Connect with us

Democrats

An open letter to those who are truly Liberal

Published

on

An open letter to those who are truly Liberal

First of all, a sincere apology for your treatment from those on the Right who use the term Liberal as a pejorative.

Despite the fact that there is a vast difference between the words Liberal and Leftist, many on both sides still confuse the terms. So, by way of an introduction, let us run through the basics to clarify our terms.

1. The fundamental debate in politics is between individualism and collectivism.

The individualist considers the rights and freedoms of everyone on an individual level. The collectivist considers rights and freedoms in terms of the collective ‘good’. The individualist favours individual Liberty as in the right to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’. The collectivist is only concerned about these values in terms of groups or collectives. The individualist values each and every person in and of themselves, the collectivist values each person by what they can contribute to the collective.

By example, the individualist considers the right of self-preservation an individual right. The collectivist considers this to be – you guessed it – a collective right.

2. Politics is also a division between those who desire control over others and those who do not.

This was expressed by author and Engineer Robert A. Heinlein as follows:

“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein

There are those who do not care about controlling others, while there are others who lust for this power.

The first general category simply want to live their lives with minimal interference from the government. The second general category are those who want to manage others and control their lives. It logically follows that Individualists would fall into the first general category, while collectivists would fall into the second category.

3. Freedom is trampled as government expands.

As Thomas Jefferson [and founder of the Democratic Party] stated it:

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

It should be self-evident that as government grows in size and power, individual Liberty decreases. The historic record shows this to always be the case. It logically followers that those truly imbued with the precepts of Liberty would oppose government expansion.

Individualists have little desire to control others, preferring Limited government to protect Liberty.

Collectivists want control others preferring the destruction of Liberty with expanded government.

How do these three points compare with the definitions of the words Liberal, Conservative and Leftists?

By definition, Liberals favour ‘individual rights and freedoms’ and ‘individual liberty, free trade’ are individualists. They have lot in common with Conservatives who favour ‘free enterprise’ and ‘private ownership’.

Conversely speaking, Leftist political philosophies are collectivist. By definition, those favouring ‘socialist views’ [Collectivism] are on the Left.

So why is this important?

Simply put, those who are truly Liberal have much more in common with Conservatives than the Left. True Liberals and Conservatives are individualists by nature, without much in the way of a desire to control others. These are people who want the government to be limited since that is the only way to maximise Liberty.

Leftists on the other hand, are collectivists by nature, desirous of control over the people who prefer expanded government over Liberty.

It is important to point out these fundamental principles since they clearly differentiate Liberals and Conservatives as on the political right from those on the political Left. Everyone needs to understand these precepts with regard to where they truly belong. For far too long, the Left has co-opted the term Liberal – a word based in freedom – for their designs in power. As is the case with their many other labels and talking points, their exploitation of that label is 180° Degrees out of phase with reality.

Those of you who are truly Liberal need to rejoin your allies in Liberty on the Right.

Frankly speaking, the Left has been lying to you over the decades. While they talk a good game about freedom and civil rights, they act in the opposite manner. Consider their actions:

  • They have worked tirelessly to undermine our individual Liberties of free-speech, freedom of the press, the right of self-preservation and even due process and the presumption of innocence.
  • Meanwhile they have asserted more and more sovereignty over the lives of ordinary Americans down to strict controls on their property to the types of drinking straws they can use.
  • This while they seek to expand government power to unheard of levels with total control over your health care and other ‘free stuff’ that will only serve to set everyone in their servitude.

The Left is the biggest threat to the cause of Liberty at present, those who value this important cause are realising this to be the case and are jumping ship, hence the burgeoning #WalkAway Movement. While many in that movement talk of leaving Liberalism the case presented shows that this isn’t entirely the case. Leaving the Left actually means rejoining the Liberal cause.

Ask yourself: Do you want to stand with the ochlocracy of the Left or the rationality of the Right?

The #WalkAway movement has seen many leave the Left for good, having become fed up with it’s irrationality and mob rule. Do you want your name to be connected to the increasingly violent rhetoric, If not actual violence from the Left?

Recent studies have shown that far-Left activists are a small percentage of the population, while the overwhelming majority are tired of it’s antics. Rejoining those who value Liberty will put you in the majority, instead of with a small segment of the population who value collectivism, political power and expansive government that is destroying Liberty.

Despite their overwhelming advantages in dominating the culture, media and government indoctrination [Public education] system the Left has been on a losing streak. They are down to the desperate measures of trying to control speech along with other Liberties – despite their labeling as well as threatening violence.

Do you condone these actions? If you do not, then you should #WalkAway.

If you truly value individual rights and freedoms, as well as free trade, then you belong with those who have these in common. The Far-Left political minority does not hold these values as important, so why should anyone be a part of it?

Advertisement
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. PJZive

    October 16, 2018 at 8:41 pm

    Unfortunately, you have conflated conservatives with rightists, who want to force Christianity into public places (like courthouses and schools), want to control women and their access to abortion, want to restrict the individual rights of LGBTQ community members, and don’t mind that political institutions like law enforcement infringe on the individual liberties of persons of color.

    Liberals and conservatives may not be so different, but they are distinctly different from both rightists and leftists.

    • DParker

      October 17, 2018 at 2:23 pm

      BTW, Are you a Leftist or a Liberal?

    • DParker

      October 17, 2018 at 11:22 pm

      Please pardon my tardiness at eviscerating your comments. It would seem you are reticent to actually engage in a conversation so this will have to be it.

      First of all, you should realise that you damage your own credibility when making statements without any factual underpinnings as you did in your fist sentence.

      Second, You failed to cite examples in your assertions. These are commonly mentioned but rarely backed up with real world examples, thus you have further damaged your credibility.

      Finally, you were incorrect in your last assertion, as my article proved.

  2. DParker

    October 17, 2018 at 2:19 pm

    Perhaps you could elucidate the metric that you use to define the political spectrum.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump, as expected

Published

on

16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump as expected

It was one of the most replayed parts of President Trump’s announcement regarding his national emergency declaration last Friday – a sing-song moment as the President predicted the declaration would be made, Democrats would sue, they’d go through the 9th circuit, and their decision will hopefully be overturned by the Supreme Court. So far, he’s been absolutely correct as 16 states have filed against the declaration.

New York, California, 14 other states sue Trump in Ninth Circuit over emergency declaration

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-california-sue-trump-in-ninth-circuit-over-emergency-declarationThe attorneys general of California, New York, and 14 other states on Monday filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit against the White House’s recent national emergency declaration over border security, claiming President Trump has “veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”

President Trump sarcastically had predicted the lawsuit last week. He’s slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as “disgraceful” and politically biased.

My Take

This is their right, and while it may annoy those who support building the border wall, it would be a mistake to condemn these states for trying to stop it. This is part of the way our nation is intended to operate. If one or more states feel the need to challenge the authority of Washington DC, they should be able to make their case before the courts. If the courts make decisions based on the Constitution, then the end result will be the accurate and righteous one.

That’s how this was all intended.

I’m not suggesting the 9th Circuit is going to treat this fairly, nor am I confident the Supreme Court will make its decision solely on the Constitution, but until things are changed, this is what we’ve got. Attempts to subvert any component of this system from the President’s right to declare the emergency to the states’ rights to challenge it to the courts’ responsibility to make a ruling about it all would be to denounce the foundation upon which this nation was built.

There was a way this could have been avoided. Had the President and the GOP decided to have the debate over the wall while they had power over the House, Senate, and White House, they would have been in better position to get the wall going by now. Unfortunately, they an improper political calculation to hold off on the wall debate until after the midterm elections, and now it’s costing the American citizens. It costs us money to sit here through the shutdown and the legal battle over the national emergency declaration. It’s costing us time; the wall should be much further along by now. It may end up costing us the wall altogether if they aren’t able to make a strong case before the Supreme Court.

We are in the midst of a crisis at the border, one that has been going on for decades. Let’s not exacerbate the crisis by adding a Constitutional crisis on top. This needs to play all the way out.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

Published

on

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

It’s been an up-and-down couple of weeks for proponents of the Green New Deal. Before details were released, it was already being heralded as the greatest thing since President Obama’s election. Then, the details came out and even many on the left were taken aback by the ambitious and incoherent provisions of the deal as detailed in a FAQ section on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s government web page.

But that was just a draft. They took it down. At least that was the story.

Unfortunately for proponents, they were caught a little flat-footed as questions started pouring in about, well, all of it. Even if we dismiss the less-draconian concepts such as eliminating air travel or the less-sane ideas like taking care of those who are unwilling to work, the left is still stuck with a proposal that the most frugal estimates put at costing around $7 trillion while other’s consider the decade-long cost to be in the HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.

This is, of course, ludicrous. There’s not enough money in the entire world to pay for the proposal if its cost is somewhere between the lowest and highest estimates, but that hasn’t stopped leftist media from regrouping. Now that the dust has settled a little bit, they’re doing everything they can to recommit to this concept. It’s not that they suddenly believe in this fairy tale. It’s that they don’t want this to be the issue Republicans attack in the 2020 elections.

One article in particular that I read from CNN (yes, sometimes I need to see what the other side is thinking) really struck me for its honesty about the situation. Though I stopped reading it in paragraph two when it referred to “non-partisan” PolitiFact, I went back to it just now to digest the awfulness fully (see the sacrifices I make for our readers!).

To be clear, much of what this article says is correct. It asserts the GOP will take the tenets of the Green New Deal and use it to scare voters into thinking it’s even worse than Obamacare. From 2010 through 2016, Republicans attacked Obamacare incessantly and it worked, giving them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, they stopped there and didn’t actually go after Obamacare with the same fervor they held in their campaign rhetoric and now the Democrats have turned the issue on its head.

But here’s the thing. Obamacare may have been bad, but the Green New Deal truly is worse. It’s not even close. Even if we take at face value the notion that the Green New Deal is simply an ambitious framework around which real legislation can be forged, we have to look at the core issues entailed in order to see the true damage it can do. This is a socialist document. It’s a call for the same levels of insanity that drive the Medicare-for-All movement. Within its frivolous attempts to change perceptions of air travel, cows, and job creation is a deep-rooted desire to convert Americans to needing more government.

NOQ Report needs your support.

The Green New Deal represents the far-left’s desire to make more American dependent on government. At the same time, it aims to increase the levels of dependency for those who are already in need of assistance. It wants Democrats to latch their wagons on the notion that if we become a militantly environmentalist nation, that will serve the dual purpose of giving us fulfillment while saving the planet.

I believe most leftist journalists understand this, but they see in the ridiculous framework a path through which Republicans can be defeated wholesale in 2020 as long as the left can control the narrative surrounding the Green New Deal. They fear another Obamacare counterinsurgency that would wipe out the anti-Trump gains they made in 2018, so they’ve adopted a stance that the Green New Deal isn’t as bad as Fox News says it is. Meanwhile, they’re doing everything they can to say, “look over here and not at the Green New Deal.”

The politics behind what the Green New Deal represents is more in play than the tenets of the proposal itself, at least in the eyes of leftist media. It’s not that they want to promote the concept. They simply don’t want the concept to derail their party in the next election.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage

Published

on

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report