I am, by most measures, a progressive—or a liberal—depending on who’s doing the labeling.
Reproductive rights, gender equality, protection of the environment, believing that the influence of the rich and powerful is more dangerous to human happiness than government waste, believing that its the responsibility of the well-off to help the poor, etc. Down the line, I’m mostly liberal.
But there are a few exceptions that are worth mentioning.
Importantly, I believe I am the one who holds the correct liberal position on these topics, and that mainstream is simply wrong. I think they hold these incorrect positions due mostly to intellectual and moral cowardice, which desperately needs to end.
In each of these the main problem lies in the unwillingness to accept what should happen were my position true. Studies have recently showed this to be the case on both sides of the spectrum. Conservatives deny climate change because they don’t want government regulation. And liberals deny the positions below because they don’t like what it might mean in practical terms.
Here are the three areas:
Liberals don’t seem to grasp (because they tend to be overwhelmingly secular) that religion is an unbelievably powerful force in the lives of those who truly believe it.
People like myself, who are liberal, and who care about the promotion of science above superstition, gender equality over subjugation, and focus on this life vs. a fantastical afterlife, are endlessly frustrated by liberal defense of these unbelievably obvious correlations.
Anywhere you find the lowering of women, the use of violence to accomplish political goals, or the rejection of science for scripture, you’ll find religion as the underpinning.
Mainstream liberals prefer to call these “political” problems for a simple reason: they cannot stand the idea of telling someone that their religious beliefs are harmful or untrue. They don’t like the idea of being a person who has to say such things.
So rather than doing what is obvious, and what is better for everyone involved, they take the easy path and blame something easy: themselves.
This lunacy must stop. The unpleasant truth is that in order to further the liberal ideals that they claim to care about, they must be willing to address intolerance, ignorance, and oppression—even when it labels itself religious freedom.
Liberals are mostly right about immigration; they are simply unwilling to think logically about when there is too much of a good thing.
I value and believe in immigration for all the same reasons they do. It started our country. It keeps us fresh with new ideas. And it’s a way for the best of the world to achieve here what they never could have elsewhere.
The problem is simply that immigrants come to America because America is liberal. We believe in equality for all. We believe in equality for women. We believe in equality of the races.
But the immigrants coming here don’t believe in those things, and they tend to absolutely hate each other. The Chinese hate the Japanese, and the southeast Asians, and they think Mexicans are basically sub-human. Mexicans hate black people, and don’t care much for Asians either. It goes on and on.
The only reason these groups are getting along as well as they do is because of an old guard of liberalism enforced by ignorant people who think all these immigrants love each other.
They don’t. And if they had their way they’d be raising themselves up above the other racial groups that they abhor.
So the problem with immigration is not that the idea is bad. It’s not. It’s that—left unchecked—it can lead to the destruction of the very thing that people are coming here to experience.
What America needs to do, above all else, is protect the liberal ideals that make it so attractive. And to do that it must close the borders and look inward for certain periods of time. It must synchronize with itself. Remind everyone here what we believe in, and what being American actually means.
To avoid doing this, and simple open the gates to everyone, will mean only one thing: decades from now the liberal guard will be obsolete, and various factions from these rival groups will rise to power in opposition to each other.
We will have a nation of nations, and it will not be long before our union is no more.
So yes, immigration is a wonderful thing. But outsiders must be added to a healthy and cohesive country, not to a simmering collection of mini-countries that cannot wait to subjugate each other.
The gun debate should be a simple one. We collect data on what makes communities more or less safe, and we make policy based on that. Instead we have emotional arguments—just as with religion and immigration—that stop conversation before it even starts.
Liberals hate the idea of people carrying guns, so they close their minds to any evidence on the matter. Just as conservatives do with climate science or sex education.
My simple belief is that gun laws should vary based on need. In extremely safe communities, it should be illegal to carry guns because they’re more likely to cause harm due to accidents there. And in extremely dangerous communities it should be legal to carry guns because it’s wrong to keep law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves from attackers that have guns themselves.
It’s that simple.
Gather data. Make policy based on what’s best for the population.
The problem is that both sides of the debate seem to suppress data. Liberals hide data when it helps the other side, and so do the conservatives. It’s as if they don’t realize different places need different things.
My belief system is based on improving society using reason and compassion as our primary guides. Liberals are wrong on the issues above because their positions on these topics simply do not accomplish that goal, and in fact work against it.