Liberals Are Not the Enemy

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Forgive me. I say “liberal” sometimes when I mean something else.

My mistake is habit, not irony. (Irony would require some intent on my part.)

I grew up disparaging liberalism. I grew up reading and watching William F. Buckley Jr., for whom liberalism was the enemy.

In the post-WWII era, the liberalism of the day was a problem. But it was never the problem.

The problem in Western Civilization was a faction that used liberalism as cover. This faction crossed party lines. This faction actively sought and seeks the elimination of the US Constitution.

This dangerous faction included Republicans John Lindsay, George Romney, Lowell Weiker, and Nelson Rockefeller. Plus, many, many Democrats, communists, and others.

That dangerous faction goes by the deceptive name “progressive.”

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the difference between liberals and progressives:

Liberals.

Liberals who believe in the power of ideas.

Liberals who believe their ideas are so excellent that open debate can only help their cause.

Liberals who say “I’m okay; you’re okay.” (Progressives say, “I’m okay, you’re wrong, and you’ll be punished for your wrongness.”)

Oh, how I long for the liberalism of my youth.

A few days after I wrote that post, progressives turned against Nancy Pelosi, driving her from the stage. More proof that progressives, not liberals, are the enemies of freedom.

I previously warned that leftists are not liberals. Today, Nancy Pelosi learned that lesson. The hard way.

Nancy Pelosi had to be rushed off stage for her own safety. Safety from a mob. A mob of angry leftists. Leftists angry because Nancy condemned Antifa and ate dinner with Trump.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Bill McClellan, a liberal, wrote an excellent column today. He reminds us that he’s like the liberals of my youth. The ones who might save us from the progressives. From the Antifa terrorists.

McClellan’s excellent column draws a bright line between liberal and progressive. You will enjoy reading it.

Regarding the recent progressive violence following Stockley’s acquittal, McClellan explains the difference between liberals and progressives:

I am still skeptical, but a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Progressives seem to believe that skepticism ought to be sufficient for conviction.

After reading McClellan’s column, you’ll probably agree that we on the right can find common cause with liberals like Bill McClellan. We can find common cause in fighting back against anti-American progressives like Antifa. Those Antifa progressives are our common enemy.



2 Comments

  1. Nah, whether they are labeled liberals or progressives, I find them indistinguishable. You might be able to bargain with McClellan for a time, until he betrays you and what you bargained for. I don’t trust lefties.

  2. Interesting thoughts…
    I listen to many of the liberal ideas and it would be nice if some of those can happen….but there is a difference between wishing and human nature.
    We would want ALL american children to eat each day and get a good education. But teachers unions ae not interested in education, school boards are not always interested in educating the the children, and those making the decisions on the food programs are not interested in giving the children appetizing, nutricious food. Or their parents who squander the federal food dollars given to them.

    We all want gun murders to stop… but making new laws don’t work, the can make the problem worse… The answer is to stop feeling sorry for the gang members and criminals who commit most of these murders….and keep them in prison they cannot hurt others.

    We all want land to be protected…but we want Americans to ENJOY the public lands…not prevented from access. We also expect a balance between an ability to do business and limiting a business’ impact on its surroundings.

    We all want to be fiscally sound…. but “share the wealth” is communism and does not work… it hurts those who worked hard for success to share with the lazy.

    Everyone should get access to medical care…but not at the expense of one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Not to pick the pockets of the taxpayer for corporate profits in the medical field… and should I be able to apy for better medical care? Or should I be denied the ability to buy it because someone who does not pay thier bills can have the same level of care….Medical care assured as a concept is less than 100 years old

    So all liberal ideals which have not been subject to a balanced reality check is not realistic…it is not fair, it is not just.

Comments are closed.