There was great fanfare back when George W. announced his campaign
would be one of “compassionate conservatism.” This, of course, annoyed
quite a few conservatives, and not because they are the unfeeling sort.
On the contrary, conservatives have always known that conservatism is
inherently compassionate (making George W.’s slogan one of redundancy —
which is very annoying). It is only a liberal demagogue who might think

A liberal might “feel your pain” and attend to temporarily
alleviating it, but most conservatives recognize that “feeling each
other’s pain” is not the best way to go about solving problems. Solving
problems requires logic, not emotion, which may add texture to life,
but, with few exceptions, certainly doesn’t win any awards in the
survival department. As a matter of fact, losing oneself to emotion is
much more likely to lead to greater discord and strife than would have
occurred had those same feelings been kept in check.

From an historic viewpoint, a mastery of emotion was the hallmark of
maturity, more so than chronological age or intellectual achievement.
In modern times, three or four decades of focusing on feelings seems to
have stunted the emotional growth of a great number of our nation, to
the point that vast populations of adults still harbor the emotional
maturity of a typical teenager. (That might help explain Clinton’s
popularity, particularly among women.)

Emotional immaturity could realistically be the most significant
factor in society’s current chronic degeneration of values and morals,
which is highlighted by a rampant divorce rate, the pervasive narcissism
of an aging generation still in love with the beauty of youth, and the
irresponsible pursuits of self-serving and self-indulgent lifestyles.
You can quite honestly thank the liberal agenda for this plague.

Of course, liberals will argue that they were the ones who equalized
the playing field not only for minorities, but also for women, children,
trees, fish and cows. It is they who have made the world a better place
for the poor, for the chinchilla and for the great horned owl. They
were the ones who lifted the oppressive presence of God from the
classroom, the workplace, and most government offices, and if you give
them enough time, they’ll have him off the currency and out of the
courtroom, too. The only place a liberal thinks God is welcome is on
the current vice presidential campaign.

But while liberals may argue about the progress they’ve made for
society, it is the conservatives who have never forgotten that it was
God’s grace that enabled this country to be founded on freedom, and his
grace that subsequently led it to become the greatest nation on earth.
It is the divinely inspired ideal of self-governance that permitted this
country to grow and flourish. And it was the fundamental belief that
each man and woman is endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights
— and as such are not privileges granted by men or government — that
laid aside the chains of slavery and promoted women’s suffrage.

Yet modern-day liberals relentlessly decry this divine relationship
with our country, and work diligently to undermine our moral roots in
favor of hedonistic humanism.

The sexual revolution may have liberated the sexual drive of both men
and women, but in doing so it removed the moral aspect of procreation
and construed it as recreation. The feminist movement may have promoted
equal access to the economic workforce, but in the process it nullified
the sanctity of a mother’s womb and the sacredness of a mother’s duty.
The proliferation of the mental health industry may have dissected the
mind and reduced to medical terms a variety of behavioral and emotional
problems, but it uniformly fails to consider the soul and to acknowledge
the divinity of life.

Modern liberals have consistently argued that they represent the poor
and the working class and that they have the interests of the little
people at heart. Yet while they exploit these people’s emotions, they
simultaneously promote a culture that devalues humanity and contributes
to a perpetuation of dependency on government.

What good is national health care if it compromises quality and
extenuates a life of poverty? What benefit arises from universal
childcare except to remove millions of children from the cover of their
mothers and place them in the care of the state? Whose interest is
served by denigrating success and inciting class resentment by appealing
to workers as exploited victims instead of illuminating the security
that employment brings?

The compassion of liberals is so acute that they pompously promote
self over God, irresponsibility over morality and intolerance over
tolerance. They are social engineers trying to redesign life without
the direction of a divine blueprint. If they ever really “feel your
pain,” it’s only because your body is quivering while they’re twisting
in the knife.

But there is hope.

In the program of Alcoholics Anonymous, there are steps one takes in
order to achieve sustained sobriety. The first step is to recognize one
is powerless over alcohol. The second is to develop faith in a power
greater than oneself. The third is to give oneself and one’s life over
to the care of God.

Millions of otherwise hopeless alcoholics have found peace,
productivity and emotional stability simply by bringing God into their

Liberals could use a program like that. They could call it Liberals

They could say they’re powerless over emotion, that their lives have
lost compassion, and they could turn their lives over to the care of

I think it could work.

Especially when they realize that compassionate conservatives would
never hold the fact that they’re recovering liberals against them.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.