The problem with modern liberals is that they have a huge problem. This quagmire is so fundamental that it needs to be continuously hidden behind lesser problems lest it brings their whole moral house of cards down in one cynical swoop. Bereft of the belief that God is the creator of all that presents itself to our senses and intellect, liberals are forced to stand on the bedrock of Darwinism to, ultimately, ground all they so fervently believe in. Let's be frank here, it's either God or Darwin...in the current tide of human affairs animating our quest for Final Meaning.

Conservatives of Christian persuasion obviously have a problem too when it comes to grounding their fundamental beliefs. The existence of God can neither be proven, nor disproven. It is simply a matter of faith, practical wisdom and philosophical humility – all being fallible, as any true Christian would readily admit. But this problem pales in comparison to the quandary confronting liberals of atheistic hue.

In The Decent of Man, Darwin writes; "It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another."

Without restating the obvious; what Darwin is saying is that any deliberation about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is actually superfluous. In the struggle for survival the material well-being of the individual is paramount – something Mr. The Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins will wholeheartedly agree with. In a nutshell; stuff morality, I want immortality (i.e. the biological imperative driving me to give my genes the best chance to survive when I kick the bucket).

Rather disillusioning, isn't it? Well, welcome to the bedrock of ultimate meaning in the universe of modern liberalism. A world in which the likes of Hillary Clinton have to resort to opinion-poll politics in order to ensure the survival of her intellectual genes (memes) by imbedding them in the quantitive survival chances guaranteed by the masses. Why outthink them, when you can outvote (outbreed) them?! Alas, a socio-political climate determined by the demographic power of Oprah-endorsed opinions. The dictatorship of the alienated existentialist 'I'...grounded in the gullible norm borne by the sheer weight of numbers.

Now, if we look at the above quote carefully then it would imply that conservatives are more successful in doing the Darwin thingy ... i.e. they are a group very successful in pragmatically exploiting resources to their own benefit. This implies that there is nothing morally 'wrong' with President Bush's invasion/liberation of Iraq. They (the Iraqi tribe) have the resources (oil) needed for our (America's) survival. Or even more cynically interpreted; democracy makes for rather good capitalist consumers. So why criticize the President? Seriously; if you believe that Darwin rules the world, why bemoan the fate of the 'Other'?! You simply cannot have your bread buttered on both sides!

But it even gets better; according to Darwin, "A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, and sympathy, were always ready to aid each other, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection."

What he is saying is that 'morality' is a (biological) virtue solely because it gives one tribe of men a bigger club which to whack a rival tribe with. Self-sacrifice, altruism and reciprocity are therefore beneficial because it can greatly better the survival prospects of the group. Isn't this exactly what our brave boys are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or what Al Qaida terrorists are doing as well?! So, seen from this angle, liberals should actually applaud the fact that American soldiers are fighting the Al Qaida tribe.

Rather topsy-turvy, isn't it? It would seem that conservatives are better liberals than liberals themselves. For to appeal to an a-historically universal scheme of morality is anathema to Darwin's fundamental teachings. Different moral strokes for different moral folks, it 'ought' to seem. Tribes need to have divergent 'moralities' in order to stimulate conflict which, according to the Darwinian scheme of things, is the spice of evolutionary life. What the respective 'content' of these moralities are, is completely irrelevant....as long as they are divergent enough to impel us to kill our neighbor in order to successfully transfer our – and only our - genes (and memes) into the next generation. In short; evolution needs strife in order to survive!

It is therefore rather schizophrenic of liberals to even postulate any notion of a 'shared' morality, not to mention moralizing about what ought to ultimately, constitute 'good' behavior and what ought to constitute 'bad' behavior per se. There is neither a universal human tribe, nor a universal morality; there is only the group/tribe-embedded 'I' solely intent on surviving. Shave a liberal and all that shines through is Darwin's grizzly stubble.

Now, the obvious question is; how did modern liberals become the holier-than-thou keepers of the Holy Grail of Good& Bad in this complex world we live in? Well, it is quite simple. They simply grew a beard. A feel-good façade that hides their Achilles Heel so well that, at first glance, one cannot help but bow down to the supposed humane 'wisdom' they so brazenly flaunt via modern popular culture. 'Cry moral havoc, and unleash the poodles of Hollywood!' Bono and Brangelina will sing and act us back/to Paradise.

According to Edward Swanitch; "Dabei sind linke Blaetter dogmatischer und unliberaler als rechte. Das liegt daran, dass Linke sich viel staerker ueber Meinungen, Ideologien und Programme definieren als Konservativen. Da sie die beteiligung an der Macht weitgehend ueber die Eroberung der Diskurse und der Kulturellen Lufthoheit erzwungen haben, ist fuer sie die korrekte politische Linie weit wichtiger als fuer die Konservativen, die ja schon ueber das Geld verfuegen."

What Schwanitz is saying is that the toeing of the politically correct line is much more important for modern liberals because they owe their participation in politics to their conquest of political discourses and their resulting socio-cultural (in the academic sense of the term) supremacy in the moral high ground. They need to be dogmatic about the morally correct line because they do not have the financial power of the conservatives. So, their existence is, by and large, engendered and sustained by the rhetoric of moralization. This, in plain English, means that modern liberals have been rather slack in following the Laws of Evolution (i.e. to survive materially, at all costs) as laid down by their master (Darwin). No money, no Duracell Darwin bunny!