The Reverse Logic Of Liberalism.



The Reverse Logic Of Liberalism.  So much going on in the world... so little understanding to write about.  But let us begin….

One aspect of liberal governing (some may substitute weakness for aspect) is the fact that they are motivated first by ideology and not pragmatism. Up until this week, the best example of this was Obamacare.  The Dems were so excited by the prospect of passing something akin to national health care that they utilized extraordinary legislative means to pass Obamacare.  Once the headlong rush had proven to be successful, Ms. Pelosi, in a moment she and her party rue to this day, made the revealing confession that they had to ”pass it to find out what was in it”.  With 30 some odd executive changes to the “settled law” and counting, it is pretty clear that what was in it did not make a whole lot of sense. 

But now we have a new example of the liberal “I always know better what is good for you than you know for yourself” attitude; it is Obama’s run at increasing overtime pay for many folks.  In this president’s typical approach, what he cannot accomplish legislatively (remember…he had two years with control of both houses and has always controlled at least one), he now seeks to unilaterally expand overtime pay for many salaried workers.  Now there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue and any reasonable person could be swayed either way; it is a complex issue.  However, the classic giveaway to liberal ignorance is the fact that the president does this with executive power and then, after the lights go off and the pens are distributed, he states that he will be conferring with the business sector to discuss the impact of the regulation change.  What is wrong with this picture?  Any practical-thinking individual would recognize that the proper place for consultation with those who are to be affected by regulation changes is BEFORE the regulation is changed.  But in the bizzaro world of liberal politics, the idea rules the day.  The degree of liberal certitude that their ideas about governance, and life in general, are correct is so high that they are totally comfortable in changing the regs or the laws and then letting the chips fall where they may.  The true challenge for them is achieving the “change”, not implementing the “effects”. 

This one particular aspect of liberal philosophy is what maddens me most about them.  Now in all fairness, it must be recognized that conservatives all too often are driven by principle with insufficient heed of collateral impact.  But I do believe that any objective observer would concede that conservative philosophers promote their positions on the basis of real change much more often as compared to the liberal selling points of a better world.  I honestly think that liberals many times hurt their causes by the way they promote them.  Their self-righteous and arrogant attitudes sometimes serve to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; even when their position on the issue might be superior to the conservative alternative.   There ARE legitimate roles for government in our lives; but government is not the be all and end all for this nation’s problems.  The Democrats’ constant allegiance to this mantra exposes them for the blind zealots that they so often become.

The fact that most polls show this nation to be a bit more conservative than it is liberal says to me that Democrats are (a) much better at elections than are Republicans and (b) there is some real substance and value to many liberal positions.  But the continuing practice by Democrats, so exquisitely demonstrated by the president, of thinking ideology first and practical impact second continues to leave space for the Republicans to be a dominate party in opposition, if not in political savy.