The Liberal Contradiction - Their Own
JR Dieckmann - Editor
Remember back in the sixties where modern American liberalism
got its start? They were the days of Woodstock in New York and Woodstock West in
Los Angeles, which, by the way, I attended. They were the days of young people
searching for alternatives to the routines established by older generations. We
wanted to be the pioneers of a new way of life.
There was a war going on in Vietnam and the threat of nuclear
world war. It wasn’t so much the war itself that we objected to, but rather the
fact that we and our friends were being drafted into the Army to participate in
it and many didn’t come back alive. Many took to the streets in protest and many
protested just to be a part of a group and blow off steam. .
The slogan in those days was “Turn on, tune in, drop out.”
Young people quit their jobs with established companies, burned their draft
cards, and their bras, and disappeared into the underworld to escape from the
much feared and hated “Establishment.”
The music of the day was all about love, peace,
drugs, and global unity which worked for small groups but ignored
the larger threats from foreign countries overseas which had other agendas. We
thought we could change the world, but that wasn’t to be.
We were neither Republicans nor Democrats and most didn’t even
vote in the elections. We simply went our own way, out of sight of the system,
and let the rest of the country go it’s way. Communists eager to infiltrate our country saw
their opportunity and took full advantage of it. Nikita Khrushchev stated at the
time “We will take you over from the inside.”
Webster defines the word “Liberal” as “One who is
open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or
established forms or ways; an advocate or adherent of liberalism
especially in individual rights.” Also: marked by generosity: openhanded;
given or provided in a generous and openhanded way; lacking moral restraint; not
literal or strict; broad-minded.”
Under the word “liberalism” we find also: “A theory in
economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on
free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard; a political
philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human
race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of
political and civil liberties.”
That’s what liberals were back in the sixties and
early seventies. It was our intention to detach ourselves from the
government and the establishment, become independent entrepreneurs dependent
only upon ourselves for our survival. We rejected the established rules of
society and encouraged individuality, freedom, and liberty. We found ways to
support ourselves through our own ingenuity. We wanted no ties to the government
or the established system at all.
There is no freedom like the freedom you feel when you wake up
everyday with no commitments or obligations to anyone and have the day free to
do whatever you feel like doing. We survived by taking personal responsibility
for our own lives and provided for ourselves by whatever means we could.
We were interested in gaining intellectual enlightenment
and a better understanding of the world through “mind expansion” which often
involved the use of drugs like pot and LSD but not limited to that. We also
studied alternative social philosophies and religions, most anything that was an
alternate to the current government and establishment that we grew up with.
Some, like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry even
went so far as to study the alternate philosophies of our enemies in books
written by authors like Saul Alinsky, Noam Chomsky, and Karl Marx. They found
those teachings more to their liking than the American system of social liberty
and free enterprise. They never grew up and learned to understand American
history and the American system. They still haven’t.
Fast forward to 2007 and here we find the problem. Liberalism
was the promotion of independence from government, and reliance on the self.
When the Democrat Party began electing liberals to serve in the government, they
tried to incorporate those same principles into the government, which creates a
huge contradiction. You can’t have a government that rejects itself. Liberals
became their own worst enemy.
They believed that somehow they could change the government to
reflect liberal values. That would be like trying to change General Motors into
a Ralph Nader Law Firm. But doing that meant that some basic principles of
liberalism had to be distorted, modified, or ignored.
“As one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of
orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.” This one was easy.
It simply meant that they were free to reject the Constitution and everything
that had grown from it over the past 200 years. Remember the phrase “Change it
or loose it” that came in response to “America, love it or leave it?” Elected
liberals felt that idea could apply in Congress and set about circumventing the
Constitution by using the courts to overrule basic constitutional rights.
“An advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in
individual rights.” This was more of a problem. How can you have
more individual rights by government mandate? Democrats attempted to solve this
problem by granting special rights to minority groups which ignored the fact
that they infringed on the rights of the majority. They simply contended that
majority rights were undesirable and unfair. The minorities needed special
protection by law to make for a level playing field and make everyone
equal. If majorities complained, they
would simply be labeled “racist” and bigots.
“Marked by generosity: openhanded; given or provided in a
generous and openhanded way.”
A very noble trait when the giving is done
from one’s own wealth and possessions. Democrats decided that this trait should
apply to the government and began giving away money that doesn’t belong to them
instead of creating charities in the private sector. They turned the U.S.
government into the largest charity in the world and did it at the taxpayers'
expense and contrary to the Constitution. They’re not too big on giving their
own money to charity but very big on giving other people’s money away to causes
they themselves support. They claim to know best how to spend our money instead
of leaving that up to us.
“lacking moral restraint.” Although the modern
Webster’s Dictionary mistakenly defines this entry as “obsolete,” it certainly
is not. One could argue that it applies to today’s liberals more now than ever.
Abortion, Gay Rights, destruction of the family, Atheism, sex in schools,
pre-marital sex, disregard for the truth, fatherless children, and the
banishment of God from government and the public. So why does Webster now say
this definition is obsolete? Perhaps liberals don’t see these issues as moral
issues since they have practiced them all their lives. In recent interviews,
liberal lawmakers have been asked what they do consider moral issues. Their
responses were always related to financial gain and American corporations, the
very backbone of America.
“Not literal or strict.” Obviously there is no
literal or strict interpretation of the Constitution by Democrats. “It’s a
living document” and subject to change at will. Don’t they wish? But somehow,
“not literal or strict” doesn’t seem to apply to the rules the Democrats make
when it comes to our soldiers fighting a war or interrogating terrorists but it
does apply to immigration laws. In these cases, terrorists and illegal aliens
come under definition #2: “An advocate… of individual rights.”
“Terrorists and illegals have rights too.”
“Broad-minded.” This translates into tolerance for
minorities, enemies of the state, foreign enemies, and anyone who hates America
but agrees with the Democrats and may become a component of their voter base. It
also allows for raising children without morals or discipline to let them expand
their horizons without traditional limits or guidance.
“A theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from
restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and
the gold standard.” This was one of the founding principles of
liberalism that obviously had to be changed when liberals gained power in the
government. “Individual freedom from restraint” came to apply only to elected
officials soliciting bribe money. “Free competition” became affirmative action.
The “self regulating market” just had to be scrapped altogether because it
promoted “big business” and free enterprise which didn’t fit within a socialist
agenda. It became a government regulated market. The “gold standard” became
paper money due to excessive government expansion and spending causing runaway
“A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” No doubt this is where liberals began
changing their name to “progressives.” But progressing towards what? As we’ve
seen, the goal is socialism. “The essential goodness of the human race” tends
now to apply more to our enemies than it does the political opponents of the
Democrats. “Autonomy of the individual” almost made me laugh when I read it.
Autonomy refers to independence, self sufficiency, self rule, and self reliance
of the individual. Democrats now see this as meaning that everyone should be
provided for by the government and thus be free to pursue their individuality.
And as for “protection of political and civil liberties," in the Democrats’ view
this only applies to the left who wish to express their views with street
protests, flag burnings, and other civil discourse. The Democrats don’t seem to
want to extend the protection of political and civil liberties to Joe Lieberman
or people like Rush Limbaugh who disagree with them. They would shut him
down if they could. Unfortunately for them, he’s too smart and rich for them to
The conclusion we have to come to is that liberals in
government today are not liberals at all, they are socialists. I suspect some
are even communists. A true liberal would never set foot inside the halls of
Congress and would just as soon see the government dissolved. The socialists in
the Congress today are trying to do just the opposite, expansion of government
control; raise taxes on individuals and businesses; restriction of individual
freedoms; and turn the country into a commune of their own design with
themselves as rulers of the commune. They have become corrupted by power. They
have become the very thing they hated the most when they were true liberals.