Epiphany of Distinction.  After living in this world for over 60 years, I believe that I have finally realized the difference between a liberal and a conservative.  Now let me be clear; I did not say “the difference between a Democrat and a Republican”.   I did not say that because based on my life experience, all Democrats are not liberals and all Republicans are not conservatives.  As further clarification of my clarification, I do not mean liberal in the social sense or in the fiscal sense; I do not mean conservative in the foreign policy sense or in the judicial sense.  I am speaking about these terms as they pertain to a general philosophy of life; a guiding principle that colors all that makes up an individual.  I have always known there was a difference between a liberal and conservative and, being a moderate conservative myself, have sought to define how I am different from those liberals that I have so heartily disagreed with over the years.  However, I could never clearly, in a general sense, quantify what this difference is.  I think I now can.  Like many things in life, it begins as a simple choice and over time and through a series of compound equations and unintended consequences, it evolves into a way of life that in many ways does not resemble what it was first intended to be.

My wife and I were keeping our grandchildren with us for a couple of days; they are a 2 year old boy and a 3 year girl.   These are our first grandchildren and we are both shamelessly overindulgent with them; her much more than me.  I am recognized in the family as the hard case, the disciplinarian, otherwise known as “mean old papaw”.  Upon awakening this morning, the kids ate only a minor portion of the breakfasts prepared for them by their grandmother and it was my position that there would be no more food or snacks until lunch time.  My wife found this to be unreasonable because, after all, they are just children and must have nourishment.  As I typically do, I went my way with my belief and she went hers; the kids got pretty much what they wanted the rest of the morning.  The distinction I see in our two approaches was that of discipline; I required it and she did not.  And that, my friends, is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.  Not only does a liberal lack behavioral discipline, they tend to demonize it.  Now when I say a liberal lacks discipline, I don’t mean they are weak and unable to “stick to the task” at hand.   Quite the contrary, I have found their reliance and resolve quotients about the same as conservatives.  I am talking about that general philosophy of life.  Let me try to explain.

My position is that the kids will learn from being hungry to take full advantage of morning food being offered to them in the future.  This in turn will hopefully lead them to recognize this principle in other walks of life and lead them to a higher level of accountability.  On the other hand, if we allow them to eat when they wish, they lose respect for the appointed meal times in their lives and reasonably develop a poor view of those who demand a certain degree of rigidity in those meal times.  Are they prepared for their elementary school careers where there will be appointed meal times or will they rebel against those schedules as being arbitrary and nonsensical?  Will they demand the same casual attitude from their teachers and peers that they have grown so comfortable with at home?  Will this lead to a certain tolerance for those who wish to nibble throughout the day rather than eat on a conventional tour?  Will they tend to view those who adhere to the conventional tour as narrow-minded and unenlightened?  Will this permissive attitude about meal times extend to study schedules, work careers, and other aspects of their lives as they grow and mature into adults?

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes, of course.  Is this an extension of the elementary into the complex?  Absolutely yes.  However, who can deny that we as a society have become so tolerant, and supportive of tolerance, and so politically correct, and supportive of political correctness, that we have managed to dilute some of the fundamental things that create our true worth as individuals?  Accepting the reality of mediocrity and promoting mediocrity is two entirely different things; and perhaps the line between them has been blurred.  While recognizing and defending the rights of individuals to be different, to be themselves, to be non-conformist as compare to the bulk of society, and to live a life with narcissistic blinders, have we not diminished the alternative, and many times more difficult, choices that are made by most people in our nation?  There is an old saying that has been used by Alexander Hamilton, Ginger Rogers, and Malcolm X (how’s that for diversity?) that goes…”If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.  Standing and fighting for right and wrong, for clear principles of fairness, and for protection of the weak will always be honorable; but to promote tolerance simply for the sake of tolerance is nothing more than a parody on paving that highway to Hades with good intentions.  It can only lead to a culture where no one is accountable, no one is decisive, and our people simply devolve down to a level of civilized anarchy.  Could that be the “new normal” that we hear so much about these days?  When we as a society consider tolerance, it is essential that we first examine the true value of that being tolerated before we debate the actual practice of tolerating it.