NOT ALL LIBERALS ARE EVIL

 

 

 

Rudy Takala
June 12, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Lately, I've been receiving quite a few messages from liberals who accuse me of over generalizing them as socialists, traitors, and any number of other things. This isn't precisely what I believe, so I've been motivated to an attempt at clarifying the issue.

When I write about liberal Democrats, it's usually safe to assume I'm not referring to all of them. Generally, the proletariat class of the Democratic Party genuinely believes in socialism and harbors no malicious intent. What I am referring to, rather, is the elitist class that powers the Democrats' movement in America.

To gain the respect of modern "progressive intellectuals," it seems one must be a terrorist and an enemy to America. Such "intellectuals" will frequently liken the president to Adolf Hitler, call him evil, claim he is an unelected despot, wages war for financial gain, and is essentially the enemy of man. However, they praise unelected dictators in other nations as "selfless, moral," and among the world's "wisest men," to quote what Oliver Stone once said of Fidel Castro. They love dictators--particularly Muslim and communist dictators--while hating America, individualism, capitalism, and anyone who seeks to preserve these American conceptions of freedom. Those at the top of the modern liberal hierarchy look essentially more like a group of foreign nationals than representatives of America.

Michael Moore, to use a cliché example, has said innumerable things that could be taken as anti-American, but we need only reference one. Back in 2003, he said of Americans, "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet…. Our stupidity is embarrassing." What did his party do in response? Perhaps some Democrats didn't agree with him, but the official response was favorable. At the 2004 Democratic Convention, he was seated next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box.

Then there are those who don't seem to have an opinion on the value of America or Americans in general; they simply see the utility of Americans as subjects in furthering their own ideological causes. For example, Hillary Clinton. Hillary spoke at a fundraiser a year ago this month, and, in explaining the virtue of higher taxation, said, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." The "common good" being, of course, whatever Hillary deems it to be.

Then there's billionaire George Soros, who's contributed millions of dollars to the Democratic Party in recent years. Like Hillary Clinton, he views himself as the common good. "If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble," Soros once wrote. When a reporter from "The Independent" asked him to explain, Soros said, "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."

Al Gore joins Soros in his feelings of a divinely-endowed superiority. In the biography "Gore: A Political Life," ABC reporter Bob Zelnick wrote that on a visit to San Francisco in the early 1980s, "[Al Gore] told Diane Kefauver Rubin that God sometimes talked to him."

My initial reaction to this was doubt that God really spoke to Al Gore. My second reaction was cognizance of the fact that different people have different Gods; maybe Gore was talking about Soros.

On the occasions that Democrats don't believe themselves to personally be God, they ridicule the religious. In the most recent speech made by Democratic Chair Howard Dean, he related a conversation he once had with an Evangelical Christian. "How is it that you managed to support me as an Evangelical Christian?" he asked. "There are some things you can't possibly agree with me on, such as civil rights for all Americans and a woman's right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she has." Evidently in the eyes of Dean, all Christians are opposed to God-given civil rights. I imagine that makes us more or less equal to Nazis and 19th century slave owners.

Both parties do elect members who aren't representative of their constituencies. The difference is that while the deviations of elected Republicans are slight, the deviations of elected Democrats are extreme (or so we'd hope is the case). Republicans elected Jim Jeffords and got an "Independent." They elected Lincoln Chafee and got a Democrat. They elected John McCain and got a psychotic with an interminable identity crisis.

The Democrats, by contrast, are being led by a group of people who seem to think they're competing for the title of "divine ruler." One thinks he's the messiah. Another one talks to God. Another views herself as specially able to rule unconstrained by the petty needs of individuals; having transcended the trivial concept of individual rights, she sees only what must be done for the good of humanity as a whole.

When I speak of liberals, these are the people to whom I am referring. Those I listed are the elected leaders or primary donors of the Democratic Party. They can be rightly considered the party's spokesmen. Of course I could have added many more liberal elitists to the list, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, John Kerry, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, etc. Perhaps I'll get around to more lists in the future.

I don't believe all liberals are evil. But the movement is currently characterized by aristocrats who hate America with a passion. If you're a Democrat, feel free to fix your leadership problem. Until then, stop blaming me for talking about the conceited friends of liberalism.

© 2005 Rudy Takala - All Rights Reserved