Maybe in making his point he exaggerates a little, but I have to agree with much of what he says.
That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality.
Whether it's naivety or narcissism, the belief that, people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook. The belief that everyone is good is virtually sacrosanct.
This is a topic that Michael Totten has tackled a couple of times and has always attracted my interest. What changes within a person to make a one-time, idealistic liberal, realize that conservatives aren’t as hard-hearted as he feared? Is there something common that happens that opens our eyes to evil?
The inability to see evil and the inability to even acknowledge that anyone could make a conscious choice to do evil, keeps the liberal from having to deal with ugly reality. There is, as Prager argues, something very much child-like in that response. But is there (or are there) common events that have given us evolved liberals the sudden ability to acknowledge the existence of evil, or at least to see that there are people who are inclined to choose evil?
It follows that there is likely a connection to a move towards conservatism as we gain life experience. What do you call a liberal who decides to accept responsibility for facing reality? Traitor? Neocon? Ignorant? Cold-hearted Republican? Bushie? Right-Winger? I’ve heard them all. It makes me wonder, how a group who has trouble seeing right and wrong, be so certain that their views are right and more moderate views are wrong. Why is it that the more idealistic they are, the more strongly they hold views of universal goodness, that the more venomous they can be in their condemnation of dissimilar opinions?
Balance seems to be a concept lacking in the left’s dogma.