Replies

"They" (and, keep in mind, they are actually not very "liberal" in the classical sense at all) make a lot of very silly mistakes. They are also contradictory at times. You will notice that self-styled progressive liberals seem at times to believe that everything is always progressing, always getting better as science, technology, social engineering and propaganda help to move us away from religion and traditional morality. On the other hand, at times they also pay lip service to gloom-&-doom paradigms. Environmentalist eschatology, for instance, which blends with Malthusian pessimism of the most extreme kind. They can't make up their minds which way the arc of history and civilization is going.

And let's be frank here, they're making it up as they go along. They're making up the jargon, the conceptual categories, and the paradigmatic posturings as necessity (in their quest for power) dictates. These are by no means the brightest people on the planet. A facility with manipulating linguistic and quantitative variables and symbols does not necessarily mean the manipulator is in touch with reality. Or truth.

Another example. Religion and moralizing are supposed to be bad in liberal mythology, except when Richard Gere happens to be the preacher on love and compassion. Think about it. Playing the "class" card on the working-class cops and firemen of NYC is hardly enlightened, liberal, tolerant, or any of the other fine transcendental qualities which form the text of routine "liberal" incantations.

The notion that Hillary, a woman who married Bill Clinton, is some sort of super-sophisticated guru of wonk enlightenment is, even by "liberal" standards, pushing the plausibility threshold just a tad.