I bet the comments on the HuffPo are a hoot, but I haven’t bothered to look.
My problem with Liberalism is that it’s more concerned with policing people’s language and thoughts without requiring them to do anything to fix the problem. White liberal college students speak of “safe spaces”, “trigger words”, “micro aggressions” and “white privilege” while not having to do anything or, more importantly, give up anything. They can’t even have a conversation with someone who sees the world differently without resorting to calling someone a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigot and trying to have them banned from campus, or ruin them and their reputation. They say they feel black peoples’ pain because they took a trip to Africa to help the disadvantaged, but are unwilling to go to a black neighborhood in the City in which they live. These same college students will espouse the joys of diversity, but will in the same breath assume you are only on campus because of affirmative action or that all black people grew up in poverty. My personal favorite is declaring with surprise how articulate a black classmate is despite the fact that we are attending the same institution of higher learning as they are.
The White Liberal culture encourages talking about diversity and shaming others for their alleged racism, but many times they themselves work in environments that are mostly white. When questioned they’ll defensively state that they promote strictly on merit. Black people aren’t suggesting that we want someone unqualified to get the position, but I find it telling that they assume that we are not qualified. These same Liberals are quick to be against school choice, while their kids go to private or well-regarded public schools. Leaving poor black children behind in underperforming schools and providing less opportunity to improve their lives is inconsequential to keeping true to their white liberal politics. Many people are quick to espouse the political values of liberalism without having to live with the often harsh reality of those policies.
I’ve always found it interesting to find a somewhat rational voice, especially one like hers, in a sea of stupidity. It’s interesting to note the rational points, any courage (in her case that’s what she does for a living) & a resume chock full of accomplishments. Side by side with a complete ignorance of her own ideology. She’s goading her fellow liberals with simple reverse psychology & yes, if I’d read a selection of the comments I’m sure the picture would have been complete. A display of formless experimentation & frustration that the state is either not what it’s cracked up to be or that entitlements don’t seem to be forthcoming because of general consensus. But then, her voice on the Left does have it’s counterparts on the Right. Many glib & intelligent people. Sore losers & self-defeatists, those that thought they could get an actual conservative ideologue (Canadian born) into office & becoming stompy foots when their guy turned out to be a loser. Those that are doing their best to bring us all down. I digress.
It is important to understand pragmatism. It’s a foundation of success & victory. Reagan understood it.
Often this year, I’m reminded of Mr Reagan’s philosophy “That person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally; not a 20% traitor.” There are many on both extremes of the political spectrum who demand 100% adherence with their beliefs, lest an act of heresy be engaged in. And heretics are the worst kind of people, worse than the nonbelievers on the opposite side of the political fence.
Often, ideological purity masks personal insecurity. Someone who agrees with you enough of the time that their intellect can’t be doubted without doubting your own is the type of person whose differences from your opinions risks revealing your flaws. Similarly, those on the opposite end of the spectrum are best avoided altogether, as to know them would require recognition of their humanity and The Enemy is most easily hated when he is The Other: an object rather than a person.