This is especially true for Progressives

Ideology of a Liberal

by Frank DeMartini
Since the health care debate has wound down a little as a result of President Obama’s speech on Wednesday which, by the way, was pure rhetoric and seen by the general public and pundits as a failure because of its lack of new ideas and detail, I have decided to tackle a subject other than health care reform in this article. What makes a liberal tick? Why are there such major differences between the two parties in this country?

The other day I was playing on Facebook and saw a number of posts from my liberal friends regarding health care. The comments posted were all similar. No one should go without health care in this country and no one should go broke because they got sick. Why only liberals would post this amazes me, because there are not too many people in the world that disagree. However, it is just not that simple.
In response, I posted a few comments. The majority of them were along the line of “Yes, I agree too, but who is going to pay for it and how is it going to work?” Almost universally, the liberal responses were either “The Rich,” or “Bring the Troops Back from Iraq and Afghanistan.” I then realized that most thinking from Liberals is not based upon logic. In fact, from these responses, it appears liberal thinking is idealist and based upon emotion. This has been argued in the past by both Ann Coulter and Dennis Prager among others. I now agree.
Whether you agree with the War on Terror is not the issue. The troops are committed. You cannot simply bring them back. To think that bringing them back can be accomplished overnight is not to think realistically. You must leave them there as long as necessary to accomplish your goals or to train the local military to do it themselves. In Iraq because of the surge, this is quickly happening. In Afghanistan, it is a different story.
The Afghanistan situation is beginning to look like Vietnam. Either we make the commitment to beat the Taliban or we will be involved in a war of attrition which cannot be won. President Obama must take the steps necessary to accomplish the goal. Anything short of that will give the Taliban and Al Qaeda the foothold they need to take over the Afghanistan government again and to possibly move on Pakistan to get control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This is unacceptable.
The second response “The Rich” is also idealistic. How much more taxation do you think the rich are going to take before they completely revolt? The middle class and blue collar workers at the Tea Parties on Saturday show that they are fed up. And, they are not paying nearly as much of their income as the rich. If you add another 5% to the marginal tax rate as proposed in HR 3200, most of The Rich will be paying almost 50% of their income in taxes before state income taxes are even considered. In California and New York, that is more than 10%. (This analysis includes sales taxes, property taxes, luxury taxes, etc., as well as income taxes and other income withholding). And, you wonder why people are leaving California for Nevada, Arizona, Washington and other low tax states by the thousands. People; rich, middle class or poor, will just not tolerate more.
As shown by the previous examples, both responses given me last week by the liberals are just not realistic. They are based upon emotion. There is no logic behind them. Hence we have the major difference. Conservatives think logically and based upon the reality seen in facts and figures. Liberals think emotionally and from idealistic goals and ambitions. The two do not mix.
Let us examine a few other examples:
What about the current Administration’s outlook on foreign affairs? President Obama, during his campaign, said that he would talk and negotiate with the radicals in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. Since he has become President, what has this policy gotten him; nothing. Iran continues its nuclear ambitions unabated. Venezuela continues poking its nose at the United States and its President. And, North Korea does whatever it wants and will soon, not only have nuclear weapons, but will also have missiles capable of delivering them.
Most recently, the tape from Osama Bin Laden is just another example of the failure of President’s Obama’s policy. After his speech in Egypt, everyone on the left believed the Radical Moslems would change their attitude towards the United States. All one has to do is listen to Bin Laden’s tape released in the last two days to realize that the emotional based thinking of the left is a far cry from the realism of the situation.
In the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the President says that Israel should cease building settlements. The Prime Minister of Israel agrees in principle provided that the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinians say ‘no’ and Israel continues its expansion into the West Bank. Another failure of idealism on the Administration’s part
Those that truly understand foreign affairs could have predicted these outcomes. Learning from the past and the use of logic as done by conservatives, works. The emotion and idealism of the left does not. The Left’s desire for everything to be right and for everything to be fair controls their policy. Unfortunately, this is not reality. And, hopefully, President Obama is beginning to get it now too. All evidence however is to the contrary.
The same is true with “Cap and Trade” and “Health Care Reform.” Both liberal positions are based upon idealism and emotion. Everyone would like to lower carbon emissions and make the environment a better place. Everyone would love universal health care. But, the fact of the matter is that “Cap and Trade” will cause many businesses in this country to fail and for those that do not fail, there will be many lost jobs. The realism behind Health Care Reform or any of the plans under consideration by Congress now would bankrupt the country. There is no plan that is revenue neutral at this point.
In all of these situations, the liberal agenda is fueled by idealism and emotion. Maybe, if liberals started thinking logically and based upon the realities of the world, there would be less partisanship in Congress and more could be accomplished. Emotion is no way to govern this or any other country.