The first notion I was had to learn to accept is that the United States of America is not the greatest nation on the Earth at this time. I had to learn that that 'grand experiment,' that Abraham Lincoln worked so hard to maintain has gone awry. Due to the societal constraints of the U.S., the pejorative 'you' cannot achieve success within the paradigm that they have created. This is because 'you' are a fill in the blank from whatever societal group that you happen to be classified in. The limit that I had to accept in this philosophy is that the 'they' who succeed in this country are different beings. They have been given an unfair advantage that only a government official can rectify.

I found this notion hard to swallow at the time, for I had always heard the jokes about politicians being liars and corrupt. To this, a friend of mine replied: "Who else are you going to trust?"

The second notion that I had to want to exert over others is a desire to be more wonderful than they were. This was an easy notion to implore, for who doesn't want to be wonderful? In this tenet, it's very important that we say we care. It's very important that we elect people who say they care, and it's very important that we elect people who show they care. The reason the word show is italicized in the sentence is that it's important to those that care that those they elect display a symbol of caring.

I remember an episode of Buggs Bunny in which Yosemite Sam ran around a town kissing babies to show the public that he could be a viable politician. I didn't get the joke at the time. I do now. I now understand how important it is that a politician show that he care. I do realize that a portion of a president's job is symbolic, but to what degree?

Does every politician involved in the area, both locally and federally, have to make a personal appearance at every catastrophe? When we see him speak, do we have to moved by his words? I'm not talking about his ideas. If we're moved by his ideas, that should be a qualifier, but what if the other guy is better looking? What if the other guy looks like a better politician? What if the other says that he cares about us? What if the other guy squints to portray the importance of his words, and he bites a lip in the sad moments of his presentation?

Empirical results, after all, are for pointy headed economists to blather about. In this tenet of the philosophy the means justify the means. How we get to the ends, or if we get to the ends, is fodder for others with more power than us to worry about, so we must elect those who care. The fact that we care enough to vote for someone who cares show that we care. Again: "Who else are you going to trust?"

Another philosophy one must buy is the idea of the inevitable. If you disagree with something a politician has issued or proposed, fellow liberals will argue that that idea is an inevitability that you are just going to have to learn to accept. It's inevitable that politicians will eventually become corrupt. So, if you think that a politician has acted in a corrupt or deceitful manner, then you have to accept the fact that they've all done it, or they will eventually do it. The country of America will eventually succumb to socialized medicine, therefore you may as well accept this inevitability and move on. High taxes are an inevitability, so all this blather is nice, but in the end an escalated tax rate in inevitable. They consider these responses to be excellent ammunition to those who argue against their politicians.

Another tenet one must buy into is the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are fun and exciting. Conspiracy theories are excellent fodder for a slow news day, and they're fun.  One doesn't have to learn the facts of a conspiracy.  They only need know the motives.
 

Motive is the most consistent inconsistency of the philosophy. There are no facts to suggest that George W. Bush elected to go into the Iraq War for selfish reasons, but when one factors in that George W. Bush is an oil man, and Dick Cheney is a Haliburton guy, then one plus one equals two if you focus on motive. If one factors in that Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, then two plus two equals four. If one factors in the political gain that W. would attain from the World Trade City towers falling, then it makes perfect sense that Bush would order the towers to be brought down...I guess. The most important four words in this paragraph is there are no facts. Facts aren't fun and exciting though.

One could argue that conspiracy theories abound on both sides of the aisle, and that would be correct, but the conservative philosophy does not lean on these planks as heavily as the liberal. The liberal philosophy, itself, it built on a foundation of the theoretical, and a great deal of these theoretical notions are conspiratorial in nature.

The motive is the grey theory and to be a quality liberal one must invest himself in the grey. I once had a Black Studies teacher who informed us of the problems that existed in the world, and he–of course–concentrated much of his venom for the U.S. Fair enough, it's not a perfect country, and the problems abound. What is the solution though? The teacher didn't have solutions. It was enough for him, in his portrayal of our tumultuous world, to simply recognize the problems. In a paper that I wrote for that class, I addressed the problems and posed some solutions. These solutions may have been wrong. I'm not so egotistical to say that I think I had then answers then or now, but I have a solutions oriented mind. Plus, I think the liberals deity Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an excellent method of solving problems: "If one solution doesn't work, try another."  In my paper, I posed a number of solutions. All of them were dismissed with the same theme: "Too simplistic."

The thing I knew then, and I learn more and more every day, is that liberals do not seek solutions. They only seek the proselytization of the problem. They only seek to condemn solutions as too simplistic. They also seek to condemn the character of those who pose solutions. Liberals, themselves, are too worried that the solutions they pose will be wrong, and they're also too worried that posing a solution will make them appear simpleminded. And who do you think you are to pose a solution, say those who will not pose one, you're just a simpleton from small town, America. You don't have the knowledge of the all mighty politicians.

They tell us that we don't have the knowledge to pose solutions to social issues, because we are simpletons from small town America, yet these same people have no qualms with posing solutions on issues of military and war. To my mind, social issues are issues for which the common man can pose solutions. The common man can have fact based opinions on social issues based on similar circumstances that man has encountered throughout time. In matters involving war, however, it could be argued that the common man cannot make informed statements about the issues, because they are not privy to the same intelligence reports given to generals and high ranking officials. Yet, liberals feel that they can pose informed solutions on issues of war and conflict, but that they are simply not intelligent enough to provide an idea on how to solve a social concern.

Liberals also focus on the exception to the rule. If one were to pose a solution oriented idea on a social concern, liberals would quickly point out that that solution would do nothing to help Mary Smith from Poughkeepsie, Illinois. Mary has five children, a drug problem, and a husband who will not support her in her travails. Fair enough, what's your solution? No answer. How about we develop a societal solution, such as the one I posed, and deal with the various Mary Smiths on a case by case basis? That's too simplistic.

When I was younger I used to confuse 180 degrees and 360 degrees when I would tell a story. I would tell people that their ideas were 360 degrees different than mine, when I should've said 180 degrees. I hear many adults still make this mathematical error in philosophical discussions. Liberals, however, make this error in their methodology for problem solving.

Another tenet of the liberal orthodoxy that one must buy into is that the pejorative you cannot comment on a matter. You, as a white, cannot comment on matters of race. You, as a man, cannot comment on matters concerning the choice of abortion. You, as a member of a given religion cannot comment on other the practices of religions. You, as a person without children, cannot comment on the raising of children or sending a young person to war. You, as a person who has never served, cannot comment on any matters that involve the military or war. I've even had friends tell me that due to the fact I haven't traveled as extensively as they have, I shouldn't be able to comment on world affairs. Even though their travels involved only the golden streets of tourism. This methodology provides liberals a way to dismiss an argument if they cannot defeat it.

As I say, I used to be a liberal, and I think this gives me a decent vantage point from which to leap in my understanding of them. I personally found it exhausting to be a liberal. Liberals are less inviting to the individual, unless that individual is an artist who seeks to portray a perversion of some sort. Liberals prefer that you learn your role in the world. As a liberal, you must learn your limited role in the world based on the group to which you belong. To be a good liberal, you should display shame for your role in the world and the role your ancestors played in the current state of the world. If your friends have other ideas, inform them of their role based upon whatever group it is to which they belong: American, white, and whatever religion they involve themselves in. They consider this excellent ammunition. Personally, I found it exhausting. I've found it's a lot less exhausting to learn the facts.