Sunday, November 28, 2004

Liberals: "To hell with values!"

That's the name of a column by leftist Michael Kinsley in the LA Times. Yes, the same LAT that tried to pass off discredited slime as gospel back in '02 when they tried (unsuccessfully) to derail Arnie's "Kaleeforneea" governor campaign.

Anyway, you can read the whole column for yourself, but they make you register with the site to read. So I'll paste in one line, a line that I think sums up liberal attitudes about the role of government:

Liberals' actual motivation — the instinct that a prosperous society ought to mitigate the unfairness of life to some reasonable extent — isn't considered a value.

Kinsley was being sarcastic, in that he felt that said "motivation" by liberals was indeed a value...just not a value as defined by us red-staters.

That line is telling, though, in that I firmly believe that most libs feel that way: the role of government is to "mitigate the unfairness of life." For the love of Pete, how freaking naive can these people be?

A prosperous society is a generous society, but it must always derive from the private level. Note that I had a previous posting about how the rich blue-staters don't give much to charity, but the more modest-income red-staters give the most. A federal government that confiscates the fruits of labor of the producers to "distribute" (a term that should be offensive to all decent Americans) to the non-producers is a government that is paving the road to Hell with good intentions.

Look, we all want to help the less fortunate among us...some of us (red-staters) more so than others (blue-staters), at least when it comes to putting one's money where one's mouth is. One of the main difference between liberals and conservatives is how best to achieve such an admirable goal. Libs want more government, non-libs want more citizen (i.e. private) participation.

Also, like Kinsley says, libs believe that it is the role of government to "mitigate" such (perceived or real) unfairness "to a reasonable extent." Who gets to define what "reasonable" is? Not Clinton, since he doesn't even know how to define "is"...but I digress.

Seriously, who defines "reasonable"? To me, affirmative action is no longer a "reasonable" response to discrimination, past or present...yet there are judges that shove this bigoted policy down our throats! Is that what Kinsley means by mitigation to "a reasonable extent"? Since he's pro-AA, I'd say that yes, it is EXACTLY what he means.

These are the people that must be stopped. Let them be wrong in the op-eds, at the dinner table or family reunion, or over a game of checkers...just don't let them into power to implement their demonstrably-failed ideology into law.