A Hollywood Republican

This blog is for an open discussion on politics. My views will be to the right as will be most of the posters. But, we are willing to post alternative viewpoints as lons as they are well thought out. I started this in response to the Obama election and will continue it as long as it feeds a need.

Sep 14, 2009

The Ideology of a Liberal

Since the health care debate has wound down a little as a result of President Obama’s speech on Wednesday which, by the way, was pure rhetoric and seen by the General Public and pundits as a failure because of its lack of new ideas and detail, I have decided to tackle a subject other than health care reform in this article. What makes a liberal tick? Why are there such major differences between the two parties in this country?

The other day I was playing on Facebook and saw a number of posts from my liberal friends regarding health care. The comments posted were all similar. No one should go without health care in this country and no one should go broke because they got sick. Why only liberals would post this amazes me, because there are not too many people in the world that disagree. However, it is just not that simple.

In response, I posted a few comments. The majority of them were along the line of “Yes, I agree too, but who is going to pay for it and how is it going to work?” Almost universally, the liberal responses were either “The Rich,” or “Bring the Troops Back from Iraq and Afghanistan.” I then realized that most thinking from Liberals is not based upon logic. In fact, from these responses, it appears liberal thinking is idealist and based upon emotion. This has been argued in the past by both Ann Coulter and Dennis Prager among others. I now agree.

Whether you agree with the War on Terror is not the issue. The troops are committed. You cannot simply bring them back. To think bringing them back can be accomplished overnight is not to think realistically. You must leave them there as long as necessary to accomplish your goals or to train the local military to do it themselves. In Iraq because of the surge, this is quickly happening. In Afghanistan, it is a different story.

The Afghanistan situation is beginning to look like Vietnam. Either we make the commitment to beat the Taliban or we will be involved in a war of attrition which cannot be won. President Obama must take the steps necessary to accomplish the goal. Anything short of that will give the Taliban and Al Qaeda the foothold they need to take over the Afghanistan government again and to possibly move on Pakistan to get control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This is unacceptable.

The second response “The Rich” is also idealistic. How much more taxation do you think the rich are going to take before they completely revolt? The middle class and blue collar workers at the Tea Parties on Saturday show that they are fed up. And, they are not paying nearly as much of their income as the rich. If you add another 5% to the marginal tax rate as proposed in HR 3200, most of The Rich will be paying almost 50% of their income in taxes before state income taxes are even considered. In California and New York, that is more than 10%. (This analysis includes sales taxes, property taxes, luxury taxes, etc., as well as income taxes and other income withholding). And, you wonder why people are leaving California for Nevada, Arizona, Washington and other low tax states by the thousands. People; rich, middle class or poor, will just not tolerate more.

As shown by the previous examples, both responses given me last week by the liberals are just not realistic. They are based upon emotion. There is no logic behind them. Hence we have the major difference. Conservatives think logically and based upon the reality seen in facts and figures. Liberals think emotionally and from idealistic goals and ambitions. The two do not mix.

Let us examine a few other examples:

What about the current Administration’s outlook on foreign affairs? President Obama, during his campaign, said that he would talk and negotiate with the radicals in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. Since he has become President, what has this policy gotten him; nothing. Iran continues its nuclear ambitions unabated. Venezuela continues poking its nose at the United States and its President. And, North Korea does whatever it wants and will soon, not only have nuclear weapons, but will also have missiles capable of delivering them.

Most recently, the tape from Osama Bin Laden is just another example of the failure of President’s Obama’s policy. After his speech in Egypt, everyone on the left believed the Radical Moslems would change their attitude towards the United States. All one has to do is listen to Bin Laden’s tape released in the last two days to realize that the emotional based thinking of the left is a far cry from the realism of the situation.

In the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the President says that Israel should cease building settlements. The Prime Minister of Israel agrees in principle provided that the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinians say ‘no’ and Israel continues its expansion into the West Bank. Another failure of idealism on the Administration’s part

Those that truly understand foreign affairs could have predicted these outcomes. Learning from the past and the use of logic as done by conservatives, works. The emotion and idealism of the left does not. The Left’s desire for everything to be right and for everything to be fair controls their policy. Unfortunately, this is not reality. And, hopefully, President Obama is beginning to get it now too. All evidence however is to the contrary.

The same is true with “Cap and Trade” and Health Care Reform. Both liberal positions are based upon idealism and emotion. Everyone would like to lower carbon emissions and make the environment a better place. Everyone would love universal health care. But, the fact of the matter is that “Cap and Trade” will cause many businesses in this country to fail and for those that do not fail, there will be many lost jobs. The realism behind Health Care Reform or any of the plans under consideration by Congress now would bankrupt the country. There is no plan that is revenue neutral at this point.

In all of these situations, the liberal agenda is fueled by idealism and emotion. Maybe, if liberals started thinking logically and based upon the realities of the world, there would be less partisanship in Congress and more could be accomplished. Emotion is no way to govern this or any other country.

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to be copied will be freely granted upon request.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Blogger Wonder Russell said...

Totally right on, Frank! Everyone would love it, and I'd love to give it to them - but not via any of the means they propose. We don't take the food out of our families' mouths to give to strangers - but we can be good Samaritans. The liberal agenda seems to disagree....maybe because, like Acorn, they are about the community rather than the family? But that's another debate.

America is TOO rich and TOO comfortable - that's why we have emotional rhetoric for politics

September 14, 2009 at 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I won't break down each and every talking point because it would take too long. We all come to this debate with life experiences which affect our thought processes and ideals. One doesn't change those ideals because someone wrote to the contrary on a blog somewhere.

Like you, I know that were I to care what others think about me I'd be in trouble right out of the starting gate. Secondly, if I wanted to post a dissertation on what I think is wrong with the conservative party it would be equally inflammatory and derogatory in nature. Lord knows we have enough fodder to weave a horrendous tale lately in recent history.

It still is a two party system and as long as that remains there will exist a difference in ideologies. You or I will not change that.

A thinking man would assert that opinions are subjective perspectives worth the money you paid for them. I will respect your right to cling to whatever blows your dress up, I just happen to think it's wrong in substance and principle.

September 14, 2009 at 4:52 PM  
Blogger bruce nahin said...

I heard a fellow who is a sr editor at the WSJ speak on Cavuto today who made the point that if those who earned over 250,000 paid 100% of the excess to the IRS it would not be enough to fund Obama's spending habits. Likewise finding 500mill in medicare waste is illusory- if they know of particular waste -find it- get it back-without or without the debate- just find the money and cut spending- The fact is they dont have a clue where the waste is-if it is- it is just talk- the money will come from medicare cuts period. Emotionalism is what you have when you bet on the Kentucky Derby based on a horse's colors or name not when you bet on our country's survival- Then only logic , reasonable and empirical evidence works for me.

September 14, 2009 at 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Sam said...

I think you found your dilemma when you state "thinking logically and based upon the realities of the world."

I don't believe this is a criteria for being liberal.

September 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Craig Covello said...

Frank: That was very well written. So where does that leave us? Where can we go from here? If the liberal mindset cannot be changed and we have reached the tipping point where there are more people who believe in entitlement than those who are self-sufficient, does everything just implode?

September 15, 2009 at 1:58 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

I agree with much of what you said.

It's funny, most liberals seem to be so nice and well intentioned. But, they have no problem with the fact that their solutions always involve coercing people into taking responsibility for things that they are not, in fact, responsible for.

However, I must say that conservatives have their own emotional blind spot as well. They don't mind using the coercive power of government to prevent people from engaging in behaviors that they (the conservative) doesn't approve of, but doesn't actually harm anyone. I'm thinking specifically of gay marriage.

September 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Savannah said...

excellent article.

September 29, 2009 at 3:01 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home