After an in depth exploration of some key modern liberal ideas over the past few weeks, I’ve been led to the conclusion that liberalism at its core is an ideology of pure, unadulterated close-mindedness and intolerance. Let’s first contrast liberalism with classical liberalism, otherwise known as libertarianism, the ideology of most of America’s Founding Fathers. Libertarianism is, very simply put, an ideology based upon the moral rule that every human being is entitled to his life and property, and assuming they don’t infringe upon this right of others, no one has a right to take it away from them, no matter what. All else in libertarian thought flows more or less from that simple but powerful idea. In other words, libertarianism emphasizes tolerance. Liberalism as we know it today is the antithesis of libertarianism. In other words: intolerance. As I will demonstrate, it’s really that simple. While old school – and I mean old school, like, Founding Fathers old school – liberals believed in free markets, free speech, and free ideas, liberals today emphatically reject such tolerance.
Before I move on, I’d like to quickly clear up a misconception that liberals have consistently raised when I debate liberal intolerance. All too often they entirely miss the point and remind me that there exist many intolerant conservatives, libertarians, religious people, etc. My argument is solely that true modern liberals who live and think in consistency with their ideology are intolerant because intolerance is fundamental to that ideology; that there are some or even many intolerant libertarian people says nothing of the libertarian ideology as a whole. So, disclaimer: I never said that I think that liberals are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant. Now let’s get this show on the road.
Let’s start our analysis of liberalism with some characteristics evident among many liberals in America today. Admittedly this will not in and of itself prove that liberalism is intolerant, just that there is certain intolerant behavior prevalent in a vast majority of liberals. One thing I’ve found in dealing with liberals is that doubting the validity of man-made global warming is akin to denying the existence of the Holocaust, if not even worse. Liberals will consider you automatically scientifically retarded and jump to the conclusion that questioning or even denying the harmful effects of man-made global warming must mean that you want to destroy the environment. Questioning the racial fairness of affirmative action in the presence of a hardcore liberal will lead the liberal to promptly shut down his mind to intellectual honesty, thus forcing him to think in the black and white terms of “good” or “bad”, “pro-racial equality” or “pro-racism.” Needless to say, questioning affirmative action makes you a racist and subsequent reasonable debate is next to impossible. Conservatives and libertarians are generally not allowed to speak on liberal campuses. Indeed, liberals openly desire a totalitarian-like regulation of the media to silence free speech and broadcast only what they perceive to be desirable, and this has been a staple of liberalism for hundreds of years.
And on the subject of totalitarianism, consider George Orwell’s 1984 – Big Brother is always watching you, in every way possible. You watch what he thinks you should watch, you hear what he thinks you should hear, and you think what he thinks you should think – the parallels between Big Brother’s government and what modern liberals consider desirable in an ideal society are striking indeed!
In a liberal society, the state regulates so much of the individual’s life to the point that anything your 5 senses come into contact with must be deemed acceptable by the state beforehand. Be it through what you’re allowed to eat, what you’re allowed to see or hear, or what you’re allowed to say, you have no freedom or individual rights. Surely this is the opposite of tolerance. Want some proof?
What you’re tolerated to eat – refer to the Food and Drug Administration’s recent ban on the interstate sale of raw milk – yes, seriously, milk – aka milk that has not been pasteurized. Liberals and “progressives” have a long history of food regulation of course – look at the well intentioned but extremely misguided attempts at the beginning of the 20th century for the federal government to decide and dictate what the average American citizen is allowed to produce, eat, and drink, and how, when, and where he is allowed to do those things. As Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President and author of its Declaration of Independence, once said, “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” It’s almost as if TJ had 21st century liberalism and the FDA in mind.
What you’re tolerated to see/hear/say: in other words, free speech. I highlight this because the utter destruction of the First Amendment and the right to free speech is crucial in liberal ideology. From a historical point of view, consider the Alien and Sedition Acts perpetrated by big government liberals of the Federalist Party, and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798. Of course, the acts were “intended” solely to “protect America from foreign enemies,” but it nonetheless involved silencing any healthy critique of the all mighty government in the process. It is noteworthy that prominent libertarian Thomas Jefferson, also co-founder of the Democratic-Republican Party and one of the most influential philosophers in libertarian thought, staunchly opposed these horribly INTOLERANT actions, as did his largely libertarian, anti-big government, pro-tolerance party.
Now consider modern liberals, to whom my arguments are primarily directed. Is the philosophy behind the Alien and Sedition Acts not totally apparent in what modern liberals deem “hate speech”? The Alien and Sedition Acts are clearly in line with liberalist advocacy of highly regulated communications media, like TV show programs or talk radio, so that the only messages allowed to be broadcasted are the ones in line with their ideas. Conservative ideas are, needless to say, not allowed. But not only should conservative ideas not be allowed to be expressed in the media – liberals routinely defend speech codes in universities, thus disregarding the profoundly American right to free speech as protected under the First Amendment. As I said earlier, conservative speakers are often not allowed to come to speak at these predominantly liberal campuses and certainly would not be granted any respect if they did. For example, just recently I read of the case of a liberal audience shouting down a black speaker who dared raise an argument against affirmative action, and that liberal college students literally cut libertarian media personality John Stossel’s microphone when he suggested that having sex while drunk should not be qualified as rape. These examples of intolerance make perfect sense given the broader context of liberal ideology.
Indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that liberalism is synonymous with intolerance, what with the plethora of freedoms of expression (or just about any kind of freedoms) that the left has subtly taken from us in the guise of political correctness. Hatred and intolerance are fundamental to leftism. But of course it is only a one way street of intolerance – while signs that depict Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn on his face have come to symbolize the entire Tea Party movement, “Kill Bush” signs at leftist demonstrations were completely ignored by the mainstream media. “What Kill Bush signs”, you might ask? Exactly. You probably don’t even know about them, and if not, now you know why you haven’t.
So far, I have addressed liberal intolerance and how it is undeniably rooted in their often totalitarian views which make no room for the rights of the individual, and how they characteristically shut out any opposition to their opinions. I shall now briefly addresses the liberal characteristics which I believe lead to the conclusion that liberals are immature and juvenile to the point that a liberal adult almost seems to me like an oxy-moron.
Babies, toddlers, and children of all ages rely on another party of some sort throughout their entire childhood; they need to be fully taken care of by someone else in order to survive. Similarly, liberals rebel against individual responsibility and obligations that come with a normal human being’s adulthood. Instead, they demand that the “parental” government take care of their each and every need from cradle to grave. Liberals, like small children, fail to understand the train of thought of anyone but their own. They immediately close down their minds to contrary opinion when presented with sound, rational argument that might threaten their extremely limited point of view. As such, it is quite clear that liberals share distinct characteristics with immature young children: their reliance on other parties and desired lack of self sufficiency, their shirking of obligations that come with life as a normal citizen in the real world, and their apparent inability to respect or understand ideas that do not coincide with their own.
To conclude, as Ole Bill Shakespeare might say, the fault, ye liberals, lies in your too strenuously professed adoration of complete servility, your utter inability to produce but a mere cogitation sans some furtherance on behalf of the government, or within your ideology’s inherent eagerness to stifle any contrariety or perceived “heresy” against your own peevish suppositions. Alas, my liberal friends verily the aforementioned liberal characteristics be problems of mountainous proportions for any ideology.