“Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help.”

An absolutely accurate observation ! ! ! I just feel a little queazy using the term 'liberal' to describe the current left, progressives, a statist theocracy's immorality, or ?. A liberal to my core still lends itself to those freedom, liberty and otherwise seekers of natural law, inalienable rights and justice for all. I recognize that the term has been entirely hijacked to mean something completely different than it once did - I just personally don't like the digression of the moniker.

Mr. Sowell is correct; and right to say "seem to assume" because cynical politicians who issue public statements which claim that conservatives don't care about people may not really believe what they're saying -- which is even worse than sincerely making a mistaken assumption. Of course, if you ask the "man on the street" about this matter, many will unthinkingly parrot their party leaders; and cynical falsehoods are issued with full appreciation of that phenomenon.

I thought that a central conservative belief is that people should help themselves? Or mixed with a healthy dose of religious virtue - God helps those that helps themselves. I think that the sweeping generalised liberal assumptions are based on the view that conservatives only help conditionally when it turns a profit of some sort, or is tax deductible.

Liberals always think they occupy the high ground but the exact opposite is true.

Self-determination is central to liberty. Liberals appear to presume that conservatives are selfish in a world of the impoverished. Libertarians view the world not as impoverished but fruitful. Nature is bountiful by default, and we are part of that bounty. Being born is not to be a victim of the world. Become someone!

Conservatives are traditionally generous and charitable. I don't see this as a battle between Liberals and Conservatives, I see it as a battle of the Responsible vs the Irresponsible.

We all want to help the boy who fell in the well -- but it is not an entitlement to be saved from one's mistakes. But everyone will try to save the boy and be happy when he is out. That is what a community does. It is a gift of the savior to save the boy, not an obligation. Life is full of those gifts from giving people. What's wrong with that?

It seems the libs want to load the people up with duties and obligations for the common good -- a denial that goodness comes voluntarily. Victim-consciousness seeks to drag everyone in to the drama -- and they cling to that no matter how hard people try to get them out of that well.

I think that liberals consider a fair opportunity to self determination is central to humanity and liberty. What about the boy who was born at the bottom of the well rather than fell down based on his own folly or irresponsibility. I don't think it's as simple as responsible vs irresponsible, feckless vs industrious, deserving vs undeserving. These are view points based on the belief that the world is a meritocracy and that privilege does not exist. Real help for the needy and promoting the opportunity to share the bounty of this world should not be left to the discretion of a few wealthy individuals - charity and philanthropy and the gratitude associated with it cannot be relied upon to address the abject poverty and unfairness in today's world or even in America. A shared responsibility and humanity leads to duties and obligations for the common good. The 'Oh poor me' victim mentality' argument in my experience does not reflect peoples' real circumstances.

Yes, but also it goes deeper. You see, the liberal base certainly thinks like that. But the leaders, at least some of those know that the debate is far more complex, but they actively choose to label others in a simplistic way. Its called "controlling the framing", and its disgusting and disruptive.