Down-Your-Throat Liberalism

Posted by on Jun 23rd, 2010 and filed under Congress, Economy, Legal, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry from your site

Liberals are always quick to accuse conservative Christians of trying (or at least wanting) to force their views down everyone else’s throat. I would have to agree that there are indeed some conservative Christians who fit that description. However, they haven’t cornered the market on that kind of mindset. Some liberals could just as easily point the finger back at themselves.

Look at the way Rand Paul, the recently nominated GOP Senate candidate from Kentucky, has been treated for not toeing the politically correct line. Following the landslide primary victory that sealed the nomination for him, Paul, an eye surgeon and son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, was asked by a liberal talk show host to state his views about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He responded that he was personally against bigotry and discrimination, and generally agreed with this law.

However, he said he did have some problems with the parts of it that applied to private businesses. Note that many pro-choice politicians who claim to be “personally” against abortion get a pass from the media. But Paul was instantly pounced on for making such a statement, although he said it was because of his concerns about the government infringing on the rights of private property owners, not because of any sinister motives or deep-seated longing for the “good old days” of Jim Crow. But, based on the host’s reaction, one would have thought Paul had attacked motherhood and apple pie.

Although one may disagree with him, it must be acknowledged that Dr. Paul is, at worst, guilty of extreme libertarianism. He is certainly no racist or bigot. Yet, many liberals cannot make this concession. They leave him no room for honest disagreement with the Civil Rights Act, which is, in their mind, a sacred cow that cannot be breached.

Paul is not 100% behind it, so he must be a racist and a bigot, and is therefore unqualified for the Senate of the United States. That’s the exact spin his Democratic opponent is already using against him. This kind of “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” mentality is a red flag to me, whether coming from conservatives or liberals. It gives me pause because it is often an indicator of paranoia and extremism. 

I’m am getting sick and tired of this kind of down-your-throat liberalism. Are some liberals unfamiliar with the phrase, “live and let live”? Apparently. Because, according to their world view, it’s not good enough to be against bigotry and discrimination; one must be in favor of laws that prevent others from practicing these things. It’s not good enough to give to the poor or give a helping hand to the downtrodden; one must be in favor of laws that force others to do so as well.

It’s not good enough to use seatbelts yourself; one must favor laws that force others to use them as well. It’s not good enough to purchase health insurance for yourself and your family and to do your part to try to fight the growing costs of healthcare; you most favor laws that force others to buy health coverage.

Hey, I got an idea. Maybe these liberals could join forces with extreme fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims. Sure, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of consensus among them, but there would be at least one thing they could wholeheartedly agree on: Allowing people to think for themselves and live as they choose is a bad thing, and will not be tolerated.

Leave a Reply