The Condescending Nature of Liberalism
Liberalism is condescending.
We cannot expect the media either to accept or report this. And we can't expect the Democrats to boldly proclaim it.
Though the evidence of this truth is everywhere for those who seek to understand, it's up to conservatives to explain and articulate this.
At it's core, modern Liberalism is against individual choice.
Oh, Liberals may claim to be 'Pro-Choice,' but that's not reality at all.
In fact, outside of defending a woman's 'right' to an abortion and an illegal alien's 'right' to enter our country at will, you may have difficulty in identifying other choices the so-called 'Pro-Choice Party' supports. I certainly do.
Just think about it.
I have heard some (or in some cases, many) Liberals argue against choice in these areas.
- Choosing to carry a gun legally
- Choosing where you send your child to school
- Choosing to reopen or visit a non-essential business during the covid crisis
- Choosing to use a plastic straw
- Choosing to drink a large soda in New York City
- Choosing to join (or not join) a union
- Choosing if and how you help those who are in need
- Choosing to listen to a conservative speaker on campus
- Choosing to say something branded as hate speech
- Choosing to believe there are only 2 genders
- Choosing to believe humanity is not responsible for climate change
God created us with the capacity - and the right - to choose.
The government didn't give you that right; it only acknowledged it.
And that's a very good thing.
But it didn't create it. And if it didn't create it, it also cannot take it away.
Choice is good. Force is bad.
At the risk of oversimplifying things, it's generally true to say that choice is good and force is bad.
But as with most everything else, there are exceptions.
When I was in school, they taught us that we have the freedom to swing our arm until the point at which someone else's nose begins. The saying went something like this: "Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." So there are some choices that we can - and should - deem illegal: namely those choices that infringe upon someone else's life, liberty or property.
The most obvious example is the choice to physically harm someone. That should not be permitted in society as it is a clear abuse of someone else's rights.
Note that I say we should deem those choices illegal, not that we can prevent them, because we simply cannot do that. Liberalism thinks it can eliminate bad choices simply by stating that they're bad. Or by ordering someone not to do it. But that isn't the way the universe works, is it?
Likewise, force is usually bad. It's certainly bad when used preemptively and provocatively. But is it bad to use force to stop someone else from using force? Of course not! But I have sat through classes with professors who would argue with me about this seemingly obvious truth. In fact, I distinctively remember one professor saying that he would not physically intervene even to stop his wife from being assaulted.
That, my friends is not noble. It's cowardly and confused.
Ultimately, government is force. And because of that truth, government is officially the point at which our choices end - or are at least severely restricted.
This is why our Founders sought to create a limited government.
And it's also why some, like James Madison, said things like, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
So, since government is force, and Almighty God created us to be free, the Founders wisely framed a government that would seek to do as little as possible while still being able to protect the life, liberty and property of everyone.
No choice for you!
Our freedom to choose needs to be vigorously defended at all times because it is a right given to us by God. Furthermore, we are all individuals, and what constitutes a 'good choice' for one person may not be a desired choice for another. Besides, why should our government even try to manage the affairs of its citizens? We are individuals with varying interests, preferences, hopes, dreams and priorities.
Conservatives & Libertarians understand this.
But this isn't how modern Liberalism works.
Liberals believe, through their near superhuman powers, that they can make a general determination as to which decision is best and then codify it into law.
Anyone who believes he has the knowledge, authority and wisdom to make such determinations for every single human being under his jurisdiction (and probably those outside his jurisdiction, too) is by defintion incredibly arrogant.
And, as such, this makes modern Liberalism a very condescending worldview.