We All Pay The Bill for Liberalism

by Professor Jack

I have observed that sometimes, perhaps often, the social pathologies so lamented by liberals are the fruits of—you guessed it—liberal polity itself. Liberal sentiment turned into law and institutions are, for instance, at the center of the despoliation of the American inner-city black family and neighborhood.


Liberals create a problem with their social engineering and then come to the rest of us to foot the bill. When we complain, they tell us how insensitive, how cold-hearted, how greedy, we are.


They have run up a bill of trillions of dollars with top-heavy, socialistic, Thirties-style social programs like Obamacare, and then tell us that our resultant impoverishment is the new norm. Nice people, eh?


The recent incidence of human trafficking is another case in point. There is no doubt that human trafficking is a terrible scandal and a human tragedy beyond words. Nor is there any doubt that Christians should be involved in ending this practice. Girls and young women are kidnapped or bought on a kind of black market and then transported illegally to those who wish to pay for them as sex slaves or domestic bondservants. Furthermore, there is little doubt that a primary impulse behind human trafficking is a complex ganglion of greed, sadism and lust. But let’s look closer, and ask: Why is sex trafficking so widespread?


One of the key reasons is abortion. This is especially true in India, Asia and China, where a generation of selective abortions has produced societies short of marriageable women. Liberal feminist Mara Hvistendahl, in her recent book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men,  tells us that the world is short about 163 million women, who apart from this “gendercide” would be with us today. As a keen social observer, Hvistendahl understands the line between lopsided demographics and violent, dangerous societies.


Demi Moore is on board this same issue, crusading against the sex trafficking of Nepalese women into India, which has had its own version of selective abortion. Abortion, once it was made common and actually promoted by governments, led inadvertently to varieties of population control that have resulted in societies that must resort to human trafficking to balance the gender scales.


Yet abortion, in the guise of “choice,” is a holy object among liberals, and the very progressives who deplore human trafficking are staunchest in their defense of casual and volitional termination of pregnancy.


Is it too much to hope that liberals will ever own up to the baleful consequences of so many of their cherished ideals?  It probably is, though from time to time a liberal here or there comes around. This usually takes the form of a conversion, as in the recent case of playwright David Mamet. But for the most part, the psychological defenses are too strong, and the liberal never leaves the precincts of his or her sentiments and intentions to actually examine, empirically, the end product of it all.


We do indeed bear the Left Man’s Burden.