We Should Give Liberals What They Want

One way I part ways with mainstream conservatism is that I believe liberals should generally get what they want for themselves. The problem with letting liberals have their way is that they're always trying to impose their will on everyone else. It's not enough that 99 bakers in town are more than happy to decorate a gay wedding cake. The one that refuses is an oppressive heretic and must be coerced by the power of the state. My major complaint with liberals is that they operate as a neo-Inquisition. My other complaint is that they are destroying the nation, but increasingly I don't consider them part of my nation. They are defectors, so who cares what they do to themselves?

I believe we should have universal healthcare...for liberals. If you vote Democrat (a fair enough approximation for liberal) you are subject to both the costs and benefits of the healthcare. Otherwise, you can opt out. Anyone opposing such a plan is effectively admitting that liberal programs need conservatives to play the role of tax mules for the schemes to function. This logic applies to all similar programs as well, such as free college.

I believe we should have gun control...for liberals. (An idea originally put forth by Scott Adams.) Liberals believe that more gun control is better. Well, banning liberals from owning guns fits the bill. Moreover, it would specifically apply to the segment of society most inclined to abuse gun rights. Remove firearms from just a handful of the worst Democrat-run cities and America's high gun-crime rate magically becomes a low gun-crime rate. We should really push this idea, as it would force them to complain that such a law would unfairly put them at risk.

I believe we should encourage homosexuality and self-inflicted castration...for liberals. If all liberals became gay tomorrow, and we were able to encourage/enable conservatives to pick up the reproductive slack, most of our major problems would solve themselves in a generation.

In so many ways, the best course of action is to give them what they want, while holding ourselves to a better standard. Here's a contentious one. I believe we should allow cheap and easy abortions...for liberals. Perhaps we could even train the staff to shame them a bit for engaging in heterosexual contact, a relic behavior of the oppressive patriarchy. Really embrace the lefty dogma and run with it. It's not a very pragmatic approach, unfortunately, because abortion is the one social issue that gets many Republican voters energized. Take that away and the Democrats become empowered to impose the full brunt of their agenda upon us.

The March for Life was just held in Washington, and had a stronger turnout than the recent Women's March. The turnout is strong every year, and the media normally tries to ignore it the best they can. Our good friend Ben Shapiro made an appearance, and ended up losing some of his sponsors over it, as reported by Tim Pool. Shapiro decided to spin his speech into an episode of his podcast, which included plugging his podcast sponsors. Hijacking the event to recite commercials for toothbrushes is tacky, and companies withdrew support because they never intended to endorse the anti-abortion event and didn't want to have to deal with the political fallout. Shapiro is the guy you advertise with when you want to reach a conservative audience without risk of controversy. Here is one excerpt from his speech, which Pool plays in his video. Try to read it in his frantic, nasally cadence for full effect.

The argument, I guess here, is that would you kill baby Hitler? And the truth is that no pro-life person on earth would kill baby Hitler, alright, because baby Hitler wasn't Hitler. Adult Hitler was Hitler. Baby Hitler was a baby. And what presumably you want to do is take baby Hitler out of his house, and move baby Hitler into a better house where he would not grow up to be adult Hitler, alright? That's the idea.

Liberals are obsessed with Hitler, and Shapiro is no exception. What you have here is the densest rate of Hitler references of any political argument in all history. Quite a feat for the boy wonder. Tim Pool, a liberal, agrees with the sentiment but ridicules it as inane. The conservative take should be that the whole argument is flawed, not just because it invokes Hitler ten times in twenty seconds, but because it ignores all social dynamics. (Remember, Shapiro is a hyper-individualist.) The way you stop Nazis is to not have Weimar. Whether you kill baby Hitler or rescue him from his upbringing is immaterial, because someone else will just step into the role that society demands: a heavy-handed reaction to an era of decadence.

A rule of thumb for conservatives: don't invoke Hitler. Especially if you have a national audience. It got Sean Spicer into trouble, and now Shapiro is feeling the pinch. Hitler is the liberal word for Satan. Leave it alone as best you can, otherwise you are adopting their moral framework. Comparing everything to Hitler is giving liberals what they want, but remember, our goal is to give liberals what they want but only for themselves.