When liberal values collide
Monday, October 4, 2010 - Forbidden Table Talk by Bob Siegel
Confession time: I was once a liberal. The reason I no longer call my self a liberal is, that frankly, when I examine liberal values one at a time, I cannot avoid observing that each passionately held liberal value ultimately crashes head on into another, no less important, liberal value.
Actually, if we want to parse the definition, I suppose I still am liberal. That is, I am liberal in the historic sense of the word and in its generic usage: one who marches to the beat of a different drum, one who does not always follow the pack, one who challenges a conventional wisdom most people accept without analysis simply because it comes from respected institutions (academia, the media etc). Unfortunately, the definition has changed. Today, the term liberal is used to describe the status quo, the politically correct, and other “virtues” offered up as sacred; ideologies taken for granted and portrayed as the only clear, sensible positions. Such people stifle debate and resort to name-calling when they are challenged. Today the word “liberal” no longer means liberal. Truth be told, today’s liberals should call themselves conservatives inasmuch as they cling to popular ideas, even if these ideas are only a few decades old.
In any event, whatever we should call ourselves, I will no more call my viewpoints liberal than Nancy Pelosi would ever describe herself as a conservative. And so, taking the current definition (flawed as it may be), I present my own unique understanding of current liberal thought. In a tongue- in- cheek fashion, I am writing a kind of “Liberal Manifesto” in the first person. Of course, even if the style is satirical, I am very serious. No, I doubt that you will ever hear liberals describe themselves in exactly this fashion, but the ideas I present here are an honest result of connecting all the subtle contradictions of liberal thought into their incoherent whole. Naturally there are exceptions and variations from individual to individual. I am critiquing the generalized thought. But exceptions to the rule ought not make us ignore the rule. Otherwise, the big elephant in the room is never confronted (and I apologize to my liberal friends for using a Republican mascot just now to make a point).
THE LIBERAL MANIFESTO:
1) We believe that notions of good and evil are outdated and should never be used unless we are talking about George Bush, other Republicans, or right-wing, born-again Christians who are clearly responsible historically for most of the evils of the world.
2) We are strong advocates of choice, unless people want to choose their own schools, radio shows, cars, cigars, unhealthy food, health care providers, amount of energy to use in the home, salaries to pay employees, location for religious assembly, location for religious symbols, and the amount of money to leave their children in a will as opposed to giving half to the government. We do continue to celebrate “a woman’s right to choose an abortion” but we also like the laws in China that limit how many children one can birth because too many people in the world contribute to Global Warming, so the one remaining choice is only a temporary one.
3) We believe that having women on the Supreme Court offers necessary balance, as women will always bring a perspective men cannot offer with important decisions that guide our country. On the other hand, when it comes to guiding children in a family atmosphere, we do not believe gender to be of any importance whatsoever. Indeed, a child with two fathers is going to be every bit as healthy as a child with a father and a mother and in such a case, female influence is nonessential to development and health.
4) We believe in standing up for the rights of the weak and the disenfranchised, (unless we are talking about an unborn baby.)
5) We believe in tolerance and those who are unwilling to tolerate the same lifestyles we tolerate should no longer be tolerated. Thus, we strongly advocate laws forbidding hate speech, and if those guilty of hate speech do not see their speech as hateful, it only means they are especially hateful and that their intolerance should be especially NOT tolerated.
6) We believe that as regards gay marriage, church and state should be completely separated. Christians have no right to pass laws about who can or cannot be married out in the secular world. Marriage in the church can be defined any way they want, so long as they do not impose that belief on the rest of us. However, we strongly support those who sue churches for refusing to marry gay couples because, after all, this is a civil rights issue and not a religious issue. Therefore, religious people should not be exempted.
7) As a specific example of our inclusive philosophy, we believe that when conservatives opposed President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, their only possible motive must clearly have been racism. It couldn’t possibly be for concerns about a judge who would legislate from the bench. However, when Democrats opposed Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzalez, race had nothing to do with it.
8) In that same vein, we accept Judge Sotomayor’s right to claim that a Latina woman will give better rulings than a white male judge. Such a statement cannot be construed as racist because people of color do not have the power even though this woman, as a judge, has kind of, sort of, had a lot of power for years. Meanwhile, should a white judge ever claim that a white man can rule better than a Latina woman, we will expose him as the sexist, racist, bigoted vermin he truly is.
9) We believe that all rich people are evil, with the exception of rich Democrat politicians, George Soros, Michael Moore or any left-wing Hollywood activist.
10) We believe religion should be left out of any political discussion unless some Democratic politician wants to say that Jesus would have accepted illegal immigration or some gay, Episcopal priest wants to talk about how the Bible teaches that God is loving and tolerant. In such cases, religion is a very appropriate ingredient to bring into the mix.
11) We believe intelligent design does not belong in the classroom due to church and state legalities and should not be put forth, even as a theory, to be discussed. We also believe that if an instructor wants to talk about how stupid it is to believe in God, he should be allowed. Separation between church and state does not apply in such a situation.
12) When a professor, such as Ward Churchill, compares the victims of 9/11to Nazis, his speech (outrageous as it is) must be protected under the First Amendment. On the other hand, when the President of Harvard suggests that men and women tend to score differently on math tests, such talk should never be allowed because (First Amendment put aside) the college campus must hold its staff to a higher standard. Besides, we know that men and women are not different at all about anything, (even though, once again, women do bring a unique perspective to the Supreme Court.)
13) We believe it is wrong for a mother to spank her child. That is child abuse. But if she wants to kill this child in the womb, that is her fundamental right.
14) We are very concerned about global warming and those who would ask us to prove it scientifically should just get with the program and stop being so dog darned argumentative. However, we will ask Christians to prove their belief in God scientifically and if they can’t, they have no place in our public dialogue. Indeed, they pollute our public dialogue. Oh yes, and if Christians claim they can prove God scientifically, they should be especially banned from public dialogue. Never mind that we asked them to prove God. We only asked because we were sure they couldn’t do it.
15) We believe that almost anything you can imagine (and a lot of stuff you never would have dreamed up in a million years) contributes to global warming, including Christmas lights and even cow dung. But the private jets that Democrats fly around in to give lectures on global warming are not a problem. While we are on the subject of private jets, when Wall Street CEO’s fly on such jets, they are EVIL!.. That is, they would be evil if such a thing existed and in the cases of people we don’t like, it does exist. (See Point One)
16) We believe that smaller cars will keep our atmosphere safer even if accidents in such cars will kill a whole lot more people than big cars. People come and go, but the planet is most important.
17) We believe sanctuary cities demonstrate compassion and anyone who asks an employee to prove her citizenship is a racist, unless the employer happens to be a Republican running for governor.
18) Finally, we believe right-wing ideas are too stupid to even debate. That is why we do not debate them. We call right-wingers names instead, because they deserve to be called names. (Hitler is always a good one.) Would you debate with a Nazi or with the Ku Klux Klan? Of course not! Can we prove that all right wing people are like the Nazis or the Klan? Well, no. To do that, we would have to have a debate and we are not going to debate. Haven’t you been paying attention?
In the name of tolerance, free thought, open discussion, personal choice and sound reason, we the undersigned do proudly uphold this Liberal Manifesto.
--
Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and columnist. Information about his radio show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net.
Reactions to all of Bob's articles will be read and commented on over the radio. The reader who posts comments is welcome to call in and respond to on-air remarks. Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170.
communities.washingtontimes.com |
