What Liberals Want – Part 2

How one responds to liberalism depends on the kind of liberalism that one is responding to. As I have said previously, liberalism comes in two forms: social liberalism and fiscal liberalism. Of the two, fiscal liberalism is easier to deal with, because even a social liberal can see the logic in insisting that able-bodied adults compete in a free market for the wealth that they want.

As stated before, social liberalism is born out of the desire to do anything that one wants without experiencing any unwanted consequences as a result. At times, dealing with social liberalism can be like navigating through a mine field.  One misspoken word can easily be used against you.

An example of such a case is the 2012 controversy pertaining to Sandra Fluke, who was a student at Georgetown University’s law school. Fluke insisted that the school was harming female students by preventing contraception from being covered by health insurance offered by the school.

Fluke’s argument was flawed and could have been argued against, which is what conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh attempted to do. However, he put his foot in his mouth. Fluke’s social liberalism had to be dealt with in a tactful way, and there was nothing tactful about calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute. Limbaugh doing so resulted in his argument being tarnished.

So, what would be a tactful response to Fluke’s social liberalism? Well, here is what I would argue:

Georgetown University is a private Catholic institution affiliated with the Jesuits, and as such, it conforms to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which, for religious reasons, is opposed to artificial contraception. No adult in the USA is forced to attend a Catholic institution, and no adult in the USA is forced to obtain health insurance from a Catholic institution.

There is no report of anyone forcing Sandra Fluke to participate in sexual intercourse. As a single adult, Ms. Fluke has chosen a lifestyle which includes sex outside of marriage, which, for religious reasons, the Roman Catholic Church is also opposed to.

As a single adult, Ms. Fluke wants to participate in sexual intercourse without experiencing a natural consequence called pregnancy and without experiencing the consequence of having to pay full price for contraception.

If a person can afford to pay tuition to attend Georgetown University’s law school, then a person can afford to pay for birth-control pills, which are quite cheap. According to Costhelper.com, “For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.”

Ms. Fluke’s predicament is a consequence of the lifestyle that she has chosen for herself.

So, why should a Catholic institution give up its freedom of religion in order to accommodate the chosen lifestyle of one of its adult students?  The First Amendment should not be sacrificed so that adults can avoid the consequences of their choices.

While growing up, children often complain about unwanted consequences of choices that they make, and it isn’t unusual for children to blame others for those unwanted consequences. This blame game is to be expected from children, but it is distasteful when adults play it.

Currently, President Obama is playing the adult version of the blame game in regards to the upcoming budget sequester. The President is blaming congressional Republicans for the sequester, but as Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward has pointed out, the sequester was the President’s idea, and the President signed it into law. If the sequester takes effect, then that would be a consequence of the President’s choice to help create the sequester, because without his help, the sequester would not exist.

So, will the President accept responsibility for the consequence of his choice?

Well, you tell me.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
What Liberals Want
  • John_LC_Silvoney

    What Liberals Want…Soviet Union v2.0

  • retired.military

    “If a person can afford to pay tuition to attend Georgetown University’s law school, then a person can afford to pay for birth-control pills, which are quite cheap.”

    The liberal activist motto is why should I pay for it when I can make someone else do so.

    • You’ll never meet folks more generous with the money of others…

  • Commander_Chico

    We’ve had this discussion before. The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue.

    As the Supreme Court has ruled, Obamacare is a tax. Like with other cases where Menonnites or Quakers have to pay for wars through their taxes, you don’t get an exemption based on your religious beliefs.

    This is not Chico’s ruling, this is the Supreme Court’s ruling.

  • Paul Hooson

    Interestingly, as far as economics go, I see a lot of failure with both economic liberalism and conservatism both. Northern states with Democratic governors or legislatures like Oregon and California, battle with budget cuts to services and near stagnant economic growth. And conservative states like Louisiana under the control of a conservative governor like Bobby Jindal, battle with a median income $22,000 a year lower than the median income in a state like Massachusetts, and comparably larger rates of poverty and public assistance needs.

    The fact of the matter is that neither economic liberalism or conservatism is bringing many people the type of economic well being that either has promised during this recession.

    In fact, the economic situation is so bad for many Americans earning a minimum wage of around $7.50 an hour, that for many persons in China earning a minimum wage of $2.25 an hour, but most prices being four times lower than in the U.S., actually makes many workers in China better off than many Americans. That’s a pretty damning statistic for two failed economic visions of liberalism and conservatism that have only brought many Americans to poverty during this recession. And as wages remain stagnant, inflation only runs rampant on items like food, energy, gasoline, etc., where your average American is only losing ground.

    That just leaves social liberalism and social conservatism to ponder. I’ll take social liberalism here because that gives me movies, rock music, motorcycles and young women to take my mind off all those that mismanage the economy for me. All social conservatives can do is to frown and look unhappy at that lifestyle because they’re not having near as much fun.

  • Par4Course

    Liberal programs like ObamaCare are financed on the backs of our grandchildren, with the US borrowing 35 to 40¢ of every dollar our government spends. When interest rates go up or the market becomes less willing to lend, liberal programs will collapse. Unfortunately, they are likely to take with them programs like Medicare and Social Security, which have no long-term economic viability. Is it right to maintain a lifestyle financed on our children’s credit card? Apparently our government – including most Dems and GOP in DC – think so. Look at the reaction to the minimal (2% at most) cuts promised by the sequestration. Both parties are predicting doom and gloom from this modest cut in the growth rate of government spending. If the liberals had to pay cash for their programs, they would never get off the drawing board.