The myth of the weak Liberal

A common charge levelled against Liberals, especially with today's terrorism threats, is that Liberals are naive as to the real threats of the world, and too weak to confront these threats. Appeasement for example  is a common charge levelled against Liberals who seek to avoid war or similar extreme measures. They see it as a last resort, but this is precisely because they fear its ineffectiveness and tendency to make things worse. The Iraq war of 2003 is a prime example.  France's recent troubles are the product of its bombing in Syria,  not it's rather adroit avoidance of a ground war in Iraq. 

In war,  Conservatives have talked big and then failed to back up their words. It was Obama's surge that finally settled down Iraq ( only later for it to be squandered by his tolerance of a divisive Shia government there).  Conservatives have typically failed to fund the very military forces they proclaim to venerate, even to the shameful extent of cutting veterans benefits post war.

On law and order Conservatives have likewise talked big but failed to make progress against crime, mainly due to their blind adherence to ideology as opposed to evidence driven policy. In its broad thrust crime policy is more effective when driven by prevention, treatment, and the certainty of getting caught rather than the severity of the punishment.

On domestic terrorism Liberals are often seen as naive, letting in refugees who will turn against them. Actually, the threat is already inside and refugees are allies fleeing a common enemy. (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/20/the-threat-is-already-inside-uncomfortable-truths-terrorism-isis/)

It takes more courage to remain calm and wait to strike the effective blow, than it does to lash out in fear. Liberals have the courage to wait to identify the right target rather,  than strike first and risk hitting innocents.

Further reading here ;
http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/10-surprising-ways-fight-crime

The Myth of a Golden Age and In Defence of Progress

A common divide between Conservatives and Liberals is their assessment of the 'progress' that society has undergone. In much of Western Europe and North America for example, the sixties saw a sexual revolution and new accepted norms. In our own time the boundaries of acceptable behaviour have been pushed forward with the Internet. Whilst I would argue we have made huge progress with tolerance and diversity, many on the Conservative spectrum would focus on the extremes of modern behaviour as symptomatic of some sort of modern moral decay.  They would say instead we have gone backwards, or rather lowered our standards of behaviour. This I would argue, underestimates the progress and how bad things used to be. It has been scarcely been two hundred years since most societies officially abolished torture. Some may complain that human rights are abused by a minority for spurious purposes, but if this is the price for all that human rights have brought us, I would argue it has been well worth it. And make no mistake. A culture of respect for human rights is not just good for moral reasons and individual welfare but arguably also political stability,  peace and economic growth. One cannot genuinely respect human rights and then cheat people in business and wage war.

I would argue two main forces drive the human race forward ; peace,  and the advance of knowledge.  Religion and tradition,  by dividing people and questioning science,  are holding us back. Science is pulling us forward, and not just in technology. If we truly understand the world and ourselves, we can be a more just and compassionate people. Whilst a few in the liberal west may be pushing new moral boundaries, the behaviour of the majority is usually better than most in a more traditional society where sins abound behind closed doors. Anybody who has lived in a more traditional and religious society knows this truth ; rather than enhance the morals of a people, religion and tradition usually enable the abuse of power, particularly of women.

By most metrics, the world is a vastly better place than a hundred years ago. Even with recent setbacks, millions continue to be pulled out of poverty. Technology continues to give us exciting new prospects, only threatened by our own political infighting. Do Conservatives and those ideologies focused around tradition and religion do more harm than good?   Like the campaign of Trump, they may misleadingly make the world look a lot worse than it really is. As hard as it is to believe, the world is a healthier and safer place than ever before.  But if a darker picture than reality is painted, people may more readily agree to extreme measures e.g draconian terrorism laws. It was once famously said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. I would perhaps rephrase that ; there are very real things to fear, but science and data analysis can help us identify and prioritise real threats, whilst debunking those we 'over-fear'. As a people we are still children, afraid of the dark. Science and cooperation can help bring us into the light.

Further reading here ;
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove