Gay Conservative

Here’s my new take on the Serenity Prayer. “God grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change; the courage to change the things that I can; and the patience to endure liberal members of academia who have no clue what the devil reality entails.”  I’m not trying to be sacreligious.  I honestly had to come up with something to calm myself after reading the pseudo-intellectual garbage spouted by a couple of profs from Georgetown and Princeton in today’s Washington Post.  You have to read this stuff to believe it.  The person at the WP responsible for letting these intellectual lightweights write a column should be canned if not committed to a psych ward.

For the first time since 1964, Democrats have a good chance not just to win the White House and a majority in Congress but to enact a sweeping new liberal agenda. Conservative ideas are widely discredited, as is the Republican Party that the right has controlled since Ronald Reagan was elected. The war in Iraq has undermined the conservative case for unilateral military intervention and U.S. omnipotence. Economic insecurity has led Americans to question the rhetoric about “big” government, while President Bush‘s embrace of new federal programs has undermined GOP promises to cut spending.  [Emphasis mine]

I love how Kazin and Zeilizer throw in that last bit about Bush’s “embrace of new federal programs.”  The dumbly duo rip conservatism then use GW to show that a Republican has embraced big government.  Why even throw that in there given the fact that the authors go on to praise the virtues of the New Deal and Great Society?  They should be praising Bush for expanding entitlements and the scope of the federal government.  But you won’t see that from these two.  They have an agenda.

The authors use the word “insecurity (-ies)” four times in this short article.  I think that is basically because they are trying to play on insecurities to make a point.  Their implication that liberals are the better protectors of the middle class and families is laughable at best and damnable lies at worst.

Now, Democrats are grappling with insecurities faced by entire families, that institution conservatives always claim to represent. The past three decades have produced growing economic inequality and a shrinking middle class. Younger Americans no longer expect to enjoy as good a life as their parents did. Wage-earners fear for the future of their jobs and incomes. No family is secure.

How have the Dems helped the family or the middle class?  They have constantly attempted to redefine the “middle class” in terms of taxation.  Remember how Bill Clinton tried to shift people making $40K a year into a higher tax bracket?  How does that help the middle class?  Let’s discuss the marriage penalty.  Republicans sought to eliminate that unfair tax burden.  Liberals fought against it.  Who supports families?

I read this article and I really became concerned about my blood pressure (I need to get that checked again).  The authors point to FDR as the shining example of how liberal economic policies should work and can work.  But the fact is that FDR tripled taxes, spread aid around to swing states while neglecting others, and went on a rampage against banks and the private sector.  Newt Gingrich can admire Roosevelt, but others like myself understand that he did little to help this nation economically.  He merely created entitlements that haunt us to this day and created atrocities like the Tennessee Valley Authority (which the WP authors seem to love).

That is the liberal vision for this nation.  They offer failed economic policies and then respond a few years later with the same failed policy solutions.  The best thing that libs have going for them is that Americans tend to have short memories.  Unfortunately, that means that the rest of us will have to suffer as the liberals put this nation through more suffering in their laboratory attempts to turn the US into a Euro-socialist state.  And we know how well that working out in Europe.