Whether you are a Conservative or Libertarian, as a rule you likely tend to value logical consistency in your ideas and arguments. Ayn Rand articulates the importance of consistency best when she observes: “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.”
For any set of ideas to form one ideology that we can believe in, then, the premises (various stances on policy issues) must be both true, and logically consistent. For both conservatism and libertarianism, basic values are hashed out in their support for different policies.
Unfortunately, when looking at the liberal modus operandi on the modern political stage, we see of a hodgepodge of policies thrown together to represent a range of contradictory values. Due to the contradictory nature of liberalism, it is, in essence, a non-ideology. Here are some common liberal contradictions which I have observed in my studies.
1) Advocacy for the Disadvantaged v. Blind Advocacy for Teacher’s Unions
Chief among the contradictory messages that liberals send is that they are champions of the disadvantaged in society. From minorities, to women, and the poor, they claim that they represent those who are less fortunate than others. Liberals also support organized labor, even if the demands of certain labor organizations, such as teachers unions, cause poor and minority children to be cheated out of opportunities that might have allowed them to climb the socioeconomic ladder.
Fellow Journalist Ana M. Martinez notes “While Malia and Natasha Obama enjoy the many advantages of an elite private school education, few know that their father crushed the dreams of many kids who depended on the DC Voucher Program to continue in private school. Thousands of kids have been forced to go back to public schools in Washington, with have some of the lowest performance rates and test scored in the nation.” She further goes on to discuss how organizations like the National Education Association (a powerful teacher’s union) have fought against private school vouchers. It becomes clear, then, that liberals only care about the poor when its politically expedient.
2) LGBT Advocacy v. Radical Islam Apologetics
It is a well-known fact that liberals have advocated for the LGBT community on various issues, from religious freedom laws, to gay marriage. At the core of western liberalism is supposed to be the goal of a tolerant society that respects the rights and identity of others. As evidenced by this particular issue, liberals have choosen to proverbially ‘cut off their nose to spit their face,’ and have acted time and time again as apologists for radical Islam instead of stepping up to defend its victims. In both
In both Muslim majority nations and countries like the UK where Muslims are a minority, it is clear that there is a culture of homophobia present in Islam. Look no further than May 2016 when 51 Muslim-majority countries stopped LGBT groups from attending a conference on AIDS. Unfortunately, rather than confront this issue that has influenced terrorist attacks like the those described below, liberals would rather deflect the issue in any way possible.
The most pernicious example of this in recent memory was the Orlando shooting, claiming 50 lives and injuring 53 others. A Gallup poll shows that 60% of Democrats believed that the Orlando shooting was a Domestic Gun Violence issue, whether than terrorism. When the American left would rather retreat to narratives that are within its comfort zone (gun control and attacking the Christian right) than confront the ideology that is the driving factor behind the Orlando attacks, when they would rather frame it as domestic gun violence, their lack of courage has spoken volumes to the LGBT community.
3) Helping the Third World v. Reckless Environmentalism
As a corollary to helping the disadvantaged, it follows that liberals would have a vested interest in helping those who are the least well off. It should confuse any rational person, then, that when given the opportunity to help those in need, liberals have chosen time and time again to slight them based on pseudoscientific hysteria.
The best example of this is their irrational fear of GMO’s. According to the Oxford Bioscience Journal, biotechnology and GMO’s have “The potential to feed the world’s billions”. Unfortunately, due to liberal histrionics about GMO’s, there is a good chance this won’t be happening any time soon. In fact, according to a poll conducted by Pew in 2015, 56% of Democrats believe it is unsafe to consume GMO’s. The Huffington Post (a decidedly liberal source) notes: “Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that genetically-altered foods are as safe as any, some ultra-environmentalist types want to see the GMO industry burn to the ground, quite literally. This is a great misfortune considering all the good that GM crops and their high yields could do for some very important liberal causes, like the global fight against hunger”. It is clear that the liberal’s compassion for the less fortunate ends with irrational belief in pseudoscientific hysteria.
4) “Pro Choice” Advocacy v. Nanny State Paternalism
Remember, liberals are pro choice… as long as you don’t want to drink soda over 16 ounces, choose not to buy healthcare, choose where to send your child to school (refer to above), or choose not to buy your employees contraception. The “pro choice” nanny state dichotomy is probably one of the most glaring contradictions that exists in the liberal ideology.
While 62% of Democrats identify as “pro choice“, that does not necessarily apply to other areas of human activity, this is best articulated by Zach Weissmueller from reason.com when he interviews delegates at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, all who give contradictory answers when asked if they are pro choice.
While all of them identify as “pro choice” when it comes to abortion, on issues ranging from soda bans, to union membership, and many others.. personal autonomy and liberty take a back seat. For example, when a delegate from Texas is asked if she supports a ban on Four Loko (An alcoholic beverage infused with caffeine) she says yes, even though this is clearly depriving someone of a choice. When he pursues her further, she adds “Is it really a choice to do something that isn’t healthy for you?” In making this statement, she captures the nanny state mentality of the progressive liberal while also highlighting the folly of identifying as “pro choice” as a liberal.
In conclusion, we have found that liberalism does not even rise to the level of being an ideology, we know this is true because an ideology is a system of ideas, whereas liberalism is a discombobulated aberration of what could only appear to be an ideology.