Sufficient
Reason
Politics,
religion, and life from an uncomfortably logical and rational
perspective
Dear
Liberal…Here’s Why I’m So Hostile
by
Jeremy N. Choate
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.
Read
this and other articles at Sufficient Reason
|