Well, I'm of the opinion that the federal government possesses very little authority to act upon those issues in any fashion.
It is certainly true that liberal/progressives' policy beliefs are deeply held, problem is, they can only be superficially defended because their positions rest on no concrete foundation. Liberal/progressives go on and on about "values" and frankly I'm shocked that Spence actually used the word "principles," -- for that concept is usually at odds with the liberal/progressive agenda. . . .
Having "values" allows one to just
know certain things to be true; but you also know that at
any time they may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to projection. That's why any challenge to a liberal/progressive to defend their positions is met immediately with anger and vitriol because that challenge is perceived as a personal attack on one's "feelings" and not simply an intellectual challenge to logically defend policy stances in reasoned debate.
To me though, the most dangerous attributes liberal/progressives exhibit is they espouse positions in direct opposition to the fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality. That their general political philosophy is at odds with our fundamental republican constitutional principles is most evident in their concept of "rights."
The original Lockean concept of rights, embodied in the justification for declaring independence and instilled into the U.S. Constitution, led to restrictions on the government's interference in the lives of citizens and having their natural, civil and political rights respected by law. This was achieved primarily by the very structure of the Constitution being founded on the principle of, "
all not surrendered is retained."
Since no power was granted to government to injure rights no power existed to do so. This was the reason there was such resistance to the addition of a bill of rights.
As Hamilton argued in the Federalist 84:
- "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
Sadly, by modern liberal/progressive definition, "rights" are no longer only "
exceptions to powers not granted" and Obama has spoken openly that he feels that this fact, that the Bill of Rights only secures "negative" rights, is a "fundamental flaw" of the Constitution
and its interpretation in the courts.
For him, the Bill of Rights "
says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." In Obama's view, rights should be redefined into special
grants of power to compel others to act. This line of thought is a product of fundamentally communitarian ideals and is a political offspring of the 1917 Soviet Revolution.
As a result of
that revolution, economic, social, and cultural rights emerged into the political arena. By their very nature, these two "generations" of rights assume
very different roles for the state.
Second generation "rights" convey a romantic idea of how the state should take care of us, about how we, as an organized state can somehow provide human dignity and "help" citizens live a decent and happy life. Of course there is absolutely zero constitutional authority to do anything of the sort.
That doesn't stop the liberal/progressive rants demanding a "right" to health care, prescription drugs, education, affordable housing, internet access, a living wage and that most basic of human rights, an abortion, but in reality, these are demands that someone provide these things under governmental order and
that is never the true definition of a right.
Our rights are
NOT a list of services that government provides for us.
Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.
The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of goods and services, privileges and entitlements that, upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our "rights" upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational, temporary denial or outright removal of those "rights" (for our own good of course).
For me, that's a good start on what I consider a liberal/progressive to be, why they shouldn't be trusted and why they are so damn dangerous
. . .