I have written a number of times of my dislike for modern day liberal Democrat philosophies and policies (which is wholly different from the classical liberalism espoused by luminaries such as John F. Kennedy). I would like to discuss briefly and anecdotally here why I believe their philosophy and politics don’t work practically, and why conservative principles offer superior philosophical ideas and political solutions. In particular, the modern liberal Democrat believes in the supremacy and authority of the state, and needs dependent subjects it can manipulate into giving up liberty and control over their own destiny based on a utilitarian philosophy espousing what is best for the “public good.” Thus, modern liberal Democrats tend to solve societal problems “downstream” in a progressive attempt to gain support of the collective, while conservatives seek to solve problems “upstream” in order to preserve an individualistic yet virtuous free market society with less need for government. Conservatives do believe we need to solve downstream problems, but we focus strenuously on the upstream in order to avoid, as much as possible, what can be serious problems downstream that may have few or no good solutions.
Let’s take abortion as an example. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the current pro-death abortion rights attack dog for the Democratic Party, who harshly criticized California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina for being pro-life, citing that Fiorina is out of line with “women’s values,” as if she speaks for American women in general (well, liberal women anyway). Wasserman Schultz believes that women should have a “choice” in what they do with their bodies. The problem with Wasserman Schultz’s approach is that she advocates for women’s choice downstream, once there is a living fetus in the mother’s womb (who, ironically, she feels deserve no choice), but she in no way advocates for the upstream choice the woman could (and should) have made that would have prevented an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Yes, we have heard that tired cliche about wanting abortion to be rare but legal, but if that isn’t backed up by a philosophy and policies that would encourage personal responsibility, then it’s hard for me to take what smells like a red herring seriously.
So why do Democrats seem to worry more about solving problems downstream instead of seeking to avoid problems such as abortion in the first place? There are a couple of key reasons, in my view. The first reason I think is that Democrats want more and bigger government because it gives them more power, mistakenly believing that centralized government can take on more and more duties outside of its limited capabilities. Yet if people would simply avoid creating certain problems for themselves through personal responsibility, self-restraint and a strong moral code, then they wouldn’t need government intervention beyond its Constitutionally limited and enumerated powers. Secondly, I think it’s well established that Democrats are largely secular moral relativists with respect to philosophy and policy, so they would be loath to “impose” their “values” on another human being, even when this imposition would benefit society. In the case of abortion, if they encouraged morality and family values this could lead to less unwanted pregnancies and stronger relationships. While conservatives certainly don’t want to impose on people’s private lives, we do believe that without a set of voluntary societal values based on timeless, transcendent principles, society will eventually collapse from within as history has shown.
Now the interesting thing is that while liberal Democrats claim they don’t want to impose their moral values upstream in the private sphere, they do, ironically, apply them downstream in the public sphere. How many times have we heard that there is a moral reason to give women abortion choice? How many times in the past did we hear that we have a moral duty to aggressively pursue funding for AIDS research, since if we don’t, it would be discriminatory against the gay community? (which, by the way, have also made poor lifestyle choices that have affected the public at large) And why would Democrats claim it is moral to support illegal immigration when they have sworn to uphold and enforce our country’s immigration laws? It appears that Democrats support the full freedom to make poor choices privately, but then want the public to be accepting (not just tolerant) of these poor choices and pay for the effects once they become a public problem, in order to build their constituency (which includes illegal immigrants that they wish to exploit by granting amnesty in search of largely Democratic voters).
My contention is that liberal Democrats can’t have it both ways by eschewing morality within an upstream context, then arguing for it in a downstream context after the fact. If government wants to aid and abet poor private choices, then the government is duplicitous in asking the public to accept the downstream effects of those choices, encouraging further irresponsible behavior and dependence on government (whether present or future). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, particularly as it relates to overall societal health and fiscal responsibility. On this, conservatives have a superior philosophy, and thus support policies that reflect the highest of ideals and values upstream, while still dealing responsibly with the downstream effects of a fallen human condition (which liberal Democrats don’t believe we’re in since they have a low view of sin and a high view of self). Liberal Democrats are pleased to wade into downstream effects, as they are a means to an end to breed more dependence, and in the end, centralized government control. History has demonsrated time and again that greater government control hardly breeds virtue in those who wield power, which our founding fathers knew all too well and guided them in the crafting of our beautiful governing document, the U.S. Constitution.
Comments on this entry are closed.