9 03 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

The first cause of understanding the merits of a contrary prospective is complicated by one’s predeterminations. As is often experienced, one can look but not see. A person’s social, religious, and political values are sacred. Therefore, within the frame of challenging while endeavoring to comprehend differing beliefs, the contesting of prospective ideals demand a medium of respect.

In the second cause, I do think that one must presume that there is a right and wrong to the implementation of a political ideology. Surely, a totalitarian state — regardless of its economic or financial stability — would not be tolerated simply because such a state would deprive its citizens of individual liberty and fundamental freedoms.  Therefore, proportionate to the application of governing rightfulness, there is the overriding virtue of individual liberty that, for the conservative thinker, trumps governing result. This virtue, liberty, cannot be transgressed upon.

I now seek the answer to the question of “why”. Why does a person declare and adhere to the social, political, and economic manifesto of liberal progressivism versus a conservative alternative?

As a conservative, to inquire to the question of why one would champion liberal progressivism, instinctively implies that the conservative inquirer is asserting a degree of transcendent, if not hardnosed superiority over the liberal progressive viewpoint. Although such an attitude of transcendent superiority is appealing to the contestants of either political bias, no such implication should be asserted.

The progressive movement believes and the conservative responds accordingly to the following:

(LP) They believe the rights of man reside within the secular means and ethos of a government designed to encumber itself with all of one’s tangible and intangible concerns; that such a government is best managed by those that know best. They believe that government is the omnipotent arbiter of conflicting economic forces. This positioning of government for purposes of interdiction or inclusion particularly applies to the seemingly always divergent elements that constitute the variant complexities of capital, labor, and their (lobbyist) influences.

(C) Innately, governments are corrupt no matter the style, type, or format; this includes all government, past and present. It is not possible to govern without committing material mistakes. History has proven over and over again that government, if not restricted by draconian-like monitoring by its citizens instead of its politicians, will step-by-step or much faster, erode personal freedom and liberty in favor of the illusive common good. Government is designed to grow while restricting individual liberty.

(LP) The progressives of today integrally adhere to the suggestion that labor is incorruptible; that only corporations possess the entrails of ominous possibility. Historical documentation proves otherwise; no matter, the progressives persist in their instinctive comradeship with labor unions.

(C) Bobby Kennedy certainly did not believe that unions were incorruptible. Evidence does in fact demonstrate that a number of unions are simply a business entity (another corporation) that acts as a well-paid intermediary between management and labor. Certainly no one in the real world of push and shove could believe that unions have any more or less scruple than any other business. Surely unions, in step with enterprise, believe in lobbying their congressional representative for beneficial particulars and circumstance. Clearly unions spent millions upon millions of dollars for their candidate, Mr. Obama; in turn they expect President Obama to deliver beneficial goodies for services and cash dutifully rendered.

(LP) They believe that a policy of  “in the interest of the common good” (as defined by the government) is senior to the words within the Declaration of Independence: That we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They believe that “fair” and “equal” means wealth distribution; they administrate their ideal of fair and equal by progressive taxation, imposing discretionary fees and coercive regulatory action. The lasting result for these progressives and their one-sided definitional intrusion into private equity and entity will be the leveling of the wealthy and the poor into economic, societal common-denomination sameness; a heaven on earth approach to governess.

(C) The preamble to the US Constitution captures the spirit of the Declaration of Independence — note the emphasis on Liberty. We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The progressive movement of 1900-1913 created the concept of individual federal income tax. The power to tax is one half of the power anointed to government; the other half is the power to distribute. The power to distribute is in effect the enabler of federal discretion and discrimination. It is also a direct abatement of state’s rights and privileges.

Today’s progressives want to create a number of entitlements labeled under the banner of rights: the right to a free education, to universal health coverage, a right to immigrate free of lawful compliance, the right to undo a lawful mortgage contract, the right to join a union whether one wants to or not, and for those who happen to have more, they have the right to directly support those who happen to have less.

What happened to liberty?

I suppose the liberal progressives believe that only government can aid and assist the disadvantaged, the oppressed, the poor, the discriminated, the undereducated, the underfunded, the lazy, and the fraudsters. Well, why are the most ardent liberal progressives so damn rich? They don’t need all that money… why don’t they spread their wealth? Why do they need to spread mine? Obama believes $500,000 a year is the top tier on richness. Why doesn’t he impose that on his rich liberal buddies? Shouldn’t they lead by example?

I am befuddled…




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: