It is not often that we really get to see into a Modern Liberal’s mind, through the constant fog of euphemisms, evasions, and outright lies. Only over beers will they divulge their deepest, darkest secrets. Most of the time, the public is fed a steady diet of platitudes about tolerance and acceptance and dialog. We should, therefore, thank the mod-liberal Jeffrey Wells for allowing us a glimpse into what’s really going on in their heads.
Following up on his defense of McCarthyite tactics against the actor Jon Voight, who dared to dissent from Hollywood’s Liberal Party line, Jeff Wells lets us know that, deep down where the wild things hide, he thinks “extermination of the right [sic] would theoretically be a reasonably good thing.” Of course, he is quick to add that he is “kidding.”
But is he? Consider the evidence:
[C]onservative righties are essentially defined by selfishness. Because they’re basically the party of "me first, taking care of my own family, the less fortunate need to get their act together and work harder, darker-skinned people are entitled to the good life but a lot of them don’t seem to really get it like we do, I-don’t-know-about-that-global-warming-stuff, I like to play golf and drive my SUV to the hardware store or the country club and do whatever the hell I want within the bounds of reason because that’s what rugged American individualists get to do," etc.
[R]ighties are basically bastards and social Darwinians who live by their belief that the world is for the few.…” [emphasis in original]
Pointing out that this diatribe flies in the face of facts may be lost on Mr. Wells. Not only does it ignore facts, its opening salvo is a self-contradiction. How does a mother or father exhibit a “me first” attitude while also “taking care of [their] ow family?”
A father will sacrifice his working life, day after day after day, at a job he may very well despise, in order to provide for his family. A mother may give up her career so she can stay at home in order to raise and, more than likely, home school the children. This is a “me first” attitude? To quote Tom Hanks in Big, “I don’t get it.”
In addition, it’s difficult to see how ignorant creationist Christians, who make up much of the American right, can be "social Darwinians." The two philosophies tend to be rather at odds with each other these days. Perhaps he hasn’t noticed that.
Concerning the “selfishness” label, Mr. Wells might want to sit down with Arthur C. Brooks, author of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn’t and Why it Matters. Here are two points noted by George Will, from Brooks’ book:
Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Suggesting this book presumes, of course, that Mr. Wells might actually read something other than the New York Times and Hollywood tabloids, which may be a bit of excessive generosity on my part. Oops, looks like my “conservative rightie” selfishness may be slipping.
Wells, like most Modern American Liberals, generally refuses to use “absolute moralist terms like ‘good’ and ‘evil’,” but when it comes to describing conservatives, he will indulge in absolutes simply to “communicate with people.”
One can therefore say that the essential core quality that has to exist as a behavioral platform for evil to flourish is selfishness. Selfishness—"not them but me, not the greater good but mine"—is where all bad and ugly things begin. [Um, what about lack of information, stupidity, adherence to distorted ideologies, etc.? Oh, wait, those are all things that plague mod-liberals, not ordinary people. Never mind.][T]herefore … righties are … evil. [again, emphasis in original]
It is refreshing to see a Modern American Liberal come right out and say what we all know most of them are thinking. Clarity over agreement, as Dennis Prager always says.
(Given this caricature of the great majority of humanity, some might wonder what would inspire Harry Stein to write I Can’t Believe I’m Sitting Next to a Republican.)
Later in his article, Wells attempts to withdraw the charge that conservatives are evil by saying, “their core instincts and beliefs allow for a behavioral climate and philosophy that feeds and winks at the essence of evil.” So we are not evil, per se, you see. We simply Foster an Environment That Allows Evil to Flourish. Well, I’m glad we got that cleared up.
Wells, however, is just getting warmed up. “Righties”:
only care about their own rice bowl. Because they’re still stone cold in love with the idea of being John Wayne on horseback with a rifle at the ready, and because their party is the house that welcomes and pays lip service to all the ignorant crazies out there—the beer-gut yahoos and birthers and anti-stem-cell researchers, Minutemen and hee-haw Christians (which is to say fantasists who need to believe in absurd mythology in order to embrace morality). They are the party of "hey, what about the way things used to be when rock-solid white people basically controlled everything?
This is so rich in self-righteousness, stupidity, and illusions it’s worth looking at closely:
“only care about their own rice bowl”—except when we’re voluntarily handing it over to the poor who are ignored and kept in poverty by government programs created by Modern American Liberals, and when the modlibs are wresting it from our grasp to empty it into the government’s coffers.
“Because they’re still stone cold in love with the idea of being John Wayne on horseback with a rifle at the ready”—meaning, standing in defense of those who cannot or will not defend themselves.
"and because their party is the house that welcomes and pays lip service to all the ignorant crazies out there—the beer-gut yahoos and birthers”—the birthers are a little nutty, I’ll grant him that; but Wells’s notion that Michael Moore and the Soros crowd are anything other than abysmally ignorant and crazy immediately disproves any claim to sanity on his part.
“and anti-stem-cell researchers”—except, well, all of us on the right, as we all strongly support adult stem cell research, which, together with core blood stem cells, is the only stem cell research that has actually produced positive results.
"Minutemen and hee-haw Christians (which is to say fantasists who need to believe in absurd mythology in order to embrace morality)”—what would a modlib screed be without a shot at Christians, who will respond by praying
for Mr. Wells’ soul?
"They are the party of ‘hey, what about the way things used to be when rock-solid white people basically controlled everything"—right, as in the perfect, Democrat-controlled South until a bunch of white, “rightie” Republicans got together and passed civil rights legislation.
Modern Liberals, Wells tells us, are the epitome of all that is good and pure. Only they “will address the financial plundering of the last 30 years.” Only they “will stop or least slow the advance of global pollution.” Ultimately, Wells admits,
In a perfect liberal world, the selfishness of the truly obstinate righties … would simply not be tolerated any more.
Given how conservatives are currently so well tolerated in the classroom, the film production office, the television studio, the newsroom, and at college faculty meetings, it strikes me that Modern Liberals have already created the “perfect liberal world.”
So what’s Wells’ problem? Liberals just haven’t gone far enough. “In a perfect liberal world” conservatives would not only not be tolerated, programs would be established to “[e]xterminate, forbid or significantly reduce selfishness,” which would result in “a better world. Therefore the extermination of the right would theoretically be a reasonably good thing.”
If Jeffrey Wells “ran things they would all be rounded up and sent to green internment camps for reeducation,” he says.
Perhaps realizing just how much the suds have gone to his head, Wells adds, immediately after that last sentence, “All right, I’m kidding.”
Not buying it, Mr. Wells. That’s an awful lot of bile, hatred, vitriol, and verbal machine-gun-pointing to wave away with an offhand “I’m kidding.” Plus, none of it is the slightest bit humorous. George Carlin you ain’t.
If only Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad etc., etc., etc. had added that little "I’m kidding" after their mass murders. Maybe then we would not have needed all those John Wayne types standing at the wall, “with a rifle at the ready” willing to give their very lives to stop tyrants from creating their “perfect liberal worlds.” Then all these conservative “righties” wouldn’t be around to stand in the way of the modlibs’ brilliant stabs at social perfection, such as cap & trade and national health insurance.
After his preferred, Marxist-style extermination of all the rude Americans who stubbornly stand in the way of his brilliant schemes for all of mankind, the only thing that might remain at which Wells could vent his spleen would be the Muslim “fantasists who need to believe in absurd mythology in order to embrace morality,” whom he somehow fails to consider in his screed.
That presumes, of course, that those particular “fantasists” would allow Mr. Wells to keep using up oxygen. When they came after him, he might develop an appreciation for all those John Wayne types who keep the rest of us safe. If not for their protection of our freedoms, we would never know what Modern Liberals will honestly admit “over beers.”
It rather makes you wonder what the Beer Summit would have been like without Officer Crowley’s presence.
Daniel Crandall is director of campus programs for The Culture Alliance.