Well-meaning liberals are willing to let people die to keep the victim mentality alive

In my life, I have known quite a few liberals. Most of them have seemed to be reasonably nice, caring, well-meaning people. The ones that I have met came from varying backgrounds – poor, moneyed, and everything in between. They seemed to listen to a lot of hard-luck stories and sympathize with the people who tell them. In fact, one thing that many of these kind, well-meaning liberals seemed to have in common is the sense that anyone who has had anything bad happen to them was somehow “victimized” and shared no blame in their unfortunate circumstances. Such unfortunate circumstances; being subjected to “police brutality,” spending time in jail, no job, not making enough money, supposedly being taken advantage of by an evil corporation, evoke a strong emotional response in such people—DO SOMETHING. 

They seem to miss the point that the person without a job hasn’t tried to look for one, the victim of “police brutality” attacked a cop during a traffic stop, that the person in jail robbed a grocery store, and that the person being “taken advantage of” by an “evil corporation” may actually be compensated more in money and benefits than what their own skillset would typically call for. When confronted with such facts, the response of the well-meaning liberal is to shout down anything that would break the self-serving sympathy that they have towards the supposed “victim”; the person whose day they want to heroically save.

In my experience, the solutions that many of these liberals provide are worse than the problem. One person that I knew felt that the solution to a person without a car was to “share” their vehicle with them. That guy is still waiting for his car to be returned, and it has been about twenty years. Another pushed a former employer to convert a closet used for nursing female employees into a bathroom for the transgendered (which upset the well-meaning person who pushed for the copier room to be turned into a closet for nursing female employees). 

These examples are just those enacted by individuals that I have met. Well-meaning liberals who are actually elected to government office come up with even worse solutions to what they perceive to be the most pressing issues of the day: Evil corporation? Form a union and inadvertently chase a good employer away from an otherwise impoverished town. Not making enough money? Universal basic income is the answer. No job? The government will come up with a job that’s “shovel ready.” Incarcerated? Prison reform. Police brutality? Remove qualified immunity.

The liberals who I have known in my life have seemed to have an immense, solemn devotion to a sense of “community.” To your author, a “community” is a group of individuals living within the same geographical area that do their best to respect each other’s space, rights and have a cup of coffee together from time to time. 

In my conversations with some of the liberals who I have met in my lifetime, a “community” is an entity that just … is. The “community” has a garden, shares everything, never says anything that could possibly be considered offensive to even a skunk, and is just generally nice, accepting, and inclusive* to anyone and everything. The individual is immaterial to the community and a sense of individuality is a potential threat. 

While harmless at artist colonies, Trader Joe’s, Subaru dealerships, and California, nothing is more dangerous than a well-meaning liberal wielding a gavel. This has never been more apparent than in the recent legislative activity popping up in state legislatures across our Republic in the aftermath of multiple instances of alleged “police brutality” and the resulting “peaceful” protests. New Mexico’s Dear Leader (Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham) just signed New Mexico H.B. 4 into law. In a nutshell, this law strips law enforcement and “other” government officials* of qualified

immunity at the state level. This means that individuals who feel “victimized” by the actions of a law enforcement or public safety officer can sue the offending agency for cash and prizes. While the bill purports to not assign personal liability to the law enforcement or public safety officer (like a similar bill signed into law in Colorado), the taxpayers are still on the hook for the payment of claims, and small, rural government agencies could face economic ruin in the near future.

Living part-time in the small mountain community of Timberon, the idea of the Timberon VFD going bankrupt or not being able to attract volunteers is a grave concern. It’s like this: Imagine we have a terrible forest fire in a couple of years. In fighting the fire, the VFD has to make FAST decisions as to what properties may be saved from the fire and which properties the VFD simply cannot afford to lend resources to while considering their overall strategy in fighting the fire. 

While the fire may be put out, some residents aren’t going to be happy that the VFD didn’t save their homes. New Mexico H.B. 4 allows for such aggrieved property owners to sue the VFD to redress their state of victimhood.

Another thing that “well-meaning” liberals have in common: They don’t like to participate in an honest discussion about the potential drawbacks to their “solutions.” The media is complicit in this as it seems to gloss over the impact that H.B. 4 will have on state and local agencies that do not have law enforcement duties. This is dishonest, and frankly, dangerous.

People have the right to know—completely and transparently—the impact that a law such as H.B. 4 may have. Preferably before a rural VFD or EMS agency is forced to close its doors due to a litigious resident and is unable to answer a call for a rural resident suffering a heart attack or to fight a forest fire.

Opinions expressed by Piñon Post contributors do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the publication or its editorial staff. Submit an op-ed to the Piñon Post at news@pinonpost.com.