America in the Balance

WHAT’S CONSITUTES LIBERALISM IN

2007?

by

Ken Eliasberg

Some years back, after I had seen the light, politically speaking, I did a couple of columns for the paper that I wrote for at the time on what being a liberal is all about. I would like to reprise (and update) them here for the benefit of my San Gabriel Valley Examiner readers. I would also like to do a closing update to reflect the extent to which the Democrat Party has wandered off the American Reservation in their delusional pursuit of Utopia and their mindless (and treasonous) use of power in that pursuit. The following was written in 2001, shortly after George W. Bush’s election; in terms of the political climate, things have only worsened since then—we are more polarized than ever, the dialogue (such as it is) is harsh and devoid of any effort to make contact with the opposition, and historical verities such as politics stops at the water’s edge have been discarded in their entirety.

Politics has deteriorated to the point where it is really difficult to ascertain what the issues are and, as a consequence, to address them in any sort of reasonable, let alone enlightened, manner. Basically, other than mud-slinging, it has really gotten to the point where the effort seems to be to confuse rather than to illuminate. Accordingly, it would appear to be useful to define our terms, and, hopefully, to clearly enunciate the philosophy that appears to drive each party, because, in the final analysis, that’s where the policy rubber meets the political road, i.e. toward what end is a particular doctrine aimed. Terms like “liberalism,” “neocon,” “big business,” “special interest,” etc. are thrown around in a manner calculated to label or categorize rather than to define or explain. So I would like to explore some of these labels in a series of columns in an effort to provide some insight into where the parties now find themselves and to clarify what I believe these terms have come to mean. Let’s start with liberalism—again, in today’s context—what is it? what are its goals? who or what is a liberal?

I believe that the term liberalism currently (and I want to emphasize that the term “currently” is critical because I don’t believe that liberalism was always so) can be—and should be—looked at in three (3) different contexts—(1) emotional. (2) political/economic, and (3) consequential. On a purely emotional level, I look at liberalism as a form of “cultural feel-goodism.” On a political and/or economic level, I see liberalism as socialism. And, under the category I have, for want of a better term, labeled “consequential,” I look at liberalism as a doctrine that requires—no, demands—a total absence of accountability. Let’s examine the term in the context of these 3, admittedly arbitrary, categories. In this column I want to deal with the emotional component.

Emotional:Cultural Feel-Goodism.- What do I mean by the term cultural feel-goodism? It’s really very simple. It’s doing something for someone or some cause which allows you to feel warm and wonderful about yourself, but that, more frequently than not, does little or nothing of value for the person or cause in question. Indeed, as we shall see when we take a closer look at liberalism’s last monumental effort—the Great Society—such efforts typically not only do not solve a problem, at best they lock it in place and just as often worsen it by turning a problem into a disaster. Back to the mechanics of cultural feel-goodism; you drop a dollar (I was going to say dime, but I have to adjust for inflation) in a beggar’s cup, and you feel warm and fuzzy all over—“what a great guy I am’ I have helped one of life’s unfortunates.” Have you? I don’t think so! What you have helped him do is to continue to be a beggar, a parasitic undertaking at best and an outright scam in most instances. You have no idea of whether that beggar is really down on his luck or just scamming you because he is too lazy, addicted, or incompetent to find gainful employment And, even if he is an unfortunate, how has your dollar helped to remove him from his dilemna? The simple answer is that it has not. On the contrary, it has helped keep him where you found him—on the streets. In other words, your contribution has helped the beggar remain a beggar. You have been an “enabler,” nothing more, nothing less (which, folks, really is the sentiment that is the foundation of the entitlement society). BUT, your donation has helped you to feel good about yourself, and that is of central importance to a lefty; I’m a great guy—who cares whether or not I have helped solve the problem

The beggar is just a microcosmic metaphor for the liberal’s oft-expressed concern for the “little guy.” In enacting their various entitlement programs, they make certain that the little guy will remain little. Indeed, they need him to remain “little” for, in that manner, they assure his continued patronage. That is how the Democrats “buy” votes—by handing out favors—favors that preserve the recipient’s status as a “victim.” In the final analysis, the Democrats are the party of victims—those who see themselves as victims, those who worry about becoming victims (worries that may, to be sure, be grounded in historical reality), or, worse yet, those who “exploit” the little guy by alleging that they are victims, e.g. racial charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

That is your typical liberal, with the exception that it is your money, not much of his, that he wants to give the beggar. Then, he can really feel good; he’s parted with little or nothing, but he can puff up his chest about his noble intentions with regard to the beggar. And, of course, he will make absolutely no effort to find out why the beggar is a beggar and what, if any, effort he has made to remove himself from his lamentable plight. The sequence then is (1) identify what you believe to be a problem, (2) arrive at a proposed solution that makes you feel good about yourself (even if does little or nothing to solve the problem), (3) when results are not forthcoming, never question why; merely provide more money, and (4) never question the efficacy of your proposed solution or ask for an accounting with respect to past monetary contributions. Remember, all that is important is that the course of action you have chosen allows you to feel holier than thou.

The approach outlined above—cultural feel-goodism—would explain virtually every entitlement program that the liberals have come up with over the last 40 years, and why I believe that “the Great Society” has, in most respects, been an enormous (and very costly) failure. Always remember, the key is never whether the approach works; the only thing that is important is that it allows its architect to feel that he is a morally superior human being (and, concomitantly, that anyone who would question the program is a bad person). Thus, the sine qua non for liberals is not that you be good or that you do good, but that you feel good (because you have, all too frequently, deluded yourself into believing that you did good). Finally, the means or instrumentality for doing good is typically a new Bureacracy, which also typically, siphons off a substantial portion of the revenues created to implement your latest phony do-gooding scheme.

There are any number of examples of this approach to solving society’s problems - welfare and the war and poverty stand out; welfare worsened the problem, and, in the case of the war on poverty, poverty won. Trillions of dollars—your dollars—were poured down the drain.

In short, on a purely emotional level—and liberalism is nothing if it is not a surfeit of emotion—liberalism is really little more than THE TRIUMPH OF SENTIMENT OVER SUBSTANCE