Site menu:


May 2015 Policy Study, Number 15-5


RED or BLUE…Which View Is Best For You?


Exposing The Liberable Hidden Agenda



Again, not everyone who calls himself a liberal has a liberal worldview. However, that doesn’t make it any less important to understand how that worldview tends to categorize people. These labels are generalizations, of course, but they accurately reflect the deepest truths about liberal core beliefs and the leaders who espouse them.


In this worldview, there are perceived victims (V), perceived victimizers (VZ), and self-proclaimed champions-of-victims, (CV).


Liberalism is a system about feelings, and not necessarily reality. It is about caring and not common sense. Notice how often the words “feel” and “care” must be used to describe those with this perspective.


Perceived Victims (V) comprise all those who are victims or think of themselves as victims. In the liberal vertical worldview, all who feel they do not have their share of power, prestige, or wealth (PPW) are victims.


Even though this may be hard for others to believe and understand, since victims feel powerless, they think of themselves as being “good.” This group feels unable to help themselves. They feel the need for a champion. They feel the need for protection from powerful people or entities which they believe are incapable of compassion and incapable of understanding their situation. Therefore, they look to unions, affinity groups and big-government to help them get what they believe is their fair share. Unfortunately, they also need someone to blame for the fact that they feel this way. If they are not given their fair share, then they consider themselves left behind and that is “just wrong,” according to Al Gore.


Self-proclaimed champions-of-victims (CV) see themselves as superior to everyone else. They are at the top of society. They are the first class citizens. Therefore, they feel they have the unique and innate capacity and responsibility to help perceived victims and to control or destroy perceived victimizers.


The new liberals can be traced to the sixties. Judge Robert Bork speaks of that era’s riots, institutional shutdowns, and the youth’s rage against their own country. Their design was not just to end an unjust war (Vietnam), but primarily to ravage capitalism and reshape western civilization. Their protests were primarily about their own self-proclaimed, moral superiority.


It has been said that you cannot understand Clintonian politics, or the secretive attempt by Hillary Rodham Clinton to overhaul healthcare, without understanding first the Clintons’ own sense of “superiority.” It grew out of the radical mindset of their formative years. They are among many 1960s’ protesters who carry that sense of superiority into their current professions. We often see this attitude in liberal political leaders, bureaucrats, trial lawyers, environmentalists, journalists, entertainers, educators, union leaders, and terrorists. “The Sixties radicals” are still with us, but now they do not paralyze the universities––they run the universities.


Champions-of-victims see themselves as saviors, since victims cannot take care of themselves. “Don’t worry,” say the perceived-champions to the victim, “I will take care of you.” This statement may seem unselfish, until you realize that the helpers derive their power from those helped, in the form of the votes they demand in return. Soon it becomes imperative to keep the victim in a state of helplessness.


Those who consider themselves champions-of-victims feel justified in having more than their fair share of power, prestige and wealth, because they claim these are necessary for them to remain effective champions. They do not accord this privilege to anyone else, in any other group.


In the liberal worldview, individuals do not have the freedom to decide whether they are a victim or a victimizer. This choice is determined by the champions-of-victims. They feel they are the only ones with enough intelligence to determine where everyone else fits. In their minds, all of humanity falls into one of these three vertical categories.


Who are the perceived victimizers (VZ)? If you are not a victim to some degree, then you are by default a victimizer to some degree –– unless of course, you are a champion-of-victims. Victimizers are at the bottom of this vertical worldview. Since this group is not powerless, they are perceived as being more or less evil and are often looked on with disdain.


Why disdain? It is imagined that they had some role in weaker citizens becoming victims.


The liberal worldview holds that the more power, prestige and wealth lies in the hands of any VZ, the more dangerous a victimizer he becomes. Therefore, liberals believe wealth and power should be justly taken from this group through laws and taxes. That power is then redirected to the champions-of-victims to increase their power, prestige and wealth. Allegedly, this is for the benefit of those they champion. In one swoop, they gain thanks from those on government programs, and subdue their political adversaries in the name of doing good.




Liberals consider it so vital to put champions-of-victims in charge that they will go to any length to obtain and keep that power, prestige, and wealth. Why are they so adamant? First of all, because liberalism has become their religion. Secondly, they do not trust anyone else to be in charge. Third, to be candid, they fall in love with the perks of privilege and wealth –– even while they justify them as necessary to remain effective champions-of-victims.


This statement may sound harsh and written with a broad brush, but consider the words of T. S. Eliot. He said, “ a movement...away from, rather than towards something definite.” In other words, it’s a sweeping away of healthy human boundaries. Destroy the constraints on personal liberty imposed by morality, law, family, community and religion, and you have no solid foundation keeping anyone from going to any length to accomplish his goals  –– whether personal or political.




In liberal ideology, the major problem in the world is inequality –– not inequality of opportunity and freedom, but inequality of outcome, power, prestige and wealth. From the liberal view, a perceived victimizer becomes more dangerous with each increment of added power, prestige or wealth. Enter Robin Hood, who takes from those who have, giving to those who do not have. In America, this is accomplished by our graduated tax scheme.


It doesn’t matter that a person or business obtains power, prestige and wealth by hard work, good decisions and honest means. If a person or business is not a victim or a champion-of-victims — as defined by the liberals — they are automatically a dangerous victimizer who needs to be controlled, taxed and in some cases destroyed.


In the 2000 presidential election the liberal mantra was, “Your tax cut is a risky scheme and unfair because it gives most of the money back to the upper one percent.” The attempt was to demonize anyone or any group with wealth. Unfortunately, this targets those who create jobs for the rest of us. If you look at how things line up in the liberal worldview, it is always the perceived “have-nots” (V) with their champions (CV), against the “haves” (VZ).


This subject reminds me of a story I saw on the Internet. It described attitudes which surface when taxes are reduced. Suppose that every day, ten men go to dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. They all seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.


He said, “Since you are all such good customers, I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.”

Now the dinner for the 10 only cost $80. The first four were unaffected. They still ate for free. The question was, how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone got his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.


The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same percentage. So he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. Therefore, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.


Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.


“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, “and he got $7!”


“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!


“That’s true,” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?” The wealthy get all the breaks.”


“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night, the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!


Doesn’t it make sense that the people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction? Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean. Along the same line, when we over-regulate and over-tax employers and corporations, they go elsewhere.




How many times have you heard that conservatives are uncaring and racist? They are accused of this because they are reluctant to give special privileges to minorities. Follow the conservative reasoning. The government is to guarantee equal opportunity, no matter what a person’s race, gender, nationality, or sexual preference. Conservatives believe special privileges are not needed unless government involvement is necessary to guarantee equal opportunity.


Conservatives believe it is wrong for government or any person to give minorities or specific groups just enough help to keep them enslaved to government programs –– bound even further by empty promises of future help. The intent is often to keep people indebted and loyal members of the liberal power base. Not only do these minority groups owe their soul to the company store, they owe their vote to the person behind the handout. Therefore, it is in a liberal politician’s best interest to sustain enough inequality to continue being needed.


I don’t intend to return fire and attribute conspiratorial motives to the forty years of liberal control of Congress from 1954-1994. Their programs may have been conceived with humanitarian concerns. Liberals often look to their long list of social programs as a reason for feeling morally superior to conservatives. However, most of those programs trapped and eventually victimized the people they were so desperately trying to help.


President Johnson created “The Great Society” to expand possibilities for many who needed assistance. What we got instead was a shrinking return on our tax dollar, a class of citizens dependent on government help, and an expanded government work force to pay with those tax dollars.


Before you cast your vote, consider how a candidate or office-holder would be affected if his or her pet issue suddenly vanished. Would the person celebrate, or privately mourn the loss of a platform? Does the continuation of the problem actually benefit the politician by giving him power, prestige and a platform? What would happen to Al Gore if the scientific world reached a consensus that climate change is simply a natural cycle and not caused by any manmade emissions? How do you know unless you study the issues, the candidates, and consider the long-term effects on America?




Os Guinness, who edited Character Counts, says, “The crisis of America’s first postmodern president (Clinton) is not just the sad story of a flawed individual, but the full flowering of a generation of trends in American society.” He goes on to evaluate that “...character in leadership has been replaced by image, truth by power and plausibility, and confession and moral changes by spin control and image makeovers.”


President Eisenhower said the essential qualities of a great leader are “vision, integrity, courage, understanding, the power of articulation, and profundity of character.” Others add decisiveness and a sense of providence.




The victim/victimizer/champion-of-victims mindset is rampant in politics, but we also see it in everyday life.


Ten years ago, I met a family who had a beautiful young daughter with great potential. She left a college education and bright future behind and fell in love with a dead-beat, abusive ex-convict with no job and little potential. At first, I thought she suffered from a Florence Nightingale syndrome: a mindless compulsion to rescue someone despite the destructive impact on one’s own life. (Florence Nightingale, who didn’t deserve having this problem named after her, was a true champion-of-victims who would do her best to prevent a victim from remaining one.)


This young woman actually facilitated this man’s problem. She felt the need to help and care for “this poor victim” whom only she understood. As far as she was concerned, everyone who tried to dissuade her from dating and then marrying this guy was a victimizer –– even her parents. She determined that all this man needed was someone to love him.


Did this man ever get a job and become a productive member of society? Why would he? He had a champion and an enabler to take care of him. An enabler is someone who makes it possible for someone else to remain in an unhealthy condition without feeling guilty or taking responsibility for themselves. He had no incentive to contribute his fair share towards this relationship or to society.


“Caretaker” is not synonymous with “champion.” Think about Anne Sullivan, who was hired to be Helen Keller’s caretaker. She became her true champion. She helped Helen become less of a victim of her disability.


At some point, you may have run into someone at your club or church who was convinced the facility needed new carpet and it had to be blue. There was no convincing him otherwise. He became an irrational champion of his idea, and blue carpet. Control freaks and abusers function in the victim, victimizer, champion-of-victims mindset. Their agendas are the alleged victims of anyone’s disagreement with them. Those who dissent are the victimizers, who deserve to be controlled, punished, or destroyed.


Terrorist leaders fit into this worldview. The leader is a self-proclaimed champion-of-victims who believes that he represents those being victimized. He attacks the perceived victimizers in subversive ways to destroy them. Then the attacker’s status is elevated to hero among the perceived victims he champions. If rebuffed, defeated, or killed, the attacker becomes a martyr in the minds of the True Believers. Suicide bombers believe it is so vital to destroy a perceived victimizer that even their own lives are less important.


But exposing hidden agendas is not enough. There is a better way, one that goes further than mere labels or classifications.




Click here for pdf copy of this Policy Study


All of our publications are available for sponsorship.  Sponsoring a publication is an excellent way for you to show your support of our efforts to defend liberty and define the proper role of government.  For more information, please contact Public Interest Institute at 319-385-3462 or e-mail us at