PDA

View Full Version : The failure of the liberal agenda




Acala
07-01-2010, 10:38 AM
Been working on a little essay. I would be interested to know what you think:

At the heart of what is called the liberal agenda – the agenda of the Democratic Party – is love. Bear with me a moment. When you ignore the corrupt party machine and look to the Democrat on the street, screen out the self-serving government employees, welfare queens, union slackers, and other feeders at the trough, there is still a core of the party out there voting. And they are motivated by love. When the true liberal wants to help the poor, the sick, the uneducated, the victims of hatefulness, and so on, they are motivated by love for their fellow man.

Their motivation is sound, even admirable. And yet they often fail to achieve the good works they set out to achieve. On the contrary, they create one disaster after another that typically achieves just the opposite of what they intend. Why is this?

You can’t delegate love. That pure-hearted liberal feels love for his fellow man, but then he tries to delegate that love to government and it is instantly corrupted. It is corrupted because government is in its essence a tool of force. Everything government does – making people do things they don’t want to do and stopping people from doing things they want to do – is done by force or threat of force. Force is nearly the opposite of love. When you try and delegate love to an entity of force, corruption is inevitable. Love can NEVER express itself though force.

The love that motivates a person to want to help the poor, when delegated to government, generates MORE poverty, and class-conflict and hatred along with it. The love that motivates a person to want to heal the sick, when delegated to government, enriches the wicked while making health care less and less available. The love of country becomes a brutal world empire. The desire to help the drug addict, when delegated to government, makes the addiction more harmful, turns the neighborhood police into storm troopers, makes criminals out of peaceful citizens, and creates international conflict. The desire to see that children are educated, when turned over to government, becomes a giant machine that crushes the very heart of the child, promulgates stupidity, and trains them in mindless obedience. And on and on.

The genuine liberal agenda will ALWAYS fail as long as it relies on government because you can’t delegate love. Especially not to an organization that can act only through force.

So what is the genuine, pure-hearted altruistic liberal to do? First they must accept that government cannot EVER achieve the results they want. Indeed, it will always achieve the opposite result because the force that is at the heart of government is the opposite of the love that motivates the true liberal agenda. Of course it is easy and convenient to just cast a vote for a politician who promises to get government to follow the liberal agenda. But he will ALWAYS fail to deliver. Even if he really wants to deliver. It isn’t possible for a politician to deliver what the liberal, in his loving heart, wants because the only tool the politician has is force and force CANNOT do the job.

Once the liberal understands that government can never be the agent of their love for their fellow man, the only thing left is to take the responsibility back. Each individual must manifest love in their own lives and actions. This is difficult to accept for two reasons.

First, it is difficult to accept because it means the liberal needs to commit his own time, effort and money directly to the problem. He needs to get his own hands dirty. But true love will conquer this rather easily.

The second difficulty is that taking individual responsibility promises so little in the face of a problem that is so big. This is the great obstacle. When all one can do to alleviate the suffering of the world is put one's own tiny shoulder to the giant boulder, it seems impossible. It seems futile. Surely there must be a faster, easier way. Surely we can MAKE everyone else put their shoulder to the boulder also? Nope. Won’t work. Not ever. No matter how clever and glib the politicians are. They can’t help. It can only be done individually. However, one CAN try to persuade others to put their shoulders to the boulder out of THEIR love.

But ultimately the only thing anyone can do for sure is manifest their own love in their own life. There is no shortcut. The world can only be changed one moment, one person, one life at a time. No sweeping reforms, no “change you can believe in”, no “New Deal” will work. You can’t delegate love, you can only live it.

Travlyr
07-01-2010, 10:56 AM
Too many people already know that the left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican comparison you are making... is false. There is no liberal agenda or conservative agenda. These techniques are pushed on an unsuspecting public to keep us divided.

Acala
07-01-2010, 11:00 AM
Too many people already know that the left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican comparison you are making... is false. There is no liberal agenda or conservative agenda. These techniques are pushed on an unsuspecting public to keep us divided.

Did you read the article?

charrob
07-01-2010, 11:34 AM
...very beautifully written.

hugolp
07-01-2010, 11:39 AM
Nice.

payme_rick
07-01-2010, 11:41 AM
enjoyed the approach you took, Acala...

Travlyr
07-01-2010, 11:57 AM
Did you read the article?
I did read it and thought it well written, but I guess I just don't understand the meaning. I've never believed the "liberal agenda" to be compassionate at all. I never believed it was even real... only imaginary and pushed by educational institutions and PBS.
It seems valuable to many and is worth sharing. Since the left/right paradigm is false, I just don't get it... that's all.

Acala
07-01-2010, 12:00 PM
I did read it and thought it well written, but I guess I just don't understand the meaning. I've never believed the "liberal agenda" to be compassionate at all. I never believed it was even real... only imaginary and pushed by educational institutions and PBS.
It seems valuable to many and is worth sharing. Since the left/right paradigm is false, I just don't get it... that's all.

I know lots of people who really care about their fellow man but have been mislead into thinking that government is the right vehicle for making their good wishes manifest. This essay is dedicated to them.

charrob
07-01-2010, 12:03 PM
I did read it and thought it well written, but I guess I just don't understand the meaning. I've never believed the "liberal agenda" to be compassionate at all. I never believed it was even real... only imaginary and pushed by educational institutions and PBS.
It seems valuable to many and is worth sharing. Since the left/right paradigm is false, I just don't get it... that's all.

what he says is true (i'm from the left).

roho76
07-01-2010, 12:05 PM
cannot EVER

I would say "can NEVER" instead. Just sounds better to me. Although I am not much of a writer and am not the best with words even though i am in the process of writing a book.

FreeTraveler
07-01-2010, 12:05 PM
I like it a lot. Here's a suggestion, though.


Their motivation is sound, even admirable. And yet they fail year after year to achieve any of the good works they set out to achieve.

Nothing turns an on-the-fence reader off faster than absolutes. They'll declare the above false, and you've lost their willingness to listen. Try this instead.


Their motivation is sound, even admirable. And yet they often fail to achieve the good works they set out to achieve.

You're bargaining. You have to leave some chips on the table.

Unless you're only interested in preaching to the choir.


Hope this helps. :)

Travlyr
07-01-2010, 12:08 PM
I know lots of people who really care about their fellow man but have been mislead into thinking that government is the right vehicle for making their good wishes manifest. This essay is dedicated to them.

Excellent! Then I applaud your efforts and appreciate your work. :)

roho76
07-01-2010, 12:08 PM
Very well written. I like the over all tone. Mind if I share with some liberal friends of mine?

roho76
07-01-2010, 12:10 PM
I like it a lot. Here's a suggestion, though.

Nothing turns an on-the-fence reader off faster than absolutes. They'll declare the above false, and you've lost their willingness to listen. Try this instead.

You're bargaining. You have to leave some chips on the table.

Unless you're only interested in preaching to the choir.


Hope this helps. :)

Very sound advice.

someperson
07-01-2010, 12:24 PM
Well written. I'm not a fan of the label reinforcement, but for the intended target audience, I think it could help those individuals to revisit their philosophy from a different perspective. Thanks for taking the time to write it, Acala :)

Acala
07-01-2010, 01:01 PM
Thanks to all for the excellent suggestions, which I have incorporated, and the support.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-01-2010, 01:28 PM
Been working on a little essay. I would be interested to know what you think:

At the heart of what is called the liberal agenda – the agenda of the Democratic Party – is love. Bear with me a moment. When you ignore the corrupt party machine and look to the Democrat on the street, screen out the self-serving government employees, welfare queens, union slackers, and other feeders at the trough, there is still a core of the party out there voting. And they are motivated by love. When the true liberal wants to help the poor, the sick, the uneducated, the victims of hatefulness, and so on, they are motivated by love for their fellow man.

Their motivation is sound, even admirable. And yet they often fail to achieve the good works they set out to achieve. On the contrary, they create one disaster after another that typically achieves just the opposite of what they intend. Why is this?

You can’t delegate love. That pure-hearted liberal feels love for his fellow man, but then he tries to delegate that love to government and it is instantly corrupted. It is corrupted because government is in its essence a tool of force. Everything government does – making people do things they don’t want to do and stopping people from doing things they want to do – is done by force or threat of force. Force is nearly the opposite of love. When you try and delegate love to an entity of force, corruption is inevitable. Love can NEVER express itself though force.

The love that motivates a person to want to help the poor, when delegated to government, generates MORE poverty, and class-conflict and hatred along with it. The love that motivates a person to want to heal the sick, when delegated to government, enriches the wicked while making health care less and less available. The love of country becomes a brutal world empire. The desire to help the drug addict, when delegated to government, makes the addiction more harmful, turns the neighborhood police into storm troopers, makes criminals out of peaceful citizens, and creates international conflict. The desire to see that children are educated, when turned over to government, becomes a giant machine that crushes the very heart of the child, promulgates stupidity, and trains them in mindless obedience. And on and on.

The genuine liberal agenda will ALWAYS fail as long as it relies on government because you can’t delegate love. Especially not to an organization that can act only through force.

So what is the genuine, pure-hearted altruistic liberal to do? First they must accept that government cannot EVER achieve the results they want. Indeed, it will always achieve the opposite result because the force that is at the heart of government is the opposite of the love that motivates the true liberal agenda. Of course it is easy and convenient to just cast a vote for a politician who promises to get government to follow the liberal agenda. But he will ALWAYS fail to deliver. Even if he really wants to deliver. It isn’t possible for a politician to deliver what the liberal, in his loving heart, wants because the only tool the politician has is force and force CANNOT do the job.

Once the liberal understands that government can never be the agent of their love for their fellow man, the only thing left is to take the responsibility back. Each individual must manifest love in their own lives and actions. This is difficult to accept for two reasons.

First, it is difficult to accept because it means the liberal needs to commit his own time, effort and money directly to the problem. He needs to get his own hands dirty. But true love will conquer this rather easily.

The second difficulty is that taking individual responsibility promises so little in the face of a problem that is so big. This is the great obstacle. When all one can do to alleviate the suffering of the world is put one's own tiny shoulder to the giant boulder, it seems impossible. It seems futile. Surely there must be a faster, easier way. Surely we can MAKE everyone else put their shoulder to the boulder also? Nope. Won’t work. Not ever. No matter how clever and glib the politicians are. They can’t help. It can only be done individually. However, one CAN try to persuade others to put their shoulders to the boulder out of THEIR love.

But ultimately the only thing anyone can do for sure is manifest their own love in their own life. There is no shortcut. The world can only be changed one moment, one person, one life at a time. No sweeping reforms, no “change you can believe in”, no “New Deal” will work. You can’t delegate love, you can only live it.

Bi-partisan politics in the United States, the two party system, was created to influence constitutionality, not as a way to fight against tyranny. As Americans, we accept tyranny as necessary. Therefore, our government should be viewed as a "necessary tyranny."
Not many realize the full implications of what I am about to claim, but the Supreme Court did not begin as an empowered part of our government. At first, as it did not sit over matters concerning constitutionality, what is or is not constitutional, it did not know what to do choosing to write mostly worthless writs of mandamus to the states instead.
As the Supreme court didn't preside over constitutionality originally, the two party system worked to fill the void.
So, please, stop thinking that one party has managed to capture the quintessential truth over the other one. I mean, just how absurd is that kind of thinking?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-01-2010, 01:39 PM
I did read it and thought it well written, but I guess I just don't understand the meaning. I've never believed the "liberal agenda" to be compassionate at all. I never believed it was even real... only imaginary and pushed by educational institutions and PBS.
It seems valuable to many and is worth sharing. Since the left/right paradigm is false, I just don't get it... that's all.

Yes, we don't teach history philosophically as it is most difficult to focus on anything other than our shame. Instead, we teach literary history because that focuses on the shame. In the two party system, we have two stories being told with some differing in opinion on who of the two characters is the true protagonist versus the antagonist.
Yet, our Founding Fathers reduced this question not to the mind, which stirs up this kind of nonsense, but to the conscience. They then declared a self evident (analysis part of the argument) and an unalienable (the evidential part of the argument) Truth. So, being an American is being a moderate or a bi-partisan person.

Acala
07-01-2010, 02:57 PM
Bi-partisan politics in the United States, the two party system, was created to influence constitutionality, not as a way to fight against tyranny. As Americans, we accept tyranny as necessary. Therefore, our government should be viewed as a "necessary tyranny."
Not many realize the full implications of what I am about to claim, but the Supreme Court did not begin as an empowered part of our government. At first, as it did not sit over matters concerning constitutionality, what is or is not constitutional, it did not know what to do choosing to write mostly worthless writs of mandamus to the states instead.
As the Supreme court didn't preside over constitutionality originally, the two party system worked to fill the void.
So, please, stop thinking that one party has managed to capture the quintessential truth over the other one. I mean, just how absurd is that kind of thinking?

Thanks for the bump, Manny. Even if I never understand a word you write.