Throughout the history of politics there has been an aura of give and take; commonly called the compromise. This still happens today in most instances, but rather than a substantive debate on the issues, liberals have resorted to humiliation with the help of the media to win the hearts and minds of the public through an emotional, instead of an intellectual debate. These battles range from everything as trivial as campaign finance reform all the way to the serious issues like abortion, which splits the American electorate.

Let's examine the some of the key issues that are spotlighted and where the opposing sides stand. The present issue that permeates the media is gun control. The President and his cronies are chasing every gun tragedy and parading it in front of the American people in order to further deteriorate gun owners' rights and the Second Amendment. Gun advocates are constantly put on the defensive simply by exercising a Constitutional right, and they are demonized as extremists. Gun owners' rights are becoming more difficult to secure with every story of gun violence that makes the news. Presently, there are over 20,000 different gun laws on the books, and antigun zealots are pushing for more without even enforcing existing laws. Citizens are being forced to give up more of their rights to the point where honest citizens are looked at as a criminal element for defending their rights. There is no compromise when it comes to gun legislation. Liberals want more, and if you dare to stand in their way, you are a right-wing zealot. We can give accounts where guns have saved lives, but the only focus will remain on the tragedies, which are mostly behavioral rather than gun-related.

Another topic on which these tactics are used is tobacco. The smokers have been under a slow and steady barrage of legislation since the mid Seventies. We all know that smoking can be harmful to our health, but it is a choice that we make, and it is still legal the last time that I checked. Thus is another area where liberals will incrementally legislate your life and then demonize their opponents when a valid defense is put forth. It started with acceptable measures such as printing warnings on tobacco products, but this was the first of many steps to make people who exercise free choice literally pay. Since the warnings were issued, legislation was passed to make nonsmoking areas in restaurants and public places. Once this has settled in, the smoking Nazis went on to pass legislation that made it illegal to smoke in many buildings, mostly state and federal.

Then came the individual cities and counties that banned its public workers from smoking even on their own time. Their argument was based on the increased cost of healthcare burden due to the higher premiums that smokers are forced to pay already. The obvious following maneuver was for state and federal lawsuits against the companies that make tobacco, still a legal product. The reasoning behind this was to pay for the increased costs for the medical community due to smokers. When the settlement money started rolling in, the money seemed to be earmarked for other purposes. Big surprise there! What was never mentioned was the fact that smokers already were taxed for their habits and already pay higher insurance premiums for choosing to smoke. I would like to know where the existing tax base from smokers was spent on if not for their so-called extra burden on society.

Now let's examine an issue near and dear to the hearts of many conservatives, that being abortion. Conservatives have been trying to limit, if not eliminate the cruel practice of abortion ever since the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade. Abortions are not a constitutionally protected right, but pro-abortion advocates speak of it as such. Pro-life advocates have tried even to pass simple laws such as banning both late term abortions in which the child can survive outside of the womb, and the hideous practice of "partial-birth abortion. This is the procedure where labor is induced and the baby is then killed. When Pro-life forces try to pass even basic legislation such as this, the outcry from pro-abortion forces is deafening. They scream from the mountain tops that we are trying to eliminate their right to choose. There is no compromise on their part; any attempt to limit abortions is intrusive and reeks of totalitarianism. When it is suggested that some sort of tax or levies be placed on abortions in order to reduce them, pro-lifers are immediately accused of trying to financially harm the poorest in our society. This argument is made in spite of the fact that conservatives made this same argument regarding the increased taxes on smokers. Study after study proves that the lower income people make up the majority of the smoking population, but this didn't deter them from making the poor pay in this instance.

If we look at the arguments on all of these issues, on the surface they all appear to have identical goals in mind, to save lives. But the perspectives in which they are viewed are totally different, one of logic and the other strictly emotion-based.

The bitterness of these issues stems from two things, the liberals' unwillingness to compromise and conservatives being forced to submit to the wishes of the left. Until liberals open their blind eyes to the duplicity of their arguments, we will never attain a civil debate, nor a solution to the social ills that plague our society.

Written by Ray Patrick

Go Back

Go to Main Index