Keep 'em poor, sad, and upset...

I was thinking, after having read another ridiculous article in my free copy of Rolling Stone, what do liberal, socialistic activists seek. I do not think it is truly socialism or liberalism for that matter. For if their ideal socialistic state were ever attained, what would they do? How would they make a living, what would they have to complain about? I do realize these questions are mere folly. Socialism does not work. An idea that these activists may or may not realize to begin with. For you see their brand of idealistic fervor is meant to rile up a specific group of people. Mostly the young, the impressionable, or the just plain lazy are who they seek. Lazy may be too strong a word, perhaps it is better described as those who are used to an institutionilized form of daily routine. An individual who sees no other form of trials as those set by bureaucratic keepers. A world where forms and permissions are needed gives these people a sense of being cared for by government. It may be politically incorrect, but my father may refer to these types as "line walkers". But, it fits, I need this, "go down and wait in line". I need that, "then get in the proper line". The idea that someone or something is regulating gives some people a warm, fuzzy feeling. So liberal, idealistic activists preach to this brand of person. And when they preach they speak of the big, bad red-staters who want to not give more money away. And without the money, government will not be able to pay for the regulators or the line-keepers or the bureaucrats. The idea of less money scares and upsets a lot of people. But a lot of people do not realize that it is our money. It may irk some to think that there are those individuals who see tax cuts as a bad thing. If the system worked, and those individuals who take the handouts and welfare and grants one day move on to CEO status or are ripe with the entrepreneurial spirit why not flaunt it? Why not tell their stories? I will give you one guess. The system perpetuates needyness, and a sense of us against them. And if an individual has that sense of being kept down, then they are further prime for the activist's message.
Ideally there are those starry-eyed people who go into the "not for profit" sector of the "real" world intent on doing something good, but how they think it is proper to do such a thing is unsound. To cry out for victims of the war in Iraq, makes little sense to those with an ounce of hindsight. For where were these individuals when Saddam was killing and torturing? Where was there P.A.C. for those people, with its tax-free status as a human rights organization?
People are indeed at the core decent in nature. So, when a group makes a big enough noise about some misdeed, be it true or untrue, most people will listen and feel somewhat sad. And when the culprit is the U.S., then they may even be upset. To take a step back and look at the big picture, these liberal, misleading organizations out to do good for the down-trodden have found themselves a pretty good niche. As long as there are people who do not realize that it is in the activist's future best interests that they remain poor, sad, and upset.