Political JUNGLE

LIBERALISM: “Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.”  Wikipedia.   

When did the environment become a political issue?  Who am I to say that liberals care more about the environment than conservatives?  We should all be concerned, and work to preserve it, whether you’re right, left, loony left or radical right.  Hybrid vehicles are a great technology and a step in the right direction.  But the fraction of a percentage that they bring down the demand of oil is not lowering gas prices any time soon.  You may drive a hybrid, and I understand it makes you feel good about yourself.  But judging someone’s environmental awareness based on the car he or she drives is ludicrous, and definitely not a part of the liberal theory.   Its actually reached the point where driving a Prius has become a status symbol of environmental prowess. 

That judgmental attitude is actually driving self-proclaimed republicans away from hybrids, because they see it as a political move.  The problem is the politicizing of this issue has created havoc on our oil prices.    Democrats, and some republicans for that matter, are so frightened they might upset the fringe environmentalists/liberals that they wont touch the topic of drilling in these protected areas.  This is about tapping into our “NATURAL” resources.  Were not talking about dumping oil into the sea, but taking it out of the ground and in the process becoming less reliable on foreign oil.   

Democrats including Hillary Clinton, as pointed out in the Bill O’Reilly interview, have voted against using our natural resources numerous times.  Now these same politicians are complaining about gas prices, blaming the Bush administration, oil companies, or anyone but themselves.   The obsession with this new found “wimpy” liberalism is actually contradicting its original definition.

Liberalism, as quoted from the Merriam-Webster dictionary is, ” A theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, and the self-regulating market…”  Believe it or not liberalism actually does believe in a free market, meaning less government involvement.   Americans want lower gas prices, so help us get it, by not enacting government sanctions/control. 

Democrats wear the “We are all about the middle class” patch on their sleeves, so help the little guy by lowering the price at the pump.     We should take care of the environment, but until concrete proof that drilling in the virtually unpopulated Anwar region is detrimental to our environment, we need to do something.   

GREEN is good, but OIL is not the devil.  Until cars run on water it’s a positive natural resource.   

You can argue the inconsistencies pointed out above are based on “classic liberalism” not “social liberalism” or the newly created “social progressivism.”  Either way, this just shows how off base liberalism has become, and how far left the Democratic Party has traveled.  Or just how flawed it is.   A theory so loosely defined only creates contradiction. 

In theory I agree with the Merriam-Webster definition.  But as referenced above, Wikipedia’s definition of Liberalism includes a “mixed economy.”  Socialism and capitalism under one roof.  That’s not freedom.    

This will segue nicely into a conversation on socialism vs. capitalism.         

Trackback URI | Comments RSS