If liberals are not crazy, how are we to explain similarities between liberals and today’s certifiably crazy people? Some dysfunctional people destroy what they control; liberals always destroy what they control. Pathological control is common in crazy people; it is also common in liberal leaders. Some dysfunctional people believe they are omnipotent; ditto for liberal leaders. The pathological mind lives in a self-manufactured reality; that’s where liberals live. Crazy people tend to exhibit extreme behavior; liberals are paragons of many variations of extreme. Crazy people are self-centered; so are liberals. Then there’s this: Liberals far outdo crazy people in their motivations and capacities for ridiculing morality and religion, disdaining high achievers, hating the country they live in, and despising anyone who points out the positive roots that made America an exceptional political experiment, when compared to any other.
Examples of liberal craziness are legion. Liberals tell us that there are “benefits” to becoming wards of the state. Living as one of the faceless masses guarantees security.
Government will bring out our individual best. Liberals say the government needs more money. Freedom to achieve is what permits people to earn the very money that government receives; achievement, in turn, is dependent on individual excellence.
Therefore, shouldn’t some of government’s highest priorities center around protecting and promoting individual freedoms and liberties so individuals can be at their best to raise government revenue?
We can spend billions ridding a river of pollutants and still end up with a dirty river if polluters keep polluting. We can spend billions going through the motions of fixing problems as long as we ignore real causes. Didn’t someone define insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results? Applying this informal definition to politics, isn’t punishing small businesses with federal and state regulations, raising taxes to cover runaway deficits, condemning rich and successful Americans, expanding government entitlements, and adding more to the welfare rolls, and expecting greater economic prosperity, insane?
We find evidence of liberal craziness in its own words. Take the word “fairness.” Fairness and unfairness are concerns of the undeveloped mind. Children struggle with subtleties of fairness and unfairness until maturity; experiences eventually tease out the differences. Apparently, adult liberals struggle like children to define what psychologically healthy adults have already come to terms with in their youth. What does this say about liberals who see unfairness everywhere?
Liberals speak of tolerance but tolerate no disagreement.
Liberals love the word “equality.” What is equality? What kind of equality do we want? Life is full of inequalities. Which inequalities should we remove? Which equalities should we work for?
Equality of psychological excellence is the only equality that matters. When people are at their best, differences disappear, or become meaningless. Optimized people don’t care what a person’s IQ, ethnicity, color, height, weight, sex, or country of origin are when that person is moral, objective, is a critial thinker, is open to another’s point of view, is willing to compromise, is informative or interesting, is an attentive conversationalist or listener, has a good sense of humor, is fun to be with, or is a loyal friend. Optimized people are excited about living; they love ideas, and the people who produce them. Subtracting our best from the equality equation leaves us swimming in runaway interpretations some people are only too ready to supply.
There’s that cherished liberal word “diversity.” Liberals mock diversity by insisting that all people think like they’re told to think.
Try criticizing a liberal and watch the craziness flow. If a liberal is caught in a violation, other liberals look the other way. If they can’t look the other way, they justify the violation. If they can’t justify it, they blame the accuser, or deny a violation occurred. When all efforts fail, they cry unfair, bigot, liar, make outrageous accusations, smear critics’ motives, cast doubt on their integrity, ridicule their intelligence or values, and spread innuendos. When liberals empty their bag of political tricks, they rationalize them as necessary, appropriate, even moral, and act surprised that anyone would think their intentions are anything but honorable, and their words are anything but offensive.
A curious spin-off of liberal craziness is in their denial of the psychological laws that make us responsible for our own quality of life. One example is capitalism.
The natural/psychological laws that underlie free-market capitalism are in direct conflict with liberal ideology, particularly the idea that the individual must be free to achieve. Achievers put their faith in themselves, not government.
Free-market capitalism is the collective power of scientists, inventors, designers, CEOs, investors, engineers, entrepreneurs, management and sales teams, technologists, skilled craftsmen and motivated workers. Free expression of psychological excellence channeled through a smart business sense, a new invention, or a scientific discovery will make some individuals wealthy and powerful. Wealth and power may exploit natural resources. Results of excellence may be difficult to control, e.g., the automobile; nonetheless, advantages outweigh disadvantages. Thousands of people in the US die in auto accidents each year, but we don’t ban autos. Twisting natural laws to fit political agendas creates conundrums. What then do we reward? What do we condemn?
Let’s apply the above to a liberal community organizer like our previous president Barack Obama. He not only views capitalism as a financial threat to the world, he sees it as a threat to anything that permits individual excellence to flourish without government controls.
In his mind social order is established when an all-controlling government builds a humanitarian paradise where everyone happily relinquishes individuality to join in promoting universal love, equality, and fairness. Any interference is tantamount to standing for social disorder and un-American values.
A liberal’s choice to be a community organizer is unusual in America for it is symptomatic of a state of mind that views Americans as something other than what we are, i.e., helpless, exploited masses yearning for direction from a few enlightened elites. A community organizer assumes that opportunities are closed to all but the rich and powerful. We saw this distortion of reality in Obama’s determination to neutralize power of the individual (e.g., take away choices for individual healthcare insurance; blocking school choice)—except where government benefits.
The mind of the community organizer is organized around exposing and confronting imagined enemies who are seen as victimizers. Social order is perceived to be restored when society’s victims are united into a tightly-knit unit that obeys every community organizer’s demands. But first the organizer must re-shape the unit’s thinking patterns so it accepts the organizer’s words without question, and automatically resists anything to the contrary.
The organizer is protected from criticism. His followers will never criticize.
Targets of his efforts (e.g., a business, conservatives, critical thinkers, or any anti-liberal group) will; however, criticism from them is expected. In fact, criticism from his enemies is fodder for more propaganda. Deniability frees him to do whatever he wants; his fingerprints will not be on the chaos he causes. Now he can wedge himself between the powerful and the powerless without fear of reprisal to demonize the enemy his followers have already been programmed to hate.
Going to the extremes to demonize one’s fanciful inventions of opposition begs for objective analysis. Psychologically healthy people don’t demonize other people. This thinking has to be highly dysfunctional—apparently a criterion for a liberal who chooses to reorganize a community into a reconstruction born of his own imagination.
Curiously, the organizer is not a member of his group. He protects it, shields it, instructs it, provides it with resources, but does not identify with it. He prefers to stand between his group and his enemy like a wise, objective referee imbued with all the facts defending his ideology with moral righteousness. This makes him apart from, and better than, both. He is better than employers because he is righting the wrongs their employees are suffering. He is better than the employees because he can do for them what they cannot do for themselves.