The Right Perspective

Monday, June 05, 2006

More Proof That The Liberals Don't Get It

On Sunday, I had occasion to hear Meet The Press (in between Emily saying "Aaaaaa! Aaaaa! at the top of her considerable lungs). At first, I didn't know who Tim Russert was interviewing, but this much was obvious - he was definitely a liberal. Then, I finally heard that the flaming liberal-of-the-day-in-question was none other than Presidential-hopeful Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE.)

Now, the tiny state of Delaware is a place near and dear to my heart. It is where I grew up, at least for the first 17 years or so of my life. My family is all still there, though it must be stated that they are not liberals. (Just wanted to clear the air.) However, many people from that miniscule Mid-Atlantic state are Democrats and apparently rather liberals ones, since they continue to elect Sen. Biden.

Sen. Biden may represent just a tiny, rather politically unimportant state (at least with regards to elections), but he typifies the most dangerous liberal politicians out in the public eye today. He appears, or at least has in the past, to represent the more moderate democratic thought when campaigning, yet his voting history tells a different story. His speeches say "Hey, I'm a good guy, I care about you, I'm an average-Joe, I'm just like you", but his voting record, and even increasingly his rhetoric, says, "I'm liberal, Liberal, LIBERAL. I'll do whatever it takes to discredit republican leadership and the especially the President, I'll do all I can to undermine this country, and I'll do it all because I want more power." He doesn't get it, though.

Why do I say that the liberals "don't get it"? Here's a simple example. Both Sen. Biden and Sen. Harry Reid have said, in almost identical words, that they don't understand what is so important about debating the merits of and voting on a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman and would effectively ban homosexual marriage.

They complain that instead, the Congress should be debating topics like energy policies (I know this was first on Reid's list, perhaps also Biden's), trade imbalances, environmental policies, global warming, health care, etc...and oh yeah, protecting the country, etc... They both came out and said that the marriage amendment was not important and that it wasn't important to the American people. They claim it is being debated simply to rally conservatives and to avoid having to debate the "tough" issues. (See their list above)

Now, while I do agree that it is being done, at least in part, to rally the conservative base, I disagree that this is the only reason the amendment is being brought up before Congress. I believe that the Republicans understand that their base firmly believes that the importance of dealing with moral issues such as the definition of marriage, abortion, and the role of religion in public life is absolutely vital to the well-being and continued success of America.

Moral relativism and secular humanism, both bastiens of the modern liberal, are social experiments doomed to failure. One needs only to study the great empires throughout history to determine this fact. The reason America has been so successful and prosperous seems to be directly related to it's foundation in Christianity. Despite the liberals' denial that religious beliefs, and Christianity in particular, played a role in the founding of our country and were intended to be a part of our government, America's Christian heritage and morality are what have set it apart as a truly great nation. If we take that foundation away, either all at once or by slowing chipping away at it, one moral issue at a time, then we too are doomed to eventual failure.

This is why moral issues, like the marriage amendment, matter. It is why they are vitally important to the conservatives (and Christians). It is why we rally around these issues. If our country is morally bankrupt, then why bother protecting it from foreign invasions and terrorists? It will collapse from within. If we allow our moral foundation to crumble, then our country will no longer be great. America will not be the America she has been and was intended to be. And if the continued success of our country and it's future aren't important enough to debate, then I dare the liberals to tell me what is.

2 comments:

SkyePuppy said...

And if the continued success of our country and it's future aren't important enough to debate, then I dare the liberals to tell me what is.

I don't believe the way-liberals want continued success for America, at least not the kind we've had so far. They despise capitalism, and the sooner they can replace it with socialism (with them in charge, of course), the happier they'll be. So they use every method they can--the environment, class warfare, demolishing the traditional family--to encourage dependence on their greater/wiser selves by the mindless rabble.

They don't get it in the sense that we get it. But they "get it" like a fox, and they're out to win.

We must not grow weary (where have I heard that before?).

Christina said...

Good point, Skyepuppy. You are absolutely correct. The ultra-liberals do not want America's success. Either that or they honestly don't believe that what we are experiencing is success. I suppose I'm not sure which one it is.

I think there are many liberals who think that being a "super-power" in the world is something for which America and it's citizens should feel guilty. I guess that they don't believe any country should be on top.

The problem with this thinking is that if good doesn't triumph over evil, stomp on its head and refuse to budge, then evil will rise to the top positions of power. The world will never be satisfied with all of us being equally powerful. That's a false sense of reality. Therefore, good has to be more powerful and that's actually a good balance.

I don't think the ultra-liberals are evil, but I think that their policies are very mis-guided and destructive. They ignore the lessons of history and they ignore reality. They "get it" somewhat, but not really.