Now is not the Time to Play Nice

“It was a sickness of the mind, and where sickness thrives, bad things will follow.”        

~ From the movie The Hobbit

There’s something about movie theatres that puts me to sleep.  I don’t know if it’s the darkness or if perhaps it’s self-defense against the explosion of deafening noise spewing forth at me, but it never fails that, despite my iron resolve to stay awake for the entire movie, I find myself quickly descending into unconsciousness shortly after the beginning credits are done.  I was on the path of my descent during the movie The Hobbit when the semi-conscious blogger in me heard the sage voice of the narrator uttering the words quoted at the top of this post.  Temporarily roused from my sleepy state, I reached down and began furiously fishing through my purse in the dark, searching for a scrap of paper and pen to write it down before I could forget (that’s about a ten-second window for me).  Eventually I found what I needed and, under the wary glare of my husband, I quickly scribbled it down before proceeding on to my nap. 

“It was a sickness of the mind, and where sickness thrives, bad things will follow.”       

There is nothing I love more than to hear a little gem of truth and wisdom all neatly contained within one simple little sentence.  This is the DNA of argumentation.  It is inarguable, or as my teenage son would put it, “Boom!”

 “...where sickness thrives, bad things will follow.”   2 + 2 = 4.

Now, the sickness he was referring to was greed, and the reason it was a problem is because it was the king who was consumed with greed.  That’s why, conservatives understand, it behooves society not to vest power in kings (duh!) or in governments where people can make themselves king-like (double duh!).  No, what occurred to me when I heard “sickness of the mind” was liberalism.  I guess I have thought of it this way for so long now that I assume it to be an accepted fact among all conservatives, but recently I learned that I am sadly mistaken. 

Not long ago a conservative blogger friend of mine wrote a post urging republicans not to villainize the Left, but to instead accept liberalism as just a different political philosophy.  A wrong-headed philosophy, perhaps, but still one that is generally rooted in good intentions.  Believing that it is the nasty tone adopted by the “Angry Right” that’s scaring liberals away, he suggested we embrace a strategy of polite persuasion instead. 

I don’t mean to pick on my friend.  He’s not alone in his thinking; in fact his feelings are probably shared by a majority of republicans.  But I could not disagree more on either his view of liberalism or his suggested strategy for dealing with it.  A true understanding of liberalism would make clear why polite persuasion not only will never succeed, but has failed to succeed for the better part of a century now.  It is not our bad manners but our collective failure to expose liberalism for what it really is – a sickness of the mind – that has brought us to the current state.

If you want to understand the difference between conservatism and liberalism, skip the political section at your library and head to the psychology department.  Liberalism and conservatism have to do with state of mind, and it is the state of mind that leads to the choice of politics, not the other way around.  There is a reason that, despite the enormous odds against it, liberals and conservatives are at odds on virtually everything:  social policy, gun control, the role of government, entitlements, the environment, national security, immigration, etc., etc., etc.  This fact alone is evidence that something is amiss.  Why?  Because 2 + 2 is not adding up to 4, that’s why.  It simply is not possible that people with the same ultimate motives would adopt such polar opposite attitudes to everything that is of importance to this nation.  Find the explanation for that and you will understand the real difference between liberals and conservatives. 

Here’s where the discussion gets a little complicated, as I try to compress into one paragraph an explanation of what should easily take an entire series of books. The driving force behind all classes of liberalism is psychological immaturity.  Among other things this manifests itself in the push towards socialism as people either look to be taken care of at the expense of others, they seek power over others, they wish to see themselves as the benefactors of others, or some combination of the three.  Regardless of which it is, the motivating forces are the same:  there’s either the wish to be taken care of or the desire to gratify one’s own ego through power and/or self-congratulation.  And yes, there are always those who simply have chosen their “team” (democrat), but who could argue that this isn’t immature as well?

And that is the sickness:  the absence of a properly developed maturity of mind.  The traits that we frequently see in liberals are ones that we often associate with children.  They are often habitually dishonest and hypocritical, they cheat, they bully others to get their way, they engage in tantrums (i.e. riots), they seek adulation and they engage in childish idealism.  Liberals, particularly those in the elitist ranks like Barack Obama, exhibit an absence of conscience that enables them to engage in behaviors that conservatives generally would not.  And therein lies the key to understanding why a strategy of polite persuasion will never succeed.  We have vastly different motivations.  Trying to win them over with persuasion would be analogous to an air traffic controller on 9-11shouting advice to the hijackers on how to avoid crashing.  The ATC wants to save the plane and passengers.  The hijackers want to be martyrs.  They are not going to be persuaded by the ATC’s advice.

 As I watched The Hobbit (yes I did eventually wake up) I was struck by how easy it was to tell who the good guys were and who the bad guys were.  Cute little Hobbits with big, hairy feet – good.  Nasty looking Orcs with open sores and rotting teeth – bad.  It’s easy to recognize danger on the silver screen.  In real life, however, the danger we face is hidden in the faces of people who look pretty much like us.  Such handy camouflage often makes it difficult to see others as a danger and to confront them.  Conservatives’ homage to the rules of civility and polite debate have made us unwitting accomplices to the advance of liberalism, as playing along with the charade of liberalism as a noble pursuit only emboldens them. 

As we wrestle with our demoralization from recent defeats, now is not the time to play nice.  In fact, the time to play nice with those who would destroy this nation, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was never.  No, I’m not suggesting we grab our swords and axes and go after liberals the way the hobbits fought back against the Orcs.  But it is time to pull aside the smiling masks of people like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and others, and reveal the snarling, hideous Orcs underneath.  And the way this is done is to lay bare the true motives behind liberalism – the search for ego gratification, the quest for superiority, the pursuit of power and control, and the desire to take what belongs to someone else.  That is the only path to success, in my humble opinion.

~CW

Government and the Hurricane

One of the most disturbing similarities between hurricanes Sandy and Katrina (and others as well, I’m sure) is the astonishing lack of preparation by some of the people who live in the affected areas and who had ample warning of the coming storm.  In my estimation, those in the Sandy area have been much better prepared than the people of New Orleans were.  Still, I’ve been seeing and hearing reports about people being desperate for basic things like food and clean drinking water, even though it’s only been a few days since the storm hit.  Forgive me but what kind of people are forewarned of a massive hurricane coming and they don’t go to the store and stock up on a few basic necessities? 

The answer, I fear, is people who have become so dependent on government that their natural instincts to prepare for an emergency have been slowly erased, like genetic traits that are obsolete.  Instead, these people wait until the crisis is at hand, and their newly evolved instincts kick in:  they whine, beg and steal.

I cannot think of a greater indictment against government dependence.  

What IS Personal Responsibility?

Among the many other things we have seen re-defined at the hands of liberals we can add to that the concept of what it means to be “personally responsible.”  Apparently it is now sufficient to merely mouth the words, “I take personal responsibility” and without suffering any consequences for your actions (or lack thereof) or taking any action, you are to take a bow and be held in the highest esteem for your great display of maturity.  After all, finding ways to bask in undeserved credit is what the Left excels at.

Consider the Benghazi incident.  During his second debate with Romney Obama loftily declared to the nation that he is “taking personal responsibility,” for what occurred there.  But of course he did so without actually accepting any blame, and within seconds of making his declaration he turned around and angrily declared that he was “offended” at any suggestion that his White House was keeping information from the American people.  “I take responsibility but don’t you dare try and hold me accountable.”  That is, in effect, what he was saying.

It comes as no surprise to me when liberals have the arrogance to “assume responsibility” without assuming responsibility.  Always in search of the respect and admiration bestowed upon those who truly behave like bona fide adults – selfless, strong, wise – they try to earn respect through imitation.  But without the spirit and core principles from which these traits arise, they always get it wrong, and they come off as what they are:  children play-acting at being adults.   That’s why they believe that taking responsibility can be demonstrated by merely saying the words.

A real adult does not necessarily need to come out and announce that he is “taking responsibility.”  That’s because it would already be evident in his behavior.  He would expose himself to questioning and face-to-face criticism, and not just with friendly sources.  He would genuinely accept blame when it’s due by saying, “I failed to...” or “My administration failed to...”  He would truly – not just rhetorically – hold people accountable by firing, demoting or otherwise punishing those who significantly contributed to failure.  But Obama doesn’t have to do any of that, because the new normal has now been established. 

The man from the audience in that second debate whose question prompted Obama’s “I take personal responsibility” claim appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s show the following night.  When she asked if he was satisfied with Obama’s answer, his response shocked and dismayed me.  Paraphrasing, he said he was satisfied because Obama “took personal responsibility.” 

So there you have it.  The conventional wisdom used to be that actions speak louder than words.  Under the new normal, words speak louder than actions.

Mitt Romney and the Coming Storm

They say that a storm of monumental proportions is coming to the east coast.  As I write this, the Obama administration is busy formulating their strategy so as not to let this newest “crisis” go to waste.  How much money can we hand out, and how fast.  That will be their calculation.  Obama’s tired old stump speech will be re-written to include an homage to himself as the benefactor of the storm’s “victims,” with not so much as a “gee, thanks,” passed along to the real benefactors – the U.S. taxpayers.

It pains me to be so cynical but I think Romney had better have a plan as well.  And the answer isn’t hard to see if he simply looks within himself and asks, what would I do if this were my community (and it may be, given that he hails from Massachusetts)?  Going forward, Romney should take every opportunity to address the folks on the east coast.  He should call on people to stand strong and take responsibility for themselves and their families by being well-prepared or by getting out of harm’s way.  He should appeal to people to be good neighbors and to assist those who need help getting ready or getting out of the area.  He should press communities to come together to prepare, rather than wait for the government to come along after the damage is done.  By doing this he will not only encourage people in the path of the storm to do what’s best for themselves.  He will be reinforcing principles of personal responsibility and local community strength over helpless reliance on government.  And it won’t hurt my feelings if he takes some of the wind (or should I say hot air) out of Obama’s sails.

Do I think he’ll do this?  No, I don’t.  I think he will listen to his advisors and to the politician within himself rather than the self-made man within himself, and he will talk about what goodies a Mitt Romney administration would hand out if he was in charge. 

Let’s hope I’m wrong.

Fools in Pink

Recently I was perusing various online news pages when I came upon a front-page story about a group of women from Code Pink who were in Pakistan to take part in organized protests against U.S.-lead drone strikes targeting anti-U.S. militants.  One of the things that struck me from the article was a comment made by one of Code Pink’s leaders who said, “People are taking great risks to come here.” 

Are they really?  Let us ponder this for a moment.  They’re going to a place where anti-U.S. sentiment is very strong in order to protest against the U.S.  While there may be a certain amount of risk involved, that risk pales in comparison to the risk taken by those who defy the Taliban.  As if to magically underscore this point, the same news page also had a story about the 14-year old Pakistani girl who was sought out and shot in the head by members of the Taliban while she was at school.  Seems the girl had openly defied the Taliban by advocating education for females in Pakistan, and they decided to teach her a lesson and send a message to other girls who might question the will of the Taliban and the place of females in their society.  The juxtaposition between this girl and the Code Pinkers could not be more powerful and more revealing.  On the one hand the Code Pinkers openly tout their own bravery for actions which, if successful, assists in removing the only real threat to the likes of those who attacked this young girl.  On the other hand we have a young girl who, without ever touting her own bravery, does something truly courageous and stands up to the Taliban.  In doing so she gives the world a stark reminder of who our drones are targeting, and shows what a useful fool looks like when it dons the color pink.

At one time I might have wondered, if the Code Pinkers sincerely want to assist innocent victims of violence and are willing to risk their own lives, why don’t they organize protests against the Taliban instead of the U.S.?  After all, if the Taliban were to be defeated, there would no longer be a need for drones, correct?  That would solve everyone’s problem.  But having studied the Left for quite a long time now, I already know the answer.  In the first place, focusing on the Taliban is just so ordinary and obvious.  Anyone can hate the Taliban but it takes a very special person to understand that the U.S. is the real bad guy here, and above all the Code Pinkers truly want to be seen as special.  Secondly, standing against the Taliban might invite real risk to the Code Pinkers, and really the only blood they want to get on themselves is the fake blood they use as props when they confront civilized folks (like Condoleeza Rice) who they can rest assured will not respond with violence. 

They say you can tell a person’s true character by the things they do when they think no one is looking.  A similar law applies here.  You can tell a true leftist by their propensity to ignore the most evil in society in favor of focusing on those targets that offer the best potential for attention for the least amount of personal risk.

Answering Mitt Romney's Garbage Man

I saw a report today on an anti-Romney commercial featuring a garbage collector who works in Romney’s neighborhood in La Jolla California.  I didn’t see the whole ad and can’t remember the fellow’s name but apparently he was angry with Romney for not being sufficiently sympathetic to him because he has a physically hard job and he’ll be worn out by the time he’s 55 years old.  Like all liberal claims the charge contains a subtle strawman argument – the assumption that Romney doesn’t sympathize with people who work in low-level jobs.  But the reason I bring it up is because it should be an opening to a sorely needed discussion about personal choices and consequences, although it won’t be.

Elections, Barack Obama tells us, have consequences.  Well guess what?  The choices we make in our lives have consequences too, or at least they should.  A 55-year old man who’s working on a garbage truck is, in all likelihood, doing so because he made a series of decisions in life.  Maybe he never graduated from high school.  Maybe he decided higher education was too expensive and too time-consuming.  Maybe he never pursued any other training or educational opportunities that might have given him the skills to advance to a higher level position.  Maybe he was busy raising a family and didn’t have time – that’s a choice too. 

No one in this country is slated to be a garbage collector or anything else in life, that’s the beauty of a free country.  I’ve known many people who started with nothing and overcame hardships to attain success in their lives and their careers.  I’ve also known people who traded higher incomes for other things they valued, such as the opportunity to do something they love, to live where they preferred, to accommodate a spouse or for any number of reasons.  Those are all valid choices in life but they often come at a cost.  The question is this:  who should pay for the cost of your choices?  Do the people who invested the time and money to go to college and earn a higher income owe something to those who chose to spend their time and money differently? 

The natural consequences of our choices in life are nature’s way of steering us towards better choices, thereby fostering a more thriving society.  Ordinarily the job of garbage man should attract young, uneducated men who do it for awhile to make ends meet but who eventually are motivated to take the steps to find better jobs because it is hard, tedious, filthy work.  Unions and government intervention (read leftist intervention) have thwarted nature’s divine plan by creating artificial rewards that wouldn’t otherwise exist; thus we have 55-year old men doing jobs that were intended for younger, unskilled men, and then complaining to Mitt Romney because it’s a hard job for a 55-year old man. 

It is a great thing when the wealthy in a society are willing to share the fruits of their success with those less fortunate; yet it is also incumbent upon society to not artificially insulate people from their choices in life such that personal choices become irrelevant and all of society has to bear the price.  That’s a recipe for a failed society.

Don’t Cry for Pussy Riot, America

If there is one thing you can always count on in this world it is the Left’s unwavering penchant for reducing the sacred principles of free societies to meaningless slogans that serve no one but themselves.  The most recent example of this is the supposed ‘free speech’ incident involving the Russian feminist group, Pussy Riot.  If their name alone doesn’t tell you which side of this debate you should be on, please read on.   

Back in February five members of ‘Pussy Riot’ donned ski masks, tights and short skirts, then stormed the altar during a religious service at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, treating the surprised church crowd to a protest performance aimed at Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orhodox Church.  Three members of the group were subsequently sentenced to two years in prison for “hooliganism” stemming from this incident.  Naturally the Left, who are attracted to phony causes like bears to a beehive, are up in arms.  Sensing a golden opportunity to express righteous but misplaced indignation, some have been quick to vocalize their unhappiness under the false presumption that people actually care what they think.  Madonna showed her support when she performed at a concert in Moscow with the words “Pussy Riot” painted on her back.  Oh what a brave freedom fighter she is!  Was she hauled off the stage and placed in a cell or forced to flee the country under threat of harm?  Well, no, not exactly.  She stayed in a fine hotel where she was pampered like a princess but still, don’t you just admire her courage?  LOL.  Another supporter is Julian Assange.  Enough said.

Let me see if I can accurately paraphrase the Left’s argument here.  “Free speech”  means having the liberty to interrupt someone else’s religious service, commandeer the altar that other people have paid for and force those present to listen to a punk-rock version of your political grievances whether they wish to or not.  Is that a reasonable summation?  Okie dokie.  May I presume then that Madonna wouldn’t mind if I seized the stage at one of her concerts to deliver a speech on the evils of liberalism and the need to elect Mitt Romney while I have a captive audience of Bozo brains?  

It’s becoming trite to point out the hypocrisy in everything the Left does.  By this point, hopefully, it is just assumed.

The children of the Left would never understand this but the “right” to free speech is not a right to impose one’s views on others whether they wish to hear them or not.  There’s a different name for that:  bullying.  That’s what the Left does best.  When you can show me that Pussy Riot was prevented from delivering their message in their own venue or in free venues such as the internet, then we can talk about free speech.  Until then here is my response to Madonna and Assange and all the other Pussy Riot supporters:  shut the hell up.

P.S. to Pussy Riot:

Enjoy your time in jail.  You get no sympathy from me.