Liberal Bullshit: Sorry I am allergic.

William Voegeli--senior editor for the Claremont Review of Books--has a rather humorous but accurate article at National Review Online aptly titled "Liberal Bulllshit," where he breaks down why Liberals are more interested in personal aggrandizing their efforts, rather than "making statements that correspond scrupulously to empirical or causal reality."

A bullshit prescription, by the same token, might actually work to some degree, but any such efficacy is inadvertent and tangential to the central purpose: demonstrating the depths of the prescriber’s concern for the problem and those who suffer from it, concerns impelling the determination to “do something” about it. As the political project that exists to vindicate the axiom that all sorts of government program X’s can solve an endless list of social problem Y’s, liberalism is always at risk of descending into prescriptive bullshit. Liberal compassion lends itself to bullshit by subordinating the putative concern with efficacy to the dominant but unannounced imperative of moral validation and exhibitionism. I, the empathizer, am interested in the sufferer for love of myself, Rousseau contended. Accordingly, an ineffectual program may serve the compassionate purposes of its designers and defenders as well as or better than a successful one.