Posted by Dan Ewert : 1/31/2003 03:20:00 PM (Archive Link)
I have recently made a few interesting observations about the liberal mentality. I don’t how best to organize this so I’ll just go down the list.

The first concerns the liberal dedication to diversity. Most, of course, believe it very important to realize, study, understand, and celebrate the differences that exist among races, cultures, religions, nationalities and the like. However, despite this commitment to differences, many liberals simply don’t grasp the concept that there are many people out there who are vastly different from them. The typical liberal seems to be of the opinion that because they support “oppressed people A” or because they oppose war on Iraq, people A and the Iraqi citizenry are also liberals. It’s a notion that because they are sympathetic towards a people, that group is sympathetic right back; that because they are liberals who support a group, that group must also be of a liberal mindset who supports them. It’s a tit for tat, quid pro quo idea in the sense that, “Hey, I’m tolerating you and respecting your diversity, so you’re doing the same for me, right?” The reality is obviously much different. There are societies out there that despise America and they hate its liberal attitudes most of all. There are people who will want to eliminate you no matter how much tolerance you may demonstrate towards them. In fact, they probably most like the folks on the far left because they are most useful for their purposes. If the terrorists’ purpose is to kill Americans, who could be more useful than those who oppose almost any effort to hamper their own operations? At the same time, these liberals are also the most hated by the extremists since these are the people who advocate openness and acceptance to all that which they hold most disgraceful.

In this sense, then, liberalism is a self-destructive philosophy because the convictionless necessarily fall victim to the convicted. And I don’t mean that in a metaphorical, left vs. right sense (although you could make the case), I mean it in a very realistic sense. If Person A believes in letting everybody do what they want because it’s oppressive to prevent them from doing so and Person B believes in killing Person A due to A’s immorality, then A dies. Weak-willed approaches, refusal to recognize dangerous people, and refusal to defend yourself or others in the face of aggression is a rather poor combination.

One more aspect of liberalism is this growing globalist Marxist philosophy. I suppose it’s been around for a very, very long time, but I just keep noticing the theme. Bad people are never at fault for their own actions. There’s no accountability. If there are Islamists out there who plot the destruction of America, it’s because America has been lording over them and their populace with its imperialistic, capitalistic evilness. The terrorists of 9/11 are to be condemned only when the condemnation is followed by a “but,” as in, “Yes, what they did was horrible and there’s no excuse for it, but you have to understand how America’s policies have built disgruntled feelings among Arabs.” All varieties of evil and evil men are tolerated, excused, and even endorsed because they are merely reacting to U.S. hegemony. Morality long ago exited the world-view of these people save for the idea that America and everything about it is bad and therefore, everything in contrast to it must somehow be good. A lot of black and white for people who insist there’s only gray.