Why does anyone vote liberal?

Can anyone explain to me “why does anyone vote liberal?”

If I blog about traditional marriage, I offend a liberal.

If I blog about life, I offend a liberal.

If I blog about God, I offend a liberal.

If I blog about Jesus, I offend almost all liberals.

That is funny. Jesus is more offensive to a liberal than God is.

If I blog about the gay agenda, I offend a liberal.

If I blog about how wrong the Obama Wars are, I offend a liberal.

If I blog about bringing our soldiers home, I offend a liberal. And they claim they are against the war – Do you understand why all the peace lovers disappeared when they couldn’t save Saddam Hussein?

If I blog about Creation, I offend a liberal.

If I blog about Evolution, I offend a liberal.

Do you get the picture, liberals are very fractured. I doubt any liberal believes in half the things they say they do – remember the last election? The liberals could not even agree on the Democratic platform, and the Democrats edited the ‘live’ ‘news’ feed so they wouldn’t offend moderates who usually are pro-God.

I believe in Welfare, albeit at about one third the amount currently spent, therefore I do believe two thirds are wasted.

I do believe in allowing gays some greater rights than I have as a single man – just so we can keep the peace in my country, and not re-define Christian marriage.

I am one of those ‘moderates’ who are ‘reached out to’ by the liberals. But, they reach out to me in hatred and anger.

So, why would anyone who is not a complete progressive, the I hate America kind of progressive, liberal vote for the progressive politicians?

Can anyone explain why anyone would vote liberal?



About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Blogging, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Why does anyone vote liberal?

  1. tildeb says:

    Can we help it if reality has a ‘liberal’ bias?

    • Wayne says:

      I think I can agree the modern propaganda machine has a liberal bias.

      I think reality is more realistic than it is conservative or liberal.



      • tildeb says:

        Liberals are those who espouse liberalism. Liberalism means respecting the values of liberty and equality. These are the fundamental values of the Enlightenment (particularly the Scottish enlightenment), which is the foundation for the US Constitution that recognizes these values as fundamental in a free and democratic society. When you bash liberals (note the small ‘l’ denoting liberalism versus a capital ‘L’ for a particular political party) you are bashing those who support your liberty and your legal equality and take issue with opinions you hold that do not respect the liberty and legal equality of others. Hence, they respond to you (which you characterize as being ‘offended’.

        Yes, I am offended, but not because of what you blog about. I am offended that you use your rights and freedoms to try to reduce them for others. More of us should be offended at your abuse of these values because they are anti-enlightenment, anti-liberty, anti-equality, anti-Constitutional, and anti-American. Why wouldn’t any reasonable person who upholds values of liberty and equality be offended?

      • Wayne says:

        Liberalism, not liberalism, is the word which has held multiple meanings. The original Liberals did influence, they did not define, my ancestors.

        The original Liberal inspiration was taken hostage by a series of movements.

        The latest movement to take Liberalism hostage is anti-Constitution, anti-American, anti-Liberty, in a shorter phrase:

        Your liberals are anti-Liberal.

        And yes, I am offended that you would defend such treason.

        Thank you for your comment, while hilarious, it did give me a smile.


      • tildeb says:

        Ah, I suspected as much. What you really mean is progressive liberalism, the kind that includes a justification for government to establish what it deems to be social justice. And these supportive folk, it turns out, are from every part of the political spectrum: those who assume the role of government is to make laws based on majority rule. Those advocating for abortion laws and ‘traditional’ marriage, for example, fall under this label… thinking that a law applied to all people – no matter how restrictive against personal liberty and personal equality – means a law of equality. This goes by another name: the tyranny of the majority and why it dooms countries who use it to mob rule and the eventual establishment of a strongman.

        But equality in law does not mean equal treatment; it means laws in accordance with the principle of individual autonomy with inviolable rights from which political authority comes (think of the people, by the people, for the people… the source of justified political power being borrowed from the individual). In practice this means law that is fair, equitable, and reciprocal for all individuals (who constitute both minorities and majorities). This confusion about what to respect for those with a progressive bent (and let’s be honest, we all lean towards it in favour of our pet projects) can lead to advocacy for the establishment of a very dangerous political policies antithetical to liberalism (contrary to respect for individual autonomy in law), policies that turn law into a bully that is coercive and unfair to some targeted group in the name of social justice. And this is what we have seen happen to ‘progressive’ governments, some of which have led to fundamentalist governments like fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Islamic Iran, Soviet Russia, communist China, and the killing fields of Cambodia… all brought to power under the notion of some form of establishing social justice. The common thread in all of these cases is a loss of respect in practice for the values of individual liberty and individual equality in law. And that’s the hallmark we need to watch for that indicates where a a ‘progressive’ agenda goes off the tracks, that runs counter to these enlightenment values, that endangers all of us.

      • Wayne says:

        Ah, I knew as much.

        You continue to redefine your political spectrum. Progressives are for abortion, and slaughter, and mayhem in the name of government.

        Look to Libya, Egypt, and Syria to see the result of your liberalism – progressive government controls.

        Further, your ‘Enlightenment’ produced British Empire and a century of war after that, not America.



      • tildeb says:

        Most people are unaware, for example, that fascism was a union response, that the Nazis evolved from national socialism (that introduced us to language laws against hate speech, for example), and so on. I think very few if any of these people wanted a totalitarian regime. Progressives rarely see their political desires to be dangerous to individual liberty and individual autonomy; they see their political desires to be in the best interest of society. Under this banner, assaults against autonomy are excused, so yes, progressives come from all political stripes and all are equally dangerous.

        The reason why the Arab Spring was and remains doomed to failure is because in none of them do we find a push for the foundation required: individual autonomy in law. That means none of these revolutions are liberal. At best they are progressive but still doomed to failure. Mob rule and a strongman will prevail in every case because the principle of individual liberty in law – legal autonomy – is demoted in the face of the prevailing religion that holds overwhelming support in its demand for individual legal autonomy to take a back seat to islam. You’re trying to do the same by supporting law to enforce religious precepts through law regarding abortion and marriage. It’s the same agenda in principle: to undermine individual autonomy in the name of something else.

        The Enlightenment brought about the rise and establishment of secular values. The two most notable events were the American revolution followed by the French, where Constitutions were founded on the principle of legal autonomy for the individual. Other forms of government then evolved (a constitutional monarchy for the British, which established the same kind of government in its colonies – Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and eventually India) Although not fully Republics in charter (like many European countries), these countries do endorse (albeit to varying degrees of success) liberal values, which is why we call them western liberal secular democracies. Establishing individual legal autonomy is the key ingredient to their democratic success. Undermine this, and you undermine the democratic functioning of the entire country.

      • Wayne says:

        That great French Revolution. Only produced Napoleon …. Talk about freedom there. Freedom to die.


        But, you have started to look at the bigger picture.

        Thank you for commenting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s