Liberal Logic

Conservatives like myself are often puzzled when they hear their Liberal friends rail against the manipulative nature of Talk Radio and Fox News while they listen raptly to the latest NPR or CNN broadcast as if the latter two were pure as the driven snow. To help aid us in this confusing paradox, I’ve developed a list of rules that we must understand if we’re ever to fathom the ways of our fellow man (or woman).

A. A boisterous Conservative rally is “angry.”

B. A boisterous Liberal rally is “passionate.”


A. Conservative legislation that doesn’t achieve its goals is proof that it shouldn’t have been the law in the first place.

B. Liberal legislation that doesn’t achieve its goals is proof that the law didn’t go far enough the first time around.


A. Conservative politicians who play the system to stall a vote are “obstructionist.”

B. Liberal politicians who play the system to stall a vote are “principled.”


A. Conservative Presidents who use Executive privileges to enact policy are “setting aside the Constitution.”

B. Liberal Presidents who use Executive privileges to enact policy are “getting things done.”


A. Conservatives who point out the dangers of policy X are “fear mongering.”

B. Liberals who point out the dangers of policy Y are “raising awareness.”


A. Conservative candidates who call attention to their opponents’ foibles and unsavory associates are “distracting from the issues.”

B. Liberal candidates who call attention to their opponents’ foibles and unsavory associates are “demanding accountability.”


A. A Conservative politician whose de-regulation measures foster a dramatic decrease in the unemployment rate is “captive to business interests.”

B. A Liberal politician whose regulation measures foster a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate is “devoted to the common man.”


A. A Conservative President who goes to war with Congressional authorization, a multinational coalition, and tries to get UN approval is “a dangerous unilateralist.”

B. A Liberal President who goes to war without consulting either the Congress or the UN is a “global leader.”


A. Speaking derisively about a Conservative politician is a wonderful example of America’s freedom of speech and anyone who objects needs to get a sense of humor.

B. Speaking derisively about a Liberal politician is a sign of what’s wrong with America’s political discourse and anyone who objects needs to stop being so hateful.


A. An ambiguous statement by a Conservative politician should be assumed to have the most egregious meaning.

B. An ambiguous statement by a Liberal politician should be assumed to have the most innocuous meaning.


A. When Conservatives invoke the Bible to support their cause they are “religious” and are confusing the line between church and state.

B. When Liberals invoke the Bible to support their cause they are “spiritual” and bringing morality into the political realm.


A. Agreeing with a Conservative politician’s actions is to display your inability to think for yourself.

B. Agreeing with a Liberal politician’s actions is to display your ability to think outside the box.


I’m sure that some of my more liberally minded friends (or those who’d prefer to think of themselves as moderate) will object that 1) Conservatives are guilty of the same things and 2) Conservatives are guilty of other things. That is all well and good, and if you feel like coming up with your own list of Conservative failings, that’d be fine by me. There’s plenty of material for you.

But let me ask you, how does the myopia and inconsistency of Conservatives negate in any way the myopia and inconsistency of Liberals? One of my biggest grievances with Liberals is that while they go about making such a big deal about how tolerant and open-minded they are, anyone who spends any time around them will soon discover that they are anything but.

In my own experience I have heard as much (if not more) examples of intolerance of dissent, demeaning of opposition characters, and Lemming-like activity from Liberals than I have from their Conservative neighbors. To this is added their audacity to preen about their unbiased attitudes, respect for others, and independence of thought.

So long as any of us keeps pretending that we are without flaws today and without the potential for flaws tomorrow, then so long will discourse, political or otherwise, be tainted with rancor and self-righteousness.