Liberalism just not up to the task anymore

As the cinematic director said, “Once more, with feeling.”  And, this is what we get from liberalism.  Optics, and feelings.  (No wonder Hollywood is liberal.)

It is often observed that liberalism is steeped in feelings and emotion.  It is guided by what others think and feel at the expense of dealing with reality.  Perception reigns supreme, and liberals are good at it.

Greg Gutfeld made a salient observation the other day.  He pointed out that liberalism thrives in times in which there are no crises.  In times such as those, liberalism raises lightweight issues and gives them gravitas.  School lunch programs, child obesity, the size of soda drinks, gay rights, free contraception, are their rallying “causes celeb”. 

However, when crisis presents itself, we reap the consequences of liberalism in governmental leadership.  More frequent now are the vapid responses to crisis led by the conveniently appointed, those “politically correctly” installed into position of power.  The responses tend to be inept and politically expedient.  Imagery, polls and elections are the focus rather than the required action and solution.  Is seems to be contrary to their DNA to depart from the warm and fuzzy to the tactful, strategic and necessary.

Keynesian economics is owned by the liberals partly because the solution to economic woes is easy, print money. No budgetary trimming or tough decisions here. Does anyone think that the late Secret Service head was installed for her ability, or was it for her gender? Was Susan Rice anointed for her special talents regarding national security or her allegiance to the talking points? Was the head of the CDC installed for his quick thinking and responsive resolve?  All seem to crumble under the weight of responsibility.

The Centers for Disease Control, when confronted with the need for actual disease control isn’t quite up to the challenge.  We get blank stares and far away eyes delivering talking points shrouded in illogical conclusions.  And the liberal response is that the Centers for Disease Control has been confronted with a disease control issue and thus this bureaucracy must be supplemented and expanded with more bureaucracy, an Ebola czar.  What initially justified the existence of the CDC if it wasn’t for quick and immediate response to the necessities of disease control?  (And what of the Democrat argument that the CDC was inhibited by sequester cuts if there is funding available for a new czar and staffing?)

Vacant stares from over appointed bureaucrats complete with Stepford wife type news conference deliveries of talking points is what we get.  Voltaire said we live beneath “the government we deserve.” Our sins must have been many.

If the fish rots from the head down, and the CDC sits around the dorsal fin, then what is the condition of Valerie Jarrett and the decaying brain trust of the Obama administration?

Is this administration so invested in dissolving our borders, allowing visa overstays, and losing track of criminal immigrants that it also forbids the logical quarantine and travel restrictions warranted by Ebola? 

Unfortunately, it takes a crisis to point out the frailties of liberalism.  When confronted with tough decisions and necessary action, there is no room for consideration of political correctness and imagery.  Rather, crystallization of the problem and focus on the solutions, as distasteful or agenda-contrary they may be, must be implemented.  Good judgment, logical decision-making, and intelligence must eventually supplant the emotionally guided and politically correct machinations of liberalism.  We seem to be on the cusp of such a change, for the seriousness meter seems to be needle-jumping on several fronts (Ebola, ISIS, Iranian nukes, Ukraine, financial hacking, the economy). Let us hope the transition from the liberal to the cogent and conservative is not prompted by too great a crisis.

As the cinematic director said, “Once more, with feeling.”  And, this is what we get from liberalism.  Optics, and feelings.  (No wonder Hollywood is liberal.)

It is often observed that liberalism is steeped in feelings and emotion.  It is guided by what others think and feel at the expense of dealing with reality.  Perception reigns supreme, and liberals are good at it.

Greg Gutfeld made a salient observation the other day.  He pointed out that liberalism thrives in times in which there are no crises.  In times such as those, liberalism raises lightweight issues and gives them gravitas.  School lunch programs, child obesity, the size of soda drinks, gay rights, free contraception, are their rallying “causes celeb”. 

However, when crisis presents itself, we reap the consequences of liberalism in governmental leadership.  More frequent now are the vapid responses to crisis led by the conveniently appointed, those “politically correctly” installed into position of power.  The responses tend to be inept and politically expedient.  Imagery, polls and elections are the focus rather than the required action and solution.  Is seems to be contrary to their DNA to depart from the warm and fuzzy to the tactful, strategic and necessary.

Keynesian economics is owned by the liberals partly because the solution to economic woes is easy, print money. No budgetary trimming or tough decisions here. Does anyone think that the late Secret Service head was installed for her ability, or was it for her gender? Was Susan Rice anointed for her special talents regarding national security or her allegiance to the talking points? Was the head of the CDC installed for his quick thinking and responsive resolve?  All seem to crumble under the weight of responsibility.

The Centers for Disease Control, when confronted with the need for actual disease control isn’t quite up to the challenge.  We get blank stares and far away eyes delivering talking points shrouded in illogical conclusions.  And the liberal response is that the Centers for Disease Control has been confronted with a disease control issue and thus this bureaucracy must be supplemented and expanded with more bureaucracy, an Ebola czar.  What initially justified the existence of the CDC if it wasn’t for quick and immediate response to the necessities of disease control?  (And what of the Democrat argument that the CDC was inhibited by sequester cuts if there is funding available for a new czar and staffing?)

Vacant stares from over appointed bureaucrats complete with Stepford wife type news conference deliveries of talking points is what we get.  Voltaire said we live beneath “the government we deserve.” Our sins must have been many.

If the fish rots from the head down, and the CDC sits around the dorsal fin, then what is the condition of Valerie Jarrett and the decaying brain trust of the Obama administration?

Is this administration so invested in dissolving our borders, allowing visa overstays, and losing track of criminal immigrants that it also forbids the logical quarantine and travel restrictions warranted by Ebola? 

Unfortunately, it takes a crisis to point out the frailties of liberalism.  When confronted with tough decisions and necessary action, there is no room for consideration of political correctness and imagery.  Rather, crystallization of the problem and focus on the solutions, as distasteful or agenda-contrary they may be, must be implemented.  Good judgment, logical decision-making, and intelligence must eventually supplant the emotionally guided and politically correct machinations of liberalism.  We seem to be on the cusp of such a change, for the seriousness meter seems to be needle-jumping on several fronts (Ebola, ISIS, Iranian nukes, Ukraine, financial hacking, the economy). Let us hope the transition from the liberal to the cogent and conservative is not prompted by too great a crisis.