About Me

Name: Chris Walker
Location: Roanoke, VA
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Not Your Grandparents' Liberalism

Posted by Chris Walker on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:43:26 PM
Remember the times when some of the most enlightened thinkers, and some of the greatest moral leaders in America were liberals?

Me neither.

But rest assured, there was a time when being liberal put you on the side of righteousness and truth, and it is true that some of the greatest people that America has ever produced have been liberals, and some of the greatest chapters in American history, (or world history, for that matter) were born of liberal movements.

There was also a time when Democrats were the conservative party and Republicans the more liberal one. Times change and political lines shift with them. And so it goes with liberalism too, it seems.

One needs only to look back a few decades to see the difference in the liberalism which spawned some of the greatest social achievements of the past, and the liberalism which runs rampant today, and has become, more or less, a threat to the fabric of the very society that those once great liberal minds and hearts were fighting so hard to create and to protect.

The difference in the two schools of liberalism is one of direction. Whereas the liberals of yesterday were seeking to rectify injustice by using God as their guiding light and righteousness as their standard, the liberalism of today seeks, to a large degree, to eradicate God altogether from society, in the name of absolute equality, and to impose certain ideology on all Americans.

The only problem with this is that, God has always been a part of America and, ironically, some of the greatest liberal achievements of all time. Meanwhile, absolute equality has never been the goal of America, simply because absolute equality cannot exist while liberty exists, and the protection and the advancement of liberty is the single greatest objective of America, and always has been.

For instance, the greatest moral leader of the nation in the twentieth century was Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister. His dream was the American dream. Sadly we are not much closer to it than when he was tragically killed in 1968, and in fact may be moving away from it, in a way.

King’s whole purpose in life was based on his tremendous faith, and his great achievements were evidence of the necessity of that faith in society. It took someone of unconquerable faith to achieve what he achieved. The importance of a belief in God and an unwavering commitment to His word cannot be underestimated in the Civil Rights struggle of the 50’s and 60’s. 

One peek at his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” should be enough to convince even the most anti-religious leftist of the absolutely irrefutable role religion has played in the changing of America from a good idea to the greatest bastion for liberty and justice the world has ever known.

But this is not the only example, of true liberalism at its best.

Abraham Lincoln was arguably a radical liberal of his time. His faith carried him through disaster after disaster on the battlefields of the Civil War, and through fits of melancholy and numerous personal tragedies, only to have him emerge as the savior of the Union, the “Great Emancipator” of an enslaved people, and arguably the greatest president of them all.

Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, and Adams were all liberals of their day, but the day of their liberalism has seen its setting sun. What we are left with are liberal movements which more closely resemble the social disaster of prohibition than the abolition of slavery, or the civil rights movement. But even prohibition was an attempt (albeit a really poor one) to move towards a more religious and moral people, rather than further from it.

Today the liberal leaders in society bear little or no resemblance to their forefathers and mothers. They are shouting for the sake of shouting. Can you imagine Martin Luther King standing up with the angry mobs attacking Christian churches in the name of striking down Proposition 8 in California, or invading church services for political attention? I simply cannot.

The same goes for abortion. Can anyone honestly tell me that they believe that Abraham Lincoln would support such liberal movements as “abortion rights” given his sacrifice and struggle to free the slaves in the name of God and the progression of human rights? Or even John Brown, the great abolitionist martyr – can anyone come up with a scenario where he would be in support of abortion?

In truth, the pro-life camp of today has much more in common with the abolitionist movement of the 18th and 19th centuries than the “liberal” pro-choice camp does, given that pro-life advocates are seeking to be the voice of a people who cannot speak for themselves or defend their own inalienable right to life, as ordained by the Creator.

Is it just me or does someone making the argument that abortion is a “women’s” issue; sound a whole lot like some southern fire breather of the 1850’s making the argument for slavery a “southern” issue, rather than a human rights one. 

The truth is that legalized abortion is the single greatest tragedy in America since the days of slavery, and it moves us further from the goal of true liberalism, which is the ultimate advancement of humanity. Yet liberals today want to associate themselves with the great liberals of days gone by, when they are drifting further and further from the point of all of their struggles.

So don’t be fooled by the politicians, Hollywood nuts, special interest groups, and college professors and their warped take on justice and equality. They are but wolves in sheep’s clothing. Let’s not forget that even Hitler was convinced that he was making the world a better place and doing great justice for mankind. It would behoove us all to carefully examine the ends before we wholeheartedly endorse the means.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let the Disenfranchisement Begin!

Posted by Chris Walker on Friday, November 21, 2008 3:54:06 PM
 

James Madison once said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who wish to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” Then again, what did he know? He was just a rich white guy who owned slaves.

But lets assume for a just a second that Madison possessed some degree of political knowledge and some simple wisdom, and that maybe, just maybe, he was onto something. He was, after all, “The Father of the Constitution”, though some have disputed this. (The results of paternity testing will be aired on an upcoming issue of the Maury Povich show.)

And Madison wasn’t alone in the “an educated citizenry might be a good idea” camp. A bunch of other rich white guys thought so too. Thomas Jefferson, author of several cookbooks among some other relatively unimportant writings, was a member. (Their battle cry was “AN EDUCATED CITIZENRY MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA!”)

But what makes up and educated citizenry? Well, first one must be able to perform difficult mathematical proofs. One must also be able to describe, in detail, the mysterious inner workings of a dissected frog. And last, but certainly not least, one must be able to identify hidden symbolism in a poem that you have never read, nor heard of, nor will ever read again, by a poet that you never knew existed in the first place. We must never underestimate the importance of symbolism in poetry in the grand scheme of self-government, lest we are doomed to tyranny!

A really educated citizen would have been in a fraternity/sorority and have had a lot of extracurricular activities.

Am I the only one who feels like America is missing the point of public education? I thought – and I’m just a public school guy myself, so go easy on me – that education was necessary to a democracy because we are charged with electing our own governors. And, just maybe we should know a little something about the government we are entrusted with filling.

If anyone has seen the clips from John Ziegler’s film “Media Malpractice” I hope they are as confused as I am. What kind of education did these people get? I would venture to say that a lot of them had college level degrees, and yet I would feel safe in assuming that they could not pass a basic history/civics test, and they obviously had no idea about current events.

Here’s my problem. In the scheme of things, their vote basically canceled out my vote, and maybe yours too. That makes my a little uneasy, to say the least.

So why are more people not shouting out for a voting test? We have to take a test to do other really important things like waiting tables. Why not to vote?    

I don’t care if a person has three PhD’s, if they don’t know how many houses are in congress, or they don’t know how long a term is for a supreme court justice, or who currently controls the majority in congress, I DON’T WANT THEM TO VOTE!

But, but, but that might disenfranchise some people right?

Who? Last time I checked, public education guaranteed at least a high school level education, and that should more than suffice. In fact, the beauty of a test is that, in theory, it would disenfranchise people of all different political affiliations equally. That's democratic right?

So for everyone arguing that the results of Ziegler’s interviews would have been the same if they polled McCain supporters – thanks for helping me make my point. If that is in fact true then a voting test would have weeded out stupid McCain voters and stupid Obama voters alike! It would have been good for everyone! At least in theory, again.

Americans have no excuse for the kind of abysmal ignorance of their country’s government and history that they continue to show, as evidenced by poll after poll on the subject, and clips like those from Ziegler’s film. We have betrayed the purpose of public education and the result is a people who would be better served by letting the presidential election be decided by the two candidates playing “paper, rock, scissors” on prime time. At least then we wouldn’t have to worry about recounts.

The truth is that the only people who would be disenfranchised would be those who had themselves refused to become educated, and that is their choice. Ignorance is a choice. If the consequence is disenfranchisement from the political system then I say let the disenfranchisement begin! And I think Madison and Jefferson would agree with me. But then again – they probably didn’t have a lot of extracurricular activities either.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »