To qualify ones thinking by assuming that if one believes in x, he must also “therefore” believe in y, is a mode of reasoning which is not a priori. I.E., the conclusion should have some relationship to the preposition. These days, that is what is wrong with liberalism. The disembodied intransigence and abstract nature of liberalism as a political tradition has no recent historical record from which to illustrate its success. Liberalism could not solve our ills with a generations worth of time – say from the birth pangs of the civil rights movement up until the Reagan administration. All it did was throw money at everything hoping it would somehow repair itself, and in the process create more and more levels of bureaucracy. John Kerry has succeeded in threatening to reconstitute this failed liberal bureaucracy of a bygone era.
Liberals take up other people’s causes, often not necessarily to promote “humanitarian ideals”, but because the political situation is such that the platform of the disenfranchised creates a political vacuum. It then becomes a question of 'opportunism': where a love of country and moral leadership with vision has nothing to do with filling the void. They claim that when they take up causes outside of their own interests – indeed their countries interests – that it “builds character”. They claim that if one can take on someone else’s suffering or misfortune, that that makes them “a better person”.
The political intransigence of liberalism works in the university where they make a living teaching “Diversity” and “Multiculturalism”, but not in every day reality where people live from paycheck to paycheck: especially during wartime when feelings of patriotism run high.
Wartime is a good time to put to the test ones notion of patriotism. Liberals who know George Bush has and is continuing to do a great job on the economy and against terrorism are being less than honest with themselves when they criticize him for preventing suicide bombers from coming to the shores of America.
Kallenites who have not as yet outgrown their professional service to cultural pluralism (or have retired from the trade) are doing themselves and their country a disservice. Liberalism worked well in the mid 19th Cen., and into the seventh decade in America of the 20th Cen. For example, liberalism facilitated the fall of Papal rule in 1858. America underwent a Civil War because progressive forces could not be stopped. The struggle that some of our ancestors were put through in Europe during those years and beyond, must never be forgotten! But now, in America, second and third generation Kallenites are no longer faced with the same oppressive forces that their forefathers faced. America was good to their forefathers. America enabled our parents and grandparents to build a better future for us. We are successful. So why do we still cling to an obsolete philosophy?
Baby boomers thinking about retirement from academe are not going to look to retire to those urban communities that they have been speaking so highly about and defending all their lives in the classroom. (It reminds me of the time when during the Los Angeles riots in April of ‘92, after the minorities started looting; the very same liberals who defended Rodney King – all of a sudden scrambled for handgun licenses because they feared for their lives. They demanded protection from the very same police they were speaking out against – and were, justifiably, fearful that they wouldn’t get it).
Put all the mud-slinging aside for a moment and ask yourself: why change administrations especially at a time like this? Is it not reasonable to suggest that the CIA and Military would work even harder for the current administration given the Bush families history? But not for some transient liberal administration who won’t even tell us what they stand for. If, God forbid, John Kerry were elected, we would go from having a leader with vision and conviction, together with the sacrifices we made to produce that history ... (to then be undercut by an anachronism by the name of George Soros pursuing a personal vendetta)?
By what self-defeating notions of masochism can it be justified that john Kerry -- who is popular in France -- would be as concerned for our collective self-preservation as is George Bush. Kerry's bought and paid for liberalism would run counter to our position in the struggle for geopolitical stability. Perception is everything, and I just can't believe that people would work as hard for a man with no vision.
Hopefully we can reach out to the progeny of the Kallenites and implore them to see the big picture: that it is not too late to try and remember the National Anthem ... and to re-discover the country that enabled our parents to build a better future for us. It’s never too late. Come home and vote for George Bush!
Philip
http://www.onestopinternetshop.com/politicalcommentary 
