A Liberal Reacts to the Insane Liberals

Andrew Doyle, saying things the right has known for a while:

After the US election, I had hoped that we on the left would start to rethink our position, to understand that we had unwittingly contributed to Trump’s success. Studies have repeatedly shown that Trump garnered most support in those areas where the economy is weakest. But no, according to the Nation, it’s all about a ‘fear of diversity’. That’s right, we’re back to the ‘all Trump supporters are racist’ narrative. Because that strategy worked so well for Hillary Clinton, didn’t it? One wonders whether the Nation is being secretly funded by Trump’s administration to help him on his way to a second term.

And this:

It would also appear that the word ‘Nazi’ has been redefined as ‘anyone with whom the left disagrees’. I’ve never met a Nazi, although I’m assured by many of my liberal friends that you’re never more than six feet away from one.

In a way, I fear this essay.  As correct as Doyle is, I really don’t think I want the left to change it’s strategy away from name calling, violent protests and identity politics.

I really think this article could snap them back to their senses. Except for this:

It seems to me that we have two options. We could return to our traditional objectives and strive to redress social inequality and thereby improve the lives of working-class people. Or we could continue this bourgeois obsession with identity politics and see where that gets us. I know which I’d prefer, but something tells me I’m not going to get my way.

“…strive to redress social inequality and therefore improve the lives of working-class people.”  Not sure I see much of that coming out of Washington.



This entry was posted in Protests, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to A Liberal Reacts to the Insane Liberals

  1. onwyrdsdream says:

    “strive to redress social inequality and therefore improve the lives of working-class people.”

    Between coming up with a way guaranteed to do that society wide which would leave society better off than doing nothing, and coming up with a plan to de-orbit the moon with present technology, the later would be the easier task. Actually, the plan I think would most address that quest would be to, as a government, do less to try to fix that. Trying to deal with personal issues using the government is somewhat akin to trying to pot tomatoes in a greenhouse using a backhoe. Perhaps you could do it, and you’d be using a tool far more powerful than by hand, but for every tomato you managed to pot, you’d have 50 broken pots and a hundred smashed tomato plants. And it would still take twice as long as doing it by hand. Not every tool is good for every job. And the tool “government” is actually not very good at most jobs.

    Of course, the refrain is that we must do something. If every reasonable something “we” could do would only end up with a worse outcome than doing nothing, doing nothing is actually the best something that we could do.

    Rather than trying to change all of society, which is unprofitable in the extreme, we can only change ourselves. But, even when changing ourselves, we must remember how many years it took before we stopped leaving our socks in the living room, even though we ourselves thought it was a good idea and were quietly pressured by the wife.

    If your response is, “I never left socks in the living room.” … We all have our own socks. They aren’t always socks.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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