Liberalism defined and the Obama’s are shining examples

Liberal:

1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She’s so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.

3. having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique

Okay, so the above definition is actually for the word “naive,” but can you tell the difference?

I’m going to dismiss the aspect of liberalism that seeks power through promises to the voters by creating greater dependency on government programs. I’ll even acknowledge the sincere goals of helping people held by most liberals.

But reading the President’s remarks at West Point May 28th and considering his actions in the world and at home, I think the above definition is quite appropriate. Good intentions with inadequate understanding of human nature, collective and individual, and also a blind eye toward history will get you nowhere in the long run. But sadly, people believe the unbelievable.

And then we have the noble effort of the First Lady to get school children to eat healthier lunches. The initiative is driving up costs for school districts, but more significant; schools report kids leave salad bars untouched and throw away fruit and vegetables … human nature in this case means PB&J (unless it’s banned). Those who question the viability and effectiveness of the effort are labeled as hurting children. Has anyone looked at a children’s restaurant menu lately or what kids eat when with their parents?

Here is another example from an e-mail sent by The Center for American Progress:

Many middle-class families struggle with modest job growth, slow income growth, high poverty, and a lack of employer-sponsored benefits, while corporate profits remain high. Progressive policies such as a higher minimum wage, extended unemployment insurance benefits, and affordable health insurance can contribute to stronger economic and job growth and lead to more and better economic opportunities for millions of middle-class Americans.

Wait‼️ Middle-class families are living in poverty❓Progressive policies❓Haven’t we been following progressive policies for the last five plus years (of modest job growth)❓The progressive policy to push home ownership even among the ill equipped is the root cause of the Great Recession‼️ Lack of employer-sponsored benefits❓You mean the benefits that government policy and regulation are helping to destroy❓Affordable health insurance-stronger economic growth❓Well maybe, if we had actually made health insurance affordable rather than merely moving costs from this group to another, you know, like the mandates on employer coverage under Obamacare or the new fees on employers to subsidize insurance companies in the exchanges or the Cadillac tax on generous health plans which is causing employers to cut benefits and thereby shift more costs to workers; is that what is meant by affordable❓

See, it all sounds great until you look at the consequences, the reality, the price, the big picture. If you want to solve a problem, solve it. Don’t mask it, create a new problem or fail to objectively measure results in favor of naive assumptions of success simply because it appears to be a good thing to do.