The Contradiction of Liberal Compassion

"A lot of Republicans are all talk," said a good friend of mine the other day. "They blow off steam and never do anything. But a lot of my liberal friends are out there quietly helping the poor, volunteering helping the homeless, etc. They're not just talking; they're acting on what they believe."

At the time I couldn't really answer her. I was too stunned. Possibly I needed some sort of legal stimulant at the time, as well.

I've been thinking about this for the past couple days, poking around my brain for some answers. And then after I got some sleep yesterday night, stuff started happening. If you'd hooked up electrodes to my brain, they would have been flashing all over the place like one of those old computer keyboards from the original Star Trek.

I realized that if what she said is true, it's sad. I wish that more Republicans, or I prefer "conservatives" because Republican is a political party while conservative is a label for a set of ideals, wouldn't just get all fired up over talk radio (which I'm not saying is a bad thing, as long as the fire is used positively and constructively). Instead, I wish they would also put feet to their words and do something about their beliefs. Of course, how this looks will differ for every person, because every person is an individual with specific circumstances and talents to help others, blah blah blah. Okay, not "blah blah blah," because I think this statement isn't such a given after all. It's actually a conservative idea. At the core of liberalism is the idea that society will eventually progress to a kind of utopia in which everyone works together for the common good.

But on the other hand, I'm not about to preach that conservatives should use their beliefs to help others. I'm not about to preach that anyone should use their beliefs to help others. (God forbid, I hope I’m not about to preach anything.) I believe that the choice to help or not to help someone, or to volunteer or not to volunteer, is personal. The only thing I believe a person should have in this instance is the freedom to choose whether to volunteer or not, so they volunteer from a willing heart instead of a smoking gun behind their heads from a government-mandated community service hour requirement. (If you like more specifically Orwellian fun, check out this PDF file link.)

I believe though that her words touch on a deeper issue than just the Shakespeareanesque question of "to volunteer or not to volunteer." In other words, what she said implies that conservatives are not compassionate, or at least don't act very compassionate, and that liberals in fact are or act compassionate. But what makes conservatives not appear as compassionate as liberals? Is it just that conservatism attracts a bunch of people with fiery Pitta constitutions, and liberalism attracts happy, laid-back people with more Kapha constitutions? (Yes, I, a conservative, just alluded to the ancient Indian medicinal tradition of Ayurveda.) Or is it that conservatism as a set of ideas is actually intrinsically less compassionate than liberalism is? I'm not saying that she thinks this. I am saying, though, that her words logically raise this question.

At another blog, I recently read that "liberals have the moral high ground." Hmm. Really? Really?

To me, if you want to understand liberalism’s true nature, just look at an Oreo. On the outside of the Oreo are two chocolateish-flavored cookies, and on the inside is a sweet, creamy filling. The cookies and the filling are different in flavor, color, and texture.

The two outer cookies of the Oreo are how liberalism appears on the surface. On the surface, liberals seem pretty nice. They seem to stand for only nice things, like preserving the planet, saving cows and chickens, supporting people in whatever lifestyle they choose, no matter what that lifestyle might look like. They also seem to stand for caring for the poor and for the little, local guy--you know, the whole "buy local" idea, where you stop patronizing chain stores like Wal-Mart and McDonald's and buy from Goodwill and the local deli instead. (Hmm, isn't Goodwill a chain store too?)

I suppose you could scrape off the filling and eat only the outer cookies. Most times, though, when we eat an Oreo, we eat it all—especially the filling, because in my experience, people find the filling the best part of the Oreo. I know this because I’ve seen too many kids (and have been that kid) who tear the cookie apart and lick the filling first, because it tastes the best.

But the filling of the liberalism Oreo, unlike that of the literal Oreo, is thoroughly, utterly rotten. Not only is it immoral; it's also destructive to society. I’ll focus on the second part of my last statement.

Think about it for a minute. Just one. (Okay, more like five.) Yes, they say they want to preserve the planet. But by what means? By population control, or by limiting personal freedoms based on hoaxes such as global warming? Yes, they want to save cows and chickens, yet kill babies in the womb? (Come on, the whole it-isn't-really-a-baby-until-it's-born business is totally bunk now, thanks to the latest ultrasound technology.) Yes, they support people who choose all kinds of "alternative lifestyles," but these alternative lifestyles have historically been pretty destructive to societies. Think about it: Have you ever heard of a society composed mostly of gays and lesbians that has been prosperous, or that even survived for very long? Seriously, let me know if you have.

And is supporting a welfare state really caring for the poor? How did we care for the poor before the welfare state? Hmm--through local charities, the very places for which liberals insist we all volunteer. Besides, a welfare state keeps people locked into poverty, instead of freeing them from it. And this poverty-stricken sector makes a nice loyal voting bloc for welfare-staters come election time. Hmm...

Finally, what about the idea that liberals support the local guy, the little guy, the guy who doesn't use sweatshops to make his/her/their/our/my goods? Well, if you look at how things got to this point, you'll see that one of the reasons sweatshops and chain stores have become so popular is that businesspeople profit better from them than from local stores. Why? Because unions, manufacturing regulations, and environmental regulations all drive up wages, which forces businesspeople to outsource their jobs if they want to stay in business. Hey, wait--aren't those causes all liberal institutions? (I'm not saying we shouldn't have some basic regulations for safety's sake; I'm saying that we have too many, for the sake of bureaucratic control.)

So do liberals really have the moral or ethical high ground? Really?

What we have here isn’t a question of who has more compassion; it’s a question of whose beliefs produce more destructive results to humans. Put another way, the focus shouldn’t be on intentions, like compassion, but on beliefs and their results. What happens when somebody with good intentions practices bad ideas? Bad results.

_____________
(For more on how unions and governmental regulations have forced American businesses to outsource jobs to other countries, see America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty, by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.)

(Here’s a powerful example of voluntary American charity pre-welfare state, excerpted from New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, by Burton Folsom, Jr.: “In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faced crises. Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, President Grover Cleveland vetoed it. ‘I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution,’ Cleveland said. Such aid would ‘destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.’ He added, ‘Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.’ As for Texas, Cleveland noted, ‘the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune.’ Cleveland was prophetic. Voluntary contributions flowed into Texas from all over the nation, finally exceeding $100,000, more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers” (p. 77).)