Many years ago when I first heard liberals described as “mud-thinkers,” I asked my father what that term meant. He was a TV news commentator, a radio station news director, and political pundit so I assumed he knew the answer. He told me he thought Paul Harvey (a peer he used to work with in Chicago) first came up with the term. He said it was used to describe the way many opinionated liberals seem to think. They are so focused on showcasing their hearts that bleed (“bleeding heart liberal”is another term used to describe them) that they put their hearts before their heads; that is, they allow their emotions to trump (no pun intended) their power to reason.
Columnist Nigel Barber in his article for the liberal-leaning Huffington Post entitled “Why Liberal Hearts Bleed and Conservatives Don’t,” told us that the liberal worldview is mostly the opposite of the uncaring, unfeeling conservative world view. For evidence to support his conclusion, Barber goes on to list a number of liberal opinions which constitute the liberal world view and contrasts this list with his list of opinions of constituting the conservative world view. In this post, I’ll discuss only the liberal world view and my next post will address his opinion of the conservative world view.
Barber begins his list by saying that liberals feel that “the protection of citizens against crime is better left to police and that armed citizens are a threat to those around them.” Of course, some of us may recall what seemed to be a campaign of hate towards our police which was tacitly supported by the Obama administration. This inconsistency provides us with a hint of how ‘mud-think” works.
Next Barber says that “liberals are less religious than conservatives because they perceive the world around them as less threatening. This is an arrogant jibe at the “religious right” who are so obtuse they have to rely on some deity to allay their fears, while liberals rely more on “science, and education, as a means to solve problems.” Of course, a person’s beliefs and religion are very personal, and most well-mannered people understand this subject is taboo in public, but liberals are a determined bunch of zealots for their heart-felt cause and don’t recognize any subject as being off limits once they get on a tear to force their opinion on us through mocking and ridicule. In my discussions with them over the years, they don’t seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be critical of Christianity in particular. They do this even when they should know that religion isn’t even relevant to their point; this is an example of mud-think, the heart ruling the head.
Barber then goes on to say that “liberals are more welcoming to immigrants, and less likely to view foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities as a threat” (this is undoubtedly why liberals are so quick to call conservatives racists.) In their opposition to the wall and failure to come up with an alternative solution to a problem all other civilized nations have addressed, liberals favor open borders. This too is an example of mud-think.
Of course, it occurs to me that one of the reasons liberals may favor immigration, legal and illegal is that they assume there are more immigrants coming into this country who seem to be more concerned about what America can do for them than what they can do for America and will therefore vote for the Democrats who have historically “supported welfare programs for the poor because this may reduce child poverty, as well as reducing crime and social problems.” Mud-think rears its ugly head again when liberals fail to recognize they are harming those who are already in the wagon when they add more to it. Adding more people to the dole will have a negative effect on our economy and reduce the money available in the budget for those citizens already sitting in the wagon. After all, there’s only so much money to spread around. If we print money to pay the increased freight, we bring inflation back.
So then, how do they expect to pay for increasing expenses for social programs? Barber says liberals “are happy to pay their taxes if they believe that the money is being used to improve the quality of life of others whether they are poor.” We understand what Barber is really saying here when he includes on his list the fact that liberals do not believe in “excessive military buildups that drain social spending.” So he is really saying liberals believe the federal budget should prioritize the funding of social programs over funding of our military. Since most Americans at least concede that they at least expect their government to defend them against foreign power aggression, it’s mud-think to want to weaken our military. Of course, there is waste in military spending, but there is waste in most of the budget categories, including our social programs.
Of course, there’s always the prospect of increasing taxes. This is historically the policy of the old “tax and spend” Democrats; but this mud-think mindset is still alive and well in their party today as evidenced by Senator Bernie Sanders’ recent statements which translate into their campaign slogan for November: “Elect us so your taxes will be increased.” Mud-think rears its ugly head when these folks propose this right after we’ve had the biggest tax rate reduction since Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Does that make sense? And, of course, the problem is that many people may still remember what President Obama said about the failure of the welfare programs no matter how much money we throw at them. Liberals ignore this reality and refuse to admit that this has not been money well spent. This too is mud-think.
It’s apparent that liberals just don’t seem to understand basic economics. They say they “rely more on education as a means to solve problems,” but that education doesn’t appear to have involved the study of economics. Economics 101 tells us wealth can only be derived from production. Someone has to pull the wagon for it to move ahead. The liberals’ focus on attaining financial equality (at the expense of liberty) and their attachment to socialism as an economic system inhibits productivity by taking away incentive for people pulling the wagon. Blatantly ignoring that socialism has never worked anywhere in the history of civilization, yet they nonetheless keep trying to implement some form of it in America.
Before we leave the subject of immigration, there’s one more consideration. Liberals seem to have forgotten they once represented their Democratic Party as the labor party. They pay no heed to how immigrants flooding into our country (those who are willing and qualified to work) will probably take some jobs from our citizens; at the very least, the reality that they are willing to work for less will keep wages down. It’s ironic that the party that once used to stand for the working man has subtly switched allegiances to the downtrodden over the years. Of course, enough of the working middle class has recognized this had happened, and that it was one of the major reasons Donald Trump is now president. Their mud-think clouded their recognition of the consequences of their change of heart and focus, and it cost them the election.
Barber seems to recognize the mud-think expressed in his statement “liberals are less interested in family ties” because he then adds “as a protective bubble” in a lame attempt to minimize the importance of the family by referring to the protection he claims conservatives need to deal with a “potentially hostile environment” and their desire to “take precautions and to ensure their own well-being and that of their family.” He glosses over the fact that sociologists have concluded that a breakdown in the family unit is at least partially to blame for some of the ills in our society today. It’s smart and right to focus on the importance of the family, and to believe otherwise is mud-think.
Barber summarizes his list by saying that “conservatives see the world as a more threatening place because their brains predispose them to being fearful….That would help to explain why politics can be so polarized, particularly in rather conservative era like the present.” He says that this “brain biology helps explain many of the quirky differences between Democrats and Republicans.”
I believe in this blog and several others dealing with this subject, I’ve logically made my case that it isn’t our “brain biology” (whatever he means by that term), it’s our theology that determines our world view. Many conservatives are either Christians or people who have been influenced by Christianity and (as I will present in my next post), Barber’s description of the conservative world view does not represent “quirky differences;” indeed, they reflect an essential difference between the liberal and conservative world views and this is based on how we understand the nature and character of God and man’s relationship with him.
Christians are centered on God and look to him for solutions to our problems; that’s why we pray. Statistics show that most liberals are not Christians and in fact affiliate with an atheistic belief system called secular humanism. This belief system is centered on man, and that is why liberals are always looking to man for solutions to our problems. They understand of course that there is something very wrong with our world, but they don’t attribute this phenomenon with sin and don’t believe man is inherently sinful. Nonetheless, they must recognize what every one of us knows in our conscience; there isn’t very much we can do to change our situation to achieve nirvana on earth. No matter how hard we’ve tried over thousands of years, we humans just don’t have the power to force each other to love one another and bring peace into this world. Only God can do this, and he will in due time. The ultimate in mud-think is to believe man can be God; the position’s already taken, and we wouldn’t be any good at it anyway.