Saturday, June 13, 2009

I am reading Liberal Socialism by Bernard Goldberg now. Its argument is that modern liberalism is really based on the same foundation fascism, with literal effective different between socialism/communism and fascism, since both call for the state to control all aspects of life.

He has an interesting point that one of the reasons that it is hard to pinpoint exactly what is fascism is because it varies greatly based on where it is. Fascism in Italy was very different from that in Germany and from that elsewhere.

I will try to post a more complete review later.

It is interesting how many people who are "liberal" today want to tell people how to live and think. They would raise a stink if the "Religious Right" did so on a moral issue, but they have no problem heading a crusade against handguns, smoking or even how people think. This is worth further thought later, though I am sure to stir up some controversy whatever I say.

It is sad how so many supposedly tolerant people are very intolerant of those who disagree. Why did I get off on this rant? Because they often freely throw out the term fascist for those they disagree with. This is following the trend started by Stalin and hypocritically continued today. Sure, some "on the right" want to control some things, but they are pikers compared to today's liberal. We have to force good, at whatever the cost!

Even Bush went along the path when he called for "no child to be left behind." We can't make heaven on earth, but we sure will try....


Saturday, June 06, 2009

Always the Values....

Marty Nemko makes a few good suggestions for Republicans in a recent post. His idea on pushing accountability on education is reasonable and I definitely like the idea of government spending less money, but why must some people always shove the social goals along with less government involvement in life?

Ironically, many people who oppose anyone pushing their values have no problem when it comes to forcing their own values on others, in this case in the areas of abortion and redefining marriage.

In the former, it will always be an issue of freedom of the most innocent and their right to live, whatever someone may decide is their right to demand. While I could see why some might argue in favor of abortion when a the child is not viable outside the womb, but I find it incredible that people can think that allowing such destruction after a child is viable would ever be consistent with a society that protects the rights of the innocent. And what kind of society is one where the one with the power is the only one who gets to make the rules?

Ironically, while I feel very strongly about this, I also realize this issue will not be resolved any time soon and that pushing through laws either way is a fruitless cause. Nothing will be resolved until hearts change. We rely too much on so-called law today. Attitudes are far more important and I suspect we have a lot farther to fall before we will get anywhere close to a truly tolerant and life-affirming society.

The other issue is that government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is. If someone wants to marry their cat, let them, just don't mandate requirements on other supporting that decision. You can do what you want, but why must others sanction it? Is any side in the "culture wars" really better than any other?

Giving government the power to force things in these contentious debates just ensure more contention, it won't solve them.