by Teh Nutroots | The conservative blog "Sister Toldjah" has posted a really touching piece today called "The abject failure of liberalism." We love it when conservatives pretend that they're the pragmatic, practical, problem solving, stabilizing wing of the national airplane while it's liberals who keep trying to make the thing do barrel rolls.
During the last seven years, according to Ms. Toldjah, it's been liberalism, not conservatism, that has failed. And, instead of happily basking in the glow of conservatism's proven success under Bush, she has distilled the last sour drop out of the grapes of her wrath, has got herself well and truly filled with the spirit of rebuke, and has loaded up her sleigh with several tons of environmentally unfriendly coal for all the welfare-cheating whining poor people who won't work and for all their liberal enablers. She's the Anti-Claus!
Why? Little Malkin, ever the spreader of good will, had this seasonal story of goodwill toward the poor. At some community gathering in New Orleans, some African-American activist (a/k/a "fanatical black woman") shouted down white people in a debate about razing public housing! And that same "fanatical black woman" would have you believe that she is poor, but she actually owns a 60 inch TV! And this tragic failure of the system is entirely due to the abject failure of liberals like you and me. Sister Toldjah's not disappointed; she's just very, very angry.
So screw the people in the "projects," with their generational poverty and sense of entitlement, when they're surrounded by all sorts of opportunities if they'd only get off their arses! Ms. Toldjah tells us:
Check out the picture of Jasper’s livingroom here, and take special note of the quote underneath the picture. Here’s what it reads (emphasis added):
Sharon Jasper sits in the living room of her voucher-backed private residence. “I might be poor but I don’t like to live poor. I thank God for a place to live but it’s pitiful what people give you.”
To say that this is the epitome of the severe damage liberal “entitlement” programs have done to society would be an understatement of epic proportions. We have an entire class of people in this country who “expect” others to do everything for them, including subsidize their very existence, and they don’t want it done “on the cheap.” Oh, I’m sure there are exceptions to the rule, and that there are a minority of people who live in poverty who are fighting to get out of it, but for the most part, if you look around you, if you do your research, you’ll see that poverty is, for the most part, generational, and by that I mean if you read up on the projects today, you’ll find third generation families who live in public housing much like the generation before them did....
This is a direct result of the Great Society programs implemented by the Johnson administration in the mid 60s, programs that were put into place to “correct” problems that were exaggerated by the “enlightened” of the time, “problems” that were, in actuality, declining - no thanks to any major “help” from the federal government.. (The abject failure of liberalism)
After sharing some of the beautiful and inspirational thoughts of, "the great Thomas Sowell," she comes back round to the key point, which is that it's the fault of all those people who think you have to feed, house, and educate the children of the poor, even when they don't appreciate it. Ms. Toldjah continued:
It’s a vicious cycle, and anytime a conservative tries to make any changes to “the system” as we know it, the typical charges are screamed out by the Usual Suspects (remember Gingrich’s welfare reform?), who allege conservatives are cruel and heartless, are infested with racists and bigots, don’t care about the poor and sick, want to kick old people out of their homes, etc etc, when the debate is obviously much, much deeper than their empty emotional rhetoric suggests. If the left really cared about the poor in this country, if they really wanted to help people get off the public dole, they’d encourage open and honest discussions about the results of their attempts at “fixing” the problems that they, in reality, helped create. (The abject failure of liberalism)
Yes, that's probably true---liberals, along with the greedheads and corporate welfare beneficiaries on the other side, did help create the system. It's always been a joint project.
But only pragmatic feet-on-the-ground conservatives think taking away money and shelter from poor people who can get access to assault weapons is a good idea; or believe that throwing people in jail after they've committed a crime somehow takes care of the problems of the victims of angry poor people who recognize that they only way to get what the want or need is by force. (Note I'm looking at it from the conservative viewpoint, which always puts one's precious self before anyone else's problems, rather than from the liberal one, which says that "personal responsibility" for an adult includes responsibility for looking out for the other, including the others who can't or won't look after themselves.)
What do you think happens if you take away food and shelter from a whole class of people because you've decided that the real problem is that they're just lazy and entitled and spoiled, living with their 60 inch TV's in their housing projects and slums and so forth and with their shopping cart all filled up with Christmas gifts from Wal-Mart for the rising new generation of feckless toddlers? Never mind, because that's their own individual and personal responsibility!
Sister Toldjah has the solution to all the social ills created by liberals. And what is the solution? Conservatism! And why? Because conservatives are not only Right but also right. And how do we know this? Sister Toldjah toldjah so, that's why!
[T]he basic components of conservatism which attracted me back in the early to mid 90s when I was converting to the “dark side” from liberalism still attract and hold me today: the emphasis on personal responsibility, the belief that the 2 parent man and woman family is essential to raising healthy, well-rounded children who are productive to society, the understanding that a fetus is not just a “blob of tissue,” the intelligence to know that the federal government is not and never will be a magic cure-all for all of society’s ills, and their belief that America is not the root of all evil in the world, among other things. 60s-era liberalism - which is still very prevalent today in the Democratic party, embodied currently by the Clintons and the Edwards and the Kennedys and the Kerrys - recognizes none of that, and is a destructive force that must continue to be reckoned with. (The abject failure of liberalism)
Brilliant. Just brilliant. If that doesn't make us liberals see the light, we don't know what will!
It's kind of a tour de force, rolling into one furious pre-Christmas post all that right-wing rage and bafflement over the fact that everyone on earth doesn't share all those good old-fashioned American values. And what's really rich is that Sister Toldjah admits herself that she wasn't always a follower of the one true conservative path. You'd think she'd see the many levels of irony in adopting that tone and that name in preparation for rebuking/shaming the liberals. You'd think she'd have the intelligence to know that telling people they are too stupid to be conservative (paraphrasing Damozel here) isn't likely to be terribly persuasive.
But what do we know? We're just a soppy liberal!
Shamanic at The Newshoggers nails one of the points that troubles me:
One big difference between Dems and Republicans, as illustrated nicely by this post, is that the right seems to always be waging a war against the 1960s.
I wasn't alive in the 1960s. The issues that I'm concerned about are the issues of today. The advocacy I engage in is for the future, not to try to rewrite someone's opinion of the past.
It's no real surprise that young people have departed the GOP in droves lately. I'm 31, and I'd guess there are a lot of under-40s who can't for the life of them figure out what the hell the GOP is all about these days. The 60s? That's so... 1969. (Waging war against the past)
The Gun Toting Liberal is even terser, presumably alluding to corporate-welfare recipients. "Pot, meet Kettle," he says, in response to this part of her diatribe: "We have an entire class of people in this country who “expect” others to do everything for them, including subsidize their very existence, and they don’t want it done “on the cheap.” …". (The GTL)
Contra Sister Toldjah, our own continued experience tends to show that there is a side of the ongoing argument based on observation, reason, acceptance of human nature, the ability to distinguish fact from belief, and a willingness to recognize that one's personal beliefs are nevertheless only beliefs. And that side of the argument is the one commonly designated "liberal."
Yeah, there are people who game the system. There are people who think an embryo is nothing but a lump of tissue. There are people who simply don't accept your notions of personal responsibility or share your work ethic. There are people who---in a country where there are not enough jobs to go around---have little chance of earning a subsistence the old-fashioned way. What should the wealthiest society in the world do with them? Do we go back to the days when beggars starved in the streets? Do we let their children go hungry?
Honest to Christ---who recognized the ongoing problem of sick, hungry, poor people who feel as entitled to medical miracles and a share of the loaves and fishes as the rich who hand out the alms---we don't think that liberals have solved that conundrum, but at least they believe they have to try.
Was there an argument, concept, or any content in any of that word puke?
Posted by: Whatchu Talkin' 'bout, Willis? | December 24, 2007 at 01:58 AM
Yes. Sadly, it seems to have gone right over your head.
Sincerely, Teh Nutroots (Guest Columnist!)
Posted by: Teh Nutroots, Guest Author | December 24, 2007 at 05:45 AM