It goes without saying that having an active & unrestricted opposition to every public opinion is a sign of healthy democracy. Of course, there is no reason to oppose anything just on principle. But we can safely assume that extreme left-wing liberal ideas have a lot of opposition in any current society, not just in America. Just Google up any related phrase & thousands hits will pop-up, on both sides of an isle. You may have a different perception but in my view most of the hits don't support the libs.
The best case (or is it the worst?) that the left-wingers have authored maybe 30% to 40% of the comments. Now why they are so plenty?
Back in 19th and the most part of the 20th century the "liberal" used to be a good word and being a liberal meant being a good person in the minds of many. Why the meaning has changed here in America - and that is a perception which is shared, of course, by the conservatives, traditionalists and in general the folks which would like to preserve something called "American values" or who still have respect for the Constitution -? Without making a direct comparison, can someone answer the same question about the German word "genosse" or the Russian word "tovarisch"? If you need a translation, both words in English mean a "comrade" or a "friend", or something which Australians attribute to their usage of "mate". The meaning of words, like a perception of beauty, do fluctuate as time pass. And before someone from the other side will accuse me of comparing the liberals with fascists or communists (I know there is a huge difference there), let me remind you that the far left often has the same set of values as the far right. But let's leave them out of the quotation. Let's talk about more or less moderate folks on the left.
So why is that so many people, most of them even good natured, are positioning themselves in the liberal crowd? Why so many in the entertainment industry, media & education are against traditional values? Now I am not going to argue against the notion that liberals should be granted with the credit for outlining many concepts of individual rights and acceptance of those rights by the societies and the governments. In fact, without the liberal ideas of 18th century our founding fathers won't be able to establish the principals of this country. And I am completely susceptible to the fact that even so called traditional values, both in cultural & political sense, need to be reevaluated and modernized. But what about the core values? What about things like loyalty, friendship, integrity, love for your family & love for your country? What about unreplaceble value of hardworking people for the country? What about paying your bills?
Can someone honestly claim that the love for your family or friendship has a different meaning now then 200 years back?
Everyone can say that the definition of acceptance, mercy or what is considered civilized or not has drastically changed and rightfully so. Whatever was considered not acceptable or even severely punishable could be more or less perceived as totally normal or at least tolerable. One easy example is gay relationship. And that is fine.
Does this mean that now, in the 21st century, virtually everything is acceptable? Absolutely not. Civilized societies don't accept child pornography. We don't accept rape. We don't accept murder. And we do not accept hate. Or do we?
Why is that so many people on the left are more concerned with the rights of criminals - or even terrorists - then the rights of a victim? Why is that they are more concerned with the rights of atheists then the rights of religious people? Why are they labeling so many groups as being oppressed while in reality there is either no oppression in the true meaning of the word?
These folks on the left, often well educated and mostly good by nature, have acquired a habit of always marketing themselves as the greatest supporters of the rights of the underdog. This notion, although quite noble at the first glance, causes all major problems in our society. They don't care that maybe - just maybe - the underdog is willing to work hard enough to become a success. Never mind. They don't plan to educate him, they don't aim to make him competitive in some way, they don;t want to teach him to be self-reliable. They just want to give them more privileges. For free! They never realize that, given a slightest chance, in many cases the underdog will become an oppressor. The underdog can even force you to give up you liberal values under a certain condition. You need examples? Look in the history books.
No matter. The liberals will fight nails & teeth for their underdog cause - whoever the underdog is in their mind - up until it will be realized they don't have rights any more to do what they used to do all their lives. Like voicing a favorable opinion about a new underdog - who quite possible will include themselves. https://contributor.yahoo.com/content/article/edit/?type=43&input_type=on
No comments:
Post a Comment