One of the most impressive attributes of liberals is their ability to utter meaningless and vacuous statements with confidence.
One such flourish recently came from the Canada's Minister of Democratic Institutions, who said that her government was consulting the Canadian people about electoral reforms the 21st Century way -- by way of Twitter.
Fortunately, the very talented Jason Kenney (and my presumptive favourite to be the leader of the Conservative Party) was there to expose this bravado ably.
Think about another way in which it could have happened however: this Minister likely gives speeches on this issue without rebuttal, and there are many people who would accept her comments because of that confidence, or because of her title.
When I was younger, and liberal, such confidence impressed me. Liberal teachers would say things with such confidence, but without proof (nay at times even logic) that I assumed they must have known something I didn't.
One teacher claimed that Plato had said that the highest income earner should only make seven times (Plato actually said five times) more than the lowest income earner, and that that is the system that we should live by today. For some time I thought that was a fantastic idea. After all, Plato said it!
It was not until my first year of university, after speaking to a particular professor, that I realized that at least as related to the specific political issue we were talking about, he had no better reason for his opinion than a preference. No exceptional evidence, just poise.
And this realization has since been impressed on me when I see people I grew up with, who are now in positions of authority. I'm aware of their flaws and strengths -- some flaws that younger me would have assumed would bar them from such a position!
Since that time, I've become convinced that having a degree or title actually means nothing by itself. On most issues, much of the "knowledge" liberals have could have been just as easily obtained with the infrequent use of a library card in the fiction section.
And the specificity with a PhD candidate writes his thesis means that they often know very little about most other, less obscure, topics.
This actually applies to every area of life: take the title “Secretary of State”, the title which Bill Clinton’s wife recently held and which John Kerry currently holds. If titles themselves were significant, this would be a big one. Yet we now know that Hillary was the one who pushed Obama to depose Gaddafi and pushed Libya to near the point of a failed state.
Kerry also holds more shame than his title would imply: he along with others are having their statements investigated for deceiving Congress on the Iran Nuclear Deal. (But deceiving Congress is kinda how Kerry first took the stage in American politics.)
To really hammer the point home, Justin Trudeau holds the title "Prime Minister of Canada," with all that title's democratic implications. So you would be forgiven for assuming that democratic leaders do not physically abuse opposition members...
Titles count for nothing, what matters is what you do with them.
This applies to people in the media as well. An obvious example is Peter Mansbridge. He is often referred to as a “news reader” rather than a journalist, since apparently he holds no such qualification.
But this also applies to any political commentator you read anywhere, including myself. You know next to nothing about me beyond what you can extrapolate from my profile and hints in my articles. There are some details about me that would impress many of you, and others which I hold close, with shame, merited or unmerited.
Certainly this is true of nearly everyone else engaged in a public capacity.
Men and women are made of flesh and blood. They breath the same air as you and I. Logic does not bend to titles or confidence: when you listen to someone’s opinion, regardless of his/her position, you should presume that if their suggestions sound illogical or reaching to you, regardless of your opinion of your own intelligence, that they are over-estimating their omniscience.
Liberalism itself is like a cult, where everyone assumes that the person above them must know more than they, since no one could possess all the knowledge that liberals suggest they guard. As Anna Simons wrote in "The Company They Keep":
“Most initiations are about the devolution of responsibility. At the same time, initiations often double as long and confused moment of shared truths. Essentially, what the adults, elders, or senior members of the group share with the initiates is the knowledge they possess, and then they will admit to a terrible secret, the secret of the “tribe”- that beyond the knowledge the initiates have been given there is no special knowledge.”
Anna Simons is an anthropologist who has studied the Green Berets and the mental process which recruits go through trying to become a member of the elite force, only to find disappointment once they have achieved their goal; they expected to gain a mysterious power or understanding after reaching the elite level, but none materialized.
Most people do not become Green Berets, or go through the steps it takes to become a person with education or authority. They are left believing in the existence of some secret knowledge. The liberal agenda promises heaven; government can do for you what you cannot do for yourself; the right people who know everything will make things better.
Liberals do not feel any need to learn from experience. Since the utopia they strive for has never been created before, using the old experiences and customs, they must not be worthwhile. And those people were all racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes…
The liberal lusting after authority comes courting. He seems to know what he is talking about, is well-meaning, and he certainly has made you feel better. Behind that confident smile lies either the ignorance that knows not its own, or ambition. All he demands is your freedom.