ÿþ<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name="Author" content="Richard Fuerle"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.51 [en] (Win98; I) [Netscape]"> <title>What Makes Liberals Tick?</title> </head> <body><P> <center> <font size=+2>WHAT MAKES LIBERALS TICK?</font></center><p><br> <p> ÿþ Suppose that you, a white guy, are sitting at a table in a bar with two of your white guy friends. At the next table a burly, unshaven, white guy with a potbelly, wearing a tank top that reveals some nasty tatoos, says,  Niggers are as dumb as watermelons. <P> One of your friends laughs, but the other becomes so incensed that, at the risk of getting punched, he jumps up, goes over to the table, and angrily says that he does not appreciate hearing racist slurs.<P> You say nothing because you are starting to think about what just happened. Not in terms of whether some hate-crime law may have been broken, but in terms of why your friends behaved as they did.<P> Your friend s laughter at a remark that was, at best, only mildly humourous, may indicate that he is hostile towards blacks or was just trying to defuse the situation. You could ask him to explain his laughter, but your other friend s response is much more dramatic and interesting. Since this friend is white and the insult was not directed at him, why would he take offense at all, let alone become so angry that he would provoke a fight he was certain to lose?<P> Clearly, his response was highly emotional. If you had said that blacks score lower on IQ tests and he had responded in a calm voice with something like,  Yes, but those results are not accurate because the tests are biased, no questions would be raised about the appropriateness of his response. But here was a man who was not only furiously angry, but willing to risk physical harm to himself to respond to an insult that was not even directed at him. Surely that cries out for a psychological explanation.<P> Before proceeding, I would like to point out the obvious - that your friend is a liberal, by which I mean a white liberal, and that his behavior was  altruistic (the reason for the quotation marks will become clear), one of the most distinguishing characteristics of liberals. If  altruism means  acting in (what the actor contends to be) the interests of others instead of one s own interests, then your friend, by risking injury to defend the dignity of blacks, was certainly acting altruistically. Liberals, in general, profess to be altruistic and are intensely proud of what they see as their acts of unselfishness and generosity towards the less fortunate. Rich liberals donate millions to the Democrats, Ralph Nader, and others who advocate taking away their wealth. Liberals who paid extra and endure long commutes to live in white suburbs want integration that will lower the value of their homes. Liberals, although of European heritage, nevertheless express contempt for  dead white European males and their works of genius. Liberals work for affirmative action, though it will make it more difficult for them and their children to enter college, find a job, and get promoted.<P> All these liberals seem to be taking actions that are against their own interests. It is a formidable challenge to biologists to explain altruism. How can a person s genes survive in future generations if he does not compete, ferociously if need be, for resources and mates, but instead sacrifices his own interests for the interests of others? The explanation offered by sociobiologists is that what seems to be altruism is really not altruism. What counts is the survival of one s genes. If you help a sibling or a child or a close relative, even at your own expense, your genes survive because those people carry many of your genes. But this explanation makes no sense if the person you are helping is not closely related to you. It is therefore of no value at all in explaining the altruism of liberals, who often sacrifice the interests of those most closely related to them for the interests of those most distantly related to them. I am thinking here of the women who left their children to go on civil rights marches in the South or of Bill Gates, who gave a billion (!) dollars for scholarships for African-Americans, but not a cent to the little white girl down the street. One might say that the altruism explained by sociobiology is a natural altruism, an altruism that evolved because those individuals who had the genes that caused it were more likely to have those same genes passed on to future generations. But the altruism of liberals is not natural. It is a suicidal altruism, an altruism that, if practiced to its logical extreme, would result in the extinction of the genes held by the people who practice it. Again, the facts cry out for an explanation.<P> The altruism of liberals is a very peculiar sort of altruism in another way. It lacks sincerity and genuineness - there is something phony about it. I needed to insert  what one contends to be into my definition of  altruism because the altruism of liberals very often does not actually help those people it is supposed to help. In fact, very often it is destructive to their interests. Does giving money to a beggar help the beggar? Well, in a sense it does because now he can achieve his main goal in life - getting drunk again. But it does not help him overcome his alcoholism and it will likely shorten his life. The donation has taught him that he can continue to live by begging and that he need not make changes in the way he lives.<P> Similarly, to take a few issues liberals support to help the less fortunate, rent control may lower the rent of a few people, but in the long run it will destroy their homes, as it will no longer be profitable for landlords to repair and rent them. Minimum wages laws will raise the wages of a few people, but some will lose their jobs because they are not worth the higher wage and many more will not be offered jobs in the first place because the minimum wage exceeds the value of their labor. Regulations billed as helping the consumer actually raise prices, outlaw less expensive products as unsafe or inferior so that only the rich can afford the products, and sometimes even backfire and force an inferior product onto the market or a superior product off the market. Unions obtain higher wages for the unionized workers, but fewer worker are hired at the higher wage rate, increasing the number of non-union workers and depressing their non-union wage rate, and the company becomes less competitive than it would be at the lower wage rate, perhaps ultimately closing down. The Americans for Disabilities Act means fewer employers will risk hiring a disabled person. Gun control may prevent a few shootings, but a larger number of people, especially women and blacks, will be attacked and killed because the criminals know their victims lack guns to defend themselves. And let s not forget  urban renewal, which destroyed more low income housing than it created.<P> Moreover, much of the  help that liberals want to bestow on others is not help that they, themselves, offer. (It has been found, for example, that charity is lower in the most liberal states.) Rather, their  help consists of using the government to force their enemies to  help others, with little or no personal sacrifice from themselves - tax the Republicans to pay for welfare and the like.<P> Liberals sometimes even acknowledge that their altruism is unproductive or even harmful, but justify it nevertheless on the grounds that they have  good intentions, and that is what counts. I cannot help comparing that justification to the religious fanatics who tortured or killed people to save their souls. They were not murderers, but highly moral altruists, from the liberal viewpoint, because they sacrificed their time and resources for the benefit of others - to save their souls. When the altruism of liberals is injurious to the very people they purport to want to help, the inescapable conclusion is that their altruism is insincere and hides a another goal, a goal more important to liberals than helping others, a goal of which no liberal would be proud to admit.<P> Returning to the bar, it is fair to say, I believe, that your friend was not likely to have become upset had the insult been directed at just any group of people. Had the offensive remark been, for example,  Those globidinites are the dumbest people on the planet, you could not imagine him running over to defend the globidinites. The altruism of liberals does not favor everyone, but only certain people. A liberal would be less inclined to help a rich person, a white person, a male, a business person, a racist, or a sexist and, indeed, they often actively work against the interests of these people. One can easily believe that a real, loving altruist, say Mother Teresa, would bandage the wound of an injured man, even if he was Joseph Mengela and even at some discomfort to herself. But if the injured man was Bull Connor or Senator McCarthy, the liberal would be more likely to cheer.<P> The empathy that liberals profess for the less fortunate is often manifested as outrage at injustices done to those people. Here, again, the outrage is selective and peculiar. Columbus, Indian fighters, Southern slave owner, and other exploitive European males who lived centuries ago merit denunciation. More recent injustices, that might well affect one s peace of mind and personal sense of security, but were committed under a liberal President and woman Attorney General, such as the murders of fellow Americans at Waco and Ruby Ridge by federal agents, bring few protests. The centuries old injustices in no way reduce the quality of a liberal s life today. Indeed, the lives of liberals, and the rest of us, have been very likely enhanced because of those injustices. That liberals can comfortably enjoy the benefits of the past injustices they denounce is yet another indication of their insincerity.<P> The hypocrisy of liberals is legendary. They favor the public schools, but send their children to private schools. They favor integrated neighborhoods, but live in white neighborhoods. They proclaim that morality is just a manifestation of culture, but bitterly denounce their opponents as  evil. <P> Before we leave the issue of insincerity, let us try another scenario. Now a black guy walks into the bar hand-in-hand with a white girl. Your liberal friend recognizes them and invites them to sit down at the table with you. After introductions, your liberal friend chats amicably with them, but hatred silently pours from the eyes of your other friend. Before the situation explodes, you make an excuse and get him out of there.<P> Now what has happened? Your liberal friend seems to be the normal, civilized person while your other friend is the irrational hate-crazed racist. But, maybe not. Your liberal friend is all for evolution, so let s see what evolution might say about your friend s hatred. Assuming higher animals have feelings and that those feelings are genetically programmed, when would hatred be a survival mechanism? Certainly not normally against a mate, a child, a parent, a close relative, or, usually, a member of the clan. If you are a predator, would hating your prey be useful? Probably not, for then you would kill prey you did not need and starve later. Suppose you are the prey. Would it help if you hated a predator? Fear would be a more useful emotion but, if trapped, a display of aggression would certainly be useful, though it might be safer if it were faked.<P> That leaves competitors. Most, if not all, animal fights that are not between predators and their prey are between competitors, whether it is birds fighting for territory or musk ox butting heads for mates. There is no doubt that humans hate their competitors. Union members bitterly hate competing workers ( scabs ). The pleasures of this world compete with the promised pleasures of the next world, so ministers, selling the latter, hate vices, which reduce donations in the plate, as well as Sunday morning commercialism, which keeps people from church. Farmers hate bugs, vermin, coyotes, and wolves because they compete for his crops and livestock. In none of those examples is the competition for mates, but competition for territory or resources is really competition for mates. Genes that program to acquire wealth, but not a mate, are soon gone.<P> A competitor for resources can be as close as a sibling or as distant as a different species, but a competitor for a mate has to be the same species. Losing resources will reduce the chances of mating and the chances that your offspring will survive, but losing a potential mate makes it a certainty, at least as to the individual lost. Thus, the most vicious hatred is reserved for anyone who competes for a mate or anyone who prevents mating, including even the potential mate. It is the spouse that leaves or her lover who takes the brunt of this hatred. So understandable was this that killing an unfaithful spouse and her lover was once considered (and still is in some places) to be not only excusable, but honorable.<P> So, back to the bar. Your racist friend may not yet have mastered the civilized art of concealing his feelings, but from an evolutionary viewpoint, he is functioning just as his genes have programmed him to. Why did your liberal friend react in the exact opposite manner? Instead of hating this competitor for a mate, it was as though he were saying,  Here, you take her. I don t want to pass on my genes anyway. Consistent with his altruism, the liberal not only spurns competition for mates, but frequently denounces it and, by extension, all competition, even for grades or to win at sports.<P> Some biologists say that a chicken is an egg s way of making another egg. That is, that a plant or animal programmed by genes is how genes continue to survive. This does not mean that genes think or want to survive, only that if they are not constituted so that survival occurs, they are gone. From the viewpoint of his genes, your liberal friend is here to propagate, and yet not only has he no taste for the inevitable competition, he forfeits without even trying! This can be called  civilized; it can be called  gracious; it can even be called  saintly. But it cannot be called  normal. <P> I will give you that his feelings are genuine, by which I mean that he does not feel hate, and then consciously conceal it. But I will not give you that the hate is not there. Let us push him and see what happens. His girlfriend dumps him for a black guy. He figures there are lots of other girls, but they are already dating - black guys. He sits alone in his dormitory room, horny as hell, watching all the integrated couples. He considers dating black girls, but is not attracted to them.  Oh, well, he says to himself,  I guess I ll just be celibate. To quote a TV character,  Not! <P> The liberal, so often into psychobabble, is unwilling to face his real feelings and has suppressed them. Again, as he is not genuine in his altruism, he is not genuine in his anti-racism. Can one consciously feel the exact opposite of what one really feels? Yes. It is common. It s called  over-compensation as in  The lady protests too much, methinks. And when what one really feels is something one has been taught is abhorrent, like racism, one must fight mightily to overpower those feelings. One becomes a rabid anti-racist. It is partly because liberals are so terrified of their own racist feelings that they so fervently hate racism.<P> What can cause this strange, highly emotional, behavior by liberals? While insincerity and hypocrisy are the hallmarks of an underlying psychological disturbance, I am not aware of any work by psychologists on this question, perhaps because so many in that profession are liberals and do not consider their own behavior to be at all questionable. On the other hand, many psychologists have long regarded conservatives as being psychologically deviant. An  F scale (for  fascist tendencies ) was even derived to measure the tight-assed authoritarianism of people we would call  conservatives. And who can forget the disgrace psychologists brought to their profession when they revealed their biased hatred and lack of objectivity by pronouncing conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater mentally unfit to be president? I am not a psychologist, but I would like to step into the breach created by this lack of balance and take a stab at the puzzlement presented by liberals.<P> A few things seems obvious. First, the genesis must be in childhood - no adult experience could so basically alter a personality in this way. Second, the genesis must be a state of terrible tension, a conflict that the child desperately wanted to win, else the emotions could not be so strong. And last, that conflict must have been with the child s parents, otherwise the liberal mind-set would not have arisen in so many different times and cultures.<P> What was that primal conflict? I suggest that it was a conflict faced by every child, almost every waking hour of every day - the conflict between its will and the will of its parents. That is a conflict that cannot be avoided. It is a conflict between a helpless, dependent child and huge, powerful adults, who could destroy the child in an instant. Great danger is involved for the child in taking on such opponents. That the child nevertheless does so shows how strongly he demands that his will prevail. Every child desperately wants to immediately satisfy whatever its desire is at any particular moment, though an hour later that very desire may be completely forgotten.<P> Because the parents are physically stronger, they can, if they wish to, always win the conflict. But that is not the end of the matter, for the real resolution of the conflict occurs in the mind of the child. The parents will have their way, but they will have it with the child s acceptance or with the child s defiance. If the child yields to the parents, he accepts the parents judgement and authority. He acknowledges that the parents are right. He agrees to follow what the parents say, not because he must, but because he has deferred to the parents judgment. This implies that he sees the parents in a favorable light, as people who can be trusted to make good decisions for him, who will do their best for him, who are inherently good, who are to be emulated. He is humble because he does not claim for himself those things that he does not have - the wisdom that years of experience have given to his parents. As his life goes on, he tries to become these good people, and he does - he becomes his parents.<P> This is a healthy resolution to the conflict for surely the parents know far better than the child what is best for the child. This resolution also preserves the institutions and customs of the child s society, often built up over hundreds of years to facilitate the raising of children and to promote peaceful and prosperous relationships between its members. Thus, a healthy society will be conservative. If we, as adults, were to look at each conflict between these two wills, we would agree, I believe, that in almost every case, the parents were correct. There would be only a small number of cases where the parents wanted the child to do something that they knew was wrong for the child. There would be a small percentage of cases where the parents were actually wrong but sincerely believed that they were acting for the benefit of the child. And there would be a small number of cases where the parents acted in their own interests instead of the child s interests, but we would nevertheless side with the parents because, by letting the parents have their way they will be better parents in the future, they had no other good choices, another child needed them more, etc. In nearly every case, the parents love the child and want what is best for the child. Thus, for the child to accede to the parents will is actually almost always best for the child.<P> The other possibility is that the child does what he is forced to do, either by physical force or implicit or explicit threat thereof, but inside he does not assent. In his own mind he believes that his parents are wrong and that he is right. The implications of this defiance are profound. Because his parents use force to make him do something that he does not want to do, the child concludes that his parents are not good. I see this in my own children when they denounce me as the worst father ever when they do not want to do what I insist that they must do. This implies a certain arrogance on the part of the child for he presumes that he, having lived only a short time and knowing far less than his parents, nevertheless has superior knowledge and is able to make a wiser choice. When the child decides that his parents are bad, indeed the  baddest people in his life, the badness easily escalates to  evil. After that it is but a small step for the child to conclude that not only are his parents evil, but everything about them is evil - their appearance, mannerisms, culture, heritage, music, religion, race, occupations, and values.<P> I do not mean to suggest that a child will consistently resolve this conflict by always acceding to his parents or by always defying his parents. Nevertheless, I do suggest that children tend to resolve it more one way than the other and that as they grow older the resolution in one direction tends to solidify. Also, the child does not always go to the extremes of deference or defiance. There is a gradation of commitment by the child to deferring or defying, all the way from a hardly noticeable inclination to an at-any-cost obsession.<P> The best resolution of these conflicts would be for the child to evaluate each dispute without bias and make a purely rational decision. For an immature child in such an emotional situation that, of course, is impossible. The best that can be hoped for is a rational decision in extreme cases, such as physical abuse, and more and more rational decisions as the child grows older.<P> The difference between a healthy questioning of the parents authority and an unhealthy rejection of that authority lies in the necessity of the rejection. If the child, and later the adult, is emotionally free to consider his parents desires and reject them if the circumstances seem to call for it, it is a healthy rejection. But an overly-defying child feels compelled to reject his parents values, regardless of the circumstances.<P> Similarly, an overly-deferring child, who feels compelled to accept the parents values, regardless of the circumstances, is also emotionally sick. Pity these risk-adverse persons, who dare not defy the hand that feeds them, even when there are few adverse consequences. A healthy child will not accept his parents values when circumstances arise that call for a rejection of them.<P> It is not hard to see that blind obedience to authority can have horrendous consequences. Had the Germans and the Japanese responded to Adolph Hitler and Emperor Hirohito as the American left did to President Johnson, World War II and the Holocaust would never have happened. In addition to war crimes, other instances of horrible consequences from deference to authority are just as easy to find. How many people were tortured and died because the authority of the Church was not questioned? How many people got caught up in murderous riots and committed crimes they would never even contemplate doing themselves, all in obedience to the will of their peer group leader? Most of the horrors of the last century would not have happened had people simply said,  Just because you are in authority does not mean that you are right, and I m not going to do something I think is wrong. <P> So I, for one, do not want children who will, without any thought, do whatever their parents, then later other authorities, tell them to do. Many parents who have raised an overly- deferring child have seen him transfer that deference to politicians, only to have him die needlessly in a war he would never have fought in had he considered rebellion an option. A dead child is too high a price to pay for obedience. The worst parents are those who raise a child who cannot rebel when the circumstances demand it, then conceal their failure by admiring the child who foolishly gave his life for nothing but service to obedience.<P> Nor do I want children who cannot feel the good will of their parents, who cannot acknowledge that their parents are trying their best to act in their interests. How do we raise children who are neither obedient automatons nor hate-filled rebels? I suggest, as others have, that the parents honestly and openly explain why they want the child to do something and try to obtain his assent.<P> No one of any intelligence can read what I have so far written and fail to see that the defiant child becomes the liberal adult and the deferring child becomes the conservative adult. The deferring child adopts his parents politics, his parents religion, his parents values. He is shocked by whatever would have shocked his parents. He loves whatever his parents would have loved. He is, in many ways, boring, unthinking, anal-retentive, and stuck-in-the-mud. Nevertheless, he does change in small ways as circumstances necessitate. And he preserves the culture, the beauty, the comfortableness of a way of life.<P> On the other hand, the defiant child, the future liberal, is a destroyer, driven by hatred. He may not allow himself to consciously hate his parents, but he will allow himself to hate everything about them. If he is white, of European heritage, his hatred may extend to classical music, art, architecture, math, science, law, free markets, and all the magnificent accomplishments of white Europeans. He may hate white people and work for the extinction of the race. He defies his parents every way he can, from his appearance, interests, and choice of friends to even his occupation and spouse. And, when your liberal friend declined to compete for mates it was the ultimate defiance, the epitome of defiance, the perfect defiance, as, by terminating his lineage, he crapped on the struggle for mates not only by his immediate parents, but by all his parents back to the beginning of life.<P> The liberal identifies not with his parents, as the deferring child does, but with those who, like himself, were oppressed by someone bigger and more powerful. If he is a wealthy, white European, with political power, he nevertheless sees himself as a poor black, unfairly oppressed by parent-like others who only superficially resemble himself. He naturally sees children as an oppressed class and parents as the oppressors and may work, as Hillary Clinton does, not with parents to enable them to better raise their children, but with children to protect them from their parents. Indeed, the liberal identifies and sympathizes with any group he sees as an oppressed underdog. The poor, the black, the handicapped, even the obese and the ugly, can become the victims of oppression and the darlings of liberals. He may be attracted to Marxism and identify the oppressed group as the proletariat and the oppressors as those who, like his parents, control the wealth, the capitalists. The liberal identifies with the alienation that an industrial worker, according to Marx, has from his product because the liberal, too, feels a deep alienation. It is, however, an alienation of his own making and it is not from his product, but from his parents.<P> Both parents may be the oppressors or it may be only the controlling parent. If the father dominates the mother and the defiant child is female, her father s poor parenting will very likely create another insufferable feminist, who sees not one woman, her mother, as oppressed, but all women as oppressed.<P> Since his parents are  the enemy, the liberal naturally wants to disarm them. Gun control laws are the perfect way to do this as they are obeyed by the law-abiding establishment (e.g., his parents) but do not affect those who ignore the law anyway, the oppressed class, with whom he identifies.<P> It does not seem fair for his parents to have all the money and resources, especially since they are so evil. So he advocates seizing money from parent-like people and the use of government to regulate, control, and otherwise destroy the power of those he sees as his cold, ungiving parents, e.g., corporations. One might think that the government itself is the epitome of a surrogate parent, especially a  Nanny State government, and that therefore liberals would be anarchists, but every child wants parents to care for him - the liberal just doesn t want the parents he has. Instead, he imagines and desires rich parents who not only love him, but are capable of giving him everything he wants. A government controlled by liberals is his longed-for  good parents, the parents he wished for, but never had, who would give in to all his whims, grant him all his wishes, and deny him nothing. The liberal mind is exposed when their  child service agencies snatch children away from  bad parents and put them in the care of good government parents.<P> But make no mistake about it - the concern of the liberal is not genuinely for any underdog other than himself. His powerful emotions arose to fulfill his desires, not the desires of other people. Your friend in the bar was not motivated by concern for the dignity of blacks. He was personally insulted because he sees himself as an oppressed black person. And, for him, there seemed like little risk to the confrontation as the cost of rebelling against his parents was never high. It is the intensity of the liberal s selfish pursuit of his own will that lies behind the intensity of his concern for the underdogs he sees as himself, and behind the pride he takes in that false altruism. And, because he is driven not by a love for those who he sees as oppressed, but by a hatred of those he sees as the oppressors, he will be indifferent to the actual effects of his actions on the  oppressed; hence, his blindness to the damage his insincere altruism does to its supposed beneficiaries. His rhetoric of love for the oppressed is betrayed by this indifference. Hatred of his oppressors is why liberals continue to support failed programs, such as welfare, that are costly to their oppressors. At the same time, they do not support programs that will help the less fortunate, such as removing economic barriers to the poor (e.g., licensing) and alternatives to government schools, because those programs do not harm their oppressors and may even help them. The goal of destroying oppressing parents is so all-consuming that anyone who frustrates that goal, even the oppressed, will incur his hatred. So it is that under Communism, not only were parent-surrogates, like teachers, bureaucrats, police, judges, and scientists killed, but millions of peasants were murdered as well.<P> The defiant child, and later the adult liberal, is not a mentally healthy person. One can admire his courage in taking on a more powerful adversary, his parents, and even his willingness to suffer in that cause, but he is fighting an illusion. He is fighting someone who is not his enemy, someone he has no need to fight, someone who, in fact, loves him and would do anything to help him. Not only is he destroying himself and hurting his parents, but he lessens the lives of innocent others who are not privy to his sickness. The adult liberal, however learned and sophisticated he may be, remains fixated on this battle with his parents. His parents may have died years ago, but the battle continues. He may himself be old and have children who see him the same way he sees his own parents, but he will not give up the fight.<P> The saga of the defiant child is not yet over, for he has another, and more sinister, decision to make. He can openly defy his parents, having temper tantrums when younger and indulging in tattoos, piercings, pot smoking, vandalism, promiscuity, swearing, purple hair, and other typical teenage rebellious behavior when older. While it would be preferable for him not to rebel at all except for those few, carefully-selected issues where his parents are wrong, if he must rebel, it is preferable for his rebellion to be in the open for all the world to see. Then we know what he is feeling, he is expressing his feelings more honestly, and he can be dealt with accordingly. Indeed, the more in-your-face his behavior is, the healthier it is, though that point may not be appreciated by put-upon parents.<P> His other choice is to conceal his defiance, especially from his parents, so as to obtain the benefits of their good will even as he loathes them. This child will go to church, join the Young Republicans, bathe, and dress neatly. He may be quite conscious of his pretense, or, worse, it may just come naturally to him, without even thinking about it. But this is a sinister choice, for now his actions do not honestly express how he feels. Indeed, he may become highly skilled at convincing others that he agrees with them and that he is the epitome of their values, while secretly despising them and cherishing all that they hate. The goal is to win. If winning requires deception and trickery, so be it for, after all, is he not fighting a great evil? In the extreme, the cancer spreads and it is not just honesty that falls by the wayside, but all morality and soon morality itself becomes not only irrelevant but an impediment. Fighting the Great Evil, his parents, justifies anything, including perjury, theft, and murder. Many defiant children conceal their hostility when they are under the thumb of their parents, but, as soon as they are in college and beyond their parents control, the deception is no longer needed. Suddenly, they decide to become Democrats, if not worse, and they move left.<P> A child who has perfected his skills at conforming to the expectations of others to gain advantage for himself, hiding his secret hatred, falls naturally into politics. The Clintons ( husband and  wife ) and Gores (father and son) are examples par excellence, especially Hillary, who was a  Goldwater girl in high school, then became a Communist sympathizer in college (some of her college work is still sealed, very likely because of that). It is ironic that those most skilled at getting elected are the very people most unsuited for the job, at least if we want an honest, decent leaders, instead of panderers.<P> The strangest part of this story is that it is this sick, hateful child, now the adult liberal, who defines morality for our entire society, if not for most of the world. Corporations give millions, even billions, to prove that they conform to the liberal s standards of morality. The media dare not speak words that would offend a liberal s morality. Even conservatives cower in fear lest they incur the wrath of liberals. The worst crime one can commit is  racism and being labeled a racist will make a person an instant pariah. Yet, while it is shameful to be proud of one s race, at least if one is white, it is admirable to be proud of one ethnicity; the liberal s morality is illogical because it is the logic of the rebellious child - the white man is the oppressor, not the man who is Irish or the man who is French.<P> How did this happen? How were sick, delusional liberals able to claim the high ground and lead everyone down the path to extinction? I suggest two answers and there are probably many more. One is that most people think that those who act with moral certitude must be morally right. If a preacher is furiously angry about pornography, pornography must be immoral. If a woman is willing to march and die for civil rights, civil rights must be moral. The anger of the morally certain frightens those who are poor at expressing themselves and have only reason or tradition to rely upon.<P> The other answer is elegance. It seems that if something is elegantly stated one must refute not only its substance, but also its beauty. If a man says,  All you kids care about is yourselves. You got no patriotism. It s all gimme, gimme, gimme! he will be ignored or ridiculed. But if he says,  Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country, people will stand is awe, even cry, and will gladly pay the higher taxes needed to re-elect the incumbents. I love elegant writing as much as anyone, but it can be as much an enemy of the truth as a friend. The liberals, well-educated in the liberal arts (pun intended), and well-read, can muster elegance in their service much better than their opponents.<P> While most liberals, disdainful as they are of Christian fundamentalists, readily embrace evolution, they are wholly against survival of the fittest. To a liberal, the duty of the fittest, his parents, is to commit suicide in a paroxysm of guilt and shame over their accomplishments, because they would have accomplished nothing had they not oppressed the less fit. Sometimes liberals mean a literal suicide of the white race, but more often they mean an identity suicide. Their parents need not literally die, so long as what they are dies. When I read about chimpanzees making war on neighboring troops and killing them, I imagine what those chimps would say when confronted with their distant relatives, the modern liberals; their only response possible would be,  Huh? The fact is that over millennia the morality of liberals cannot survive.  For those who would commit suicide, nature is quick to oblige, someone said. The liberal will be displaced by those who spurn his morality. This is true even though liberals are more intelligent, more productive, and more capable of surviving. For it is not enough to be the fittest. One must also have the will to survive. And liberals do not want to survive as what they are, but as what they were - frustrated children.<P> </body> </html>