The Fairness Doctrine

As we head into the next presidential election, it’s worthwhile to discuss the difference between liberal and conservative values. For now I’ll focus on two fundamental points of difference.

I realize, of course, that the phrase “liberal values” is oxymoronic, but that’s another story.

1. The Fairness Doctrine

To a liberal, equality and fairness are synonymous. Hence, any inequality, regardless of source, is fundamentally unfair, and measures must be taken to even out the inequality.

If one man is richer than another man, that’s unfair. It doesn’t matter why one man is richer than another. It doesn’t matter if the rich man is industrious while the poor man is lazy.

For the liberal, there’s something fundamentally unfair about the mere fact of an economic disparity.

If Michael Jordan can shoot hoops better than I can, then that’s unfair, and the liberal solution is to take a baseball bat to his kneecaps.

Now, a conservative doesn’t deny that some inequalities may be unfair. But we don’t equate the two. We take cause and effect into consideration. We don’t merely look at the result, but at the source of the result.

It’s the liberal synonymity between equality and fairness that is driving liberal economics. You must punish financial success since it is unfair for anyone to be more successful than anyone else. The winners must recompense the losers.

This is driving liberal foreign policy, as well as the “war on terror.” It’s inherently unfair that American is more powerful than Iran or Syria. So we must have done something wrong to enrage the jihadis. It’s our fault. We’re to blame.

Suicide bombers are just trying to get even. To even the score.

Incidentally, this is what is driving the global warming scam. It isn’t about environmentalism. Rather, it’s envy of American success.

Liberals and foreigners who hate America want to sabotage the American economy. Cut us down to size. Bring us down to the level of a third-world country.

Mind you, liberals don’t have any problem with rich liberals. Only with rich conservatives.

2. Big Daddy

Liberals believe that the role of government is to function in loco parentis. They feel that you and I require adult supervision.

And they have assigned this role to the judiciary. Judges are the official grown-ups. It is the job of judges, and not the voters, through their elected representatives, to set social policy. Judges play the part of mom and dad, while we are lifelong minors, living under judicial curfew.

Notice that this prerogative was never assigned to the judiciary in the U.S. Constitution. It’s the judiciary that arrogated that authority to itself.

You can see this mentality in the debate over parental consent or even parental notification. Parents cannot be trusted to do the right thing for their pregnant daughter.

Only a judge, or his deputies (i.e. a social worker, or abortionist at Planned Parenthood), can be trusted to look out for the best interests of the girl.

You can see the same mentality at work in the liberal philosophy of taxation. The money you earn is not your own. Your wages are a form of allowance. It all belongs to Uncle Sam. But he will give you a weekly allowance to live on.

And there are also restrictions on how you are permitted to spend your allowance. For example, you’re not permitted to spend your allowance on junk food. On cigarettes or cheeseburgers with transfatty acid.

You’re only permitted to spend your allowance on “healthy” foods like soy burgers and tofu steak.