The Politics of Gender

Would it surprise you to learn that for nearly 4 decades prior to 1920, Democrats were disproportionately against women receiving the right to vote? (see HERE and HERE)

Some of the reasons for their objections were intimated in a NY Times in 1912: "...predicted that with suffrage women would make impossible demands, such as, "serving as soldiers and sailors, police patrolmen or firemen...and would serve on juries and elect themselves to executive offices and judgeships." It blamed a lack of masculinity for the failure of men to fight back, warning women would get the vote "if the men are not firm and wise enough and, it may as well be said, masculine enough to prevent them." (see HERE)

Also, given that "The women's suffrage movement was closely tied to abolitionism, with many suffrage activists gaining their first experience as anti-slavery activists" (see HERE), it makes sense that Democrats at that time would be against woman's suffrage since they were also against abolition and later against blacks receiving the right to vote. (see HERE)

Nevertheless, women nationwide were allowed to vote in 1919 (see HERE), and the sexist fear of women by Democrats was somewhat unfounded for 60 years thereafter (see HERE), in part because women voted disproportionately less that men during that time (see HERE), and women tended to vote the same way as men. (see HERE)

However, with the advent of modern "feminism" and "women's liberation" and the Equal Rights Amendment and so forth in the 1970's, each of which were supported by Liberals, women voters began to outnumber men (see HERE), and women have since voted disproportionately for Democrats, regardless of age. (see HERE and HERE)

This "marriage" between seemingly misogynist Democrats and women may seem odd until one recognizes that both favor big government and dependency on the government. (see HERE)

The irony in this is that while liberal "feminists" were fighting for women's liberation and empowerment and equality to men, the Democrat women were voting for greater dependency and reliance on "The Man" (see HERE)

As mentioned in my post on the Politics or Race, "This is instructive because it not only touches on the points made in my articles on Costly Government and Politics of Compassion and the Politics of Victimization, but it also demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness of the invidious nature of government dependence. "

In short, the liberal elite want power, and they are given that power by women in exchange for submission and support (ibid.)--a recipe for co-dependency and dysfunction, and thus Leftist LUNCs..

More to the point, this "marriage" is all wrapped in the pretense of "looking out for women's best interest" and fighting against the manufactured war on women (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and favoring "women's issue" (which amount to little more than abortion and contraceptive "rights") when in reality the Left continues it's long tradition of despising or think low of women (as most clearly manifest in their self-loathing--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE, as well as their deplorable mistreatment of Conservative women--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE, if not also the blind eye they turn to the severe mistreatment of women by Islamist with whom they are in cahoots--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and work to keep women down in order to retain power. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

In truth, "All issues are women's issues":

If liberals really cared about women,

The unholy "marriage" is also wrapped up in the myth of equality, and ironically tied up in the bow of divisiveness and the fomented battle between the sexes. ()

Here is Dr. Jordan Peterson on why men and women are different:

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/fox-s-sexist-comments-on-women-s-healthcare-spark-outrage-172914267.html

See also HERE

The Politics of Blame-Shifting

Another explanation for why Leftist LUNCs occur is the remarkable aversion of liberals to accountability and their penchant to shift blame.

In certain respects, assigning blame is a way of assigning power. It indicates who had the power to create political problems, and also who may have the power to solve political problems. Blame-shifting, then, is an act of dis-empowerment. By refusing to accept responsibility for the part one has played in creating political problems, and by shifting the blame to others, one may be shifting the power to solve the problems to those who may not be in the best position to do so, and one is thereby rendered impotent and bent towards continuing and/or repeating the problems, and thus one becomes a part of the problems rather than the solutions.

While blame-shifting is not the sole domain of the Left (in politics it seems to be a national past-time), in recent years they have elevated blame-shifting in politics to whole new levels. The Left seems to have blamed the Right for most everything that has gone wrong in government, though they have been quick to take credit for what little has gone right (see, for example HERE and HERE). Dennis Miller recently quipped, "Liberals want to share everything but blame." (Facebook post, 7/21/2013)

Even after four years into the Obama presidency, former president Bush is still being faulted by liberals for a number of things that happening under Obama's watch. The media is rife with examples (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE, etc.).  It has gotten so bad that it has recently become the brunt of Obama's own jokes. (See HERE)  There is also a website sardonically dedicated to the proposition that "Bush is to blame for everything." (See HERE)  It seems as though Bush never left office, and as though Obama hasn't really governed during his first term--which raises serious questions as to why Obama was elected to begin with, and re-elected, particularly given all his failed promises to fix things (questions which Rush Limbaugh answers with his Limbaugh Theorum).

Consequently, as explained, blame-shifting by liberals has shifted problem-solving powers away from Obama--rendering him perceptually impotent, and towards Bush, who is no longer in a position to utilize those powers or fix things, and so it isn't surprising that Leftist LUNCs have occurred during Obama's administration, and seem poised to continue to occur and reoccur as long as he is in office.

There is no better example of this than the floundering U.S. economy. As indicated in the introduction to Obamanamics--Trickle-Up Poverty, it is only fair to note that prior to Obama taking office, the housing bubble had burst, major financial institutions were going belly-up, other industries were on the verge of collapse, and the economy had slipped into what some considered the worst recession since the Great Depression. (See HERE and HERE and HERE) So, it is not as though blaming Bush and conservatives wasn't somewhat warranted for a time.

However, even though then Senator Obama ought not be faulted in any significant way for creating the financial mess, but given his foreknowledge of how serious the economic situation was leading up to the elections, and given his willingness to take on the serious economic challenges by being elected, and given all his campaign promises about fixing the economy, Obama should rightly be held accountable for how he has dealt with the mess since then. (See HERE)

Seems fair?

At a town hall meeting in December of 2009, Obama said, "I promise you this, I won't rest until things get better...I didn't run for president to sweep our messes under the rug." (See HERE).

One of the key planks of Obamanamics has been to shrink the financial disparity between the rich and poor. And yet, during Obama's third year in office, the long trend in which everyone was getting richer suddenly turned to where only the very rich got richer and everyone else got poorer. (See HERE)  Nevertheless, not only did liberals blame Bush and conservatives for the bad economy (see HERE) and the growing disparity between rich and poor (see HERE), but during the 2012 presidential elections, they didn't hold Obama responsible for not keeping his promise to shrink income inequality. In fact, there isn't any indication in the polls that liberals viewed Obama as having anything to do with the growing income disparity even though he had supposedly not rested until the disparity would be fixed, and he also implemented economic policies that liberals, for the life of them, cant see actually contributed to the problem. (See HERE)

This same liberal penchant for blame-shifting has also played itself out in other economic issue, like unemployment (see HERE and HERE), the national debt (see HERE and HERE and HERE), welfare and entitlement and poverty issues (see HERE and HERE and HERE), etc.

The bad economy isn't the only thing that Bush and conservatives are somewhat wrongly blamed for. Instead of owning up to their own mistakes, liberals have also shifted the blame in regards to Fast-and-Furious (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), Benghazi (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), the IRS scandal (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE ), the NSA scandals (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), Sandy Hook mass murders (see HERE), Boston Marathon bombings (see HERE), a bridge collapse (see HERE), and so many more.

Not only are various Leftist LUNCs the unpleasant result of liberal blame-shifting, and thus a rational argument against their blame-shifting, but there is solid evidence that the shifted blame has been unwarranted. (see HERE and HERE and HERE)

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Denial

Not all Liberals are as evidently naive and uniformed as the people in the "man on the street" interviewees mentioned in my article on The Politics of Ignorance. Many are quite well informed and have exposed themselves to a broad range of political material. They have a good sense for things like the significant impact of presidential actions on economies and societal circumstances and the like. So, there must be some other explanations besides ignorance for why Leftist LUNCs frequently and near invariably occur.

One explanation is that while reasonably informed liberals have been made aware of considerable data that conflicts with their position, they deal with the cognitive dissonance by going into deep denial. In order to maintain their liberal positions in the face of compelling contravening evidence, they simply block their minds from acknowledging the evidence and/or they formulate an alternative "reality" that somehow warps the data so that it fits their partisan views.

In my experience, this occurs quite frequently in discussions with liberals--including about Leftist LUNCs. Conservatives, like myself, will at times lay out well document and cogent arguments only to receive a deer-in-the-headlights look from the liberals, or where the cogent arguments seem not to register in the least and the liberals merely continue spouting their talking points undeterred as if nothing to the contrary has even been said.

Yet, the best example of liberal denial I can think of has to do with the liberal media, particularly the elites. As Bernie Goldberg, a self-admitted old-fashion liberal, has intimated in his books on Bias in the Media, the Arrogance of Media Elite, and the Slobbering Love Affair of Mainstream Media with Barak Obama, as well as in his columns on Media Bias, regardless of how well informed the liberal reporters and elites, and regardless of how much, and the profundity of the data to the contrary (see, for instance, HERE), the liberal media continues to view itself as objective and unbiased, and many of them and their acolytes even consider liberal bias in the media to be a myth. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Astonishing!

Another great example is when, following the enactment of the liberal "economic stimulus package" in 2009, deplorable unemployment and job figures were published that seriously undermined the President's economic competency (see my Leftist LUNC on Unemployment and Jobs and Workforce), and the Left dealt with the substantial cognitive dissonance by manufacturing the untestable alternative "reality" that the President and his stimulus package had prevented the loss of millions of jobs. The popular refrain was that while unemployment was high and jobs were being lost instead of gained as promised, things would have been far worse had the President not spent the trillion dollars.

So, seemingly bad news about the Obama administration was reinvented and translated into good news, leaving liberals in deep denial about the alarming state of the economy, and in blissful peace about the future, and having such great confidence in the President that they reelected him.

What makes political denial as dangerous as political ignorance is,  governmental mistakes will continue to happen and even get worse. As Dr. Phil is fond of saying, you can't fix or change what you don't acknowledge. (see HERE)

Hence, denial on the part of liberals is why, in part, Leftist LUNCs repeatedly occur.

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Ignorance

In my online discussions with liberals I get the sense that they have remarkable strength in their convictions, but little knowledge or awareness of the subject matters--they have just enough information to make themselves dangerous.

I am not alone in my perception. Renown conservative pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, frequently make reference to "low information voters." (see HERE and HERE). And, leftist philosophers, themselves, once referred to the liberal masses as "useful idiots."

Interestingly enough, the phrase "low information voter" was coined during the 90's and often used by "liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals...attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters." (See HERE)

And, while a 2012 paper suggested that the Democrat Party was as likely and responsible as Republican for "low information voters" (ibid),  a recent Pew survey about political knowledge and open mindedness indicated, "Not only did 'Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey,' Pew says, but that's 'typically the case in surveys about political knowledge.'" (See HERE. See also HERE and HERE and HERE)

This finding is underscored by another Pew study which indicates that, "Three-quarters of Staunch Conservatives (75%), two-thirds of Libertarians (67%) and about six-in-ten Solid Liberals (61%) say they follow what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time." (See HERE)

So, evidently, the leftist perception of conservatives in the 90's may have ironically been a myth of their own making, which has now come back to bite them.

Political ignorance isn't just a function of lack of personal study, research, and education, though these are significant factors, as various "man on the street" interviews attest. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

It also entails narrowing one's exposure to information sources that merely echo back one's own point of view, giving one a limited perspective and making one vulnerable to confirmation bias, demagoguery, and dogmatic indoctrination. How can one learn of political party mistakes if all one is feed is the party line? A perfect example can be read HERE.

And, while both conservatives and liberals tend to be partisan in their choice of news programs (see HERE land HERE and HERE), according to a Pew study, a higher percentage of Republicans also watch the leftist network news than Democrats watch the right-leaning Fox News (see HERE), and a respectable number of Republicans also watch the various leftist cable news shows (ibid.), giving them broader political exposure.

The irony is that the Left has long been a big proponent of open-mindedness and the benefits of diversity, and yet they tend to restrict their information sources and associations to like-minded people and things. This holds true within the liberal education system (see HERE and  HERE), the liberal news (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), liberal Hollywood (see HERE and HERE), and liberal social circles in Washington D.C. and elsewhere (See HERE)

Be that as it may, reason suggests that in politics, as with most all aspects of life, the more informed the decision, in terms of breadth and depth and diversity, the better the decision, and vice-versa. Political ignorance, then, explains in part why Leftist LUNCs repeatedly occur.

Examples can be found not only in the "man in the street" interviews linked above, but also HERE and HERE and most any time in the comment sections of the Huffington Post.

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Equality

It seems these days that the use of the word "equality" may at times act as a kind of beta-blocker, where people's minds have become closed tight and where they suspend any semblance of critical thinking so that whatever is said in the name of equality is generally accepted unhesitatingly and without questions.

I suspect this may be the result of cultural sensibilities arising in the wake of the civil rights movement, if not more so liberals indoctrinating our children with socialist/egalitarianism throughout our public school system.

Whatever the case, liberals and society in general undoubtedly have a heightened, though selective sense of equality, and in some respects they view governments as the best means for enforcing equality.

I say "selective sense of equality" because the good folks on the Left also advocate for such unequal causes as progressive tax rates, affirmative action, disability legislation, so-called diversity programs, etc. (more about this below)

Regardless of good intentions, government enforced equality doesn't work, and even backfires. Dr. Jordan B. Petersons provides several contemporary and past examples

There are several reasons why enforced equality doesn't work

First, equality, itself, is at odds with the natural order of things, particularly the evolutionary principle of natural selection and survival of the fittest. With humans, there are big and small, skinny and fat, women and men, young and old, fast and slow, weak and strong, geniuses and idiots, etc., and variations in-between. According to current sciences, there are 8.7 million species. (see HERE)

Scientifically, and across most all walks of life, we humans tend to be array unequally along a bell curve, or fit the 20/80 rule, or conform to the pareto distribution:. These are  laws which, if ignored or unwittingly challenged, can have disasterous effects:

Second, equality is at odds with the social and economic nature of things. We have loved-ones and strangers and foes, close friends and mere acquaintances, rich and poor, financial adept and inept, presidents and entry level workers. Some of us are dependents and others are providers, etc. and variations in between. We fill hundreds if not thousands of different occupations throughout millions of different companies, trading in untold numbers of products and services at a myriad of prices, and this during good economies and bad. Some of us like to shop, while others like to play sport or read. Some of us are emotional while others are more logical. Some of us are healthy and sane, while others are...well, you get the point.

Third, it is at odds with the political and legal order of things, the Equal Protection Clause notwithstanding. There exists a broad range of power and authority, from presidents and dictators to citizens and surfs. Political beliefs are arrayed from left to right, anarchist to fascists, globalists to nationalists, and on and on. Legal boundaries distinguish between citizen and alien, minors and adults, licensed and unauthorized, innocent and guilty, legal and illegal, etc.

Forth, as indicated above, inequality is the overwhelming rule rather than the exception. For the most part, and in important and meaningful ways, inequality is the organic outcome of virtually every aspect of physical existence, particularly life on earth, more so among humans.

Ironically, advocates for equality tend to contradict themselves by also espouse the notion that "diversity is our strength"--not including diversity of thought  On the one hand they celebrate differences/inequalities, while on the other hand presuming to wipe them out, and enforce conformity in the name of equality.

However, to a great extent the governmental pursuit of universal equality is virtually impossible. There will always be tall and short people, strong and weak, fast and slow, smart and unintelligent, beautiful and ugly, rich and poor, optimists and pessimist, happy and sad, whole and disabled, young and old, lucky and unlucky, and on and on, with advantages to the ones and not the others. And, there isn't much, if anything that governments can reasonably do to change or equalize these things.

Egalitarianism, while perhaps theoretically appealing, is unfeasible on a number of levels, and attempts to press the square peg of unequal reality into the round hole of egalitarian pipe-dreams, is a fools errand and receipt for disaster, as witness by the Leftist LUNCs. For example, please see: Same-Sex Marriage--No "Marriage Equality."

Forth, in addition to inequality as the natural, social, economic, political and legal order of things, attempt to treat different things equally can be intrinsically illogical. Unlike with adults, we don't let minors consume controlled substances such as alcohol and tobacco. We don't permit them to drive automobiles. We don't allow them to vote. We don't let them enter into contractual agreements, etc. For the children's sake, as well as for the sake of society, it makes sense to acknowledge and accept the meaningful differences and rationally discriminate between minors and adults, and treat them unequally. To treat minors and adults equally would  prove problematic, to say the least. It isn't coincidental that legal-aged young adult drivers have higher rates of auto accidents than older drivers. (See HERE)  Imagine the accident rate were toddlers equally allowed behind the wheel.

Also, take for instance what is indicated in my article on Environmental LUNCS. As  Jerry Taylor has sardonically stated, "The inescapable differences between millions of pollution sinks, environmental carrying capacities, and manufacturing processes are inevitably blurred and 'averaged' in one-size-fits-all regulations that — while not always efficient or environmentally optimal — at least have the virtue of requiring fewer than a million regulators."

Another good example where liberals have illogically treated meaningfully different things equally, is the legalization of same-sex marriage. I explicate the inanity here: Same-Sex Marriage--Destructive Compassion.

Yet another good example is the liberal movement advocating for income equality, particularly between the sexes. The hue and cry is for "equal pay for equal work," which assume that men and women have been and are doing equal work, whereas in truth they haven't and don't. And, in spite of this fact, liberals mindlessly, though with big-hearts, strive for wage parity, not realizing that when pursued through government enforcement, not only produce the opposite unintended effect, it ironically must of necessity violate the right of women to freely choose their own career paths. (See the series starting HERE)

The same, in principle, applies to the liberal issue of wealth inequality--the gap between the rich and poor. (See HERE)

Experience ought to tell us that there are meaningful differences between men and women, educated and uneducated, rich and poor, whole and disabled, corporations and sole proprietorships, doctors and nurses, lawyers and court stenographers, military and civilians, police and criminals, public servants and private employees, married and single, cars and boats, rural and city, and on and on. As such, it makes no sense to ignore these inequalities and presume to treat them as equals. In point of fact, and for good reason, the vast majority of laws on the book tacitly acknowledge meaningful differences and rationally discriminate and pragmatically treat different people and things differently--the exceptions noted above notwithstanding. This is as it should be.

Fifth, governmental pursuit of equality may defy the primary intents for which laws were enacted to begin with. Auto speed-limits have been instituted for public safety and energy saving purposes, and not to equalize the disparity between owners of slow versus fast cars. Regulations governing medical licensing were passed to better assure that properly educated and competent people would be administering to our most vulnerable citizens, and not to equally allow any and all who wished, to call themselves a doctor. Zoning requirements have been set up to encourage wise land use, and not to permit landfills equal rights to the same area as hospitals and residential neighborhoods. The list of examples is virtually endless.

The point being, laws are enacted for rational purposes (typically to produce results which are in society's interest), and not for equality sake. Leftist LUNCs tend to occur when the rational basis behind laws are ignored and the focus is misplaced on equality.

I can think of no better example of this than the issue of same-sex marriage. Under the guise of equality, leftist advocates have rallied to mangle the several millennium-year-old definition of marriage, and nowhere or in no way have they given indication that they understood the rational basis for governments regulating and promoting marriage for centuries. If they had bothered to find out, they would realize that it has precisely nothing to do with homosexuality or equality, and very much to do with attempting to limit procreative sex (male-female sex) to formally committed, long-term relationships. Because of the risk of pregnancy, there are a host of negative social ripple effects from heterosexuals having indiscriminate sexual relations. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)  So, governments have rightly thought it wise to minimize the number of out-of-wedlock births by encouraging legal marriage. Since there is no risk of pregnancy between homosexual couples, governments haven't, and still don't have a rational basis to encourage same-sex marriage. From a cost-benefit or state's interest perspective, the people as a government, have nothing to gain from promoting gay marriage or homosexual relationships, and much to lose. The opposite is true for heterosexual relationships.

Sixth, Leftist LUNCs occur because in many cases governmental pursuit of equality works at cross purposes and tends to be devolutionary--i.e. catering to the lowest common denominator. This is made most evident in the graduated income tax rate that places considerably greater and unequal tax burdens on the rich, and effectively redistributes their wealth to the poor in a way the trickles up poverty. In other words, inequality is hypocritically being used in cross-purpose with the pursuit of equality, and instead of raising the poor up closer to the level of the rich, the rich are brought down closer to the level of the poor. This tends to disadvantage both rich and poor, though mostly the poor.

In short, the liberal pursuit of equality oft breeds inequality. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

As one pundit put it: "Liberalism thus falls into contradiction and fails in the most fundamental way possible. Enforcing freedom denies freedom, enforcing equality makes the enforcers unequal, enforcing tolerance requires a comprehensive system of supervision and control, and giving people what they want is not what people really want." (See HERE)

The leftist public education system is a case in point. By diminishing the incentive for healthy competition, and by equalizing rewards for educational achievement, relatively flat grading and advancement systems have become unequally deleterious to smarter and harder working students and high achievers, resulting in the general dumbing-down of U.S. students, which in turns compromises other aspects of our nation's welfare. (See HERE. See also the Leftist LUNC on Public Education when it is published)

Various other good examples may be found in my series of articles on Obamanomics, starting with, ""Trickle-Up Poverty."

Seventh, the notion of "eqiuality" is overly vague and high risk of divergence of interpretation and application. As I wrote elsewhere (see HERE, page 3), "One set of human advocates may have equality of outcome in mind, whereas other advocates may have equality of opportunity in mind, Some of the advocates for equality of opportunity may have state-enforced "level playing field" and "quotas" in mind, while other advocates of equality of opportunity may have free markets and rule of law in mind. The lists can go on and on. Ironically, there is considerable inequality of purpose in relation to the objective of equality. 

Here twice again the notion of equality breeds inequality. 

"And, that is not all..In order to achieve equality of outcome as a proactive objective (high priority or otherwise) necessitates discriminating against (treating unequally) high achievers, hard and long workers, the well adaptive and adept, the fast and strong, the more intelligent, etc. The goal of quality breeds inequality.

"Were that not enough, the goal of equality of outcome also necessitates discriminating against those it is supposed to help. For example, as I explain at my blog on Equal Pay for Equal Work , state enforced closure of the mythical gender wage gap, besides having made the gap wider, ultimately necessitates denying women the freedom to chose different careers than men,  as well as the choice to start careers later than men, work less hours than men, and interrupt their careers for long periods of time unlike men.

"On the other hand, realizing the goal of equality of opportunity, particularly for the "level playing field" and "quotas" crowd, necessitates giving preferential treatment (treating unequally) to select classes of people (specific races, gender, sexual orientation, ages, etc.), as a way of supposedly righting past wrong. The goal of equality breeds inequality.

"Whether the goal is for equality of outcome or equality of opportunity, if it is achieved through government enforcement, necessarily discriminates against, and thus treats unequally, freedom lovers."

Eight, the irrational obsession with equality is one of the fastest ways to radically distorted thinking. It causes people to imagine prejudice lurking around every bush. This is a malady that afflicts the Right as well as the Left (see HERE), but by far more so the Left (see  HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)  It tends to engender a flurry of false accusations besmirching the innocent, and it often turns back on itself, causing the afflicted to engage in the most nefarious forms of inequality. (See above and also HERE)

Here is a simial perspective from another author: Egalitarianism Without Equality is Tyranny.

George Will also provides "A Philosopher's Take on the Left's Obsession with Income Inequality," which is based, in part, on Harry G Frankfurt's book on "Inequality." Please also see Kevin D. Williamson's article on A Few Thoughts on a Futile Project: Income Inequality.

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Emotions

Winston Churchill is attributed as saying: "If your not a Liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you're not a Conservative at forty, you have no brain."

There is also the maxim, "if you want to FEEL good be a liberal but if you want to DO good be a conservative." (See HERE)

Now, if one doubts that emotions are a substantial, controlling influence for liberals, one need but consider the motives behind and nature of most if not all liberal causes. As indicated in a previous post, the Left is all about compassion and caring, and this to the point that some consider liberal governments to be "nanny-ish." (See HERE and HERE)

Over the last century or so, liberals have been harrowed-up by the depth and breadth of human suffering, and have been emotionally moved to protest the ravages of war, set up soup lines and food banks, provide homeless shelters, man civil rights marches, advocate for the disabled, speak out for the environment and against animal cruelty, pass legislation to assist the elderly, poor, sick and afflicted, and the list goes on. This is to their credit.

I don't know if it is due to the feminization of the Left or not, but liberals are quite sensitive. Feelings are very important to them. This is also made evident in the way they oft make emotive appeals to the public when advancing their causes--be it through heart-wrenching stories about innocent people who were killed by collateral damage,  prisoners that were water-boarded, oceans soiled by oil, cute polar bears that have been dwindling in numbers, ice caps that are melting, children murdered by crazed gunmen and drive-by shooters; or be it through fear-mongering ads, news reports, and movies about the elderly being deprived of their benefits, the earth's ecology on the verge of collapse, certain animals facing extinction, potential epidemic or pandemic spread of disease, and so on and so forth.

In many respects, and as repeatedly underscored throughout my Leftist LUNCs of the Week blog, these are noble quests and the emotional motives are to be respected.

However, as our bodies tell us, just as the mind can't live without the heart, neither can the heart live without the mind. Both the intellect and emotions are of value and need to be rightly balanced and compliment one another and kept in check by one another.

When the mind acts without the heart, there is coldness and apathy. And, when the heart acts without the mind, there is stupidity and inanity. When they work together, there is wisdom, virtue, and practicality.

Think of the mind as the rudder and the heart as the wind in the sails. What good is a rudder if there is no wind to move about the ship of state? And what good is the wind if there is no rudder to give determined direction, but where the ship of state is left to be tossed to a fro wherever the winds of emotion are want to blow?  

Unfortunately, while liberals clearly have big hearts, there is serious question about the bigness of their minds--and this in spite of how oft some of them pride themselves on their alleged superior or elite intellects. Whereas, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Would many of the Leftist LUNCs have occurred, let alone near invariably and at such grand scales, if liberals were ruled as much by their minds as their hearts? Would the liberal ship of state be continually blown off course by the winds of emotions and run aground on the shoals of bankruptcy and disaster if there were sufficient intellectual rudder providing much needed and intelligent direction?

Perhaps it is just me, but in my experience with liberals these days,  particularly during on-line discussions, there appears to be ample sounds and fury and passion, superficiality, and much echoing of talking points, but little describable in-depth reasoning or coherent analysis. To me, not only does critical thinking seems to have become a relic of the distant liberal past, but a trend seems to have emerged where leftist activists and respondents appear to have developed a remarkable complacency with inanity. It doesn't matter the compelling power of arguments or strength and wealth of evidence contravening what liberals propose, nor the mounting bleakness of economic and foreign policies, and not even the litany of scandals constantly in the news, many liberals appear completely unaffected. Evidently, what matters to them isn't what makes the most sense or what demonstrably works or fails miserably, but rather having the right intent and feelings and being associated with the politically correct and popular causes. It seems more important to them not to offend than to do what is best and right.

And as if that were not enough,  many of them genuinely and fervently believe that they are the ones making perfect sense and that their opponents are banal. Up is down and down is up.

Again, is it any wonder that Leftist LUNCs occur and re-occur with relative abandonment?

Examples of liberal political emoting are replete, though perhaps no more so than during the prime-time "news programs" at MSNBC.

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

The Politics of Compassion

Before reading my explanation, it would be good to watch this video by Dennis Prager on liberal compassion and the size of government::

In addition to what Dennis intimated, the politics of compassion causes Leftist LUNCs because:

1) "The greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement" (see HERE)--fostering the dysfunction of victimization and dependency (see HERE and HERE),

Case in point:

 2) The greater distance between giver and receiver, the less the giver is sensitive and responsive to the respective needs of the receiver. (see HERE)  Governments, particularly centralized governments, make for very poor charitable organizations, oft leaving recipients of charity worse off than before the government stepped in. (see HERE)

Stefan Molyneux provides another perspective:

The end result of leftist "compassion" may be catastrophic:

Also, I suspect that while the hearts of the majority of liberals may be in the right place when it comes to matters of compassion, other liberals are not so charitably disposed--to put it mildly.

According to Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Liberal politicians, like other politicians, are not immune, and have been enticed by the allure of power to not only work to expand their power base, but also stay in power by staying in office. To accomplish both within democratic systems, they have needed to attract money, influence, and votes, and they have done so by at least seeming to give people what is appealing and popular and what they want.

Liberal politicians understand that compassion has high emotional appeal and is a relative easy sell. When peddled effectively, the use of compassion and sympathy ploys have not only "bought" support and provided job security and expanded the power of politicians, it has also been used as a stick with which to beat opponents over the head.  (see HERE)

Power isn't the only thing that corrupts. Selfishness also corrupts, and absolute selfishness corrupts absolutely. To some extent, the selling of compassion by politicians has been easy, particularly to a broad spectrum of opportunists. Certain bureaucrats have viewed compassion as a great way to grow government and create public jobs for themselves as well as politicians. Various non-profit and for-profit organizations have seen dollar signs in relation to potential compassion-oriented grants and contracts. Then there are some of the electorate who take advantage of public assistance and free-load off and game the system for all its worth.

In such cases (politicians, bureaucrats, and electorate alike) the foremost objective wasn't compassion, but self-interest. The priority wasn't keeping children safe, or caring for the sick, preserving the environment, helping the poor, etc. though such may have been secondary or tertiary interests. Rather, the real and primary purpose was to exploit the government for personal gain. Compassion was used and abused as an excuse or the means to achieve selfish ends, and a way to create the illusion of virtue and legitimacy.

Worse yet, the politics of compassion has moved beyond political exploitation, to actual fraud--which some have referred to as "sympathy grifting". (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Unfortunately, while the primary motive for the majority of liberals may have been compassion, and they have acted in good faith, to a considerable extent they have been played by those acting in self-interest. They have been the victims of a remarkably skillful and elaborate bait-and-switch con. They were led to believe that they were merely feeding the hungry, caring for those in need, preserving the environment, and so forth, when in fact they were providing job security, sureing up power-bases, lining pockets, and constructing one of the most expansive government-industrial complexes in human history--which now significantly dwarfs the military-industrial complex warned against by President Eisenhower.. (See  Social Services Industrial Complex. And, for an in-depth analysis of the government-industrial complex of compassion, please see also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Is it any wonder, then, that Leftist LUNCs have occurred? Since selfishness was really the main goal behind certain so-called compassionate governmental programs, then it is logical and ought to be expected that selfishness would be the result. Garbage in...garbage out. Sadly, what may seem as unintended negative consequences to those who were conned, have in reality been quite intended and welcomed by those liberals acting in their own self-interest.

There are a number of examples that could be cited, but some of the shenanigans perpetrated in relation to Obamacare are illustrative, such as the voter registration requirement for Obamacare, which many suspect is a way of further solidifying the liberal power base. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Selfish and power-hungry liberals aren't the only ones to blame for compassion-generated Leftist LUNCs.  Compassionate liberals, themselves, have contributed to the problem, and perhaps even more so than selfish liberals, because their compassion has often been uniformed, mindless, misdirected, inane, and ultimately destructive. The good folks on the Left have errantly assumed that good and compassionate intents is what matters, rather than results, and consequently the results of their compassion has frequently been deplorable.

Few examples manifest this better than the legalization of same-sex marriage. Please see my blog post on: Same-Sex Marriage--Destructive Compassion.

The transgender and other disturbed communities haves also been ill-effected by liberal "compassion": 50 Tears of Sex-changes Mental Disorders, and Too Many Suicides

In the future, as I look at Leftist LUNCs in relation to things like liberal immigration policies, Obananomics (particularly corporate and bank bailouts and the misnamed "Economic Stimulous Package"), etc., more examples will be provided.

[Update 08/30/15: The Politics and Demographics of Food Stamp Recipients]

NEXT    START of SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX