What Liberals Can Learn From Liberals

By Gregory Welborn

vcialis 40mg times; font-size: 16px;”>The middle of May: that traditional time at newly sprouted green campuses where we celebrate the culmination of four years of learning.  Graduations are typically just celebratory, but this particular season we are being treated to an education in affective liberal policy management, which we can only hope Liberals take to heart.

How do you enforce Liberal policy?  Once you’ve decided what policy should be, how do you eliminate potential opposition?  Our universities, where the overriding ethos is to instill and support liberal ideals, offer several object illustrations on how to counter and nullify opposition to the Liberal Way.

Brandeis University banned Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born feminist who has criticized the treatment of women in Islamic countries, prohibiting her from

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

speaking at commencement exercises.  Haverford College forced the withdrawal of commencement speaker Robert Bergeneau, ironically the former Chancellor of uber-liberal UC Berkeley, because he allowed police to arrest Occupy protestors.  Smith College axed Christine Lagard, the female head of the International Monetary Fund because the IMF abuses women worldwide.  Sadly, even in the Christian realm, Azusa Pacific University cancelled Dr. Charles Murray’s speech because it might “hurt faculty and students of color”.

The point is that all the above, and many more who could be listed, dared to voice opinions different than prevailing Liberal thought.  Despite volumes of lectures about tolerance, multi-culturalism, pluralism and inclusiveness, when it gets down to the street level – to something as pedestrian as making sure everyone stays in line – Liberals understand you have to punish your enemies, or at least intimidate them into believing that they will be punished if they don’t support policy. 

Each of the invited speakers was publicly humiliated for holding the wrong viewpoint.  More importantly, the witch hunts warned innumerable others what would happen to them should they not support Liberal policy.  The key point, which in their gut Liberal activists understand, is that punishing and intimidating your opponents works.  There has to be a threat or promise of credible punishment should you fail to comply.

So why don’t Liberals in D.C. understand this concept when it comes to U.S. foreign policy?  Why is this administration so afraid of articulating credible promises of, and then following through with, meaningful punishment in order to accomplish their goals?  Shouldn’t the Mullahs of Iran, the Butcher of Syria, the thug in Russia and the kidnapping, slave-trading rapist who now roams Nigeria face at least the same rage and punishment from Liberals that a few commencement speakers have suffered?  Liberals claim to have great policies on the issues of human rights, social justice and world peace.  And yet, there are those in the world who mock the very concept that the U.S. stands for anything good or noble.

The most recent and pathetic example of this is the First Lady’s participation in the social media campaign to obtain the release of some 300 Christian Nigerian

#BringBackOurGirls Twitter

#BringBackOurGirls Twitter

school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.  What is the point of Michelle Obama using the President’s weekly address to show she is joining the #BringBackOurGirls twitter campaign?  This must be put in perspective to understand the stunt’s futility and the damage it will cause.

We all understand the U.S. cannot afford to involve itself everywhere. Deciding where our interests lie or where morality demands our involvement is the President’s tough choice.  If our involvement is needed, then we must take meaningful actions.  If our involvement is not warranted, as sad as that sometimes is, then we shouldn’t get involved.  But the worst possible thing to do is tell the world we do care, tell the bad guys we’re coming, and then fail to bring them to justice or put a bullet in their heads. 

This is exactly what the First Lady’s twitter participation implies.  Social media can be a great tool for convincing our leaders we should get involved, but that rationale does not apply here.  Michelle is married to the President and presumably does not need twitter to exert pressure.  It appears to be a stunt, insipid, demeaning and undermining of whatever seriousness still attends to President Obama’s statements.

There is much to be said about the need for friends trusting us, enemies fearing us and the rest of the world respecting us.  Liberals on campus get it.  Liberals with considerably more responsibility in D.C. do not. 

In the last several weeks, Iran has announced it is increasing its centrifuges and ballistic missiles, Syria again used Chemical weapons on its people, and Russia continues to devour Ukraine.  Every one of these rogues has been warned by President Obama, threatened with a line in the sand, and allowed to violate that line without meaningful punishment. 

Nobody respects us and nobody fears us;  we shouldn’t be surprised to learn nobody trusts us either.  Perhaps Liberals can learn from other Liberals.  Perhaps inviting Putin, Assad, Khamenei and Boko Haram to speak at US colleges followed by public withdrawals of the invitations would do the trick.

_____________________________________________________________

Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance writer and has spoken to several civic and religious organizations on cultural and moral issues.  He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 children and is active in the community.  He can be reached [email protected]

Get free Citizensjournal.us BULLETINS. Please patronize our advertisers (including below) to keep us publishing and/or DONATE.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *