Editor’s Page

By Christy Wiseman

Definitions and Delusions - Am I a Closet Liberal?


Liberal Closet

In our politically charged climate, it is tempting to annoint one’s point of view with a glorious definition of what the associated side represents. It makes choosing a side comfortable, easy and very self satisfying.  

If being a liberal on the national scene means being “generous, tolerant, broad-minded and favoring reform and progress” then count me in!  I’m a liberal!!  Down with conservatives!

Wait - It seems each side has made some positive contributions. The right voted 80% in congress to  give minorities and women the right to vote, whereas the percentage of the left congressmen voting to do so was in the lower 60th percentile.

It seems the vote was largely regional and was greatly enhanced by the effort of Hubert Humphrey, who had originally split the party in 1948 with his quest for equal rights for all.  Getting enough votes to pass this legislation involved both parties and while signed by a Democratic president, it was achieved by votes from both parties, the greater percentage of which were Republicans, with the “southern segregationists” senators resisting.

The real sin of liberalism right now is not in their caring for the less fortunate, but in pandering to those among the less fortunate who game the system rather than doing what they can to find gainful employment and personal integrity.  

The lowering of requirements for the freebies is more a ploy for getting a vote, allowing a congressman to stay in power, than a concern for the self actualization of the individuals involved.

Those in power are gaming the system in their own way.  The laundering of the “Clinton Foundation” funds in Canada to avoid U.S. taxes, is one example.  True, when pressured by congress, they filed at least 5 form 1040X’s and paid undisclosed amounts of taxes rather than being put in jail, but that in terms of integrity is unimpressive. 

Are conservatives any better? NO, unfortunately. Instead of actually representing the people and the ideologies they espouse, our politicians seem only concerned with getting re-elected resulting in a society in which over half the country is “on the take” and feeling entitled to be so.

The real issue isn’t liberalism or conservatism, it’s immorality, greed, and duplicity festering and destroying the very fiber of our great country.  No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but we’re trying to do just that.

Speaking of Jesus, as the previous editorial did, He wanted people to help the poor and the helpless.  Even in His time, He did not suggest giving money to Rome so they could do that for Him.  Maybe there’s a lesson there?  He also suggested teaching a man to fish, rather than giving him a fish, so that the recipient could become self-reliant.

Does today’s modern liberal  believe that the collective is more important than the individual?  If so the state controls the collective and the elite controls the state.  What of individualism, independence, self-reliance, autonomy or personal liberty?  

Shades of Moussolini.  It is, at least to me, disturbing.

Laws are written to protect thieves from their victims.  Greed is now defined as “daring to want to keep what you have earned.”  

Wanting to take from me that which I have earned so that you may “benevolently” use it to buy someone else’s vote is somehow noble and honorable.

Stop!  I want to rejoice in the song of the birds in the morning; in the pleasure of friendships, and in the joy of personally helping others. 

Please no more political definitions which matter not and whose ulterior motives are to divide rather than to unite.  

Let’s focus, instead on the real problems threatening our country and reach across the aisle to work together to solve them.  I’m through “tilting at windmills” of definitions while ignoring the real beast at the door.


Pin It


#4 Marcel Woland 2016-09-09 03:54
I almost neglected to say that I found the editorial stimulating and one that opened the doors to discussion. Thank you.
But my lengthy earlier post is proof of that already.
As for a solution? I do not know of an example of an oligarchic dynasty lightly letting of power. There was a recent example in the USSR of Gorbachev, but that was not a dynasty, and certainly not a dual one. I fear I will just keep singing my morning song: "A pox on both your houses."
#3 Marcel Woland 2016-09-09 03:42
It looks like another paradigm shift if not an act of magical shape-shifting has occurred in the smokey, mirrored kingdoms of our enfeebled Western politics. The Democratic Party has become the party of perpetual war,extra-judic ial murder, political retribution and repression, neo-McCarthyism , massive corporate donations and a surly, lightly veiled anti-Arab variety of antisemitism.

If the pathetic (and probably complicit) Bernie Sanders picked the pockets of the struggling citizenry, the Clinton Foundation has trawled the International Corporate sector and the various quasi-dictators hips of the Middle East and beyond.

Clinging to my calming mantra of "a pox on both your houses" I was surprised to find that the unspeakably vulgar and pretentious Trump has been increasingly seeming less disgusting than the pretentious and vulgar Lord and Lady MacBeth-Clinton.

But what most intrigues me is how the citizenry has managed to not notice that the US is no longer a Democracy or a Republic but a sort of rotating Oligarchic Dual Dynasty, with interregnum caretaker governments like Obama's to do the metaphorical 'clean up in aisle four'. Voting, under the circumstances, appears to be a masochistic act of self-mockery.

Sad to say, Canada is little better, with another Trudeau in power to finally undo the nation-building which his father began, like a snake eating its own tail.

Reflecting on our long-suffering Continent compared to the days of, let's say, Juarez, Kennedy and Pierre Trudeau, I am reminded of what Hamlet said, comparing his his dead father to his usurper uncle Claudius:
"So excellent a king, that was to this, Hyperion to a Satyr."
#2 Norman Opdenhoff 2016-09-06 12:48
Well said. Our current candidates are a reflection of how broken our political system has become.
#1 Tiger 2016-09-05 20:24
:lol: This is a beautifully elegant answer to a rather thorny problem: What to do about the people who write laws with titles designed to make them look good, but content which serves mostly to tighten their personal control and expand their little empires.

I feel the need to comment here on an issue which I fear the good people on the Left will hammer you for. You very correctly said the Right freed the slaves and gave Equal Rights to women and minorities, while the Left fought them tooth and nail. The Leftist Democrat argument to that telling bit of history is to attempt to trade their racist roots for the righteous actions of the Right.
"The Parties Switched Ideologies!!!" they will insist. When pressed, the words "Nixon's Southern Strategy!!" will be spewed forth. Yes. The GOP traditionally did very poorly in the racist southern states (with their silly notions of Equality and Minority Rights.) Leftist Racist Democrats held sway, and the GOP wanted more voters there. Duh.
There isn't a single shred of evidence to support that notion. A bit of innuendo and a change in voting patterns 50 years later, does NOT a "paradigm shift" make. There are no records of Southern Voters suddenly changing parties en mass in the Sixties. There are a VERY small number of Democrat politicians switching to Republican over that period, but in no more significant numbers than any other period in American history.
So, when they assail you for daring point the truth out to them about their deeply hate-filled, racist past, rest assured you were right the first time; the Left is a horrible place to govern from, and socialism kills.

Add comment

Security code

 Find us on Facebook