Liberalism: Cruel, Corrupt, Unjust, Wasteful, Deluded

In the battle for the soul of the Republican Party the usual suspects want to make the brand more bland.  We should avoid dividing people with divisive social issues.

But the Milquetoasts forget that democratic politics is a combination of Our Glorious Vision of the Future and Their Cruel and Unjust Swamp of Waste and Corruption.  They also forget what Joseph Schumpeter knew.  Public opinion is not something that creates itself.  It is something that is created by game changers.  Schumpeter:

[P]rofessional politicians... or exponents of an economic interest... or idealists... are able to fashion and, within very wide limits, even to create the will of the people.  What we are confronted with... is largely not a genuine but a manufactured will.

So our job as conservative writers and thinkers is to get on with the job of manufacturing the will of the people. 

We conservatives know that America has a great future, one that starts with enlightened conservative reforms in health care, in education, and in welfare.  I've done my share in articulating this vision at The American Thinker: here, here, and here.

But there is a reactionary force that blocks the age of conservative enlightenment.  It is benighted liberalism and its vast apparatus of government power.  Power, wherever it is found, is cruel, is corrupt, is unjust, is wasteful, and usually is deluded.  Liberal government power is no exception. 

We are not talking about vast cruelties and injustices, not yet.  We are talking about routine and day-to-day cruelties and injustices, like those in this ordinary Mother's Day story: "What a Mom Wants," by Megan Basham.

Democrats are excited by the recession, which has hurt men more than women, she writes, because it could advance women in traditionally male occupations.

New York Times contributor Lisa Belkin wondered if women might finally become the majority of American workers... One Salon writer celebrated the possibility that the "long-awaited redistribution of domestic labor might prove crucial in finally evening the professional playing field," while another wondered whether the financial crisis could turn out to be "accidentally feminist."

There's just one problem with all that, leaving aside the banality of feminist ill will towards men.  The majority of women want to spend more time with their children and less time working for wages.  The research is clear-or as we like to say these days: The science is in on this.  Basham again:

Along with a spouse who offers affection, attention and empathy, what really makes women happy is one who earns at least two-thirds of the family income.

In short, girls just want to have funds.

On this issue liberals are cruel both to men and women, forcing them into a situation they don't need and don't want.  Then there is the injustice of putting a thumb on the scales of justice to advantage women.  There is the delusion of imagining that you can ever create a world where men and women are all equally and happily working away for wages and tossing 44 percent of their output into the government coffers for politicians to spend on buying votes.

Here's another story.  File it under "cruel."  The Brits currently have their knickers in a twist over the incompetence of social workers who can't seem to prevent the cruel torture and death of underclass children.  This is missing the point, according to Camilla Cavendish.  The reason we are seeing a lot of young children being abused is not the incompetence of social services.  The problem is that so many children these days, especially in the underclass, don't live with their natural parents.  There's even a book about it, The Truth about Cinderella by Martin Daly and Margot Wilson.  It points out the rather obvious fact that step-parents don't tend to love their stepchildren.  From that fact all kinds of evils flow.

So when liberals encourage "diverse" relationships they are creating the occasion for more children to live in step relationships.  Camilla Cavendish:

Detailed Canadian research over 20 years has put the risk of being killed by a stepparent at between 50 to 100 times greater than the risk of being killed by a parent.

The science is in on this, you know.  It is cruel and it is deluded to continue a system that condemns millions of children to a loveless childhood.  It is unjust to expose such children to an increased chance of being killed-not by a fearsome 50 percent, but by 5,000 percent!  Talk about "deniers!"

We must not raise our hopes. The exposing of liberalism--cruel, corrupt, unjust, wasteful, and deluded--is a long-term project.  At I call it the CCUWD Project.  So I have started tagging stories and saving them on  It's only been a week, but already I have tagged three "cruel" stories at and five "unjust" stories at  This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

We cannot rest, we cannot flag until we have led America out of this wilderness of liberalism--cruel, corrupt, unjust, wasteful, and deluded--and into a conservative land flowing with milk and honey.

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his and usgovernmentspending.comHis Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.