Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Three Reasons Why It’s OK for EVERYBODY to Dislike Liberals

Pointing out the Left’s Most Irritating Attributes, Tactics and Tendencies

You know, it’s real easy to make fun of conservatives. What, with their nonstop bible thumping, hysteric nationalism and inability to accept geology as a legitimate science, how could they not be? Likewise, with their aspirations of building an aquatic utopia where marijuana, firearms and hookers get passed around like nachos, the same can be said of libertarians.

Mocking right-wingers, as we all know by now,  isn’t exactly the most difficult task in the world. But when it comes to ridiculing liberals, however, things operate just a tad differently. Whereas joshing conservatives entails exploring their ideological excesses, the trick in really rubbing it in a liberal’s face comes in the form of pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of most left-leaning social causes.

Liberals, by their very nature, are hypocritical creatures. In fact, the entire philosophy of modern liberalism rests upon a firm pillar of contradictory assumptions and aspirations; solving economic shortfalls by dumping more money into faulty federal programs, advocating social justice and then promoting systems that keep the underserved and marginalized in perpetual states of economic dependency, championing individual expression while decrying contrarian viewpoints as everything from misogynistic to Hitler-esque - it’s a never-ending list, really.

The unavoidable truth is that liberals are almost universally annoying, and every bit as irritating and mendacious as their conservative adversaries. In fact, there are three primary characteristics of the modern, American liberal ideology that I think all of us - white, brown, rich, poor, rural, urban, Coke, Pepsi, so on and so forth - can all agree are downright aggravating examples of the Left’s asinine economic and social platforms.

Examples, you say? Well, here’s three good reasons why all of us can find a reason to dislike liberals - and surprisingly, Rachel Maddow’s haircut never even made the final ballot.

Their Relentless Pursuit of the Next Big Moral Outrage (Which, As Fate Would Have It, May or May Not Be Entirely Fabricated) 

Fun Fact: Liberals NEVER profess judgments on people. Ever. 

“Moral indignation” is to a liberal what unleaded gasoline is to a motor vehicle. Without something to be absolutely (albeit, temporarily) incensed about, the modern day leftie is sort of like a Yugo on cinder blocks; yeah, it’s there, but it’s not really going to be doing anything for awhile.

As a result, liberals actively seek out anything and everything to be blood-boiling-ly upset about, generally making grand (and unfounded) proclamations of guilt, racism, sexism, homophobia and institutional oppression before they even know half the facts of what it is they are so guldarned angered about.

It’s not exactly earth-shattering news that liberals tend to vaunt incidents that behoove their social constructs and ideologies, while “incidentally” ignoring events that slight their claims. For example, everybody on the planet knows who Trayvon Martin and Matthew Shepherd are, but did anybody hear - let alone, go into a full-scale tizzy - over the death of Jesse Dirkhising or the attempted murder of Allen Coon?

One of the central planks in the modern liberal ideology is the reality - the cold, unflinching reality - that Caucasian males (particularly, heterosexual, Anglo-Saxon middle-class types) are THE cause of all evils in humanity. They, and they alone, keep the institutions of racism, sexism, homophobia and classism up and running, and by their mere existence,  they’re automatically marginalizing African-Americans, Hispanics, women, immigrants and homosexuals.

Liberals are in nonstop quest of a story or angle that involves a white male (preferably Christian, preferably straight and preferably middle-class) victimizing a non-white, non-male or non-heterosexual. Hell, you can’t really go more than a week or two without SOME sort of story popping up on the national radar, with the intent of stirring the race/sex/gender/nationality/ethnicity pot. Whether or not the allegations are true are often inconsequential, as seemingly the only thing that matters to most liberals is that the “evil middle-class honky” archetype is brought up every single time we intake a piece of media.

There is more than a smidge of irony here, beginning with the fact that most elected liberals are a.) white, b.) male, c.) straight, d.) of Catholic/Protestant upbringing, and e.) oh yeah, usually rich as hell, too. Being a successful democrat is, in essence, an exercise in telling everybody that all the people like you are the reason why things are so crappy, but YOU are not one of them, somehow, despite looking, sounding and being exactly like the people you blame.

The other irony  is that although liberals are always going on and on about being the party that “cares” about the marginalized, they never seem to pick up on the notion that continuously playing “protector of the downtrodden” is, well, a form of keeping the marginalized even more marginalized. The liberal ideology is that blacks, gays and women really don’t have enough collective social power to stand up against the conservative blowhards, so minority individuals have to place their faith in them to get things done for them. Granted, there’s more blacks, women and gays that self-identify as liberals than conservatives, but looking at the national picture - you know, with all of those senators and congressmen and whatnot - there’s really not that much more diversity than there is on the other side of the aisle.

And so, it is absolutely imperative the liberals continually search out ANY scenario to whip out the “you are being victimized” card. Oddly, the liberal standard isn’t finding a way to empower minorities, but to constantly remind them that society’s against them and that the “majority” wants them marginalized and economically undeveloped. Perhaps this is a smokescreen to cover up the fact that most liberal-backed social programs intended to “level the playing field” don’t necessarily work, or the fact that grandstanding, abstract notions like “racism” and “sexism” are conveniently indefinable constructs that condense complex social issues into easily digestible - although frequently problematic - catchalls.

Unfettered moral outrage is most certainly a vital aspect of contemporary liberalism - unfortunately, a tendency to focus on events as they actually happened, apparently, isn’t as important.

Their Selectivity Regarding What Constitutes a Social Ill (And Then, Being Super Lazy About Addressing and Solving Them) 

(*) Sometimes, anyway....

American liberals champion themselves as the social defenders of homosexuals, minorities and women - in the process, producing this paternalistic effect that, rather ironically, just serves to marginalize them further. But, hey, that’s just one of the inherent hypocritical stances of modern liberal thinking, you know.

Liberals, generally, are quite opposed to poverty, military spending and the use of police force in just about every capacity imaginable. Yet oddly, they tend to turn a blind eye and deafened ear to the plight of impoverished Appalachians, beg and plead U.S. officials to send troops into Africa because a YouTube video told them to and demand the arrest of Ted Nugent because he said some negative things about the President.

Lefties are always going on and on about how much they value the First Amendment, but what do you know? Those same folks are pushing for the passage of “hate speech” legislation that would make it illegal - as in, putting people in jail - for saying things that are politically incorrect. When a member of the New Black Panthers threatens civil violence, lefties rush to his aide, but when a pastor decries gay marriage, all of a sudden, we need a Constitutional amendment to stop him.

A guy that paints pictures of the Virgin Mary using elephant crap? Free expression. A guy wanting to burn a Koran? Unacceptable. Pole dancing bans in Pennsylvania? That’s an abridgment of a woman’s right to earn a living. Meanwhile, Rob Black deserved to spend a month in solitary confinement at a federal prison and Ira Isaacs deserved to get charged for distributing “obscene” material (when one of the judges trying him was a bona-fide pervert himself), because their “works” were degrading to women.

The difference here - and it’s a gargantuan one - between the left and the right is the level of physical involvement deemed necessary by the two ideological camps. For the most part, conservatives and libertarians keep themselves penned in certain enclaves, periodically showing up at Tea Party fundraisers or private screenings of “Atlas Shrugged” - which is just about as social as either of them really get. But liberals, on the other hand, feel an overwhelming need to exert a physical presence on the society at all times - which is why liberals are far, far, far likelier to join a march, rally or protest than their political counterparts. Furthermore, the rapidity by which liberals “get behind” certain causes is far quicker - and often, far less-researched - then when right-wingers get all up in arms (sometimes, literally) over matters.

While liberals are much, much likelier to be outraged about a host of issues, the reality is, they don’t really do anything other than yell, complain, and post bullshit on Facebook in regards to those matters. Liberals are very much what I would call “slacktivists” - you know, the hordes of people that get really, really fiery about an issue (without really doing that much research on the issue), rabble on and on about how wrong whatever it is is, and then…nothing. The really dedicated ones might contribute some money to a PayPal account, but when it comes time to actually address and rectify a social problem, they suddenly become AWOL. Yes, yes, they WANT Joey Kony arrested, but how are they actually going to bring that about? Outside of making YouTube videos and vandalizing private property, pretty much nothing.

Then again, considering how the actively-engaged lefties approach “social improvement,” maybe that’s not necessarily our worst case scenario here…

Their Inability to Come to Grips with Certain Economic Realities 

Several leftists, seen here fighting income inequity by throwing things at police officers.

Watching the “Occupy” movement blossom and subsequently falter has been one of the greatest instances of Schadenfreude humor I have ever witnessed. Even now, I think that all of these kids are in on it together, as some sort of post-modern, meta-joke.

So, you complain about how big business and the military-industrial complex has destroyed the nation? Oddly, they say so using a technology forged by the military-industrial complex, while waving their Apple products in the air like trained seals. They’re mad as hell, but they literally have nothing to say other than “things suck, and they should be better.” Their list of demands - to the best I have interpreted them - has been the disestablishment of the technocracy and socialized benefits for everybody. Oh, and legal weed. Lots and lots of that.

So, the kids want unrestricted individual freedom and a hands-off government, while, at the same time, they want a federal overseer that guarantees them a job (no matter how incompetent they are), free education (no matter how dim they are) and absolute control over industry to insure that we’re not going to get screwed over by corporate interests. These kids are an absolutely impossible mishmash of incongruent ideas and ethics: they’re anarchists that want full social benefits, and social-democrats that want limited government involvement in personal affairs. They, in essence, have no idea what they want out of anything…which incidentally, probably explains exactly why they haven’t been able to find steady employment or graduate from college.

The absolute biggest problem with liberal ideology is an aversion to structure. That’s why right-wing organizations are ALWAYS more soundly assembled then leftist ventures, and why capitalist-conservative initiatives have economic legs that almost always outstand the social-democratic institutions and coalitions that periodically pop out of the ground. Liberals have this bizarre dislike of vertical structures, believing that economic movements can be properly “democratized.” Perhaps you’ve heard of the term “horizontal leadership,” or as it is more commonly known, “shit that doesn’t work.” No matter how much proof you show to a lefty that non-hierarchic financial models just can’t last, they refuse to acknowledge the efficiency and “justness” of traditional organizational systems. You can bicker about the politics all you want, but it’s this attribute that gives conservative operations such a massive advantage over liberal initiatives. Twenty years from now, there were still be a “Focus on the Family,” while unbelievably stupid ideas like “Walkupy” will undoubtedly go the way of the dodo.

This might just be the understatement of all time, but liberals just aren’t good with money. They refuse to acknowledge its importance (or at least, downplay the shit out of it), naively believing that a cause can persist without being a sound business at the same time. Even more ironic is that the social movements that so many leftists vaunt and revere - as in, the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and Gandhi’s protest of British rule - were both movements anchored around a hierarchal business model, with some extremely savvy organizers that knew how to keep funds coming in with minimal expenditures.

More so than any other factor, the liberal’s inability to realize the influence of economics on day-to-day life is the mindset’s greatest single fallacy. Ideally, yes, it would be fantastic if everybody in the nation had free health care and social security benefits, but the amount of money needed to do that in a country with 300 million plus people is an absolutely impossible figure. Yes, ideally, it would be nice if we lived in a reality where military force wasn’t necessary, but seeing as how the U.S. Dept. of Defense is the number one bankroller of scientific and technological undertakings in the country, it’s de-funding would have an immediate negative influence on not only tech sectors, but the fields of medicine and biosciences, too. Yes, trickle-down economics don’t work in “ending” poverty and economic stagnation, but has a deluge of social welfare policies and benefits programs had that much of an influence on turning the tides against sustained unemployment  and under-education numbers?

If you’re looking for a universal reason to deplore liberal thinking, I think that about sums it up: they know everything that doesn’t work…but are completely oblivious to the fact that what they do and think is equally ineffective.

1 comment:

  1. In the last article I read on this blog, you were reviewing Pop-Tarts. This being the next thing I clicked on is a bit jarring. Good article though.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.