a repost from Heritage.org
Today, I'd like to talk about liberal hypocrisy.
Liberals like to consider themselves open-minded and accepting, but in reality they are responsible for building a culture of intolerance.
If you don't want your daughter to have to share bathrooms with "gender fluid" boys, liberals will call you a bigot. If you believe in constitutional rights like religious freedom, gun rights, and freedom of speech, you are labeled ignorant.
Theirs is a dangerous approach, but an effective one. It's insulting to be called an ignorant bigot, and there's no way to counter ad hominem attacks like that. The liberals have capitalized on this for their own ends. More and more, we see the government using its power to restrict speech and intimidate private groups and businesses. College campuses are hostile to diverse viewpoints and students shout down public speakers in the name of “tolerance." Corporate leaders are forced to resign and pastors are fined for proclaiming church teaching.
These are just a few examples of liberalism’s legacy in America. Now at its zenith, progressive liberalism is turning on itself. It is becoming its opposite: closed-minded and intolerant to different points of views and interests.
My colleague Kim Holmes recently published a new book confronting this epidemic, The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left. In it he reveals how liberals in America have abandoned their traditions and become a force for denying people’s rights and freedoms.
The closing of the liberal mind threatens not only free speech and freedom of conscience, but constitutional rights that at one time had been among America’s greatest causes. It is upending the very constitutional order that once was the bastion of American freedom and equality, which is a grave threat to the country.
Holmes believes that it is still possible to “save [America] from the ravages of the postmodern left.” But, he counsels, it will require moderate liberals who still care about our freedoms to come together with conservatives at this pivotal time in history.
Please take a look at the stories below which also deal with how closed-off and backwards the liberal mindset has become. Then let me know what you think about all of this in the comments. I always love hearing what you have to say.
Thank you for all you do.
by Nathaniel Ward
Liberals always seem to be suggesting ways for conservatives to get back on the right track. E.J. Dionne, for example, suggests in a new book that conservatives would be more successful if they “moderated,” abandoned many of their core ideals, and came to terms with big government.
"Contrary to Dionne’s advice, conservatives understand that the way to win the electoral debate is to take a strong forward position and stick with it just as Reagan did with his 1981 tax cuts that triggered 90 months of economic growth and his Strategic Defense Initiative which forced the Soviets to abandon the arms race and agree to end the cold war at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield.Dionne is correct that President Eisenhower presided over a period of comparative peace and prosperity in the 1950s, but his “modern” Republicanism was rejected as “a dime store New Deal” by Barry Goldwater, a prime maker of the conservative movement. What Reagan said in his first inaugural address still applies: “In this crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”Contrary to Dionne’s counsel, American conservatism does not need warmed-over Republicanism from the Fifties to get back on track but principled leadership committed to real health care solutions, meaningful spending cuts, tax reform that spurs economic growth and creates jobs, a strong national defense, energy independence, commonsense immigration reform, protection of human life from conception to natural death, and preservation of the traditional family."
by Nathaniel Ward
The term “socialism” has become fashionable in certain quarters of the left, Heritage’s David Azerrad explains in the Weekly Standard. At the same time, though, polls show that few Americans understand that socialism entails the nationalization of industry.
The socialism preached by today’s left isn’t the socialism of Karl Marx. Instead, it’s little more than big-government liberalism by another name:
It is true that our “socialists” want the government to heavily regulate the economy. As a result, certain industries will effectively be converted into public utilities (health insurance under Obamacare). Others will have to be regulated out of existence (coal plants if the left has its way). The government will also need to subsidize particular sectors of the economy (solar energy) and operate its own corporations (Amtrak and Freddie Mac).
This sure isn’t Adam Smith’s natural system of liberty. But it’s not Soviet socialism either. It is really just a continuation of liberalism by the same means. In theory and in practice, American-style “socialism” and liberalism are indistinguishable…
This may in fact be the one great lesson that our left learned from the collapse of Soviet communism. Our liberals and socialists are in favor of an awful lot more government involvement in the economy, but their goal is not to have the state actually own and operate factories and corporations. That’s why, for example, they are in favor of single-payer Medicare-for-all and not single-employer VA-hospitals-for-all.
This American-style “socialism” is in many ways more pernicious than outright socialism, Azerrad explains. Government’s manipulations of the economy are far more subtle than nationalization, and its impact is far harder to measure. Because government’s role is hard to see, liberals can also cast blame on the private sector when things go wrong–and push through still more rules and regulations.
by Colby Ferland
After a tragedy like mass shooting happens, liberals flood the internet and news media with claims that making firearms illegal and abolishing the 2nd Amendment is the answer. The left makes emotionally charged arguments, arguing that innocent victims “could have been spared” if guns were illegal.
But Heritage expert Patrick Terrell points out that the numbers just don’t add up. Criminalizing the possession of firearms in America does not correlate to a reduction in homicides. In fact, according to a study by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, the relationship goes the other way.
From 1986 to 2012, the production of new firearms in the U.S. increased dramatically. During the same time period, criminal homicides in the U.S. decreased. Their study concludes that gun bans are ineffective because they “do not affect the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violent crime rates.”