Liberal Audacity vs. Conservative Virtue
Deborah Venable
03/16/07
Liberal
politicians as well as outspoken liberal citizens seem to think they have the
market on public disclosure cornered. Why
is that, when the subjects of their disclosures are never directed
internally? The only thing they know
how to do is lash out at conservatives and conservatism, individualism, and
anything that stands in the way of their achievement of more and more power.
Conservatives,
on the other hand, whether or not their discretions are found out by
microscopic examination of their every move or baited deliberately by in-depth
analysis of their actions on every facet of their belief systems, are forced
into contrition by those very belief systems, so that fighting fire with fire
is always futile. Is everybody with me
so far?
Case
in point – Newt’s recent admissions of an affair while he was leading the
charge against Clinton’s affairs during the Clinton presidency. The audacity stands out in every liberal
arrow thrown at Gingrich’s morality, even though the act of adultery cannot be
defended – no matter your last name or political affiliation. Anyone on the conservative side who attempts
to accept Newt’s contrition with forgiveness must also accept Clinton’s acts
minus the contrition, which he has never shown.
During
the Clinton debacle all we heard from liberals was that the public should stay
out of his private life, bedroom, or wherever else he chose to pursue his
passion. Think that will fly if we
conservatives try it with Newt and even Rudy or any other Republican with a
tarnished shield of honor? Don’t count
on it – and it really shouldn’t!
Morality
and commitment are not credited with any importance - if they were, the current
occupant of the White House would be held up for much higher esteem than he has
ever been. Indeed, he has been blasted
BECAUSE of his deeply held beliefs on virtue.
So,
just what are we looking for in our next president? We’ll be coming off sixteen years of free rides for the liberal
and unbelievable abuse for the conservative, so it will be interesting to see
what we opt for next. Whatever it is, I
doubt that the private fancies of the next president will matter any more than
Clinton’s – unless he or she is a conservative of course.
Now,
I am only singling out the last two occupants of the White House as examples
because they will be the only basis for comparison for many of the voters in
the next election - the younger ones and those with short memories. If we wanted to dissect the morality of
everyone who has ever served as president, we could find many more examples of
morality and immorality, but that wouldn’t matter either – unless they were
conservative presidents of course.
Next
let’s examine what happens when simple language is used by humorists to express
their thoughts on the subjects of the day.
Perhaps we’ll find a more level playing field there – I mean, after all,
humor is humor, isn’t it? Well, no, not
exactly. If a liberal humorist utters a
mean invective meant to bring joy to the hearts of other liberals, then of
course it is funny and completely protected by free speech and media
acceptance. But, on the other hand, if
a conservative humorist makes an offhand comment containing one of those “first
letter-word” words, then it is hate speech and should be met with instant
crucifixion and financial penalties.
Case in point, Bill Maher can speculate that the world would be a safer
place if Dick Cheney died and have his position defended to hilt, but if Ann
Coulter uses fagot, (the other f-word) in the same sentence with John Edwards,
the ridicule goes on forever and newspapers and websites all over the place
start canceling her column. Wow! That is real equality right there! Our vice president isn’t supposed to worry
that people want him dead, but John Edwards has a right to expect no one to
think of him as a sissy?
It is a good thing that we can all, liberal and conservative alike, expect equal justice in the judicial system though, isn’t it? Well, no – absolutely not. Case in point, the Scooter Libby trial is over now and few people even understand what the case was all about. The Sandy Berger case, however, has slid through the media with the ease of a well-oiled machine, and few people even know what he really did or care that his punishment certainly did not fit the crime. If you look at the two cases side-by-side, the threat to our national security from Berger’s actions will be long lasting and possibly devastating, but Libby’s failed memory to recall exact conversations that had no effect on anyone is only depicted in the media as traitorous. Here again, conservatives can only call for Libby to be pardoned instead of being outraged that he shouldn’t need it, and liberals are warning that a pardon should not even be considered because he needs to be locked up for years, (so his memory will improve I guess.) No one thought that would do Clinton’s memory any good, but of course that’s another story.
We
can’t end this little exploration of fairness without returning to one basic
fact that separates liberals from conservatives. Conservatives are a lot harder on themselves and other
conservatives than liberals are. The
bar is set that much higher for conservatives than it ever is for liberals, and
we cannot expect liberals to sit in judgment of themselves to same extent that
conservatives do. The other component
that has to enter into the discussion of conservative virtue vs. liberal audacity
is that of religion – specifically Christian religion. For that, I would direct everyone to a recent
article
by Steven M. Warshawsky, posted at American Thinker. It is one of the best I have ever seen on the subject.
How
all this figures into the current war
on America by Americans bears careful consideration because of facts in
history that have to do with the long standing goals of those wishing to bring
down America. In order for this to
happen, several fronts need to be simultaneously attacked. Historical confidence in Christian virtue as
it applied to the nation’s founding, takeover of the mass media, both major
political parties, and the education system, and the ability of individual
citizens to maintain a clear conduit of control over the course of government in
America – these are those fronts where the battles have been raging for years. Far too many people do not even know what
side they are really on in these battles – thanks to victories won by those who
would see us doomed to succeed in saving America for individualism and
conservatism. If America ever does turn
away from her virtuous culture in conservative philosophy, the result will be
disastrous for those calling themselves liberal freedom fighters – just as
disastrous as it will be for conservatives – yet liberals will have played a
larger role in their own demise without even realizing it.
I
know what we are up against, and I take comfort in the fact that many more know
these things too, but those who are so easily led and influenced by the current
liberal philosophy need to carefully consider the meaning of such words as
tolerance, freedom, and individual choice.
Those are the trophies in this philosophical debate, and the playing
field is currently tilted the wrong way to achieve any of them.
We will be no closer to achieving (or preserving) any of those trophies if any of the current frontrunners for the presidency end up victorious. The Republican party needs to realize this and look elsewhere for a contender that virtuous, cognizant conservatives can fully support or the trophies, carefully woven into the fabric of America, will be lost and we will watch a greater unraveling of American culture than we have thus far ever witnessed after the next president takes office.