"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."
This is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill, and like many of the things he was purported to have said, it still rings true today. Even the old liberals are behaving like children. Children have a tendency to want things that are not good for them. The same certainly can be said for liberals today, as many of the things they are seeking would end up being ruinous for us all.
Take for example, the war in Iraq. They don't want to win the war in Iraq, they just want it to end, no matter what the consequences. Many liberal politiicians voted for it, and many other liberals supported the action in early 2003. But like a child who has tired of something, they just want to put it down and walk away. "It's too hard," they cry. Evidently, if something is hard, it's not worth doing. They cannot see beyond their own petty concerns and realize the value of actually finishing the job. Nor, like a child, do they understand the consequences of failure. They believe they can choose not to finish this fight, and the United States will continue on its merry way, much like a child who is oblivious to the real worldly dangers their parents insulate them from.
The value of real work means little to them. They believe everyone should be able to do what they want, and that somehow the government is supposed to provide jobs and happiness for them. They go to school and get degrees in obtuse, specialized fields of study, then blame the government when they can't get a job in said field. Few of them understand that our government is only supposed to guarantee the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. I read a letter to the editor in major newspaper a few years ago, written by someone who claimed to have a Phd. He was complaining about the job market, and, of course, blaming President Bush because he hadn't been able to find a job in his field. If you ask me, someone with a PhD should be smart enough to figure out a way to support himself regardless of the job market. If, for example, he studied how to tune lutes or perform hand-loom weaving, are we supposed to subsidize his desire to work at such an extinct profession?
There is also a tendency for today's liberals to make up their own science. Like children, they believe whatever they are told, whether there is any factual basis to it or not, as long as it fits their world view. Global warming, the raw food movement, and "Bush Lied, Kids Died," are just a few examples of believing whatever is convenient rather than actually bothering to find out any truth. Whoopi Goldberg once said on The O'Reilly Factor, "...if you want to go and get lots of facts and not go from your heart. I go from my heart." If it doesn't fit their world view, they will not believe it, regardless of being presented with factual evidence. I know a fellow who told me he ate all his vegetables raw, because "they are better for you that way." That's the basis of today's raw food movement. Now, if you do a little research, it's not hard to find out that a vegetable like spinach, for example, releases twice the amount of vitamins and nutrients in its cooked form rather than in its raw form, as a result of the cell walls breaking down to make the nutrients more available. But this fellow was convinced that because it's closer to nature, it is automatically better for you. He did no research, he just believed what his peer group believed.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are skeptical of anything that does not come without some factual evidence. Of course, there are exceptions to both groups, but most conservatives I know generally want to know how and why things work the way they do. Take for example, the contrast between Barack Hussein Obama's book The Audactiy of Hope and David Horowitz's book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. The former is a political book written by a liberal. It cites many things as facts, but there is not a single reference for anything listed as fact in the book. Yet liberals have made it a best-seller, and I have yet to see a liberal give it a negative review. The latter book is a political book written by a conservative in which the author also cites many things as fact. To back up these facts, the author has provided us with 34 pages of references for the facts that he cites. And liberals will dismiss it as lies and innuendo, even when many of the facts referenced were taken from their own liberal media outlets.
It is widely accepted in conservative circles that the liberals are seeking a perpetual nanny state of government, where personal responsibility is at a minimum and the government takes care of all. This cannot help but be bad for our country, as well as being completely un-American. Liberals do not understand economics; they simply do not understand how wealth is created. To them, corporate America is nothing but a parasite on the backs of the workers, even though it is these corporations that actually create most of the wealth and provide most of the jobs. One of the reasons communism failed was because everyone wanted to "share the wealth," but nobody understood where the wealth actually came from. Once the wealth was all redistributed, there was no more to be had, and no system for more to be created. The liberals don't understand this contradiction; they view wealth as static, as a resource we should all share, but they have little concept of where it comes from. Like a child, they want their allowance but they don't want anyone to actually have to work for it if they don't want to.
Eventually, all children grow up. The same cannot be said for all liberals. There are still many old liberals, and as Churchill said, "Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." But some liberals do grow up, and become conservatives. The afore mentioned David Horowitz is one of them; he was a self-proclaimed radical leftist who eventually, through tragedy and awareness, gave up his liberal ways and is now a leading conservative author and activist. Another recent conversion to the path of conservativism is the playwright David Mamet, who confessed to once being a "brain-dead liberal." I myself was once an extreme leftist who spent years playing in punk bands and spouting leftist propaganda.
And we are not alone. There are many liberals who are slowly seeing the emptiness in the liberal mindset and are slowly growing from young liberals into old conservatives. And, lucky for us, it doesn't happen the other way. There are few examples of conservatives who are turning into liberals. The American left is gaining few new converts; almost all conversion is from liberalism to conservatism. Which is why they are trying to brainwash children in today's schools and colleges. That's their only hope to grow their liberal movement. They must continue to sit at the Children's Table.
