Some time ago, I attempted to explain the roots of liberalism. This is the first of four parts of an updated version.

Liberalism 101: Childishness

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 2, 2010

When I was a child, I read about King Arthur and imagined myself a knight in armor, going around righting wrongs. I never imagined myself a serf digging in the dirt, or a prisoner in a dungeon. Then I grew up and realized that the Middle Ages were really grim.

Liberals read about Marxism and imagine themselves members of the Central Committee, going around righting wrongs. They never imagine themselves workers with no more freedom than an ant, or prisoners in the gulag. But liberals haven’t grown up. They haven’t realized that Marxism leads to a really grim society.

Much of what passes for liberalism today could better be described as childishness. Obvious examples are socialism, pacifism and strict gun control.

Adults, especially citizens of a free country, see themselves as bearing the primary responsibility for protecting themselves and their families. But children − or subjects of an authoritarian regime − see themselves as powerless. They feel little responsibility for defending themselves or their families. This responsibility, and all the rights that go with it, are assumed by adults in the case of children, and by the government in the case of those who infantilize themselves.

Do these people act as adults? No, this would require weighing the relative risks and benefits of guns and self-defense, as well as taking responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their loved ones.

It would require studying the data of Prof. Gary Kleck, showing that guns are used more often to prevent crimes than to commit them.

It would require reading the studies of Dr. John Lott, revealing that where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns, violent crime falls.

Instead, they thoughtlessly assume that guns are always bad. They divest themselves of all responsibility and fob it off onto Big Brother. And all the while they feel self-righteous, while accomplishing nothing. They contribute no time or effort, spend no money, risk nothing, engage in no deep thought, but still feel good about themselves. What a deal!

Like children, they believe that if they imagine something good, they had actually done something good. This childish confusion of good motives with good results is typical of modern liberalism:

● Bilingual education is “good” because its proponents mean well. That it doesn’t enhance language skills is irrelevant.

● Welfare programs are “good” because their backers are “caring.” That some programs aggravate family breakup goes unnoticed.

● High taxes are “good” because they are meant to “help the poor.” Ignored is that high taxes force both parents to work and minimize time with kids. Also ignored is that high taxes transfer spending decisions to the government, downgrading citizens into children with an allowance, as well as stifling the economy.

● Socialized medicine is “good” because of “universal coverage.” Overlooked are the 15,000 deaths in France during the August 2003 heat wave. Health workers and young people were away at the seashore, while the poor and elderly roasted in non-air-conditioned rooms. Those health workers who remained were forbidden by law to work over 35 hours a week, even in an emergency and even if they wanted to. People had “universal coverage” − with six feet of dirt.

But why shouldn’t people go on vacation and leave their disabled or elderly relatives and neighbors alone? Didn’t a parentified government promise to take care of everyone? Didn’t that reduce citizens to the status of children?

It’s risky to depend on children − they’re just not responsible.

Europeans have an excuse for believing in socialism and a powerful central government. They lived under kings for centuries. The French, Germans and Russians recall that their nations were more powerful when they were ruled by kings. They yearn to be taken care of by an authority figure. But America was built by individual initiative. What’s our excuse?

If defense of our own family is not our responsibility, defense of our nation is even more dubious. Do rogue states like Iran and North Korea possess missiles and nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons? Not to worry − liberals insisted that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would protect us. How a piece of paper could protect against incoming missiles was unclear, especially since the treaty was with the Soviet Union, a nation which no longer existed, and which violated the treaty when it did exist. Fortunately, President Bush scrapped the treaty, but President Obama may be trying to resurrect it.

Small children believe that if they close their eyes, the boogey man can’t see them. Similarly, many liberals close their eyes to the evils of communism and the threat of extremist Islam, as if this somehow lessened the danger.

When Hitler was on the rise, pacifists opposed rearmament, claiming that no Genghis Khan was at the gates. When the communist empire was expanding, pacifists opposed rearmament, claiming there was no Hitler on the horizon. Now that terrorism is a threat, they still oppose rearmament, claiming the Soviet Union is no more.

Pacifists recognize evil only in retrospect, when it’s no longer a threat − because other people risked their lives to defeat it.

Of course, if one doesn’t share American values, there is no reason to fight to defend them. Instead, one can be a “citizen of the world,” which carries no obligation except breathing. How effortless for the lazy. How safe for the cowardly. How gratifying for the self-satisfied. How non-involving for the alienated. But how utterly useless for everyone.

Small children are egocentric. So are the liberal elite. To them, other people are less important than their own pet theories. They ignore millions of deaths and untold suffering, while pursuing Marxism, pacifism and other impractical notions.

Small children believe that inanimate objects can be bad. Kids sometimes shake their fingers at broken toys, saying, “Bad, bad!” Similarly, many liberals believe that guns are bad, so they attempt to disarm the law-abiding − while ignoring effective programs like Project Exile that put armed criminals in prison. They believe that nuclear weapons are bad, so they attempt to disarm their own country − while opposing a defense against weapons of potential enemies.

No one fears nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France. Democracies rarely threaten one another, just as law-abiding citizens rarely use guns criminally. But recognizing this obvious truth would force liberals to face the fact that it is not evil objects but evil people who are to be feared. This in turn would force them to accept standards by which to judge people. Since they have abandoned such standards, identifying evil people becomes impossible.

Inanimate objects are the only things left to blame.

Closely allied to childishness is self-righteousness. Those who believe their motives are "good" may feel that others can sense this − as if they walked around with haloes. They believe their hearts are “pure,” so nobody will attack them − not muggers, not terrorists.

This is a subtle form of blame-the-victim: “If I don’t own a gun, I won’t be mugged. If we don’t build a missile defense, we won’t be attacked.” Such thinking is emotional, not logical, and is hard to overcome by logical argument.

In addition, pacifism is a luxury. Like a BMW, it can be enjoyed by a fortunate few, while the majority must deal with a harsher reality. Those who live in upscale suburbs often have no empathy for those (often minorities) who must live or work in high-crime areas. They feel no need for self-defense, so they can’t understand why others might. Lack of empathy for the poor and minorities is a bad trait for a liberal.

Gun-control zealots sleep more safely because others own guns. Burglars don’t enter occupied dwellings for fear of being shot, because gun ownership is still common in America. In nations where gun ownership is rare, over half of burglaries occur when people are home, greatly increasing the risk of death or injury to homeowners.

Even anti-gun zealots tacitly recognize this fact by never posting signs saying, “There are no guns in this home.” If they really believed that weapons increase danger, such signs would be common.

Likewise, pacifists sleep more safely, dreaming peaceful dreams, because the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen they hold in contempt are on guard through the night, armed with the modern weapons they opposed. Others fight and die in the hot sand, or patrol in the cold rain, while they bask in the narcissistic comfort of pacifism.

Children have a right to sleep peacefully, secure in the knowledge that others will protect them. Adults, especially citizens of a free nation, have no such luxury.

The worst effect of modern liberalism is not a host of laws and regulations designed to control every aspect of life. Laws can be repealed.

The worst effect is not an increasingly intrusive government. Governments can be voted out of office.

The worst effect of modern liberalism is the regression of citizens from self-sufficient adults into dependent children who rely on a parentified government to take care of them, make important decisions for them, and take responsibilities off their shoulders.

Real children grow up. Childish adults rarely do. And that’s a shame.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com