No Bull Mom

How You Know You Have a Liberal on Your Hands

Several posts ago I wrote a blog entitled "Obama's New Secretary of Education," in which I write a mock letter to Arne Duncan, our new secretary of education. On occasion I'll post one of my blogs or articles (via cutting and pasting) for a website called Divine Caroline -- and the blog on Arne Duncan was one of the ones I submitted. It's an article in which I describe my teaching experiences and make some suggestions to our new secretary of education. Next thing I know a woman who doesn't like what I have to say reads almost every article I've written on Divine Caroline (all on different subjects) and proceeds to comment on them -- negatively -- which is certainly her perogative. But like a true liberal (which I suspected but only confirmed after reading some of her articles), her negative reviews are all based on assumptions or misrepresentation. Here's her review of my piece on education:

I don't disagree with what I believe to be the writer's general premise of the article which is the hire innovative, bright, enthusiastic teachers and administrators. However, the subtle racial and class references in this article disturb me greatly. Forty years ago our schools were just being desegragated. To say that the schools were functioning "just fine" prior to that begs the question "just fine for whom?". And laying to disentegration of the public schools at the feet of single-parent MINORITY families certainly distracts the reader from what I think the writer is trying to say. Unless, of course, that is exactly what the writer is trying to say. It's hard for this reader to actually know.

This is like the Joy Behar and Ann Coulter conversation I wrote about: Only a liberal can extract racism from something that suggests nothing of the sort. Nowhere in the article do I lay the disintegration of the public schools "at the feet of single-parent minority families." I said the lack of parental involvement is a direct result of the breakdown of the American family and the reality of single-parent households. I then go on the lay the disintegration of the public schools squarely in the lap of educators.

Then, in response to the sentence in which I write, "Forty years ago parents were notoriously absent from the educational scene and school functioned quite well" -- pointing out that the lack of parental involvement today isn't to blame for our failing schools -- the woman suggests I meant public schools were great when minorites weren't there!

That's the thing about modern liberals: They're so busy being offended and warding off anything that smells of racism, unfairness, poverty, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation, and injustice that they can't think straight. Their minds get all flustered and their emotions take over -- and truth is nowhere to be found.

The Beer and the Wheel

This was sent to me in an email, and I simply must post it. I take no credit for it whatsoever, but it's so damn funny I had to pass it on.

For those who don't know about history ... here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter. The two most important events in history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundations of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and this was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed. Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement. Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women; the rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided. Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the Elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the Jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living. Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

And here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it, but a Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off. And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.

Analyzing Ann Coulter

I've come to the conclusion that if you don't like Ann Coulter, you have no sense of humor. Which, I suspect, is why liberals hate her so much.

The other night Joy Behar sat in for Larry King and had Ann Coulter on. It was extremely entertaining. The exchange between the two reminded me of a friendship I once had with a woman who's exactly like Joy Behar: Jewish and proudly liberal. No doubt my old friend would liken me to Ann Coulter -- though it wouldn't be a fair comparison since I'm not as conservative as she is, nor am as acerbic or sharp-witted.

Which got me to thinking about Ann Coulter's personality. She gets a bad rap, for sure; but then she purposefully eggs it on so it's hard to feel sorry for her. The bottom line is that you gotta love anyone who talks in public the exact same way he or she talks in private. It's beautiful, and rare. The other night she and Behar were getting personal, sex and all; and Behar -- despite the steam pouring out of her ears -- couldn't help but laugh on occasion. Most of the time, though, she was fuming. Why liberals don't get that this is precisely the reaction Coulter's looking for is beyond me.

Their exchange exemplifies a typical exchange between any liberal and conservative. Consider this:

Behar: Do people hate you? I'd like to ask you that.

Coulter: No, not when I have 7 New York Times bestsellers. I'm very popular.

Behar: But you can't have everyone love you. Not everyone loves you, Ann.

Ann: You asked me if people hated me.

Behar: You said that because you sell books that means people love you.

Coulter: No, I said that indicates to me that they don't hate me -- which was the question.

And then there were exchanges that were downright funny. Like this one:

Behar: You're saying the media actually, literally want to have sex with Obama?

Coulter: Yes. (You can't see Coulter's face here, but it clearly suggests this is what she thinks but also doesn't expect you to take it at face value. She's being caustic.)

Behar. Okay, fine. (She gives up because she can't figure out whether Coulter believes this stuff or is simply goading her.) Have you ever dated a liberal?

Coutler: I tried, but I couldn't take the dinky little electric car.

My personal favorite was when they showed a clip of Coulter on The View, where she asks Walters to read a section from her book, but not in the way she had before, which sounded like she was reading Mien Kampf. Behar then asks Coulter whether that was a "sensitive" remark considering Walters is Jewish. That was priceless, and typical liberal BS. Yes, Behar, Coulter made the reference to Mein Kampf to insult Walters because she's Jewish. Gotta love those libs. Always looking out for the victims of hate speech.

Ann Coulter is a force for several reasons. One, she knows her shit. Two, she doesn't get flustered. Three, she's funny as hell. Liberals can't stand her for three reasons. One, they rarely know their shit. Two, they always get flustered (because they rarely know their shit). Three, they have no sense of humor.

I understand people not liking Coulter's personality. And if you don't think she's funny, okay. But I dare you to one-up her when it comes to the facts.

P.S. I'll gladly tip my hat to anyone who's funny and knowledgable, whether he's liberal or conservative. If you can find a liberal who fits this description, let me know.

Why I'm Not a Modern Liberal

The following was written by Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of The Liberal Mind. It encapsulates the reason why I am not a liberal.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation, and injustice.

Sounds pretty uplifting, yes?

Those who occupy this world are "workers," "minorities," "the little guy," "women," and the "unemployed." They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited, and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, or defects in character. None of the victims' plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the "root cause" of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism.

In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: "Big Business," "Big Corporations," "greedy capitalists," "the oppressors," "the rich," "the wealthy," "the powerful," and "the selfish."

With this take on mankind, it's no surprise liberals are angry all the time. Worse, they have no sense of humor. It's funny. Conservatives have always been stereotyped as stodgy, uptight folks. But my experience has proven just the opposite. I've received more positive vibes and belly laughs from hanging out with conservatives than I ever have with liberals.

The underbelly of a modern liberal rests in a deep distrust of authority. It's a child's view of the world. Rather than study the reasons for things, the pros and the cons, a modern liberal will attack the person in authority (think President Bush) simply because he doesn't see the world the same way the modern liberal does. He assumes that if the person in charge doesn't think the same way, his intentions must be evil.

It's a shortsighted and immature way to look at things, but there it is.

The Octuplet Mom and Why It's Our Business

The Octuplet Mom debacle is a great example of why the liberal value of "live and let live" is a disaster.

To a liberal, everything -- and I do mean everything -- is a matter of personal choice. To them, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. No one has the right to judge another person. Live and let live is the liberal Bible.

Okay. So it was one (albeit crazy) woman 's decision to have a boatload of babies without a father and without any money. This was her personal choice. Interestingly enough, however, 70% of Americans are upset with this woman; and it stands to reason that many of these people are liberals. So perhaps they could explain this to me: I thought people's personal choices were theirs to make? So what's the problem? If a woman wants to have a million children with no father and no money, that's her right as an American. Why are you judging her?

Which goes back to my earlier argument that liberals do judge. Everyone judges -- and they should. Making healthy value judgments is what makes a country great. Of COURSE it's a problem for this woman to make such a choice since WE are the ones who'll end up footing the bill. It's a perfect example of how people's personal choices affect all of us -- which is why judgment is necessary.

Same goes for all the liberal arguments: Abortion is a woman's choice and no one else's, they say. Well, yes and no. Allowing abortion across the board means everyone else foots the bill and has to be part of something they may not want to be -- so prolifers are screwed. Pro-choice people "win" under the guise of freedom. But it's not freedom to prolifers; they have no choice in the matter. See what I mean?

Same thing with day care. All mothers are entitled to work if they choose to and no one should judge them for their choice to do so. Okay, but who foots the bill for day care? The rest of America has to pay -- in more ways than one, since day care is a colossal failure for kids -- for their children's care. So not only do at-home moms bear the burden (not a good word, but it's the only way to make the point) of caring for their own children, their tax dollars go toward caring for the children of moms who opt out of doing the grunt work of child care. Moreover, most day care kids are a nightmare to be around; and the kids of at-home moms have to share space with these kids. Eventually they will date them and even marry them. Indeed, how children are raised is everyone's business.

Do you see a theme here yet?

Obama's New Secretary of Education

Dear Mr. Duncan:

Congratulations on being chosen as our new Secretary of Education! As a former classroom teacher whose idealism was shattered after spending several years in America’s public schools, I hope you’ll be able to do something about the abysmal state of our nation’s schools.

When you testified at an Education and Labor Committee hearing earlier this year, you spoke about the need for parental involvement. I agree parental involvement helps – particularly for low-income families – but I wouldn’t focus too much on this issue. The lack of involvement is a direct result of the breakdown of the American family and reality of single-parent minority households – which is a sad set of circumstances, no doubt. Unfortunately, there’s not much you can do about it from your perch; it’s a sociological issue that goes beyond your job responsibilities. Besides, forty years ago parents were notoriously absent from the educational scene -- and schools functioned quite well.

Since you’ve never actually been a teacher, I thought you’d appreciate the opinion of someone who has. I hate to sound like a simpleton, but the problem with today’s schools isn’t all that complicated. There are three reasons why our education system has failed: poor discipline, low standards, and the proliferation of groupthink – which demands that teachers conform to a set of beliefs they may not share and stymies their ability to teach in the manner they see fit. I say poor discipline because teachers and administrators are no longer in charge of their schools; the students run the show. I say low standards because many educators don’t expect students to succeed academically, so they dumb down the curriculum and try to bolster students’ self-esteem instead -- which, incidentally, is a waste of taxpayer money (to the tune of $8,701 per student) since self-esteem can only be developed from meeting high expectations in the first place. Finally, the bastion of political correctness (i.e. teachers’ unions and the ACLU) that invades public schools brings learning to a screeching halt. With so many rules to adhere to, teachers are unable to utilize their own methodology in a way that could benefit students.

You and Obama argue for accountability. But who should be accountable to whom? Superintendents are supposed to oversee their administrations, but they’re rarely inside the school building. So what happens when there’s an incompetent principal or assistant principal? One year a particularly troubled eighth-grader wrote a profanity on my chalkboard and threw my personal belongings out the classroom window. My student not only got away with this, but he was never made to apologize. Instead he sauntered in to class the next day with a smirk on his face, and I had no choice but to teach him. He knew my powers were limited. Without the principal’s support, my student had me over a barrel. Moreover, today’s students know they don't have to learn anything if they don't want to. When several of my students – all of whom were friends -- failed my class one year, the administration told me I had to pass them whether they did the work or not. How do you think this made Kijana, another student of mine, feel? She was friends with the students who failed, but unlike them worked her tail off all year -- even coming to see me during lunch period – so she could pass the class, move on to high school, and not end up like her friends. What lesson do you think she learned?

I don’t mean to sound fatalistic. There is a solution to the education problem, which is this: When hiring educators, it’s critical that superintendents evaluate the candidates’ personalities -- not just their resumes. Having a Master’s degree is all well and good, but it doesn’t tell you what you need to know. What you need are educators who are strong, not weak. What you need are educators who think for themselves and understand that discipline and high standards are the only way to run a school and classroom. I know because I’ve seen it. One year I worked under a superb principal who had the teacher and kids in his palm, but he was offered a better position in another school district; and when the superintendent hired his replacement -- a pacifist, feel-good type -- I watched the school, and everyone in it, go down with the ship. Indeed, it takes a person of strong conviction -- and a good dose of hootspa -- to undo the damage that’s been done.

I never did change those students' grades, but that was my last year teaching at a public school. I remember a 30-year veteran teacher saying to me, when she heard I would not be returning the next year, “All the good ones leave.” If this is true, Mr. Duncan, then your idea to pay students to get good grades won’t work – because it’s not students who need incentive; it’s teachers. And I can assure you merit pay is not enough. No one enters the teaching profession expecting to make a great salary; what they do expect is the intrinsic reward for having provided students with the tools they need to succeed. But they can’t do this without the support of a strong administration that isn’t afraid to take a stand. I assure you that choosing people with grit and backbone is a determining factor in turning around our nation’s schools. If you hire administrators with the courage to lead, and if they in turn require teachers to raise expectations for student achievement, you’ll make a solid start toward solving our education crisis.

Good luck, and Godspeed.

Obama and Abortion

It's just a matter of time until abortion becomes a fait accompli. With the most progressive president to ever sit in the Oval Office, and his liberal cronies in Congress, the stars are officially aligned. What better place to start than abortion?

To most Americans, I suspect the abortion issue seems rather moot. It used to be against the law; now it isn’t. What's left to talk about? A lot, apparently. According to President Obama, abortion is the most pressing matter on his agenda. "The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do,” he told Planned Parenthood on July 9, 2008. The purpose of FOCA? To eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.

It bears repeating. The Freedom of Choice Act would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide. On a philosophical level, FOCA elevates abortion to a fundamental right (as opposed to a necessary evil), granting it the same status as the right to vote or the right to free speech. On a practical level, FOCA would nullify (among others) the following laws: the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, the Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions), parental consent and notification laws, waiting periods, and requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions. So if my daughter finds herself in a precarious position as a teenager, I don't ever need to know about it; President Obama thinks she's old enough to go through such a trauma without me.

When it comes to the abortion problem, the answer from the pro-choice camp is clear: sex education. If we teach young people about contraception, they will know how to act responsibly and thus avoid unplanned pregnancies. (Remember: All people are equally good and with the right opportunities, will make good choices.)

As a former classroom teacher of children who were old enough (technically speaking) to have sex, I can assure you this is patently false. The reasons teenagers engage in casual sex have nothing to do with being uninformed about contraception; they're the most informed group of teenagers to ever exist. Moreover, if education was all women (and girls) needed to avoid unplanned pregnancies, why do women between the ages of 20-24 – who, presumably, know more than teenagers -- have the highest abortion rate (32.6%) in the country? And why do women between the ages of 25-29 and 30-34 comprise an additional 23.4% and 14.5%, respectively, of all abortions? Indeed, teenagers represent the lowest abortion rate – 16.4% -- in the country. Oprah is famous for repeating the phrase, “When people know better, they do better.” Apparently not.

That said, any woman (or girl) who gets pregnant without meaning to deserves compassion. Regardless of how it happened – a lack of education (not likely) or an alcohol-induced liaison (more probable), it’s a terrible state in which to find oneself. And while the ensuing abortions are something on which Americans are divided morally, we're not divided on the issue of legality. Yes, 46% of Americans consider themselves “prolife” and 47% consider themselves “pro-choice"; but when asked whether abortion should be legal or illegal, a mere 18% of Americans think abortion should be illegal. The rest – 81% (1% are undecided) -- believe abortion should remain legal. Sounds pretty simple, then. Most Americans believe abortion should be legal, and it is legal.

Not so fast. Of this 81%, 57% of Americans believe abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. In other words, most Americans are sympathetic to the woman (or girl) who faces this daunting circumstance; but they are not in favor of granting abortions carte blanche. Indeed, the restrictions that have been put into place -- restrictions that FOCA would eliminate -- exist for a reason: Americans are a tolerant people, but only to a certain point. Somewhere along the line our collective conscience rears its ugly head to tell us enough is enough.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy at all -- since the 24% of Americans who believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance want the Freedom of Choice Act signed -- and they have a President who'd be happy to do so. By my calculations, this means we've voted into office a man who either doesn’t care what the majority of Americans want and believe -- or hasn't done his homework. Either way, we’re doomed.

How a Liberal Views Terrorism

In an earlier post entitled "Liberals and Conservatives, Part 2," I quote Dinesh D'Souza from his book Letters to a Young Conservative. He writes,

"Liberals believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put them in this unfortunate position. Since people are innately good, liberals hold, the great conflicts in the world are not the result of good vs. evil; rather, they arrive out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of such groups as the United Nations."

Now consider this philosophical analysis with part of a speech George W. Bush made to the Israeli Knesset:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, and American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement."

Beautifully said, Mr. Bush. I know the media loves to paint you as an idiot, but we know why they do this. They probably don't even know you gave speeches like this -- and if they did, they wouldn't report it. You sound way too intelligent.

Bottom line? No liberal wants to admit there are people in the world with whom you cannot negotiate. A good liberal chooses to believe that all people are equally good -- and that with the proper mediation, everyone can get along.

Good luck with that one, Mr. President.

Taxes 101

Here's an example of how liberal feelings can undermine logic:

The liberal argument regarding our current tax code is that the wealthiest people benefit the most when it comes to tax cuts. To a liberal, this feels unfair. After all, they say, it's middle-class or low-income families that need the tax cuts the most. Shouldn't they get more tax relief then?

This is an example of how liberals are guided by their feelings rather than their heads. Conservatives understand the inherent fairness of our tax system; they know the reason the wealthiest people in America get the most tax relief is because THEY PAY THE MOST TAXES!!!

Here's a simple tax lesson for those who need it: The wealthiest one percent of the American population pay 39% of all income taxes, and the top 20% pay 78% of all federal income taxes. On the other end of the spectrum, the bottom half of wage earners pay only 3% of all income taxes. In other words, Yes, upper-income folks benefit the most from tax cuts -- but that's because they carry the greatest share of the tax burden! If you put more out, you get more back. If you put less in, you get less back. This is wholeheartedly fair.

A liberal doesn't understand this. If the outcome is that one group has more of something than another group, he think it's unfair. It's like a child not understanding why his friend gets more candy than he does. There's a good reason behind it; but to a liberal, it just doesn't add up.

Conservatives Think, Liberals Feel

According to author and New York Times blogger Judith Warner, women (women Democrats, that is) are having sex dreams about Obama. No surprise there. When you've been catapulted to Hollywood status, such dreams are inevitable. Thank God Brad Pitt's the only person who has surfaced in my dreams. Course I didn't vote for Obama -- plus when it comes to politics, I'm governed by my head, not my heart.

That's such a critical difference between conservatives and liberals. Once again, don't confuse modern liberals with classic liberals. There are plenty of thinking Democrats; I know many of them personally. But classic liberal Democrats are more in line with the Kennedys and Joe Lieberman: They may lean left but they're still traditional-minded. Modern liberals, those who think Obama walks on water, don't think. They feel. As journalist John Fund writes, "While Republicans tend to nominate their best-known candidate from previous nomination battles, Democrats often fall in love during a first date."

Which is precisely what happened with Obama. Not only is he a virtual unknown, he has no track record people can point to and say "Here's why I like him. Here's what he's done." Instead liberals fell in love with the idea of something. They fell in love with what they believe Obama represents, what they hope he'll represent for them in the end. Ideas and hopes are feelings, not facts. Democrats fell in love.

Indeed, a modern liberal's arguments almost always revolve around feelings, while conservatives tend to stick to facts and well-reasoned arguments. Here's an example. When Dinesh D'Souza wrote a book called The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 911, left-leaning Americans became enraged. Rather than read the book and actually learn something, they attacked D'Souza for daring to suggest that liberals had anything to do with 911. Subtitles can do that -- rile people up. It's supposed to call attention to the book so that people pick it up and read it. Then, if they disgree, they're free to challenge the arguments put forth by the author.

I should know. I've already said the same thing happened to me with my book. D'Souza and I aren't the only authors who've had this happen. There are plenty of books that challenge people's intellect, but liberals won't read these books. They're too busy being offended. As another example, here are some quotes from bookstores (another liberal bastion in America, as they employ primarily university folks who are notoriously left wing) that were sent to a publisher of conservative, intellectual-type books:

"Please take me off your contact list. If you want to reach a narrow-minded audience,try the small-town rags."

"Please take me off your mailing list. We do NOT sell fascist publications."

"Pseudo-scholarly wingnut screeds which purport to be philosophical musings."

"This book is filled with lies! Don't read it!"

"I find some of your titles to be offensive and outright simple-minded. I will not sell your titles in any of my stores so please do not promote any of these ridiculous books to me!"

"Your books make my blood boil."

"Your offerings are offensive."

"You are surely a collection of right-wing nut jobs."

"You must be insane."

When my own book was released and there was an article in my local newspaper, people wrote letters to the editor. One group of "educationally diverse liberal women" said they would never read such a horrid book and referred to me as "Mrs. Venker" as opposed to "Ms. Venker" -- reflecting my "regressive stance" regarding women, they wrote. They opened their letter with this statement: "What mother of toddlers wears dangly earrings anyway?" (referring to the picture of me in the article). Why did they attack me personally? Because they couldn't refute my argument.

What I remember most about that experience was that my neighbor across the street -- who's a lifelong, "thinking" Democrat, left-leaning but quite traditional -- was shocked. I recall thinking that she has no idea what her party has morphed into. She still lives with the notion that being Democrat means what it meant during the Kennedy years. And while this may the case for her, and for many people like her, it is not the case for modern Democrats who hold the most of the power today.

Indeed, Obama makes people feel good. He doesn't challenge the status quo, rock the boat, or make people think. He wants to be loved, and he wants things to be fair. To him fair means spreading the wealth. This warms a liberal's heart -- because liberals consider themselves good people. To them, being good means giving. The fact that by giving you're ultimately holding people back is of no consequence. It's all about the good feelings of giving and the fact that afterward things look fair. Conservatives see fairness in terms of inherent rights -- as in, making sure things are fair across the board -- and want to help people help themselves. Liberals are concerned solely with outcomes -- as in, how things are handled in the process isn't nearly as important as making sure the result itself appears equal. Whether it really is or not is beside the point.

In my next few blogs I'll explain in greater detail what I mean.

Being Judgmental

Speaking of personalities, I must address a disease I believe plagues Americans: the desire to be liked. Or to be more specific, the desire to be viewed as non-judgmental -- or just plain nice.

Today, being "nice" and being non-judgmental are the same thing. In the old days, being nice referred to kindness, thoughtfulness, attentiveness, that sort of thing. Today being nice means you have no opinion whatsoever about what other people say and do. It means accepting everything and everyone just as they are -- even if you disagree. A nice person, a good person never makes judgments. Which is why you undoubtedly find yourself nodding along in conversations with people with whom you disagree -- when what you're really thinking is, "I totally disagree with this person."

Here's a bit of harsh truth: There isn't a person out there who doesn't make value judgments. Those who appear to be nonjudgmental are simply playing a part: They either desperately need to be liked by everyone with whom they come in contact or they hate conflict. Don't think for a moment they don't go home to their spouses and tell them what they really think.)

There is absolutely nothing bad or immoral about making value judgments.

Being a judgmental person and making value judgments is not the same thing. Being judgmental means forming an opinion about something or someone without knowing the facts. If I simply look at a person, and based on his appearance or some information I happen to know about him decide whether or not I like him -- or worse, if I treated him disrespectfully as a result -- then yes, I would be a judgmental person. But if I take a stand on a cultural or political issue based upon principle, like most conservative-minded people do (you know, those judgmental types), I'm not being judgmental; I'm making a value judgment about what I believe is best for society.

Liberals make just as many value judgments -- more, actually -- than conservatives. Liberals have a very specific idea about how the world should operate. Their motto is "live and let live." That's a value judgment. They then force this worldview upon society because they believe this is the proper way, the good way, the moral way to think. Those who don't agree with the "live and let live" philosophy are considered bigoted, inflexible, and narrow-minded.

This liberal worldview is a judgment. They are judging the way people should behave -- which I think is fine to do. I believe in making value judgments about how a society should operate. But to suggest that conservatives are "close-minded" and liberals are "open" is glaringly hypocritical. In fact quite the opposite is true. Conservatives have no problem with people thinking or feeling differently than they do. They may debate the issue and disagree, but they don't hold the philosophy against the person. A liberal will. A liberal will judge a conservative simply based on his beliefs. That's why when conservatives are in conversation with liberals, they're notoriously quiet. They know that if they share their beliefs they'll be judged by liberals.

This cultural phenomenon has a name: political correctness. It's an insidious mechanism liberals use to shout down people with whom they disagree, people who they believe think the "wrong way." It is conservative-minded people who are silenced. Liberals shout their beliefs from the rooftops.

So I ask you: Which worldview -- liberal or conservative -- is truly judgmental?

Politics and Personalities, or NPR vs FOX

So often politics comes down to personality. It's not just what a person's message is, it's how the message is delivered.

Naturally, the first thing that comes to mind when I think of this is FOX and NPR. There's definitely a FOX personality-type and an NPR personality-type. I have both tuned in to my radio in the car, and I love going back and forth -- not just for the various kinds of information but for the delivery. It's fun to hit my button and hear Bill O'Reilly get feisty and mad, and then switch to Ira or Diane on NPR, whose voices are notoriously slow and gentle. Neither one is bad, of course (unless you're a modern liberal, in which case you'll think O'Reilly's the devil); but whichever station you prefer no doubt indicates what kind of personality you have. If you're an NPR groupie, you're probably soft-spoken or you prefer to keep your opinions to yourself. If you're an avid FOX fan, you're no doubt outspoken and have a tendancy to get riled up.

None of this matters much except that good information sometimes gets lost in the shuffle. In other words, if you can't stand arrogance, you probably won't listen to O'Reilly -- which is unfortunate since you're going to miss out on information you need to hear. I can't stand the personalities at NPR -- all that niceness bugs the shit out of me -- but I tune in to see if there's something I need to hear. The bottom line is that when people only hang out with their own kind -- like those in the media -- they can't see beyond themselves. They can't imagine there's another way to view the world, and thus they remain in the dark. Don't let this happen to you.

Sit through all of it -- and, as always, make up your own mind.

Behind the Scenes of Media Bias

Here's a behind-the-scenes look at how media bias works:

Immediately before the release of my book back in 2004, my publisher gets a phone call from Glamour magazine. Apparently they wanted a pic of the book jacket sent to them, indicating they were going to feature it in their magazine. Of course they didn't say in what way they were going to feature it, but my publishers had been around the block and warned me it probably wouldn't be good -- which was fine with us, since bad publicity is still publicity.

My publishers were correct. In the April 2004 edition of Glamour, 7 Myths was listed as a "Don't" -- as in "Don't read." Apparently there's a section in Glamour called "Do's and Don'ts," where the editors tell readers what they should and shouldn't wear, read, do, etc. Right above the picture of my book was a book called "The War Against Choice" -- about abortion rights. This book was listed as a "Do."

Not only is this blatant bias, but of course the editors hadn't actually read my book -- which goes back to my earlier post titled "Conservatives Read, Liberals Watch TV." The subtitle of my book is "Why Children and (Most) Careers Just Don't Mix." This subtitle angered the women at Glamour so much that, rather than read the material to see what I said, they simply banned the book. How, may I ask, is this any different from fascism?

Not long afterward, CNN Sunday Night News called my publicist to request what was supposed to be a straight interview about me and my book. They called the night before I was scheduled to go on the air to do what's called a "pre-telephone interview" -- which is standard procedure. I spent about 45 minutes on the phone with a producer who asked a series of questions about me and the book's premise. I then asked if these were basically the same questions I would be asked the next night on television. She said yes.

Imagine my surprise the next evening when I was at a local affiliate here in St. Louis, getting hooked up to all the requisite machinery and just before I went on the air Carol Lin, the anchor of that evening's newscast, introduces herself in my earpiece and tells me my book "stirred up all the women here at CNN." Next thing I know I'm on the air opposite Carol Evans, CEO of Working Mother magazine, for a surprise debate. There was no interview whatsoever -- just an attempt to discredit me.

If all this isn't enough to change your perspective on mainstream media, what else can I say. Ultimately you have to make up your own mind. Unlike the mainstream media, I have no desire to make up your mind for you.

Motherhood and Politics, or How Media Bias Works

In Goldberg's book, Bias, there's a chapter called "The Most Important Story You Never Saw on TV." The story Goldberg's referring to is "the terrible things that are happening to America's children." Put another way, he writes, "As more and more mothers have opted for work outside the home over taking care of their children at home -- and not always for economic reasons -- the results have been disastrous." The entire chapter is devoted to the fact that this monumentally significant cultural change goes unreported by the media for one reason only: media bias.

The reason it goes unreported is obvious. The average female journalist or anchor on your television screen -- if she has children -- is clearly a working mother. And the average male journalist or anchor (think Matt Lauer and his ilk) has to live with these working mothers every day. Now do you think they're going to report about the negative results of a mother's absence from the home? I don't think so. Of course no one in the media will admit this. Instead they'll report to you that most mothers are in the workforce today, and that most of them have no choice.

I exposed these myths in a book called 7 Myths of Working Mothers. I told the story the media refused to tell, and I corrected their errors in reporting. I didn't expect to be popular, of course; but then I didn't become an author to be popular. I did it to right the wrongs the media were peddling to women. For example, yes, it's true most mothers are in the workforce today -- but the implication is that most mothers are absent full-time while their children are in substitute care. This is patently false. Most mothers stay home when their children are young and return to work part-time when their children are in school. Or they work part-time when their children are little and share babysitting duty with friends or have a family member help out. Or they tag-team with their husbands so a parent is always home. Full-time working mothers who employ nannies or use day care -- in other words, the women in the media -- do not represent everyday Americans. Their kids may be left with a nanny or left to fend for themselves after school, but most children are not.

The fact that most mothers are not absent does not negate the fact that too many are. Indeed, it's the children who are left alone and the ones who do attend full-time day care who suffer the most -- but you won't hear about this on the six o'clock news or on Oprah. In fact you won't hear about it at all unless you seek out alternative news sources. (I mention some of these in yesterday's post.) It's not that the big guys -- the Today show and all the rest -- didn't call my publicist. They did. But they either chickened out last minute, or they put me on the air to make a point: their point. Which is that I'm nuts.

This is the point at which you realize you're thankful for for cable, talk radio, the Internet, and "conservative" publishers. Indeed, I did over 200 radio interviews for my book. Some were conservative; some were not. But they interviewed me nonetheless because they don't operate like mainstream media.

Now do I have your attention?

Media Bias

I've been sitting here trying to think of how I can explain the significance of media bias -- and what bias itself really is. I think a lot of people misunderstand its meaning. In fact the only reason I understand it as well as I do is because I've been on the receiving end of media bias. And once you understand how it works, once you accept its reality, your entire perspective on the news changes. And you're much more selective about how you get your news.

Plain ole' bias -- not liberal or conservative, just bias -- is inevitable in life. All of us affect others by the manner and speech we use. However, some people are far more affected than others by what they hear and can't be objective. Some people want to hear what they want to hear in order to rationalize their own views; others are able to adapt to new information more easily. Most people -- no matter which way they lean politically -- agree that people shouldn't be biased. The problem is recognizing it. Many people don't even realize they are biased.

This is the main point of Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias -- which is about liberal bias in the media. Most of the mainsteam media do not believe they're biased, nor can we claim their bias is purposeful. That is, those who comprise mainstream media -- which include all the major television networks, large publishing houses, and the magazine industry -- are not knowingly pulling the wool over your eyes. The problem is actually worse than that. It's their arrogance. Arrogance is the reason why these folks can't see their bias -- because they truly, honestly believe their views are the correct and only way to view the world. The right way. The good way. The moral way. This is the theme of Goldberg's book.

Bias isn't only found in the media; it also plagues our college campuses and public schools. Just like most journalists on network television, the vast majority of college professors are liberal. By their own description, 72% of those teaching at American colleges and universities are liberal and 15% are conservative. The disparity is even more pronounced at the elite schools (Harvard, Princeton, etc.), where 87% are liberal and 13% are conservative.

Now you might think, So what? You can't control which way people lean when they take these jobs. This is true, of course; but here's the problem. The people who take these positions are enormously influential. Their careers are different from others in that they have a responsibility to not let their bias show. Let me give you an example.

When I was in college at Boston Univerity (a typical bastion of liberal groupthink), I had a class in which students were responsible for teaching the class on a particular subject. (We were studying to be teachers.) One of my classmates, a male, "taught" the class something pertaining to American history -- I can't remember the subject, but it was controversial -- and he was so effective because by the end of his spiel I had no idea what he personally thought about the subject. I remember being frustrated because I wanted to know what his opinion was, but I never got it. And I recall thinking this is what it means to be educated: to hear the facts -- and then make up your own mind.

When you're in a position of power -- as teachers, professors, Hollywood stars, and journalists are -- you have an added dose of responsibility not to influence America to your way of thinking. When you do, you succeed in having negative influence over people who are too lazy to do their own research. Which brings me back to yesterday's post.

Generally speaking, strong-minded liberals get their information from the biased sources I mentioned above. They read Time magazine; they watch CBS, NBC, and ABC; they watch The View; the watch late-night television; and they read their city's newspaper. They don't get their news from talk radio (unless it's NPR), The Wall Street Journal, or reputable Internet sites. Consequently, all the news they receive is coming from the mouths of liberals -- liberals who feel no shame in showing their bias. (Think ABC news anchor George Stephanopoulos being moved to tears at the Inauguration.)

Now here's the confusing part. When liberals hear this argument, the response is, "Well, conservatives get their information from conservative sources, so what's the difference?" There's a big difference, actually. I agree that it's possible to be conservative and biased -- if you listen exclusively to Rush Limbaugh, for example -- but the opposite of liberal bias in the media isn't conservative bias. News anchors are supposed to report the news. That's it. Their opinion is of no consequence -- so if they have strong opinions and can't hide them the way my former classmate did, they shouldn't enter the field of journalism. As for Rush, Sean, and Laura, it is not their job to report the news objectively. They do report information you would never hear on the six o'clock news -- which is why it's good to listen to them -- but they're supposed to give their opinion. That's what a commentator does.

Commentators and news anchors do not have the same job, so it is our job to understand the difference when we choose how we're going to get the news. If I turn on Sean Hannity I don't expect to get hard news with no angle. When I read a newspaper, I do. The problem is that 99% of all newspapers are biased, which is why my husband and I only read The Wall Street Journal. When I read a magazine, it's going to be a magazine most people haven't heard of -- b/c all the major magazines are biased. And if I listen to 97.1 radio (known to be "conservative"), I always offset it with NPR. As for the Internet, all you need is the Drudge Report. It's so comprehensive, offering newspapers and columnists that lean both right and left, that you're bound to have to do your own thinking.

In the end, the point is this. Liberal bias exists everywhere you look today -- television, movies, magazines, the publishing industry, college campuses, and public education -- and it's so insidious people don't realize its effect. It's like what I describe about early motherhood in my mommy blog: At first you're shocked, then you gradually conform to the new idea (because what choice do you have?) and then you forget about it entirely. After a while you don't even see it. You must open your eyes, and you must read and listen to the right stuff. Only then can you form an honest opinion. I highly recommend Bill O'Reilly. And if you believe he's biased, I would challenge you to prove it. Most people who claim O'Reilly is biased have never even listened to him. They either hate his arrogance and can't get past it, or they don't want to find out he may not be biased.

Then they'd have to listen to him.

A Caveat to Friday's Post

I want to stress that Friday's post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Obviously liberals read. The real question is what do they read, and how does it compare with what conservatives read?

This is an important question I will address in my next post.

A Voice of Reason

I received a note from a reader who wrote the following:

I can't tell you how pleased I was to receive this. As I note on my first post (titled "Welcome"), this isn't a typical conservative website. I don't offer links to prolife or religious organizations -- or Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, or Rush. To be honest, I don't listen to these folks with any regularity. I do tune in to Laura or Sean on occasion -- just to get some info I might otherwise not have -- but I have a hard time staying tuned in. If I do listen to anyone somewhat faithfully, it's Bill O'Reilly. His arrogance is astounding, but arrogance doesn't bother me nearly as much as, say, Ann Coulter's Connecticut drawl. I'll be writing a post about "personality and politics" this week, so more about these folks later...

As for my blog, my goal is this: I'd like to offer a voice of reason at a time of unprecedented partisanship. Yes, I'm conservative; but I part with true blue Republicans in several ways -- which is why I don't sound quite like them. While I have voted Republican in every election except for 1992, I am not a particuarly religious person -- though I believe in God, pray often, and am raising my children Catholic (which is an entirely different topic for another time). I am also, to quote another reader who phrased it much better than I, "ambivalently prochoice," -- which basically means I'm never going to fight for "a woman's right to choose" any more than I'm going to hold up prolife signs that show mangled fetuses. I think abortion is an incredibly complex subject that cannot be reduced to black and white; and for this reason, there are no easy answers. On the other hand, I would never not vote for a President who's prolife because, for one thing, I don't believe Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned; and for another, I don't think it would be any more disastrous to outlaw abortion than it has been to allow it.

But I digress. The point is, I can't claim to identify with hard-nosed Republicans -- though I agree with them about most things -- which is why you won't find the same types of things on this blog as you will on a genuinely conservative blog. I want this blog to be different. I have no desire to hurl insults or scream in unison with my party affiliates. Rather, I'd like to offer something fair and reasonable. I want to share information about my experience as a politically incorrect author that I think you should know, and I want to offer a home for like-minded people who feel they have no voice. I welcome any and all comments, even if they're from liberals. Especically if they're from liberals.

Have at it.

Conservatives Read, Liberals Watch TV

Two posts ago I said conservatives are generally smarter than liberals. I don't say this to be mean-spirited; I say it because of experience. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had, or people I know have had, in which people who claim to be liberal (or, if they don't use that term, deny being in any way conservative) cannot explain their reasons for thinking the way they do. Go ahead: Ask someone who claims to "not be conservative" why he believes what he believes -- or, better yet, ask him to answer a basic question about something in the news. Nine out of ten times you'll stump him.

Take, for example, the issue of abortion. When pressed, most people will tell you they're pro-choice (even if they're not) because, naturally, that's the normal and proper response. They may personally have a problem with abortion (think John Kerry) but a good person, a "tolerant" person, doesn't place such demands on others. So they proudly say they're pro-choice. Okay, that's fine. Now ask her to explain her reasons. Ask her what she thinks of FOCA. Chances are, she''ll have no idea what you're talking about. She just knows that being pro-choice is what she's supposed to be.

Occasionally I'll run into a well-read liberal, someone who really thinks about the issues and can articulate his or her reasons in a calm and logical way. I love it when that happens! Automatically I have great respect for the person. But this is rarely the case. In my almost 41 years of life, I can probably count on one hand the number of times this has happened. Run into your average conservative (if you can get him to talk in mixed company) and chances are he knows exactly what he's talking about. He knows the issues; he gets his material from non-biased sources; and he calmly explains his reasons for why he thinks the way he thinks. This isn't always the case -- occasionally you'll run into an uneducated conservative, or someone who says something should be a certain way because "God" said so. But that's rare. What's the conclusion? Hang out with conservatives; you'll learn a heckuva lot more about the world.

Judgment and Tolerance

If there's one stereotype that won't go away, it's the idea that conservatives are judgmental and liberals are tolerant. In fact this concept is so deeply rooted in America -- no matter how deeply flawed -- that liberals tend to be more vocal about their politics than conservatives. They do this because they have bought into the notion that being liberal means you care. It means you're "open to everyone and everything" and don't judge people. Indeed, tolerance is the one thing liberals want to be known for.

Thus, liberals wear their badge with honor, whereas conservatives tend to be more reserved. It isn't that conservatives aren't convicted -- far from it -- it's that they know a liberal is going to misread their intent. He's going to think the conservative is judgmental, or inflexible, or even bigoted. On the other hand, being liberal means being a good person -- so people proudly wear this label. This doesn't mean there are more liberals than conservatives in the country (actually, it's the opposite); it only appears this way because liberals are so outspoken.

Let me give you an example of liberal hypocrisy: the idea that being "tolerant" (using their definition) is a good thing. In the mid-90s I taught a class of 6 eighth-grade black students -- male and female -- who were reading at a third-grade level. It was my job to get their reading level up to snuff, and I took this responsibility seriously. Unfortunately, I shared this group of kids with another teacher: one week they'd come to my classroom, the next they'd go to hers. My teaching style was reflective of my personality and worldview: my expectations were high; the boundaries were clear; and my methods were a bit traditional and a bit new-age. I was considered one of the good but strict teachers who the kids liked a lot -- though they hated the amount of work I made them do. (Which, I feel compelled to point out, was only considered a lot by today's standards.)

The other teacher's style was reflective of her peronsality and worldview: she was loosy-goosy; her expectations were extremely low; and the kids were allowed to hang out and attempt to read books like Amy Fisher: My Story, the Long Island lolita who shot her lover's wife and went to jail. This teacher was very vocal about her methods, which she believed in strongly. It was her belief that being a good teacher means being the students' friend and guidance counselor. She used to reward them for bringing a writing utensil to class, since that was a rarity for this group. During staff meetings she claimed to be "sick and tired of teachers (read: me) who refuse to understand what these kids' home lives are like and expect too much of them." It was manifestly evident that Ms. Bucci (I'll never forget her name) considered her niceness, her "tolerance," to be an example of what a good teacher -- and thus a good person -- should be.

This may just be one example, but I have countless similar examples I could offer -- and not just within the teaching profession. The idea is that the nicer a person is, the more tolerant they are. Strict people, or people who make demands on other people's behavior, are intolerant and judgmental.

Conservative-minded folks know it's the people who make such demands that care the most. Who do you think cared more about the future of those children? The one who appeared to be loving, tolerant, open, and accepting? Or the one who treated the children as if they were capable of doing more than bringing a pencil to class? The irony of the liberal concept of tolerance is that it produces the complete opposite effect of what's intended: By lowering our expectations of people, by giving them an out all the time, we in effect tell them that they are not as capable, or not as worthy, as the rest of America.

Even when you know better, you still do it

On my last post I highlighted one of Oprah's favorite phrases: "When people know better, they do better." This is a statement that can only be made by a true liberal. Since liberals take the view that all human beings are intrinsically good, it makes sense they would believe people just need the proper education in order to make good choices.

You hear it all the time. Feminists believe the way to cut down on the number of abortions is to educate young people about contraception; Obama believes all we need to do to improve international relations is "make nice" with Iraqis and Afghanis -- and all we need to do to help low-income Americans is give them a free college education and pump more money into their pockets. With money, education, and a loving hand, say liberals, people will be armed with the tools they need in order to make good decisions.

This would surely be a Utopia if it were true. I wish it were true! Fortunately, I know better. All conservatives know better -- not because they're smarter (although that's generally true, too) but because they understand the nature of people. They accept that all people are not equal -- no matter how politically incorrect it sounds. All people may have been "created equal" under God and our Constitution, and they are certainly entitled to the same opportunities -- but what they do with their inherited worth and opportunities will determine what kind of person they will be. Is Charles Manson equal to Mother Theresa? Is Jeffrey Dahmer equal to Martin Luther King, Jr.? The answer is obvious to a conservative. To a liberal, the answer is, "Depends." And to a real left-winger (think Dead Man Walking) the answer is "Yes."

Now before you go thinking I have no heart (as conservatives are often accused of), I am very sympathetic to the reasons why a person turns sour. As with most things in life, it all goes back to our upbringing. Our jails are not filled with people who came from two-parent, happy, loving homes; and I have addressed the importance of childhood in a book. But the fact remains that we can't make all people have a happy, healthy childhood; and we can't make people choose to do good simply by providing them with the proper education and job opportunities. There will always be people who squander their education or money. The whys aren't really important (except to a liberal) because no matter how much you try to change this aspect of human nature, it will always come back.

It's a sad reality, I admit. But, then, we don't live in Utopia.

Liberals and Conservatives, Part 2

There's another difference between conservatives and modern liberals aside from the allegiance to, or disregard of, a universal moral order -- and it's even more significant: their respective worldview.

If you're conservative-minded, you probably think your liberal friends are wishy-washy, feel-good types. If you're liberal, you probably think your conservative friends are rigid and judgmental. There's a reason for this. Liberals tend to believe that all human beings are inherently good people, that if they do wrong it isn't really their fault; it's society's fault. Writes D'Souza, "Liberals believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put them in this unfortunate position. Since people are innately good, liberals hold, the great conflicts in the world are not the result of good vs. evil; rather, they arrive out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of such groups as the United Nations."

Consider the Iraq war, in which D'Souza's analysis fits beautifully. Obama believes the above, whereas Bush, the conservative, doesn't. What does someone like Bush believe?

"Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature -- good and evil -- and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps to bring out the best in human nature and suppress man's lower or base impulses. Conservatives insist that because there are evil regimes and destructive forces in the world that cannot be talked out of their nefarious objectives, force is an indispensable element of international relations."

You don't have to agree with everything Bush did during his presidency -- I don't -- to share the above philosophy. But the distinction between an Obama (or a liberal) and a Bush (or a conservative) cannot be overstated. Simply put, they each have a different understanding of human nature. A liberal will beat his head against the wall trying to prove that all people are equally good. A conservative, on the other hand, knows this is futile. All people are entitled to equal opportunity in order to do good, but they will not all succeed simply because they've been given the opportunity. Liberals struggle to accept this basic fact of human nature. It's why Oprah's favorite quote is, "When people know better, they do better."

If only that were true.

Liberals and Conservatives

So if the meanings have changed, what is the difference between a conservative and a liberal -- and why is America so divided?

For the best answer to this question, I would turn you over to Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.dineshjdsouza.com/) -- who is, in my opinion, the premier authority on this issue (and the greatest debater you'll ever hear). His book, Letters to a Young Conservative, answers this question in broader terms. My version is much shorter.

I remember a friend of mine, who's a Democrat, was disturbed by the idea that Republicans claim to be the "party of values." The implication, she said, was that Democrats don't have any values. I understood her point, and she's right: No party can claim to have values and suggest the other party doesn't. But the issue isn't that conservatives have values and liberals do not; it's that the values of each party differ. They each have values, but they have different set of values. A conservative's values include "civility, patriotism, national unity, an attachment to family, a belief in merit, social order, morality, and in personal responsibilty for one's actions." A liberal's values include "equality, compassion, pluralism, diversity, social justice, peace, autonomy, and tolerance." There can be some overlap, of course; but these are the values about which each party becomes the most passionate.

Despite these different value systems, conservatives and liberals have shared common ground. In the past, they each believed in a "universal moral order": an external set of values upon which most people agreed. The two parties may have bickered over priorities and public policy, but they managed to share a belief in right and wrong. Beginning in the 1960s, as I point out in my own book, 7 Myths of Working Mothers (http://www.suzannevenker.com/), everything changed. The feminist movement (along with the anti-war movement) challenged the status quo. They felt people were being oppressed in having to succumb to a universal moral order, so they fought for "a new ethic that would be based not on external authority" but on The Self. The idea of being true to oneself and listening to one's inner spirit was born, and the result is what we have today.

And what we have is a line in the sand. On one side are conservatives, who still believe in a universal moral order, whether or not it's governed by religion; and on the other side are modern liberals -- who bought into the notion that what's good for The Self is all that matters. They have given up on the idea that there should be any rules or shared morality. What's good for The Self is all that matters. Indeed, what makes our country so divided today is that liberals and conservatives no longer share common ground.

Which is why, when I wrote a book about the merits of women staying home in the early years, I was chastised by liberals and embraced by conservatives. The conflict isn't between stay-at-home moms and working moms; it's between the group that still subscribes to a universal moral order and the group that pays homage to The Self. When it comes to motherhood, these two groups often overlap. The assumption is that at-home moms would all agree with me and working moms wouldn't. But there are plenty of at-home moms who are home not because they believe it's in the best interest of society, but because they've made a choice to do so -- and this choice, they say, should not be made for anyone else. That's the homage to The Self.

So if you're someone who still believes in a universal moral order, you're either a conservative or an old-time liberal. If you pay homage to The Self, if you believe in the concept of choice at the exclusion of personal responsibility or the greater good of society, you're a modern liberal. And you undoubtedly voted for Obama.