My newspaper’s favorite Republican commenter is at it again, in his new piece, “Social Liberalism Not About Live and Let Live.” Jonah Goldberg wrote a piece consisting of a mesh of complaints against liberals. He writes about their opinions, legislation, and actions, in a messy and confusing way. Toward the beginning of his article, Goldberg says that he polices his daughter when it comes to getting a tattoo (of course), and that the government should not instate a 24-hour waiting period for getting a tattoo. The DC department of health proposed the waiting period.
First, Goldberg goes out of his way to mention that the proposal consists of 66 pages, implying that its length is ridiculous. Never mind that plenty of Democrats and Republicans alike have stuffed laws with pork. Also, he fails to mention whether the proposal contains rules that help people avoid the spread of AIDs and other diseases. Instead of explaining, Goldberg decides to keep his counsel when it comes to the contents. It was enough to simply exclaim his discontent.
At one point, he writes, “There is a notion out there that being ‘socially liberal’ means you’re a libertarian at heart, a live-and-let-live sort of person who says ‘whatever floats your boat’ a lot.” First, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that two political brands of libertarianism exist; the right-libertarianism and the left-libertarianism. To which does he refer? Does believe that we should all have to fight for the death for resources, or does he believe that we should live in a state of anarchy? Also, the way Goldberg writes makes it seem like he endorses one of these philosophies? Which one? Anyway, what does “live and let live” actually mean? Does it mean that we remove all possible government organization?
As I and many others have come to believe, that phrase typically means that we do not interfere or overly concern ourselves with other people’s lives. It also encourages people to focus on themselves and live life to the fullest. This phrase seems to apply mostly to the personal lives of people. Goldberg sees a political bent in those words. Apparently, it’s a “pernicious lie” that liberals live by this phrase. Apparently, supporting laws that support equality truly constitute meddling in other people’s lives. What about legislation that affects people positively? A favorite example is desegregation.
It’s important to mention that his style of writing is strange. Goldberg uses parentheses around the words “traditional values.” The phrase “traditional values” is a helpful definition that simply states that recently some people have made moves to adopt new values, while others have kept older values. There is nothing offensive about pointing out changes in how people think. The subpar writing continues Goldberg writes, “The evidence disproving this adorable story of live-and-let-live liberalism comes in the form of pretty much everything else liberals say, do, or believe.” First, our author seems to believe that he knows what this group says or does all of the time. Does he work for the NSA and listen in on all of these conversations? Also, this phrase lumps many diverse people into a monolithic category, and it uses the kind of backhanded insult one might hear in the schoolyard.
He suddenly gets to the meat of the article, saying that these people push “zealous regulation” for “nanny statism.” What follows next is a breathless, 12-sentence stretch where he lists of all the times that liberals supposedly supported laws that overstepped their bounds. Apparently, all liberals past and present wanted to pass all of these laws. It doesn’t matter that some of these laws were voted against by politicians on the left, because they all constitute a monolithic group who thinks and acts the same.
The diatribe includes a potpourri of failings, ranging from opinions to failed legislation to passed legislation. He refers to a candy cigarette law voted upon in 1970 and 1990 that did not pass. He refers to low public amount of support on The Affordable Health Care Act, even though a Stanford study predicted that if people understood the act, the support of the act would have jumped to 70%.
Goldberg goes on. He refers to pornography, sanctioned by the left as long as people use condoms. The upholding of the right to free speech when it comes to pornography is apparently a liberal failing, though that flies in the face of his earlier argument that they regulate too much. Is the mandatory use of condoms the problem that he rails against? Does he find this a problem because he prefers his pornography condom-free? Next, I’ve never in my life seen anyone use quotations around the word ‘art,’ and I hope to never again witness that. Our art critic doesn’t like the art that the government supports. Thus, it doesn’t actually count as art. The list continues and continues. Finally, a few paragraphs later, his final sentence includes a reference to abortion.
In sum, the writing was a very poorly-constructed laundry list of complaints. Though I would agree with Goldberg on a couple of points, his disorganized, overwhelming list of examples does little to inform. In fact, it only obfuscates the actual political situation, and the current discussion at hand.
domesticatedanimals 