with a conscience'. Adapting traditional religious values of honesty, charity, and compassion; conservatism has largely replaced the capitalist secular model.

Modern Liberalism: Modern day liberalism is also an offshoot of the capitalist system. By the nature of the beast, capitalism produced some of the harshest and greediest eras of the United States and abroad. The capitalist system was brutal to its workers, while 'Capitalist barons' grew in power and wealth. Sympathy for the working man grew until there was outrage over their treatment and working conditions. The wide gulf between the haves and have-nots was no longer supportable. In the United States, laws were passed to govern how wage earners should be treated, and last but not least, trade unions were born to represent the workers giving them a voice in their employment. Liberalism as we know it was born.

Liberalism as a movement: Empowering the struggling hard working men and women in this society proved to be very popular. There were a lot of positive developments that came from the emergence of wage earners who were now treated better. They became consumers, which helped everybody. More jobs were established, the ranks of the middleclass grew to majority status, and optimism about the future of this country was high. Up until and through the 1950's, hard work was considered the way to achieve life's goals.

The softening of Capitalism with Liberalism was a good thing: Logic should dictate; if a little does a little good, then a lot should do a lot of good. However, this logic does not apply to liberalism. Americans began to realize that too much liberalism stifles a society. Politically, the people helped by the liberal movement now had to protect their newfound middle class status. This new middle class found that the ever increasing Government regulations and taxes were not only stifling freedom, but also creating a welfare society. A lot of the new middle class changed loyalty from Democrat to Republican in an effort to protect themselves against a budding Socialist form of government. This development meant that in order for the Democratic politician's message to be received, the message had to appeal to the people not doing well in this society. The original victims of the harsh Capitalism of the past were doing good and resented the growing government intrusion into their lives.

Modern Conservatism: The core of the new middle class was hard working people with strong religious ties. They also shared a philosophy of frugality, and had acquired a love for the independence brought about by their middle class status. With their numbers, they reformed the old Capitalistic model (Not without missteps though) to one of a more compassionate, caring model. Modern Conservatism was born. Modern Conservatism is not to be confused with the older label of being a Conservative Capitalist. There were a lot of people before modern Conservatism who were considered to be Conservative only because they favored a weaker central government. Anyone favoring a weaker central government had been the traditional definition of a conservative.

Liberals tend to be more secular: Liberals have disdain for religion and its universal code of right and wrong. Only those in government yield any power. Order is maintained in a similar way that most modern totalitarian states do. Because liberals reject a philisophical position of right and wrong, liberal totalitarian states need a powerful police force to maintain civil order. The top of the liberal hierarchy is an elite group who would not deign to live as an ordinary citizens, they are aloof and above the turmoil lived by their constituents. Liberalism thrives when the elite at the top is able to project power using the wealth of achievers. They appear as heroes to the indolent and non-achievers by redistributing the wealth of achievers.

Liberals portray themselves, as saviors of the 'downtrodden': However, reality is much different. Keeping the 'downtrodden' down is the goal of the liberal elites. Liberals cannot remain in power without the 'downtrodden'. It is their base, their constituency, the one group that maintains them in power. That is why liberals employ 'class warfare' as a weapon.

Class Warfare: Class warfare helps the liberal cause by creating the illusion of being a champion against those who are 'mean spirited' and successful. Liberal followers are led into thinking that those who are successful get that way at their expense. In other words, they are cheated! Liberal leaders are well aware of the past and what happens to political loyalties when people are allowed to succeed. Success must be thwarted at all cost. One of the challenges to the liberal leaders is how to prevent their constituency from succeeding, and at the same time keep them happy.

Maintaining Happiness and Control: Since the liberal establishment is working to prevent their constituency from succeeding, they define happiness in other ways. The use of sexual freedom is one of those redefined definitions of happiness. Using sex as a political weapon is not new but it is effective. One obstacle in the way of this Liberal idea is religion. Religion teaches a strict code of right and wrong, and also personal responsibility. To the Liberal, religion is an obstacle that must be removed. Once religion is marginalized and out of the way, the masses can be kept mollified. With morality out of the way and legal abortion to cure any accidents, there is no reason for not enjoying sex in any flavor that suits you. Without religion or the fear of pregnancy, who is to say that indiscriminate sex is bad? By destroying the global principles of right and wrong, liberals calculate that you as a people would rather sin than succeed. And logically it follows, if your personal life is one distraction after the next, you aren't going to be able to succeed.

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my commentaries.

-Privacy Policy-

Daylite Sun does not share any personal information about its readers. Email addresses, or other personal information is strictly confidential.

Unique Visitors