Hillary Clinton 5

Liberalism is in a curious position right now. Liberals often say that everything is a matter of preference. In popular culture, some people prefer Apple. Others prefer Microsoft. Some people like to dance; others, don't. In other words, there are really no moral values at play when someone makes a decision. People prefer to be good because it guarantees that they go to heaven. People who are good for the sake of goodness are even better than those who are good because of heaven, a reward for being good.

But it is hard to find a person who is purely good for goodness sake. In theological lingo, only God is good for goodness sake. Also, I believe that in all humans, there is an element of pride in being good. Being good satisfies one's pride and this is also a lifestyle choice or a cultural choice. So there is really no good or evil except in the very extremes. I believe that this is what liberals are saying. Most people are in the middle and they prefer one thing or the other and often, it is a matter of taste or convenience or comfort.

Stuck in the middle, most people have a "hermeneutics of suspicion." This is a loaded term in liberal deconstructionism. Most power structures have a center that is protected from criticism. They have power, but it is implied that they cannot be criticized. Freemasons, WASPS, Illuminati, Neoconservatives and other elite or secret societies have been seen as possessing this coveted space of power and exclusion. This power elite is seen as possessing a secret agenda. Their language is coded and they are full of double-speak... language which conveys one thing to an initiate and another to everyone else.

It's a curious thing, but it is now liberals who possess this coveted space in society and politics. They too are full of double-speak and feel that they should be excluded from criticism. But why is that?

Another feature of current liberalism is that everything depends on context. There's no denial in my mind that a culture changes, but it is another thing to say that everything depends on context. Liberals, I believe, are saying that moral values depends primarily on context. Now, the first question I have is: if everything really depends on context, why should "abortion" be legal now? There are plenty of contreceptives and birth control pills now. Outside of rape whether in war or in civilian life, why should abortion be legal? The second question I have is: "Who decides what the moral values of a culture is?"

Liberalism, in other words, with its hermeneutics of suspicion and its belief in an absolute moral relativism has helped create this world that we live in. We live in a society in which a certain, select group tries to take over the power structure of that society by building a fictitious narrative around itself, highlighting only the good qualities and white-outing the negatives. We live in a rather value-less society in which people try to pump up their preferences into an absolute realm beyond the skies. We live in a society in which people feel entitled to live their lifestyles no matter how decadent it may be.

Curiously enough, the statement that "liberals" are the party of the minorities also rings hollow. In the Republican Primary, you had an erudite, black man... a Hispanic man... a pastor... a WASP... and Donald Trump. Who are the liberal candidates? I don't think there's much difference between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Bernie Sanders says some common sensical things, but his general economic plan will never work.