Oh, for the days when a bleeding-heart liberal was proud of that designation. Time was when a fellow could blather on about the deplorable state in which many Third-World folks lived, and even call for U.S. government spending to alleviate it, without seeking an excuse for such beliefs.

Thinking individuals, who understood that taxes are collected essentially at the point of the gun of state coercion, wondered if that money should be shipped overseas. But Woodrow Wilson gave us the concept of the Redemptive State, which claims for government a kind of monopoly on do-gooderism. But as the date to which Americans toil before paying off their tax burden for the year extended past March, then April, June and on into July, this kind of Federal Bureau of Robin Hood lost its appeal.

So what is a governmental do-gooder to do? Suppose, for example, you bemoan the reality that “the world’s population has outpaced the ability of many governments to provide the basic necessities of life,” as does Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on the Commentary pages of Monday’s Washington Times. Suppose that when you write that sentence, it does not even occur to you to question whether it is truly government’s job to “provide the basic necessities of life.” Plantation owners provided to slaves “the basic necessities of life.” Is that the relationship intelligent people want to their government?

But I digress. The question is, what do you do now? You are a Wilsonite, convinced that the state is the source of all things good. Your ideological ilk have had such success raising taxes in America that the tax-paying natives are starting to get restless, to question the wide disparity on their pay stubs between “gross” and “net.” Put simply, the bleeding-heart bit is wearing a little thin. What to do?

Why, you claim that national defense requires even more foreign aid. The social scientists are happy to chime in with phrases like “cycle of poverty” and the “root causes” of terrorism. You hope no one will notice the similarity between this and paying some thug to “watch your hubcaps.” And you claim that a “balanced” strategy against terrorism requires giving money to regimes that support terrorists. Isn’t it fascinating how a false premise can force such labyrinthine logic in its defense?