by Jack Lee
Here’s one almost too controversial for our hometown newspaper:
Liberals allow you to do more things, they want progress and conservatives cling to old fashion ideas that have outlived their usefulness. They’re stuck in tradition with no original ideas. It is the liberal thinker that inspires us to be more and achieve greater! This is the knee-jerk response those on the left want you to think, but is it really true? Let us examine how lib-er-al liberals really are… and lets measure their deeds, not their words.
The Democratic Party in America is the iconic symbol for liberalism so it’s logical that we should look at their history first. The rise of the party was in the early 1800’s and they were the side that championed slave ownership and violently opposed the emancipation proclamation. What’s so liberal about that? Well, maybe they were not quite ready to wear that noble mantle of a progressive, inspired liberal. Let’s move forward to the turn of the 20th century and see how they are evolving?
The President of the United States is now the former President of Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson. He’s the self declared leader of the progressive movement and when war breaks out in Europe he does what liberals do, he follows his pacifist ideals and we stay neutral. Afterall, war is unhealthy for birds and trees and other living things, right? So Wilson declines to side with Britain and France who are locked in a deadly stalemate with Germany and her allies and the war drags on and on. America is finally compelled by self interests and an attack on a passenger ship that killed a number of our citizens to enter the war in 1918. This was at a time when the heavy losses was overcoming both sides and we made the critical difference for peace by projecting America’s power . Within 12 months the war was over.
It should be noted that when we joined the war President Wilson immediately took exception to the first amendment and suspended free speech. There was to be no criticism of his administration, no idle chatter critical of the war even among individuals, lest they pay a fine equal to $170,000 in today’s money and risk up to 20 years in prison.
Can you imagine that if you were an antiwar protestor in 1918 you would be instantly labeled anti-American? The greatest liberal of the day brought you that and now protesters were subversives and subject to severe penalties!
Wilson demanded and obtained two acts be passed by Congress restraining free speech and redefining sedition and treason. The two sedition acts forbade the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. The new laws also allowed the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver any mail he suspected that might meet those same standards. Of course, this only applied to times “when the United States is in war, but in his day over 1000 war dissenters were convicted an imprisoned. No doubt, Wilson would have jailed tens of thousands during the Vietnam War or thousands more during the Iraq war.
Wilson also brought us the progressive income tax that was only to be kept until the debt from World War I was paid off or so we were told. That has been one of the biggest drains on wealth ever and it’s allowed government to grow beyond all expectations of our founding fathers. It has been the vehicle to pass more regulations, laws and add layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Moreover, with each new law, each new regulation a little more freedom is eroded away forever as government increases its authority over us. And a liberal did it to us.
Skipping forward a few more years to the Great Depression, we find another progressive democrat on his way to historic prominence because of fear and crisis.
In 1930 he was promising to create jobs, bailout industries and even guarantee us an old age pension for every American. He was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who served four terms as President. He brought us the Keynesian formula for economic recovery and spent the nation’s wealth on farm subsidies, government work projects, pork projects and he raised trade tariffs by 50% that started a trade war. This had the unfortunate effect of forcing a sharp decline in American exports. The hardest hit because of this protectionist policy were those whom least could afford it, our small farms. Their exports virtually stopped overnight and this caused many American farmers to default on their loans leading to even more defaults on rural banks. Historians would later use this to characterize the early years of the Great Depression. Roosevelt failed time after time to ever spend enough on government programs to raise America out of depression, that is, until world war two began.
It should be noted now that President Roosevelt signed into law more socialism than any other prior president and changed the course of the nation and governments relationship to its people. This was the start of the Nanny state. Government was expected to be the answer to every problem. This expanded the role of government to a completely new level and it actually delayed recovery from the depression by years, long after some nations like Japan had recovered. Japan did not use lofty socialist methods as found in the Keynesian tactics, they used our own conservative economic principles that were developed in the United States, but never employed.
It’s time to leap ahead, only this time the United States is being hollowed out from the inside like a house full of termites thanks to new heavy handed and obstructive government regulations on business and expanded safety nets (socialism). “Oh, and just what regulations would that be Mr. Conservative, the regulations that protect the little guy from fat cat corporations?”
Remember the first gas crunch, with those long lines at the pumps and high fuel prices? There was no mid-east war, no oil embargos; it was just supply and demand catching up with us as other nations began consuming more of a dwindling supply of oil. In 1981, renewable energy sources amounted to about 7% of our energy consumptions. The Green movement was born and government allied itself with the alternative fuels lobby. Today after billions of dollars spent renewable energy supplies about 6.7% of our total energy needs. How could this be if green energy was as good, cheap and clean as claimed? Market forces would have pushed us in their direction but just the opposite has happened. One reason for this is the leaders of the Green lobby are more interested in block oil production than developing a new technology to replace it. This obstructionism under the guise of clean air has given government an expanded role with more authority to regulate the oil industry.
This kink in the old gasoline supply line recently brought us $4 a gallon gasoline. That amount was just short of the Green’s target goal of $5 a gallon gasoline. The Green lobby hoped this $5 a gallon gasoline would be the tipping point to force us to use ethanol or corn based fuel and they have had a heavy influence on producing those multi-fuel vehicles nobody uses.
Some people refer to the Green’s real agenda at the Watermelon theory for wealth redistribution; it is green on the outside, but as red as Karl Marx blood on the inside. Ironically, this will only prolong America’s oil addiction. Economics 101: Instead of trying to raise oil prices to force us into other renewable fuels we should be trying to discover ways to lower alternative fuel prices to make them more marketable. Obstructing, forcing, coercing….this is progress? This is freethinking liberalism?
Liberals have come up with things like a windfall profit tax, royalty fees, exploratory fees and cap and trade tax to take away some of the profits from big oil, more of the Watermelon theory at work?
Economics 101: When you tax something too much you discourage people from doing it or your move them to more favorable business climates. President Obama’s new taxes on gulf oil production and increased royalty fees has given us more reason to import foreign oil, not less.
The more we rely on foreign oil sources the less control we have over our own environment and the more control foreign polluters have.
Thanks to liberal policies, our government owns an 80% share of Chrysler and GM owes us $50bn. Does anyone see a conflict of interest here? Government is meddling in the private sector and setting an undue influence over the kinds of cars those institutions might produce which would affect their global competitiveness.
Do you recall Sen Al Franken’s Employee’s Free Choice Act? It was to make it easier for employees to join unions. But, it starts off with removing the secret ballot. Under this law everyone would know how you vote. It holds employees subject to intimidation by union thugs. If this is such a wonderful idea why don’t we have public balloting in federal elections? Al Franken says he’s a liberal and wants to help the little guy. Sounds like he is a union lacky, but then wasn’t it union money that helped put him in office?
To be continued. . .
I really wanted to read this, Jack.
Unfortunately, I could not get past the false premise of the first sentence in the second paragraph.
I’m sorry, Jack. You have been lied to. There is NOTHING liberal about the democrats! Nothing. They are leftist authoritarians–they do not believe in liberal ideals any more than the Republicans do. They are frighteningly similar to Republicans, in that their first allegiance is to the same people the Republicans bear allegiance to.
Quentin, the left has hijacked the name liberal and for that reason alone I have to address their self anointed title. I hope you can bring yourself to get over this technicality because I really think you would enjoy some of my points.
Jack, here is some more liberal think for you —
“Progressive” propaganda organ Pacifica has scored a huge hit on “Democracy Now!” with a revealing interview of deep green author and activist Derrick Jensen, the poet/philosopher of the environmentalist movement.
Some fascinating quotes —
“… because if my father would have been perfect, 90 percent of the large fish in the oceans would still be gone, and Coca-Cola would still be destroying aquifers in India, and 25 percent of all women in this culture would still be getting raped.”
(Wow, his daddy must have been one mean dude.)
“Civilization is not and can never be sustainable.”
“… the truth is theres only one level of technology thats sustainable. And thats the Stone Age. And well be there again some day.”
http://tinyurl.com/JensenInterview
Q: “There is NOTHING liberal about the democrats! Nothing.”
How would any of our readers, and presumedly your readers, know what you think by this statement? It offers nothing of use, only loads of boring contempt.
Progressives have little appreciation for the ingeniousness of our founding documents. These provide the perfect context (freedom, private property, and the rule of law) for great achievement and prospertiy. These include generous and charitable acts that more perfectly uplift and contribute to those suffering in poverty or despair.
Misguided thinking finds the progressive placing faith in government bureaucracy, rather than himself. Historically progressive policies have led to greater poverty, social dispair, oppression and death yet progressives cling to them with blind fervor.
Wealth transfer and handouts both demean and fail recipients, keeping them stuck in hopelessness. Meanwhile, productive citizens are robbed of their property so that the means to create greater opportunity for e veryone is diminished. One has to ask…if progressives really care about “helping other” why don’t they get more personally involved? Why don’t they place their own money art risk? Could it be that power and control are the real motivating factors of progressive thought? Why yes, I believe so.
Jack and Tina I found this article informative, a refresher course of social studies of sort. I see now that I must have slept through my classes more than I realized. However I can hear my teachers voice while reading this
The term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: it was formed as an alternative to both the traditional conservative response toward social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them.
This time in history included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 was less successful than the 1912 version.
I liken the progressive party to that of any organized union, they both started with ideals of better conditions, and the elimination of abuse by a few over many. How they both lost their path can be summed up in one word POWER My opinion is if the idea of progressivism were born today and without their current voting alliance, I could only think they would be the point of attack by this newly formed party. Hummmm, maybe thats what is really happening with the Tea party, a direction and a new party formed by a disenfranchised public, wouldnt that be ironic, A elder parties own spawn rising against the corrupt parent. And if we are totally honest in our thinking we would have to eliminate some of the more notable progressive members of Congress which include the likes of Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi and Paul Wellstone. Yes there are some Conservatives (Rinos) that need retirement as well. So I would offer this to Q, You should read it all, for it is documented the majority of progressives run for office under a democratic banner.
This history lesson brings to mind a weakness in the conservative Republican…and this is going to cause hair raising screams from our progressive friends. That weakness is a big heart. Conservative Republicans do care about the plight of the less fortunate. We have great respect for them as well realizing that most have the means within themselves to ovcercome adversity and become (happy) contributing members of society.
Our progressive friends have used this weakness to argue against us labeling us as cruel. This is how they win Republican votes for progressive programs in Congress and how they win a lot of votes in elections. it’s pretty easy to demonize those who ask something of a person instead of giving him a handout. This is gutter politics at it’s most destructive in terms of the overall success of our citizens.
We must learn to counter this by refusing to buckle under to name calling tactics. We can do that by communicating our position with greater clarity. No one wants the elderly poor, the disabled, or the infirm to suffer without help from his fellow man. But we can do that better as individuals within the private sector. The rest of us need to be productive citizens and our government policies should all seek to support and encourage just that!
If you are serious about having a rational discussion of history and politics, it is essential to free your communications from the factoids on which 90% of your article is based. For example, the infamous Hawley-Smoot Tariff that widened the depression was passed during the Republican Hoover administration in 1930. Hawley and Smoot were Republican Senators, It was Hoover’s second major tariff hike since the 1929 crash. Wilson did say that America was ‘too proud to fight’, but he wasn’t alone in opposing entry into the war. The Republican Party opposed it as well, and kept Roosevelt from siding with Britain until Pearl Harbor. Both parties had good reason for staying out of WWI. The Kaiser was obnoxious but no Hitler, the war was over imperial ambitions, and it resulted in a horrendous slaughter. Wilson became convinced that we had to go to war to prevent the Germans from conquering all of Europe, not just because of submarine attacks. He was sending the Brits all the aid he could, and only way the Germans could stop it was submarines. News flash: there is a difference between a lie and the truth. Only the dishonest and the truly stupid willingly accept lies and deliberately misleading statements as the basis for discussion. After reading your article I would never believe a word you said unless I could check it.
CBorgia, you missed the most obvious point of this article. This was an assessment of the left’s conduct to see how liberal and free thinking they really are, it was not about conservatives so therre was no equal time due.
Maybe sometime I can do another article on how conservative Republicans really are, but this was not the time.
Every point here made was accurate.
“After reading your article I would never believe a word you said unless I could check it.”
Indeed yes. My first response for many many months now has been to go to the source of anything posted here, which has generally dissuaded from even attempting a response.
La La Land. To such non-factual, irrational postions there is no response … only a hope that a renewed committment to public education will see that it isn’t catching.
Libby speak for my side is looking bad and can’t really be defended: “My first response for many many months now has been to go to the source of anything posted here, which has generally dissuaded from even attempting a response.”
Gee Libs…here’s your chance to shine. Tell us, oh educated one, what has Jack written that is sogrossly inaccurate? Tell us, brave girl, how he is wrong…
But do keep in mind his article ends with, “to be continued”.
Libby, I think deep down you known you’re on the wrong side and there is a part of you that wants to break free, but you are so heavily invested in defending the irrational left. I believe tou know what I wrote is the truth about them, but you just stay tuned because I have a whole lot more coming and you’re going to love it, I promise. It will help you step away from the dark side.
LIB and CB, Maybe we need to post links for the non- believers. I have never read anything, ANYTHING here that was not supported in fact by more than one article on the subject, along with some great opinions. Instead of reading the 10 most popular liberal blogs about subjects dear and holy to their cause, like maybe: Michelle Obama Is Totally Fine With Creepy Comments About her arms, at Wonkette: Wonkette The D.C. Gossip you could just stay here and watch Jack and Tina bring forth real issues that face Americans today.
Just taking a break from homework for a second. Harold, you are aware that Ted Kennedy has already been, um, “eliminated,” to borrow your terminology?
Yep Chris ,I am and we all are, Sir Kennedy, the lying lion of the Senate was why he was first on the list. Your right though I should have put him in past-tense, instead of ‘include the likes of’ people we still need to eliminate. Now I did prescribe a death sentence to all those others, but I wonder what we would be saying if Mary Jo could present her side of why she is gone as well, that might be interesting study lesson as well. your jab was noted, now back to your books and get learn-ed more better. 🙂