Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Liberalism...societal change, lifestyle...or mental disorder?

This past week or so I have been battling government bureaucratic stupidity and the inertia it produces. I have battling customer service focused enterprises in the free market, only to find that big government stupidity has reached deep into the collective activities of many corporations.

This gave me cause to stop and think. Why is the world moving in the direction it is heading? Why don't people do their jobs any more? Why is it that nothing happens smoothly, and customer service departments find themselves over-run with irate customers?

These are big questions, and as one of those irate customers, I need to try to find a logical answer. Only then can a solution be found.

In my way of thinking, I believe many of this county's woes (and indeed those of the world) have been a direct result of a fundamental change in the way people think.

This fundamental change has been labeled many things....liberalism, progressivism, semi-socialism....but it has never, to my knowledge, been named exactly what it is...STUPIDITY.

I have come to the conclusion that liberalism has to be one of three things:-
1) a societal system whereby everyone gets everything they want regardless of effort
2) a lifestyle where liberals can go around being all inclusive of everybody else, not judging anyone and  living in a world of peace because they want it so (of course, all-inclusive excludes all conservatives, whites, heterosexuals and Christians - if you fall into one or other of these categories, the all-inclusive rules do not apply)
3) a mental disorder

In an honest attempt to understand, I will look at each of the three things listed above individually.


A part-time and not very interested reader of history will soon discover one truth above all others. The human ability to always be searching for a societal system that represent greater freedom, greater flexibility, greater opportunities for success. In fact, mankind's ability to survive against the harshest of weather, and the dangers posed by animals that are faster, stronger and better equipped for the climate and hunting, is testament to his ability to evolve and adapt to the circumstances. This is seen in all cultures from the most primitive New Guinea tribes to the most sophisticated ancient modern man. The search for an improvement in life has never ceased and is unlikely to ever stop.

Along the way there have been many failed experiments. Systems of societal life have been hypothesized and tried. Mankind's numerical expansion required learning of different skills for hunting, feeding the tribe, nurturing the children and providing a structure that allows the next generation to thrive.

The transition from small independent tribes to nations was the direct result of a need to combine tribes for protection, to develop political structures for beneficial security from outsiders. Armies grew for defense and in some cases expansion. Borders were created to delineate the areas controlled by groups of tribes. Nations grew from disparate tribes all holding similar views of culture and lifestyle.

Mankind's history is filled with change, filled with experimentation, filled with successes and failures. And definitely full of progress.

Of great interest is the structures that have succeeded most. The monarch type society has been very successful and has created generally happy nations with successful development over long periods of time. Most of Europe developed under monarchical system, initially at the local level with local chiefs or warlords and then ultimately at a national level where one person found him/herself as having supreme power over a number of tribes. The industrial revolution was a major success under a monarchical system. Along the way and since there have always been the dictatorial systems, the mad men that want complete power, and the influence of the Church (Christian and Muslim) which try to obtain power through creating rules that effect the way you live your life.

Socialists watched the church and saw how power can be transferred by changing the way people think. The early socialists sought to remove the power of the church and replace it with the power of free thought. They changed the meanings of words, they created class warfare, they supported the people and taught their followers that equality was essential for the next step in human societal development.

Their heroes were seen as normal men who were fighting the rich in the name of the poor. That is, until the revolution...when almost overnight, the socialist leaders became the elite...the rich...and the people became the slaves, the poor, the abused.

This was one of mankind's greatest mistakes in the historical context of societal change.

The socialist/communist states collapsed under the weight of their own programs.And that experiment clearly failed, however many proponents remain who believe that ultimate success was "just around the corner".

Among all of this change was the American experiment. A group of people challenged the existing understanding of how the world works and created a new country. How successful was this experiment? Well, in less than 200 years this Nation became the most prosperous, the most powerful, the most creative and the most successful society ever known in the history of the world. Sure, mistakes were made, faults appear, and the Nation is not perfect....but there is no doubt that something was right in what she did.

So where does that leave the liberals of today? Their societal direction is more aligned with the socialist concepts of the European story than with the capitalist free market thoughts that drove America to where she is today. To me, this looks like a major step away from success and toward failure.

Why would you go backwards to a failed system when a successful system is already in place? Mankind's success has always been tied to moving forward. Moving backward is heading for failure. And yet this is what the liberal societal change is all about.

The reality is that not everyone is equal, not everyone has the same abilities, and not everyone will reap the same rewards for their labor. The fact that this is an ideal espoused by liberals is frightening. It undermines the very foundations of mankind, and will ultimately lead to destruction.

Nope. I don't see liberalism as being a means to societal systems that work, but rather as the highway to destruction.


This concept puzzled me for a while as I had never considered what I call a "political bent" to actually be appealing because of its lifestyle implications. It turns out that this was a serious error on my part and that lifestyle could easily be a major driver in the appeal of calling oneself a liberal.

The progressive agenda has been extremely successful in framing the political conversation and writing the agenda. They have been very good at defining the stereotypical liberal as the "freedom loving, accepting of differences, caring, protective of children and the elderly, gatekeepers of all that is good" people who have a moral authority to dictate to others how they should live.

Conversely, conservatives are defined as the"rich by illegal means, robber barons who want to let people die and will throw grandma off the cliff if they can make a buck doing it, gun toting religious nuts"

It is clear from these definitions that most people would prefer to be defined as a liberal than as a conservative. If I accepted these definitions, I would certainly not want to be called a conservative.

But labels are just labels, and while some labels have greater appeal than others, how do they effect one's lifestyle?

In my experience, there are two different lifestyles that are actually related to the labels conservative and liberal:-
1. the "liberal" label conjures up a few realities. Liberals are the foul mouthed thugs at rallies. They are the ones that propose class warfare. They physically intimidate those who disagree with them. (In fact virtually every act of political violence occurring in America since Lincoln was shot by a crazed liberal actor, have been perpetrated by a liberal.) Liberals tend to be angry. They tend to attack discussions and arguments with verbal assault and running away. And worst of all...they are hypocrites.

In what way are they hypocrites? They say they care for the poor...but want the rich to pay for it. Not them. They want everyone to have a certain standard of living but they do not invite the homeless to share their 5 bedroom house. They want the trappings of success...the house, the car, the toys, the restaurants etc....but they do not share it with the very people they want to help. Their words are empty noises.

And my contention is that this is the reason they are angry. They are conflicted in their personal lifestyle choices. They cannot match their lifestyle with their rhetoric. And they cannot justify what they want by talking about what they think should be. They are searching for validation but their lifestyle actually denies that relief.

Nope. Lifestyle is not the right reason to be a liberal...on the other hand...

2) the conservative label also conjures some harsh realities. God fearing, constitution loving people who care deeply for the unfortunate. People who give to faith based charities, give to their neighbors who are in need and generally support each other. People who want the government to take a back seat. People who believe i n their own ability to support their families and themselves. People who find NO conflict between their lifestyle and their political beliefs. They have no guilt about the trappings of success as they believe that all people should enjoy that...but they need to get it themselves, not on the back of someone else.

They do not blame the poor for being poor, and want them to succeed. They offer jobs, not handouts....they offer education , not food stamps. They value and enjoy family and friends as do the liberals...the main difference being that they do not try to convert their liberal friends to being conservative and get angry when they don't. Education is a slower process than a "Road to Damascus" type conversion that the liberals seek.

If true lifestyle was the reason for being a liberal, then liberals would not exist as their lifestyle does not compare. It is only the "idea" of the lifestyle that is appealing. The reality is something else entirely.

Which brings me to....


If societal change does not drive liberals, and lifestyle is not the reason, there can be only one other alternative. It is a mental disorder.

A logical person with no political agenda at all, could look at the positions of a liberal and a conservative and see the difference:-

- liberals philosophize about a real world where everyone is equal and the poor do not exist (of course they know that everyone is not equal in this world but they see themselves as being among the more equal "elite" class) - this is an illogical thought pattern indicating mental illness

- liberals want to take from someone else and give to the poor . As long as the someone else is not them, this feeds their need to be altruistic, and helps them feel better. It also hinges on being psychotic - a mental disorder

- liberals create Messiahs, someone to lead them out of the wilderness and into the promised lands...they bow down before mere men as though they were demi-Gods. They fawn over these creations of their own minds and wonder why everyone does not bow at the feet of their creations. This is a mental disorder.

- liberals live in a fantasy world where they want bears no resemblance to what is. The laws of economics do not apply in their fantasy world. Reality is irrelevant. They live in a world far divorced from the real world. - mental illness

I can go on, but will refrain from boring my readers any more than I already have.

I have come to the conclusion, through logic and example, that liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.

There is simply no other explanation.

I hope they all seek treatment.



  1. D, I'm sending this to my liberal brother maybe he'll get the hint, then he'll send it to his liberal friends. Keep the faith, footman.

  2. Hey footman, I like that you want to share my thoughts with liberals. I just caution you not to expect too often takes a long time before liberals are ready to confront the truth of the errors in their thinking. And my somewhat "in your face" style, is probably not too conducive for gaining converts, but I find that any other way just pussy-foots around the truth, and that does no good either.
    You may really like today's post...a bizarre personal experience/incident got me thinking and I shared it with my readers today.