|
Liberalism is a failed philosophy By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Feb. 25, 2010, in the Connersville News-Examiner. Last weekend, I made the lengthy trip back home to Michigan’s snowy Upper Peninsula to visit family and friends. The eight hours it takes to run up north of the 45th parallel is usually worth the chance to check out some of my old haunts and revive some long lost memories.
Being there in the campus halls did bring back memories that had slipped away — faces of acquaintances, crazy times and good friends. One memory dredged up from my time on campus was one very unapologetic class offered by one very unapologetic professor — an elective course plainly titled “The Failure of Liberalism.” Personally, I never took the class, as it did not fit into my program and the government frowned on those of us on the G.I. Bill taking courses outside the prescribed list of classes. Nevertheless, I did have the same professor for my grantwriting class, and the professor would solicit students to sign up for class, saying it would discuss the unsustainability of an entitlement culture and an all to eager nanny government. This professor was regularly criticized for his views, not surprising considering he was one of the few openly conservative faculty members on campus. But he sallied forth, promoting his alternative educational opportunity among the politically correct cultural diversity curricula popular in the 1990s. While I did not take the class, I have often pondered on what attracts people to such a bitter philosophy devoid of respect for the typical American while masking itself in compassion. The few times I have spoken with confessed liberals about the root of their beliefs, I have received one answer more often than others. ‘We’re looking out for the little guy.’ Outwardly, that answer seems very compassionate. After all, who would want to see ‘the little guy’ struggle? However, apply a little critical thinking to that thought and we find that mentality is actually mired in condescension. People who say they are for ‘the little guy’ obviously do not consider themselves to be little — in fact, they look down on the ‘little guy’ by implying he cannot get by on his own. Furthermore, it leads to the notion there must always be ‘little guys’ for these compassionate types to feel value in their lives. Many liberal initiatives based on this philosophy have been attempted through the years, usually suffering from the same fatal flaw. Major social programs, such as President-for-life Franklin Roosevelt’s Social Security program and President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society welfare programs are steeped in the notion the general public is incapable of providing for itself, and us plebes need the gentle guiding hand of government to show us the correct way. Let’s not even get into just how badly in debt these programs are, and the fiscal pain we face as a nation when we reach the day of reckoning and the bill comes due. The condescension becomes even more apparent when we look at the differences between the liberal power brokers on the coasts and the rest of us in flyover country. Having lived on both coasts, I have had the opportunity to see just how much they think of those of us who make of the majority of the country. Basically, us beer-swilling, truck-driving, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, Wal-Mart-shopping, NASCAR-watching, uneducated hicks cannot be trusted with public policy. And here’s a news flash: the elites on the coasts think of everyone in the middle of the country that way, including those who vote the same way as them. This is one of the reasons we see much greater incidences of vote fraud in support of liberal candidates. At the end of the day, liberals will gladly do away with the vote because the general public, in their minds, is so ill equipped to decide for themselves who should represent them. In my experience, I have found that liberalism goes hand in hand with a general loathing of the nation and humanity in general. As a people, we are looked upon as backwards and uncaring because we have not adopted a western European socialist model that provides what is deemed to be adequate services and provisions, regardless of whether we believe it to be adequate. We all must be allowed to stand up for ourselves and attempt to succeed without being lumped into arbitrary groups and told we can only get by if our morally superior liberal friends help us. Each of us is an individual, personally responsible for how our lives ultimately unfold. Looking to others to get by will only ensure our own failure. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2010, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
One opportunity afforded to me during my trip was a chance to traipse through my old college campus to see what has become of the alma mater. The place has changed a little here and there through the years, as would be expected, but in many ways has stayed the same.
