What separates liberals from conservatives? Where is the line that separates the two ideologies? Conservative and liberal are broad terms, and I do not doubt that there are conservatives and liberals out there that love freedom and liberty. I firmly believe that parties exist to put all of us into a box, and promote partisan group think. If you look at the big picture, that is exactly what the two-party system does. But if you had to give a general overview of what makes a conservative, and what constitutes a liberal, one might say that they view conservatives as standing for biblically sound morality, pro-family, pro-marriage, etc., whereas liberals try to portray themselves as the party that fights for the little guy, and are compassionate and empathetic to the plight of those down on their luck or impoverished. I’m only generalizing here for the sake of me making my overall point. Now I want to be clear, there is nothing wrong with wanting to align with the above principles, but a problem exists when you use the law to impose these things on the citizenry of America.
From a conservative standpoint, this is not condoning homosexuality, gay marriage, or other behavior that is not biblically sound. You are just acknowledging that people are not always going to choose the path of righteousness and that people must be allowed to make their own choices, as long as they are not infringing on anyone else’s right to do the same. Does that mean that immoral people have to go to jail? Legality and morality are not the same thing and one has to realize that you cannot attach the same meaning to these separate terms. You are being disingenuous if you try to link the two absolutely. Are some of our laws based on morality? Of course they are, things like murder and rape are for the most part universally condemned by societies and cultures all over the world. The taboo transcends culture, customs, or nationality. It is what our legal system refers to as mala in se, meaning that something is wrong it itself. If someone is engaging in some activity or transaction with other consenting adults and no one is being wronged or taken advantage of, how do we argue that a crime was committed? If there is no victim, who files charges? The government files the charges of course, but was the government wronged in some way? So what do we call it when government makes arbitrary determinations regarding what consenting adults can do amongst themselves legally? Mala prohibita, refers to crimes that may or may not be immoral, but are deemed illegal by legislators, bureaucrats or both. Bureaucrats should not be in the business of setting law, but it happens. This does not make for liberty and/or freedom, it only tries to justify intrusion into peoples’ lives by claiming some divine, moral high ground.
A worldview that one might consider liberal, or left leaning, generally attacks society by chipping away at the foundation of what makes us America. More recently, some with this world view refer to themselves as the “resistance”. It is not the views or beliefs here that are damaging, it is the takeover of our American institutions and the strongarm tactics that are used to force the hand of mainstream media, academia, Washington DC, Hollywood, and other influential staples in America that wield a great deal of power, because they tend to have a significant influence on the thoughts and actions of young people and people in general. This control of institutional influence is what makes the liberal agenda dangerous. In recent years, the suppression on free speech has become a preference for this group of left leaning activists that attempt to identify as anti-fascist. This is ironic because one of the main components of fascism is suppression of the opposition. Merriam-Webster defines fascism as: “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”. Liberalism tends to promote a collectivist ideology, and usually denounces the idea of individual liberty or rights, while condoning the suppression of free speech, if it does not align with their worldview. I am not trying to insinuate that liberals are fascists, I am just highlighting the hypocrisy and their attempt to project their sins on others. Some of the more extreme groups on the left engage in violence, destruction of property, as they try to influence public policy, locally, and at the federal level and even influence the outcome of court cases (i.e., Ferguson, Baltimore). The liberal world view is at odds with our founding principles and our constitution, and that is why they are actively trying to topple and/or collapse the system, (i.e., Cloward-Piven.) That is why they try to portray the founding fathers as racists, and atheists.
This is not a partisan issue, this is about the preservation of liberty for all Americans, not just right or left America. Opposing views are perfectly acceptable, suppression of those views are not. There seems to be a double standard here regarding freedom of speech. This type of article is difficult for me to write because I am not a partisan, so I usually refrain from bashing party politics. One must also realize that when you bash partisan hypocrisy, you tend to generalize and that is also dangerous because you are putting people into a box. However, in this current political climate, many have allowed themselves to be put into a partisan box because they take the bait, and let their emotions control their actions. That is why we have so many partisan sheep in America today.