A Grand Unified Theory-Explaining Liberalism

Every once in a while, someone taps a mother lode of brilliance that makes the pieces of a puzzle long in disarray finally fit together. In listening to Glenn Beck's radio program the other day, I stumbled onto his discussion of why liberals do the crazy things they do. And suddenly, it all made perfect sense. In an insane way, of course.

Beck was talking about a book that was written about Woodrow Wilson (Beck refers to it as "Woodrow Wilson and the History of the Liberal Movement" in case you're interested) in which the focus was on the "progressive" movement in the early 20th century. Wilson, a college professor and intellectual well before he entered politics, was one of the best-known and certainly powerful progressives of that time. Just what did being a "progressive" back then mean? Well, as it turns out, the key issue around which the progressive movement revolved (or maybe "evolved" is a better descriptor) was Darwinian evolution. And as Beck put it, the theory of evolution has, from the beginning of the progressive movement in America, assumed a highly political flavor.

Think for a moment about the concept of biological evolution and how that can color one's world view. Surely if the animal kingdom, plant life, and humans are all continuously evolving, then it's easy to infer that the way we live and the things in which we believe are constantly evolving as well. And if that is the case, then it's no wonder today's progressives see the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other founding documents as hopelessly out of date and "living," that is, malleable to the evolving times we live in.

Picturing Darwinian evolution as the centerpiece of progressive thought makes it a lot easier to understand liberals' ferocious stand against teaching impressionable schoolchildren any other theory about where the earth and all that is in it came from. Believing in evolution can easily be extrapolated to believing that what the Founding Fathers did was not a wondrous, unique event in world history but rather quite ordinary and relevant only for the times in which they lived. That's one reason why in recent years we hear more negatives about Washington and Jefferson (slaveowners, rich white guys, Deist versus Christian, etc.) than positives. The implication is that they and others like them were just ordinary guys who happened to do well in their time but whose world view and opinions no longer apply. And by the way, if one believes that most of the founders were Deists, the case can be made that they placed little if any reliance on a God who created everything but then became totally passive and unreachable. If the largely atheistic Darwinists can paint the founders as Deists who believed in a distant, uninvolved God, then it strengthens their argument that this nation was not founded on Christian principles-even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was.

On the flip side, if Intelligent Design is allowed into the classrooms of America and begins to erode the credibility of the Darwinists, then it could bring down the progressives' vision like the proverbial house of cards. Although they would never admit it, the possibility has certainly crossed their minds that, given the holes in Darwin's theory, ID could (and already has) raised some serious questions about Darwinism. This the progressives simply cannot afford to allow.

So, we conservatives are up against an enemy who sees us as the chief barrier to their glorious vision of progress. This explains a lot of their contempt and disdain for us. It's like we're the one kid on the playground who doesn't own or want to own the latest designer sneakers and is ridiculed for it.

It also explains candidate Obama's messianic tendencies and his playing of the race card or other specious arguments to denounce anyone who dares to criticize his statements or positions. We, his opposition, are viewed as annoying insects to be swatted away in the name of progress. George W. Bush's presidency is viewed by the progressives as eight wasted years of wandering in the wilderness instead of continuing the progressive march forward. This is how Obama can look a 7-year-old girl in the eye and make the audacious statement that "America isn't what it used to be" as if he and his kind are the only ones who can "fix" it. It matters not a whit to him that an impressionable child has had a seed of doubt planted about the innately special qualities of her country.

When we observe the "mainstream" media, university professors and administrators, and liberals in Congress marching to the same tune, it's easy to believe in conspiracy theories-that these groups pass out daily talking points between themselves to convey a consistent message. However, the Soviet Union, which promised that someday they would take us over without firing a shot, is long gone. Perhaps their agents who did infiltrate high positions in our government and other institutions in years past did some lasting damage. But this Grand Unified Theory now explains how these groups can march in lockstep even without the conspiracies. A sobering thought, indeed, and one for Republicans to ponder as they continue pandering to Democrats whose wish is eradicate them.