It’s almost the end of the work day and I’m getting ready to log off. Hannity is shot-gunning callers (my term, not his, running through as many calls, as fast as fast as he can, to close out the show) and he got a particularly interesting one that he dwelled upon. A younger sounding lady who gives a perfect example of what’s wrong with modern liberals, democrats, and apparently 52% of our fellow citizens, give or take a few million.
The crux of her argument was, she was a decent person, didn’t want to see people suffer, didn’t want people living in abject poverty, thought its unfair people go to bed hungry, so, using her superior morality, she voted for, and supports, democrats in general, and the President in particular.
Don’t get me wrong, she was quite pleasant, polite, respectful – traits in short supply in the modern left – and she listened to what Hannity had to say. I give her credit. The standard template for the left is to scream unsubstantiated allegations loudly enough to drown out every other voice, declare victory, then go home and have an ego orgasm over their obvious superiority.
I think that’s what caught my attention. Call it unfounded hope, call me a dreamer, but I still believe some of these people can be reached.
And on the surface, she’s got a good argument. She’s nice, she wants to help people, she wants life to be better for all. Her problem is voting democrats to obtain that goal. The truth does not lie in a surface argument, it’s in the dirty, hard to calculate, and ever boring facts.
It is my opinion that delegating one’s obligation to the poor of the world to the democratic party is a fallacy. First off, it won’t work, because the left’s idea of helping people is to slowly and completely smother them with government regulations. That ain’t going to help any one. But on another level, it does not absolve a single democratic voter and/or supporter of their real, moral obligation to help the less fortunate.
That’s the key. Voting democrat gives them that nice, personal, satisfying feeling that they have made a difference. That’s not enough. Well, actually they’re causing more pain and suffering, but besides that, its wrong to believe that once they pull that lever in November, they are free from worrying about what they can do to help for a year, or at least until the next year’s campaign season starts up. Then they’ve got to ‘fight’ for the caring candidates, just so they can get another yearly fix.
That’s plain wrong.
It’s well known from a variety of studies that conservatives are much more charitable than modern liberals. (Full disclosure, I’m not a conservative, I’m my own weirded-out interpretation of libertarianism.)
Does any one remember Al Gore writing off used underwear donations on his tax returns? What could they possible be worth? After all, I’m assuming Gore’s mega plan to save the universe includes using less toilet paper. A nickel? Maybe. And going through the pain staking process to document a monetary amount that small. I wonder how much he paid his accountants to figure out the verifiable worth of his used underwear? Imagine what he could have done with that cash? But that’s my point. It made more sense to him.
Modern liberalism has transferred personal, moral obligations to government. Their worshipers are free from the guilt associated with the dreary facts of the human condition.
As I said, they are wrong. If they really cared, they wouldn’t stop there. Actually, if they didn’t stop there, they might finally learn exactly “why” they don’t stop there.