I am sympathetic to liberals when they try to help the poor, the sick and the hungry. But they do all kinds of things that go go way beyond those things which I strongly disagree with. That list would include environmental wacko-ism, like what they did in California, which CREATES poor, sick and hungry people in order to save a 2 inch fish. Another would be an staggering naivete negotiating with extremely evil people like the Iranians. A redux of Neville Chamberlain does NOT help the poor, the sick and the hungry. Another is abortion, where liberals who supposedly love the weak and the helpless and innocent have no problem with killing the MOST weak and helpless and innocent - babies.hedge wrote:So your issue with "liberalism" is based on management, not core principles?
And even the good things liberals try to do are usually grossly mismanaged. Public education is a liberal enterprise run by liberals, but with all their good intentions, America's public schools are producing kids who are WAY behind most other developed countries. Social security, Obamacare and other safety nets are liberal ideas championed by liberals, but they often ignore the question of how we are going to pay for them. The Greeks are discovering that massive social spending and triple GDP debt do not help the poor, the sick and the hungry. Rather, such policies create them in the long run. But if social safety nets REALLY help people and pass the simple math test, I am sympathetic to them.
