Attacks on Republican candidate embrace familiar liberal theme


By Scott Robertson

One of the things I dislike about liberal political dogma in America is that it often implies that anyone who has become financially successful is somehow a bad person. Class envy is a central tenet of the philosophy. If someone is rich, or even pretty well off, then he probably got that way by cheating the middle class and poor people. How dare you enjoy the fruits of your labors, the liberal dogmatic says, when there are people who need help in the world? You didn’t build that.

This morning I read a scathing piece regarding Brett Kavanaugh, the president’s nominee for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, on a liberal website. The article says Kavanaugh, “has written almost entirely in favor of big businesses,” attempting to make the case that supporting business is a reason not to seat Kavanaugh. This liberal mindset seems to equate business success with being morally unfit to serve in public office.

Anytime an apparently upstanding individual achieves some measure of success, he must have sold his soul to the devil of corporate greed, liberal dogmatics seem to reckon. He must have been co-opted into a secret conspiracy world of kickbacks and hidden agendas. Liberals apparently have a hard time admitting that good men can achieve success by valuing hard work, adherence to faith, sound business practices and common sense.

I’ve seen liberal media outlets say they have a mission to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Well, what if someone who’s comfortable got that way in a perfectly moral, ethically upstanding way? Does that person deserve affliction? No, but why let a little thing like a man’s character get in the way of a self-indulgent bit of class warfare?

And liberals don’t even have to rely on the media establishment anymore. It’s easy today for a Maxine Waters-type character assassin to get on social media and say, “that conservative is a liar and an evil-doer of the lowest order, and I can say that with utmost confidence, even though I have no proof.” On twitter and facebook, they can get away with making such allegations with impunity.

Limousine liberals who miss no chance to decry the evils of the one percent quietly take the same tax advantages as their conservative colleagues, setting up trusts and foundations left and right. The difference is that conservatives are honest about their desire to keep their own money while the liberals act hypocritically, salting away their riches while making plans for what the government should do with yours and mine.

There is a level of hypocrisy that galls me more, however, and that’s when conservatives stoop to using liberal tactics. To me, that shows a willingness to abandon one’s own values.

When one conservative candidate tries to paint another as a puppet of “big money,” or as being against, “the people,” it smacks of community organizers and social justice activism.

Big money victimizing the people is the same rallying cry used by organizations like the Alliance of Community Trainers, a liberal group that helped run the Occupy movement and has supported “Pledges of Resistance” on issues from the Keystone Pipeline to anti-American activities in Central America.

When conservatives adopt the same campaign ideology as liberal community activists, they abandon the moral high ground they once so faithfully defended. Conservatives have long held that “character counts.” That must hold true in all circumstances, even in political campaigns. Otherwise the word character has no meaning. It cannot be dropped when convenient, then picked up and dusted off as if nothing ever happened.

Class warfare. Unsubstantiated attacks on social media. These are the time-tested tactics of Obama and Clinton organizers. They should be left to the left.


About Author

Comments are closed.