Perhaps more annoying than losing an election is the post-election advice liberal pundits feel compelled to offer the Republican Party. The essence of that advice is to become more like liberals. Though well intended this is akin to a crocodile inviting a fawn into the water to play.
I find it odd that liberals, who cast themselves as lovers of diversity, who practically pray at the altar of diversity, are not sufficiently interested in those with differing political views, particularly those they brand as conservatives, to take the time to understand how differently their opponents think.
They find it easier to simply envision themselves as compassionate and to depict conservatives as ciphers for wealthy white guys.
Generally, liberals recommend that Republicans dump the conservative Christian right, get on board with social issues, and concentrate on fiscal responsibility. That such a proposal would even be seriously offered indicates the liberal’s total misunderstanding of the conservative mind. When a liberal uses the term, “social issues,” he is actually talking about behaviors that conservatives would describe as matters of sexual morality.
To the liberal, it seems that sexuality must be unbridled, freely expressed and without moral or financial consequence to the individual, despite the enormous cost such behavior imposes on society. These costs begin with a lower class of fatherless families dependent on government welfare. They continue with a lost vigor, a crippled creativity and a reduced productive potential due to billions of hours spent pursuing the fantasies of a pornographic world. The costs rise with the medical costs of sexually transmitted disease, not to mention the psychological costs of love’s lost hopes. Perhaps the ultimate cost is the cheapening of human life such that children unborn can be labeled inconvenient and peremptorily destroyed.
A conservative cannot quite wrap his mind around the idea that people should not be responsible for the consequences of actions they freely choose, particularly when such actions are related to a desire rather than any life sustaining need. For a conservative to expect from another a lower level of moral responsibility than he expects of himself is to patronize him, to deny his basic dignity, and to somehow see him as less than human.
Expecting less of one’s fellow man both encourages him to expect less of himself and enables behaviors that ensure dependency. Rather than elevating one’s fellow man this guarantees a burgeoning lower class.
To a conservative the “social issues” at the core of today’s liberalism reflect a moral behavior that directly relates to man’s impact as a economic unit in society. Whereas, the liberal thinks that morality is simply a matter of personal preference, the conservative understands that morality drives the economic behavior of man and largely determines whether he contributes positively or negatively to the well being of all. How can a person who cannot delay his own gratification ever put his neighbor before himself? How can a person not responsible for the consequences of his own behavior be responsible for others? A conservative cannot understand how a society can be collectively responsible while denying the responsibility of its individual members.
To many conservatives there is a direct link between the fiscal mess in which we now find ourselves and the triumph of liberal “social issues” which denigrate self discipline and elevate esteem to something we owe each other rather than earn. The history of the last 50 or so years appears to validate this with a direct correlation between decreasing personal responsibility across all economic classes, increasing dependency on government, and a federal budget now out of control.
A society incapable of keeping its pants on will also be incapable of denying itself for another day. A society that enables the irresponsibility of one man but expects his neighbor to pay for the consequences can only expect more people to choose the rewards of irresponsibility. To a conservative liberalism is self-contradicting in that it undermines the very self discipline required to create the wealth it needs to see that all are provided for.
Conservatives are the soul of the Republican Party. Without them the Republican Party will become a ship without a rudder subject to the whim of the day. They will become liberals. For a conservative to concede on the social issues would be to deny the very soul of conservatism. Once that soul is denied they can only become the beast they fear.
Liberal advice to the Republican Party leads to suicide rather than reform.
(Mr. Jermann lives in Olean.)
