Saturday, November 12, 2005

Liberalism, What is it Good For?

I was hornswaggled earlier this week. I was in the little Bistro at the Hotel I work at, getting some dinner on my dinner break. There are three big screen tvs in there, two of them muted at any given time. On one it looked like a political debate between two candidates. It was Monday and I knew that there were two gubernatorial elections on Tuesday. I knew it wasn't New Jersey's, as it was obvious Jon Corzine wasn't there. I thought it might have been a debate between Kaine and Kilgore, the two candidates for Virginia governor. I didn't know the faces of either man and I didn't get a good look at the faces of the two on the screen. It turned out to be a well-correographed debate on the West-Wing, and I think the moderator was a real moderator from one of the Bush-Kerry debates. Alan Alda, Arch-Liberal, played the "Conservative" and Jimmy Smits played the Liberal candidate.

I only watched a few parts of the show, I dont know what it was all about. I could only stomach so much of it and they didn't even have the courtesy to give me a Liberal Propaganda/Barf Alert. It was a debate between two Liberals, scripted by a Liberal, and one of them was doing a really crappy job of playing a Conservative. Alan Alda spoke derisively of Liberals and Jimmy Smits took up the gauntlet and spoke of the great accomplishments of Liberalism and how proud he was to be one. Liberalism had ended slavery, he claimed, got women the right to vote and made Civil Rights. I stuck my finger down my throat and changed the channel. I never expected that of Jimmy Smits. I didn't imagine that he'd be a great Conservative, but I didn't imagine he was capable of such ignorance.

So what is the real record of Liberalism? This is important, the facts, not what Liberals say when they pat themselves on the back.

Smits said that Licoln was a "Liberal Republican" and the "Conservative" Alan Alda didn't respond. I don't honestly believe that Abraham Lincoln fits into either Conservative or Liberal by modern standards. But abolitionism as a force was heavily Christian. While slavers used the same ridiculous arguments that pro-abortion groups use today. They argued that it was their right to choose slavery and that the Abolitionists had no right to impose their Christian morality. So in this regard the Anti-Slavery side was Conservative.

Conservatives are doing a good job of not letting Liberal Democrats get away with claiming Civil Rights was their thing. They had 67 Senators in 1964 and would never in a million years have gotten Civil Rights legislation passed without the near unanimous support of the 33 Republicans. We need to keep hammering Democrats on this. But we also need to start getting on them about women's right to vote.

Smits claimed that Liberals got women the right to vote. WRONG! That was accomplished by Conservative Republicans. One should not confuse the narcississtic Marxist harpies of groups like NOW in the present with the suffragettes of yore. The old school womens' movement was deeply religious and did much good for the community as a whole. Many on the Left, some socialists and Marxists, actually were staunch opponents of womens' suffrage because they feared women would never buy the potatoes they were selling. Picture a group of Marxists, after a hard day of discussing Marx in the local coffee-shop, going to their local brothel or saloon and finding the Temperance League there ahead of them shutting the place down.

In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed, giving women the right to vote, Republican majorities prevailed in Congress and the State Legislatures, where Constitutional Amendments were passed. What's more telling is that in the several election cycles after the XIX was passed greatly increased these Republican majorities. The first three presidential elections after 1919 were crushing Republican landslides. And Congress was solidly Republican in those days. And let no one deceive themself into believing these were Liberal Republicans. The GOP in the 1910s and 1920s was staunchly Conservative. Republicans really need to start pointing out these facts, because Democrats aren't going to do it. They will act as if the Left gave the women the vote.

So what is Liberalism good for? What have they achieved? Well, they helped bring about Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia that wiped out a third of the population in that country. They also helped the Hanoi Politburo turn South Vietnam into a gulag. They have supported lawyers that have added heavy burdens to the people but who don't lift a finger to help them. They have imposed political correctness on our universities and other places, stifling the free thought that is the lifeblood of America and the American Way. They have aided and abetted the terrorists in Iraq, and the blood of our 2000 is on their hands as much as on those of the terror-mongers because the latter would not keep fighting without the hope that Liberals will betray America and help them take over.

Liberals fought for "peace" (appeasement) with the USSR, not caring about the people languishing under the Soviet system (so much for their notions about caring for the civil rights of others). They have caused the murder of fifty million innocent babies. Liberals are not the movement of Civil Rights. On the contrary, they are the movement of selfish indulgence at the expense of others' civil rights. Who cares if millions are being nudged into mass graves in Cambodia and we just stuck a fork in our own baby's head? Let's go Disco Dancing at Studio 54! That is the Liberal legacy. And no other.

This is the Conservatives' problem. The Liberals, for all the dents we have put in their Orwellian Propaganda Machine, still greatly excell at deceiving millions. As Orwell put it, he who controls the past controls the future. the time has come to challenge Democrats on what is supposedly their own turf- civil rights. They do not care about such things truly. And we have to let people know.