Why I am Not a Liberal

Why I am Not a Liberal

I understand most liberal/progressive principles, and sometimes times wish that I could adopt some of these values for myself.  Several friends and family have liberal/progressive views and back the democrat party.  They are upstanding, well-adjusted citizens, strong in their beliefs, who feel that their political orientation is what is best for the country.  In discussions with these friends it emerges that they feel that their approach to government helps the poor and under-privileged at the expense of the wealthy, who can afford to do so.  They also feel that specific groups in society should be identified and granted privileges out of proportion to the rest of society, since they were marginalized in the past.  They strongly espouse compassion for those less fortunate, and are quite prepared to initiate programs to help them. 

They feel that the constitution is a “living” document, to be interpreted and modified to fit the mores of a changing society.  They also feel that it is the responsibility of government to provide care and succor for all people.

It would be personally gratifying to be able to feel empathy with those less fortunate and propose measures for their betterment.  It would be intellectually stimulating to eschew all of those archaic trappings of religion and ethics and morals that are such a drag on human progress and enlightenment.  It would edifying to be able to assign labels like “racist”, “misogynist”, “homophobe” to those that oppose these highly altruistic views, all in the spirit of “political correctness”.  It would be self-satisfying to characterize people less intellectual than me as subject to my and my peer’s superior programs and leadership, particularly as regards increased socialization of resources and redistribution of wealth.

It would also be great to identify with those college professors, preponderance of media pundits and Hollywood entertainers that also have progressive and elitist views.  Surely this prevalance of opinion among such a distinguished grouping of high caliber folks justifies opinions and political views advocated by them.  Such exalted company would certainly justify and welcome my participation and membership.  Higher taxes and bigger and better central government will surely result in better lives for everybody in society.  Just look at the superior intellectual nature of the people that would be running the show.  The “nanny state” with us running it would work just fine.

But alas, I am too American exceptionalist, too patriotic, too self-resilient, too self-reliant, too proud of our country and ALL of the people in our country, and not only concerned with special privileges to certain sub-groups.  I also refuse to identify with a secular elitism and political correctness that divides the country according to identity groups, and fosters guilt rather than pride in our country.  I am more laissez-faire than Keynesian in my economic views, to the extent that is possible in our complex world economy.  I am decidedly averse to the “nanny state.””

But alas again, I find myself as affiliated with a RINO congress that can’t seem to accomplish anything, and a trainee president that’s still feeling his way on many issues, but this is a separate issue.

I found an interesting article on liberalism which I paraphrase and excerpt below.

“The whole point of liberal compassion is for empathizers to feel better when awareness of another’s suffering provokes unease. But this ultimate purpose does not guarantee that empathizees will fare better.  The pathology of pathological altruism is not the failure to salve every wound.  It is, rather, the indifference—blithe, heedless, smug, or solipsistic—to the fact and consequences of those failures, just as long as the empathizer is accruing compassion points that he and others will admire.

It follows, then, that the answer to the question of how liberals who profess to be anguished about other people’s suffering can be so weirdly complacent regarding wasteful, misdirected, and above all ineffective government programs created to relieve that suffering—is that liberals care about helping much less than they care about caring. Because compassion gives me a self-regarding reason to care about your suffering, it’s more important for me to do something than to accomplish something. Once I’ve voted for, marched for or against, given a speech about, written an editorial endorsing, or held forth at a dinner party on the salutary generosity of some program to “address” your problem, my work is done, and I can feel the rush of my own pious reaction. There’s no need to stick around for the complex, frustrating, mundane work of making sure the program that made me feel better, just by being established and praised, has actually alleviated your suffering.”

So I will continue in my conservatism/libertarianism, not because it makes me feel good, but because I think it’s right for the country.

Just to be clear on a couple of major points, I am against abortion because like it or not, science has determined that this is taking human life.  While not entirely happy with the trend toward secularism, I am not specifically opposed to same sex marriage, nor to legalization of marijuana, since these are not directly harmful to society.  I call a halt at polygamy, euthanasia and other possible libertarian practices toward which we could follow the same line of reasoning.

I know more about firearms and their safety and accuracy than most people because I was engaged in high power accuracy target shooting and its technical aspects as sport for a number of years.  I believe that increased security, proper education, identification of potentially disturbed persons, increased attention to mental health and common sense control of who can buy a gun, all will help in preventing mass shootings.

Ray Gruszecki

February 23, 2018