One of the great things about the American Thinker website is that (most) readers are able to think!  But with that ability comes a curse.  The curse is the propensity of AT readers to examine all facets of a proposal or issue, to consider ultimate results, to recognize unintended consequences, to evaluate its merits, and to pronounce a bad idea as bad regardless of how it makes us feel.

This ability to think complicates our lives, which would be much less complicated if we conservatives could do what liberals always do: feel rather than think.

Below are some examples of what I mean.  I'm certain that AT readers can think of others.

Let's begin with J.R. Dunn's article of 6 Nov. 14.  Dunn thinks about the ultimate result of Barack  Obama's "Open Doors" immigration policy. 

Dunn first explained from where Obama's immigration plan came:

His “plan” was simply to carry on what the American left had been doing since FDR: encourage creeping socialization by taking advantage of the moral weakness of the American populace.

Dunn then explained why Obama's policy had/has unintended consequences:

As a result of asinine policy borne of multiculturalism and his obsession with third-world immigration, the doors were left open and deadly disease -- always overlooked by sophisticated urbanites, familiar with only the mild "childhood" diseases -- came roaring in: the result has been the importation of potential epidemic disease into the U.S.: Ebola, enteroviruses, and others.

Dunn closed his article with a summation of Obama policy:

But it acts as a pure metaphor for the Age of Obama: failure, incompetence, willful negligence, dishonesty, the collapse of the elites, and utter indifference toward the public welfare.

That is a great example of thinking.  Obama's immigration policy, as Dunn pointed out, had/has some unintended consequences, but the policy sure felt good.

LBJ, fifty years ago, started the "War on Poverty" so that liberals could feel good by ending poverty (and buy votes).  Twenty trillion dollars later, the poverty level remains largely unchanged.  But the votes stayed bought.

... between 2009 and 2011, a shocking one third of Americans slipped below the federal poverty line for at least two months, data show.

The current situation is just as bad.  Liberals feel just as much today as they did fifty years ago.

Typical liberals, who are filled with lots of emotion but low on the facts, are worried that children and disabled people will now go without.   If they did a little research, they would know this expired waiver [requiring work in order to receive welfare] will only affect able-bodied people with no children.

Welfare and the War on Poverty sound good, and they let liberals feel good.  But the price – a wrecked economy and a large portion of society lost – is high for feeling good.  And liberals want to continue the feeling.  "Despite five decades of the War on Poverty and $20 trillion spent, with no sign of victory in sight, Obama said the 'war' must be stepped up." 

Today's welfare state, and its antecedent, the "War on Poverty," certainly have and had unintended consequences.  Thinking fifty years ago could have recognized them, but thinking didn't feel good then.  And thinking doesn't feel good today.

Minimum wage: Derrick Wilburn, in a 21 Jun. AT article, provided some useful information.  Unfortunately, reading the article and analysis of the facts he presented would require thinking – something liberals will not do.  So let's look to another article, one that requires no thinking.  That should appeal to liberals.

The whole argument of a guaranteed minimum wage is fallacious.  It is wrong in principle, therefore it is wrong in practice.  It leads to evils much worse than those it proposes to cure.

The whole trouble is that it is so easy to confuse the end with the means.  The main objective, its proponents say, is to give everybody a living wage.

The second quote sums up the liberal position.  They confuse the end with the means in order to feel good.  The problem with this article is that it doesn't foster good feelings, so liberals simply ignore it.  Ignoring facts allows liberals to keep on feeling good by ignoring actual outcomes.

Even Obama confuses (on purpose?) the minimum wage issue in his 2014 State of the Union address.  Perhaps Obama should consider what Economist Dr. Walter E. Williams wrote: "Mandated wages are one of the most effective means of pricing one's competition out of the market, ...[.]"  But that will never happen because "consideration" requires thought and interferes with feeling.

ObamaCare: Sure, it sounded good, and liberals felt good about providing health care for everyone.  But (and there's always a “but” when Obama is involved) someone must pay.  The latest reality check suggests that all is not going to liberals' plan.  More people receiving health care = more cost = higher premiums.  I'll bet even Nancy Pelosi could have thought of that had she taken the time to read the ObamaCare bill before voting for it.  But no, she was too busy feeling good.

And let's not forget our national defense.  People who wish to do us and this country harm often place themselves and their weapons in schools, hospitals, and residential areas because they know that liberals will cry out if our military kills or injures non-combatants while attacking them.  Hamas, with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group favored by Obama, admits that it places its weapons in schools and hospitals.  In (what I assume to be) an effort to feel good, Obama said he has no sympathy for Hamas.  Was his condemnation not sincere, meant only for public consumption, knowing the MSM would spread his feel good sentiments worldwide?

It's unfortunate that party politics has to enter into this discussion, but ultimately it does.  The vast majority of MSM journalists are liberal and vote Democrat.  They present their "facts" from a liberal perspective that favors Democrats, ignoring and omitting information that does not further both groups' agendas.  They feel rather than think.  We (mostly Republican) conservatives must therefore dig out information that is what the late, great Paul Harvey referred to as "the rest of the story" so we can think about the entire situation or proposal.

I know some conservative Democrats, but they can never explain why they associate themselves with that party.  The Republican Party comprises mostly of conservatives, but there are a few RINOs out there.  So the "problem" goes beyond party politics.  It is a conservative-liberal phenomenon.  For liberals, and therefore for most Democrats, feeling trumps thinking.  And we thinking conservatives are cursed. 

Bottom line: liberals feel, then stop there.  They never think – never have, never will.

Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making.  He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.