Will Franken writes at the Federalist website about his brief stint as “Sarah” and what it taught him about liberal politics.

When Bruce Jenner, as he was then still known, granted an interview to Diane Sawyer in advance of his transition into Caitlyn, the online commentary from the Left immediately precipitating the interview was predictably supportive, if not outright sanctimonious. Yet when Jenner responded to Sawyer’s sycophantic praise of Obama by not only stating that he “wasn’t a fan” but going so far as to out himself as a Republican, the online commentary from the Left turned on a dime, becoming equally predictable in its knee-jerk contemptuousness and ignorance.

A good majority of the comments following the interview unearthed a primary struggle in the liberal mindset of reconciling individual life choices with a collective political agenda. In essence, the asinine question was raised: “How can one be both transgendered and conservative?” To those of us imbued with a healthy mistrust of collectivism, the answer to this is startlingly obvious.

Real consistency—one that manifests itself in the practice of individual personal choice—paradoxically appears to the Left as inconsistency. This calls to mind Margaret Thatcher’s famous hierarchy of convictions over consensus, and is understandable when considering that today’s liberals are themselves the very embodiment of inconsistency.

Gay rights advocates support Palestine over Israel. Progressives encourage a righteous contempt of authority, unless the authority happens to be a far-reaching socialist government. Career politicians speaking on climate change are transformed into altruistic scientists completely devoid of profit motive. And, of course, all fundamentalist religions are evil, so please stop Islamophobia.

Truly, only one thing is required to be a member in good standing with the Left. Acolytes simply have to swallow, unquestioningly, the entire contradictory lot of their bumper sticker propositions. Just when it seems their minds are about to short-circuit from the cognitive dissonance inherent in harbouring such blatant inconsistencies, a multitude of pompous academics and overpaid entertainers are there at the ready to help shout power to truth—not, as is too often insipidly claimed, speak truth to power.

Franken offers us another reminder that today’s “liberals” are not liberal.