Back to Opinion Back to Home

For The Children

    If the children are the future of this nation then I am very worried for the nation and for them. This is because liberalism has discovered the children, and has decided to take them on as a cause. Judging from the results of the liberal activities regarding minorities, housing, medicine, education, crime, and many other popular causes, I don't care to have these people making any kind of comprehensive policy regarding our children. In every field where liberalism has imposed it's unwelcome help upon us, things have deteriorated markedly. Poverty has increased since the implementation of liberal anti poverty programs. The inner city of today is a far more dismal place than that of fifty years ago, before liberal policies regarding housing, civil rights and welfare were enacted. Liberal policies regarding rehabilitation and the rights of criminals have been rewarded with a soaring crime rate. The liberal policies and flirtation with the drug culture have trivialized the use of some drugs, and introduced a frightening level of acceptance into the general culture. Yet these same people presume to legislate for the proper handling of our children by their parents. Apparently, along with being better judges of what is good for us than we ourselves are, these people are also better suited to decide how best to serve the welfare of our children. Many draconian measures have already been passed, and many more proposed with the assurance that their interference in our lives is a small price to pay "if it will save the life of one child." It is a poor policy which enacts laws according to the if of what they might accomplish. I for one would like to know who this child might be, and I would like to see if, and how, these convoluted efforts have saved him, and from what. I would also like to know what protects him, and the rest of us, from the consequences of all of these new liberal policies enacted to save us from ourselves, and from those who would put themselves over us. It is unfortunate that this endangerment of children must occur in order for the advancement of liberal policies, but it is one of the better tools that they have found, and so it is used.
    This has been a big feature of the liberalism of the last thirty or forty years, this idea of standing up for the rights of the helpless and the oppressed. It may just be coincidence that in all of these cases the advocates have been helped much more than those they claimed to be aiding. The major occupation of most activist groups today seems to be fund raising, along with "education". Of course, the liberal definition of education may be somewhat nearer the dictionary definition of propaganda. In liberalspeak, education means presenting the "progressive" position, along with whatever subjective and objective arguments have been constructed to back it up, while discrediting opposing viewpoints. In less enlightened times, this may have been called manipulation, or even brainwashing, but we all know that liberalism is too fine a thing to use such methods. So essentially these groups exist to support numbers of people who are paid to express their opinions, and to impose their view of order upon society. Self righteous, self satisfied, and well paid, nice work if you can get it. The main purpose of these groups, besides supporting themselves, seems to be to engage in an effort to get us to pay for government programs which will hire vast armies of people like themselves for administration. These accomplish little towards the solution of the problems, as can be seen by present day conditions, but they do provide government jobs for liberals, and a nice warm and fuzzy feeling. It would be nice if this were the end of it; if you could just pay these people off in this fashion and be left alone, but they insist upon actually doing something. Unlike biological parasites, these self important bureaucrats are not satisfied with merely living off of their host, they wish to make it over into their own image.
    Helping the oppressed is good business. Like an old time medicine show, it may not do much good, but it certainly is profitable, and is often quite entertaining. There is even the off hand chance that a dose of patent medicine may do the occasional bit of good. Unfortunately, liberalism, like patent medicine, often does quite a bit of harm, either directly, or by taking the place of a proper cure. Like the health of the patent medicine purchaser, it seems as if the lives of children were much better back before our society was so greatly improved and advanced by these quick cures. Though children were expected to show more respect, were vested with fewer rights, and were less graced with self esteem years ago, they did have some things that children today are sadly in need of. At the top of the list would be a stable family, though physical security, a structured environment, and a useful education would be other good candidates. It should be noted that the erosion of all of these things came as a result of the liberal policies enacted to feed the all encompassing self indulgence which is at the true heart of modern liberalism. In the light of all of their progress so far, it seems as if the best thing that the liberals could do "for the children" would be to resign, and let those who have children use love as a guide, rather than a set of government standards. A sincere advocate of what is best for children might actually take this suggestion, but different motivations, having to do with self empowerment, would produce a different reaction.
    Alfred Hitchcock, the great movie director, coined the term Macguffin to refer to a central motivation for the characters in his movies. A Macguffin might be a store of uranium, in one movie, and some secret microfilm in another, or a piece of priceless artwork, or perhaps a famous diamond. The Macguffin was the reason for the various chases, murders, betrayals, heroics, and efforts of the players. One of the recurring themes in his work was that it would involve ordinary characters placed into extraordinary situations by the influence of the Macguffin. It would entice them into all sorts of risky, strange and downright bizarre behavior. Whatever the Macguffin was, it made no difference to the plot. The plot could be written beforehand, and the  Macguffin inserted with hardly a rewrite needed. Liberalism has many Macguffins, "the children" being only the latest in a long line. As in the movies, the plot remains the same, with hardly a rewrite needed. So having the welfare of "the children" set before us, the director would have us accept and support all sorts of risky, strange, and downright bizarre behavior on their behalf. In other words, we are to accept and even applaud invasive liberal policies. These policies tend to encompass a broad field, so that "the children" insert themselves not only into social, and welfare bills, but into legislation regarding automobiles, gun control, health care, entertainment, taxes, education, and just about any other subject on the liberal agenda. The liberals have made a bit of a sordid B production out of this; had Hitchcock possessed the same material he could have directed it with much more style, and intelligence.
    As a Macguffin, a path to power, or a means to advance an agenda, "for the children" is an ideal tool. How can a person of good conscience argue against such a ploy? It may be relevant to argue that one's own safety is one's own business in regards to government regulations, and policies, but it would seem a heartless and shallow point of view when concerning the welfare, and best interests of the children. Any one arguing against such a point of view would be instantly disparaged, and discredited, whatever the facts presented or the logic employed. Few are willing to risk having their character impugned, and their motives made suspect by arguing against the validity of a Macguffin such as this. Only at a time when religion was taken seriously, was there a force which could so easily sway and command, that the mere mention of it would silence all argument, and quell all opposition. Religion no longer wields the force it once had to influence the affairs of men. Generations of abuse by men using it to their own ends has sapped it of much of it's credibility. Decades of liberal contempt and attack have undermined, and corrupted many of it's beliefs, and institutions. The men who have served themselves in this way are no credit to us and are of no service to their creator or to those who wish to know and serve him. Discrediting, and demeaning religion in an attempt to use it to their own ends, they have destroyed it's utility to themselves. It seems as if a generation from now we may all be as unmoved by the sufferings of children as we now are unconcerned with religious matters. Once a subject is used up, and milked of all of it's political advantage, it loses much of it's power to move us, and may be cast aside by those who had once promoted it so strongly. As it was, with many of the hypocritical religious politicians of a century past, so it will go with many preaching civil rights, child welfare, and other progressive policies today. Of course, there are some true believers; what of them?
    There is a mindset, among some, which sees all of the citizenry, but particularly the children, not as citizens, but as property. Property must be protected, and it must be properly configured (in the case of humans taught) to best serve the requirements of it's owners. This is an attitude associated with communism, and dictatorial governments, but for many on the left, these forms of government are considered worthy of emulation. The true believers, though less contemptible than those who use these controversies to further their own ends, are more frightening. These are the people who will remove a child from a home because it has been disciplined, but give custody of a baby to a single mother who is a drug addict, a criminal, or both. The reason for this paradox is simple once you understand the mindset of social activism. The poor single mother, drug addict, or whatever, has made a mistake, is misunderstood, is a victim, etc. etc. We must understand, forgive, and give encouragement to this person in her failure. The responsible parent who sets out to teach, discipline, and mold the character of her offspring, is setting out to do this deliberately, and can not be countenanced. Mistakes, errors, and criminal behavior can be understood and worked with. Attitudes in opposition to present doctrine will not be tolerated. The foster homes, and holding facilities into which these children are placed, are often worse than all but the most abusive households.
    The biggest danger to children, and the ultimate form of abuse, in my opinion, is abortion. As outspoken as much of the left is about protecting the rights of children, they are equally outspoken about their own rights to kill the children before they are born. This is yet another reflection of the liberal abhorrence of any annoyance, inconvenience, encumbrance, or trouble. We should all be exempt from the burden of any responsibility, expectations, unpleasantness, or the need to sublimate any of our urges. This gives us the right to not have a child if we don't care to, even to the extent that we should be allowed to kill it. On the other hand, once the child is born, it too should not have any responsibility, expectations, or unpleasantness imposed upon it by the parents (under possible penalty of law). It may be that many of the true believers have never quite grown up themselves, and are still resentful of their own parents. They may still be rebelling against parental authority, and seek satisfaction by giving the youngest generation all of the tools to fight with that they would have liked to have had back in their own youth. Whatever their reasoning, our friends on the left might want to reconsider their stand on abortion before getting all self righteous about a parent's right to spank, and educate. To use their own line of reasoning: "If it would save one child."