There Is Just No Satisfying Liberals

What is 2011 if not a dramatic global outworking of the abysmal failures of liberalism? Their failures are everywhere, but liberals are no closer to abandoning their political theology than they were, say, five years ago.
Every marginally intelligent person must know that events unfolding in Britain are a likely foreshadowing of what's in store for us if we don't radically alter our ways. Unchastened and undaunted, liberals keep their collective foot on the big-government accelerator. There's no governor on the liberal golf cart.
For years, the more responsible among us have been warning about spending and unsustainable entitlements, and the left has mocked. But this past year, it's as if God has been trying, with increasingly urgent alarms, to get our attention, to no avail.
Tea partyers tried to hold the line during the debates of the continuing resolutions and debt ceiling, only to be vilified. But the national debt continues to explode as if to resoundingly validate conservatives as reasonable and their spending-addicted opponents as extremists. For liberals, too much government is never enough.
We were told that unless we lifted the debt ceiling, our credit rating would be downgraded and the markets would collapse. Most Republicans signed on to the deal under duress, which ended up neither preventing nor delaying the downgrade or the market free fall. But that was no problem for liberals, who simply changed their warnings after the fact, now saying it was the wrangling over the ceiling, not the underlying debt, that was responsible. Liberals are not to be held to account for what they said yesterday.
In a move ostensibly aimed at containing the plummeting market, Obama bounced out once again to his trusted prompter. But instead of acknowledging his culpability for the unfolding national nightmare -- for which he, at the very least, is blocking remedial action -- he wagged his skinny finger of blame, saying it is everyone's fault but his. Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry.
Meanwhile, we got another stern jolt of reality from across the pond as one of Europe's primary poster nations for the grand socialist experiment implodes into abject violence before our eyes. We witnessed the very beneficiaries of government largesse exhibiting their gratitude as they stole from an already beaten and bloodied man and forced people to strip naked to prove they'd not withheld any assets.
It was unnecessary to speculate as to the causes of this unrest. Audiotapes of the inebriated women justifying the despicable behavior on the basis of income inequality told us all we needed to know.
But British liberals are as impervious to proof as their American counterparts. A video linked on National Review Online featured a British Labour Party liberal condemning the protesters' violence through one cheek and sympathizing with their plight on the other, thereby further excusing and enabling their behavior. Her party injected the addict with addictive substances yet castigates conservatives who call for an intervention.
There is just no satisfying liberals. No amount of money thrown at a project can ever be enough, because you can't solve problems by throwing money at them, especially when that money comes with federal demands attached and leads to diminished local control. They'll always demand more -- even when we are wholly bankrupt. Always. No exceptions.
Indeed, if there were ever a test case to see whether exceptions exist, whether there are some limits to the rapacious liberal appetite for spending, our current debt picture and economic malaise provide it. But they won't even countenance the thought of counseling, much less patient rehab.
Like their addicted wards, liberals remain in perpetual denial, continually giving themselves a pass for their disastrous policies because of their allegedly good intentions. But how noble is it to stoke the dark human passions of greed, jealousy, envy and covetousness? How commendable is it to foment resentment among the races, genders and different income groups? How virtuous is it to promote policies that rarely, if ever, live up to their promises?
Should we lavish praise on President Obama for his simulated compassion when his press secretary, Jay Carney, insists that extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, willfully ignoring both common sense and empirical evidence, which contradict the claim? Must we laud Obama for his unrelenting demands for more "stimuli" that not only don't work but also will further impoverish us and our posterity?
It must be easy to be a liberal. When your policies don't work, you just change the goal posts and say we haven't done enough -- and then demand more.
Honestly, close your eyes and try to imagine a scenario in which liberals would ever say that enough money has been spent, enough federal government power exerted. You will fail -- because there is just no satisfying liberals.