In all recorded history people would form groups. One man would become the "alpha" male and one woman would become the "alpha" woman. From these two people all the descending levels of hierarchy would form. The larger the group the more levels. And as the Alpha male and female became old or died, other males and females would attempt to overthrow the Alpha male and female. OK this is fact.
Let's move along to the beginning of civilizations. From the beginning, these civilizations were built on similar hierarchy with levels of "upper class" the land owners and whose power came form the Alpha male - the newly forming middle class made up of merchants, tradespeople, farmers and artisans - and the rest of the people made up of house servants, slaves and beggars. OK there will be particular people that do not fall into one of these categories. But they are for the most part one-of-a-kind people. We are interested in generalized groups and classes of people. Were there any Liberals in this group? Probably not. Were there people who opposed the people in power? Probably yes.
Can we fix a label on those people who opposed the people above them in power, money or status. In my opinion - no.
Now let's move to around 1200 AD in England. There was a growing number of higher level, land-owners who were beginning to feel like they "deserved more latitude" in their lives and resented tithing to the king. This then, in my opinion, was a group of people who were the grandchildren who fought to gain their position. These newly rich, without having to sacrifice for their riches, were beginning to demand a bit of independence from the king. In fact, they banded together to force the King of England to sign the "Magna Carta" which guaranteed certain liberties to these grandchildren. Everyone should read the document. Go here to read it ... http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html
This document set in motion the beginning of Liberalism. You are encouraged to comment on this after reading the document.
Nothing much changed until the Revolution Was between the Colonies and England. And by then, there were many Liberals who voiced their opposing opinion to independence. Yep, even back then, there were Liberals who wanted to be taken care of and not upset the apple cart for a better cause. Mostly these Liberals were well-off merchants with more to lose financially from war then to keep the 'status-quo'. Those persons who felt 'put-upon' and taken advantage of by the King of England wanted independence. So how would you define Liberal at this time period?
This class warfare would continue until today. How do you define Liberals today? Well there are no Liberals in the foxhole - at least live ones. Therefore, there are no Liberals in the active armed forces. Yes many persons in the armed forces have various ideas. But when you interview returning soldiers, you get a sense they understand why we are fighting a war today.
So that brings us to the people at home. Maybe they can define what it means to be Liberal. They say Liberal people are for helping other people. BUT Conservatives out-give charity six to one versus the Liberal population.
SO that can't be how to define Liberals.
What about religion. Seems to me that more Conservatives are church going that Liberals. The popular movement for Liberals today is to remove GOD from the populace. To me, religion should never be included in politics but it is a fact of today's political climate. To me Church and State should never mix. But I digress.
Liberals, to me, seem to be made up of several groups. The obvious group is those persons wanting a hand-out and never willing to sacrifice for the charity given to them. There are third generation families on welfare producing babies at an alarming rate. WHY? In there own words: "I tried working but why spend 40 hours a week plus commuting time when I can get more money from welfare by doing nothing." YES, Those are the exact words from an interview shown on TV a while back on several news programs.
Then there are the young people who though they may be intelligent, do not have a fully formed brain. That's a medical fact. People's brains are fully developed from age 24 to 28 and not sooner. People younger that 24 just do not have the ability to evaluate life in the same way as people in their 40's and older. So these younger people are idealistic. And many of them are stubborn so when the age, they continue to maintain their 'value-system' well into their senior years.
How does that account for the millions f Liberals who are working and living basically a 'normal' life. My opinion is that they are from mostly working class stock - semi-professional - trades - businesspeople. Can you imagine a 45 year old union worker who owes his entire life-style to the ability of a union to maintain his employment voting against the union. Never! That is why the unions today are demanding that we get rid of one of our basic "Rights" by eliminating the secret ballot. That way union people can make life hell for anyone who votes against the union. Self-serving? You bet!
But unions do have a place in today's world. It's just that senior management just keeps sucking way to much salary for the little work they preform. In my opinion, if there was a cap between the highest officer of any company with union members and the highest union paid worker, that would go a long way towards resolving the differences between management and workers. And to me that means more reduction in senior management's pay than raising worker's pay. After all there is a profit that at the end of the day needs to be made to keep the business going.
So how do we define Liberals today? They are mostly unemployed, low wage earners, under-educated with a mix of over-educated professors who have never experienced anything in the workplace, the young people and the grandchildren of people who have a comfortable life for their family and descendants.
What do you think?
Next topic - What is a Conservative
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
