Some people are convinced that a compassionate conservative is an
oxymoron. But, I know better. I'm not suggesting I am one, but I do know a
few. They're the people who occasionally take me to task for being too
critical of liberals.
They'll insist that some of their best friends are liberals. Liberals,
they'll inform me, make fine neighbors and positively first-rate relatives. I
patiently explain that they're preaching to the choir. I know first-hand that
liberals can be all of those things, and more.
My only problem with liberals is that they're hypocrites and they can't
help lying.
Perhaps, like my friends, you now think I'm too harsh in my
judgment. On the contrary, I think I tend to give liberals the benefit of the
doubt. I happen to believe they are so besotted by their emotions that they
can't help painting themselves into indefensible corners. To blame a liberal
for lying and blatant hypocrisy would be as heartless as blaming an alcoholic
for drinking. In fact, I suspect that, like alcoholics, liberals suffer from a
chemical imbalance. Otherwise, how would you explain the enormous gulf
between what they say and what they do?
For instance, how often have we read newspaper editorials arguing for
Affirmative Action in schools and in the work place? In most cases, those
pieces are not being written or edited by members of a racial minority group.
So, if they were sincere, shouldn't these journalists clear out their desks and
surrender their jobs to somewhat less qualified, but far more deserving,
blacks and Hispanics?
Or consider, if you will, how consistently liberals object to tax cuts.
They prattle on incessantly about how much the wealthy benefit, ignoring
the logic that if there's a 10% reduction across the board, it figures that the
person who pays more will save more. But, when liberals blather about the
inequities of tax cuts, you realize they actually believe that if a millionaire
saves fifty thousand on his tax bill, the guy who only earns, say, thirty
grand-a-year should get the same return!
Liberals, for reasons that some of us will never comprehend, are
convinced that the federal government can be trusted to spend money more
wisely than the people who actually earn it. When Bill Clinton was in the
White House, he said as much.
They're entitled to their beliefs, you say. Where does the
inconsistency come in, you ask? It's simply this -- liberals spend just as
much money as conservatives on shrewd attorneys and clever C.P.A.'s,
attempting to lower their own tax liability. There is nothing in the tax laws,
after all, that prohibits an American citizen from paying Uncle Sam more
than he owes. But, I have yet to hear of a liberal, even one as rich as George
Soros, who claimed that, even though he belonged in the highest bracket, he
so admired the way in which Congress spent his money, he was going to
send the I.R.S. 70 or maybe even 80 percent of his earnings.
Finally, I have never heard a liberal speak out in favor of school
vouchers. Instead, they wave the flag for public schools, even though
everybody in his right mind knows that, in spite of the No Child Left Behind
program, a majority of public schools in America are a disgrace. The system
has routinely passed along youngsters who wound up graduating from high
school lacking self-discipline and even rudimentary math and reading skills.
Yet, every liberal in Congress can be counted on to pay lip service to public
education, although not one of them has a child enrolled in the Washington,
D.C., school system!
So, while I acknowledge that liberals can be as loyal and steadfast as
cocker spaniels, I have found it is nearly impossible to paper-train them.
|