As you can probably tell, I have an interest in Liberalism, and I am just a wee bit curious as to what makes a person identify with Liberal "values." What makes a person "conservative," for that matter? What are the major differences between the two worldviews? And, more to the point, which of those worldviews are more compatible with what might be called "traditional American values"?
Let's take a look. For the sake of having a placeholder to compare and contrast the Liberal worldview, we will use the much maligned and often demonized term "Conservative," which seems to me to be a natural counterpoint.
Conservatives think that Capitalism is the fairest and most equitable way a society can ensure equal opportunity for its citizens; Liberals believe that Socialism makes citizens equal.
Conservatives think that the Founding Fathers created one of the most forward-looking documents ever written and adhere to Constitutional Constructionism; Liberals believe in a "living" Constitution, one that is open to a very broad interpretation and which can therefore be bent to suit individual needs.
Conservatives think that Americans are by nature Self-Reliant and will Persevere in order to address the challenges that confront them; Liberals believe that Social Programs, Entitlements and Subsidies should be funded and implemented as quickly as they can be created.
Conservatives think that Abraham Lincoln's "True American System" is an eloquent distillation of the uniquely American belief that success is rightly achieved through hard work and determination; Liberals believe that The Government should interfere and arbitrate through Quotas and Affirmative Action in an attempt to provide success.
Conservatives think that each and every one of us should be held Accountable for his or her own actions; Liberals believe that Consequences are mean and that actions can always be Rationalized or Equivocated.
Conservatives think that Personal Responsibility is a virtue; Liberals believe that Corporate Liability should be exploited at every opportunity.
Conservatives think that Classicism, though rarely achieved, is an ideal worth striving for; Liberals believe that Class Warfare is best used to achieve the Socialist ideal.
Conservatives think that a sense of Fair Play should be employed in every endeavor, large or small; Liberals believe that rules are for other people and that the most important thing is to Win At Any Cost.
Conservatives think that Juris Prudence and The Rule of Law are indispensable to civilization; Liberals believe that the Trial Lawyers Association should rule the land.
Conservatives think being Pro Business is a catalyst for job growth; Liberals believe that being Pro Union will somehow grow jobs.
Conservatives think that everyone has a Right to Life, and defends those who cannot speak for themselves; Liberals believe that everyone has a Right to Choose Death for those who cannot speak in defense of their Life.
Conservatives think that Organized Religion represents the best opportunity to find God; Liberals believe that promoting Secularism is the best way to avoid any discussion of God whatsoever.
Conservatives think that Marriage is best defined as a sacrosanct union between a Man and a Woman; Liberals believe that Marriage should be redefined to include the union of two people (so far) of the same sex (so far).
Conservatives think that The Right To Bear Arms is a self-evident extension of Natural Law, being that people have the right to defend themselves; Liberals believe that self-defense impinges upon the right of people to Do As They Will, including Rape and Murder.
Conservatives think that Capital Punishment is a necessary component of Justice; Liberals believe that taking a human life is reprehensible, unless it is a defenseless fetus.
Conservatives think that people can and should solve their own problems and that a Limited Government is best suited to promote that ideal; Liberals believe that a Big Government can and should attempt to solve everyone's problems.
Conservatives think that States are sovereign and that citizens should govern and be governed locally as much as possible; Liberals believe that the Federal Government should trump State's Rights.
Conservatives think that Fiscal Responsibility demonstrates a fundamental moral obligation to The People; Liberals believe that a "Tax and Spend" approach demonstrates a fundamental moral obligation to take care of The People.
Conservatives think that Problems should be addressed through Realism; Liberals believe that there are No Problems which Idealism cannot solve.
Conservatives think that the important issues of the day should be discussed and debated using Critical Thought; Liberals believe that Emotionalism trumps Logic and Reason.
Conservatives think that Man is the ultimate arbiter of his world, and that the Responsible Stewardship of Natural Resources is merely acting in the best interests of self-preservation; Liberals believe that the preservation of lower life forms should take precedence over the best interests of Humanity.
Conservatives think America should act as an Eagle; Liberals believe America should act as a Pigeon.
Conservatives think America should "Speak Softly But Carry A Big Stick": Liberals believe that America should be Soft.
Conservatives think that America should act in her own Best Interests, or in the interest of Justice, even when that means acting unilaterally; Liberals believe that America should act only in unison with a Global Consensus.
Conservatives think that America has been a Positive Force, overall, in the betterment of Humanity; Liberals believe that America has been a Greedy Bully who should be stopped at any cost.
Conservatives think "What Is Best For My Country?"; Liberals believe that it is more important to ask "What Is Best For My Party?"
Conservatives think that Honest Debate should be conducted through a lens of Objectivity; Liberals believe that Subjectivity (and Volume) is a worthy substitute for Fact, Reason and Logic
I continue to wonder about the differences between Liberals and The Rest of Us, but the one overarching theme that I keep coming back to is this: Conservatives think; Liberals believe.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Greatest Country
I received (and forwarded) two emails this week that generated a good deal of discussion amongst my friends and acquaintances. The first one contained a Kitty Werthmann article, entitled “America Truly Is The Greatest Country In The World. Don’t Let Freedom Slip Away.” In it, the author gives an eyewitness account of growing up in Austria and what happened when the Austrians voted to be annexed by Germany and have Adolph Hitler as their ruler. This was in 1938, and Austria was in a deep recession. They were led to believe that Germany and Hitler would solve all of their problems and everyone would be happy. Of course, we know today how that turned out, but what makes Kitty Werthmann’s story so compelling is that she lived through it, and she uses that experience to draw parallels to the current situation in America.
Naturally, my friends on the Left took exception to such comparisons, drawing the not unreasonable inference that the article essentially paints Barrack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress as Hitler and the Nazis. I countered that it was less a comparison than a warning about the socialization of America, and the grand “changing” of America that the Left is working so fervently to institute.
Then a second email hit my Inbox, and it sort of complemented the first. Called “The Fundamental Transformation of America,” it was an unattributed compilation of all of the warning signs that we had received in regard to Barrack Obama, and how we pretty much ignored them. (It should be stated here that by “we,” I mean those who voted for “change” in the first place; not everyone was seduced by Obama’s promises.)
By the way, I did find out that the author of this piece is a fellow named Matt Bruce, a Vietnam veteran, retired firefighter and host of “The Captain’s AMERICA” Radio Show. Here’s a link to his website, which I found while trying to authenticate the authorship of the email: http://thecaptainsamerica.com/ Well done, sir, and thank you for your service to America.
Both emails were a variation on the same theme, a warning that we should be vigilant and hold tight to our values lest we endanger them or lose them altogether. I’ll sign off by saying that, while I think the current POTUS is an abomination, the larger danger to our republic is the fact that we have in place an electorate that would elect such a man in the first place. It’s not as if we were entirely ignorant of the facts; no, I tend to think that a conscious decision was made, by many, to simply ignore the facts.
I’ve found links to the essential content of the emails. You can decide for yourself what to think of them. (Note: I do not read or endorse these websites or their content in general; they were simply the most convenient links available.)
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/1938-austria-land-of-the
http://www.redcounty.com/fundamental-transformation-america
Naturally, my friends on the Left took exception to such comparisons, drawing the not unreasonable inference that the article essentially paints Barrack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress as Hitler and the Nazis. I countered that it was less a comparison than a warning about the socialization of America, and the grand “changing” of America that the Left is working so fervently to institute.
Then a second email hit my Inbox, and it sort of complemented the first. Called “The Fundamental Transformation of America,” it was an unattributed compilation of all of the warning signs that we had received in regard to Barrack Obama, and how we pretty much ignored them. (It should be stated here that by “we,” I mean those who voted for “change” in the first place; not everyone was seduced by Obama’s promises.)
By the way, I did find out that the author of this piece is a fellow named Matt Bruce, a Vietnam veteran, retired firefighter and host of “The Captain’s AMERICA” Radio Show. Here’s a link to his website, which I found while trying to authenticate the authorship of the email: http://thecaptainsamerica.com/ Well done, sir, and thank you for your service to America.
Both emails were a variation on the same theme, a warning that we should be vigilant and hold tight to our values lest we endanger them or lose them altogether. I’ll sign off by saying that, while I think the current POTUS is an abomination, the larger danger to our republic is the fact that we have in place an electorate that would elect such a man in the first place. It’s not as if we were entirely ignorant of the facts; no, I tend to think that a conscious decision was made, by many, to simply ignore the facts.
I’ve found links to the essential content of the emails. You can decide for yourself what to think of them. (Note: I do not read or endorse these websites or their content in general; they were simply the most convenient links available.)
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/1938-austria-land-of-the
http://www.redcounty.com/fundamental-transformation-america
Saturday, February 6, 2010
They Reap What They Sow
Have you ever wondered why the Left are such proponents of Big Government? Have you ever wondered what their motivation is? The larger question is: Do they not understand Thomas Jefferson’s maxim that “A government large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take away everything you have”?
Or perhaps they understand it all too well.
When a Conservative addresses a problem, he does so with a full complement of facts and figures, and his argument aims at the truth of a particular issue. The conservative approach to problem solving is one of cold, hard, rational logic being brought to bear on a thoughtful resolution of the problem at hand. When a Liberal addresses the same issue, he doesn’t so much argue his position as he waxes rhapsodic about it. “Oh, the things we can accomplish if we only throw enough money at the problem!”
Money can solve some problems, but only when applied in a studied and judicious manner. The problem is, Liberals are so enamored with the perks associated with dispensing other people’s money that, as a class, they are unequivocally and adamantly opposed to ever acknowledge when money has failed to solve a problem. It’s always, “We haven’t done enough,” or “We haven’t given it enough time,” or “Those who don’t think we can solve this problem by continuing to throw money at it are fascists (or racists, or right-wing Republicans who don’t care about poor people, or black people, or ‘the children,’ or the environment, or, well, you get the picture).”
The very real difference in approach to problem solving may also be explained on another level: Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe. Where a Conservative will look at statistics and say, “Overall, our achievements are not commensurate with our investment. We should consider a different approach,” the Liberal will say, “Statistics showing that we are falling behind reflect the hard reality that Third World countries are investing in their futures while the United States continues to lag behind. We need to re-focus our resources to close this gap.” Note how one group says, “This isn’t working; let’s try something different,” the other group says, “This isn’t working; we need to keep trying the same thing over and over regardless of past performance.” Is their embrace of failure simply a failure to comprehend, or is it a calculated (and completely feigned) ignorance designed to maintain the tax-and-spend status quo?
To answer that question, we must ask ourselves a few more questions: Why does the Left insist upon setting up a Big Government to pay for so-called “entitlement programs” which do little more than propagate a Nanny State? And why are Welfare programs -- just to name one of the more obvious “entitlements” -- such delightfully smooth-running bureaucracies?
The answer is really quite simple: The “good intentions” cultivated by The Left aren’t even remotely philanthropic; they are actually quite sinister and coldly calculated. For example, consider how much more comfortable it is for everyone involved to simply send a welfare check through the mail, or deposit it electronically, than it is to have the recipient sit across a counter from a bureaucrat every month and explain why they have been on the public dole for years and years and years. The same rationale is undoubtedly behind the reason why, a number of years ago, Food Stamps -- which were actual stamps, to be redeemed for foodstuffs at the local grocery store -- were replaced by a Government-issued debit card: There was a stigma attached to standing at the checkout and having everyone see you pay with Food Stamps. Sure, there is the argument that digital transfers are more economical, but since when do governmental agencies care about what makes economic sense?
Make no mistake: The over-riding issue was that any sense of shame should be eradicated. We mustn’t have folks even thinking about their ongoing dependency upon governmental handouts. The utter lack of accountability, coupled with the virtual anonymity of these transactions, completely eliminates any sense of humility on the part of the Welfare recipient; in fact, they don’t have to consider their dependency for a single, solitary minute. And with that comes, inevitably, an increased sense of entitlement, and victimization. It becomes easier to accept and even nurture a mindset of “Why shouldn’t The Government take care of me?”
On the other side of the coin, the “enabling” Left looks at it this way: “Just take the money out of my taxes. I don’t want to have to actually look at poor people; let’s just set up an agency to send ‘em a check.” Thus they can step back from the unseemly equation altogether. No fuss, no muss. Having removed themselves from the realities of the welfare state, they free themselves to approach every media megaphone they can find to drop self-righteous platitudes about how “The Government” should “Do Something” about “Helping The Poor,” and “Why aren’t (those selfish) Republicans more interested in helping The Poor?”
Of course, what goes largely unreported is the fact that a class that has learned to be dependent upon Government largesse will rarely, if ever, do for themselves what others are so willing to do for them.
Unfortunately, there is no real motivation on either side to change the status quo. The Takers have settled, quite literally, for a third-class existence, while the Givers require nothing more of them than their vote. In this there exists an almost agricultural relationship: The Givers continue to plant the seeds of dependency and the Takers are harvested every election cycle.
To be sure, there are people who leave the welfare rolls every month; ours is an economically mobile society, after all, and we tend to move between the different economic layers throughout our lives. But what does the extended welfare experience do to our psyches? And what does it mean for generations of families who log in to the system and never leave it?
Much like the Left’s push for a bi-lingual society and their insistence on sacrificing real and meaningful education on the altar of Diversity, government-sponsored Entitlements minimize, erode, and belittle the value of real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: Liberals know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Or perhaps they understand it all too well.
When a Conservative addresses a problem, he does so with a full complement of facts and figures, and his argument aims at the truth of a particular issue. The conservative approach to problem solving is one of cold, hard, rational logic being brought to bear on a thoughtful resolution of the problem at hand. When a Liberal addresses the same issue, he doesn’t so much argue his position as he waxes rhapsodic about it. “Oh, the things we can accomplish if we only throw enough money at the problem!”
Money can solve some problems, but only when applied in a studied and judicious manner. The problem is, Liberals are so enamored with the perks associated with dispensing other people’s money that, as a class, they are unequivocally and adamantly opposed to ever acknowledge when money has failed to solve a problem. It’s always, “We haven’t done enough,” or “We haven’t given it enough time,” or “Those who don’t think we can solve this problem by continuing to throw money at it are fascists (or racists, or right-wing Republicans who don’t care about poor people, or black people, or ‘the children,’ or the environment, or, well, you get the picture).”
The very real difference in approach to problem solving may also be explained on another level: Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe. Where a Conservative will look at statistics and say, “Overall, our achievements are not commensurate with our investment. We should consider a different approach,” the Liberal will say, “Statistics showing that we are falling behind reflect the hard reality that Third World countries are investing in their futures while the United States continues to lag behind. We need to re-focus our resources to close this gap.” Note how one group says, “This isn’t working; let’s try something different,” the other group says, “This isn’t working; we need to keep trying the same thing over and over regardless of past performance.” Is their embrace of failure simply a failure to comprehend, or is it a calculated (and completely feigned) ignorance designed to maintain the tax-and-spend status quo?
To answer that question, we must ask ourselves a few more questions: Why does the Left insist upon setting up a Big Government to pay for so-called “entitlement programs” which do little more than propagate a Nanny State? And why are Welfare programs -- just to name one of the more obvious “entitlements” -- such delightfully smooth-running bureaucracies?
The answer is really quite simple: The “good intentions” cultivated by The Left aren’t even remotely philanthropic; they are actually quite sinister and coldly calculated. For example, consider how much more comfortable it is for everyone involved to simply send a welfare check through the mail, or deposit it electronically, than it is to have the recipient sit across a counter from a bureaucrat every month and explain why they have been on the public dole for years and years and years. The same rationale is undoubtedly behind the reason why, a number of years ago, Food Stamps -- which were actual stamps, to be redeemed for foodstuffs at the local grocery store -- were replaced by a Government-issued debit card: There was a stigma attached to standing at the checkout and having everyone see you pay with Food Stamps. Sure, there is the argument that digital transfers are more economical, but since when do governmental agencies care about what makes economic sense?
Make no mistake: The over-riding issue was that any sense of shame should be eradicated. We mustn’t have folks even thinking about their ongoing dependency upon governmental handouts. The utter lack of accountability, coupled with the virtual anonymity of these transactions, completely eliminates any sense of humility on the part of the Welfare recipient; in fact, they don’t have to consider their dependency for a single, solitary minute. And with that comes, inevitably, an increased sense of entitlement, and victimization. It becomes easier to accept and even nurture a mindset of “Why shouldn’t The Government take care of me?”
On the other side of the coin, the “enabling” Left looks at it this way: “Just take the money out of my taxes. I don’t want to have to actually look at poor people; let’s just set up an agency to send ‘em a check.” Thus they can step back from the unseemly equation altogether. No fuss, no muss. Having removed themselves from the realities of the welfare state, they free themselves to approach every media megaphone they can find to drop self-righteous platitudes about how “The Government” should “Do Something” about “Helping The Poor,” and “Why aren’t (those selfish) Republicans more interested in helping The Poor?”
Of course, what goes largely unreported is the fact that a class that has learned to be dependent upon Government largesse will rarely, if ever, do for themselves what others are so willing to do for them.
Unfortunately, there is no real motivation on either side to change the status quo. The Takers have settled, quite literally, for a third-class existence, while the Givers require nothing more of them than their vote. In this there exists an almost agricultural relationship: The Givers continue to plant the seeds of dependency and the Takers are harvested every election cycle.
To be sure, there are people who leave the welfare rolls every month; ours is an economically mobile society, after all, and we tend to move between the different economic layers throughout our lives. But what does the extended welfare experience do to our psyches? And what does it mean for generations of families who log in to the system and never leave it?
Much like the Left’s push for a bi-lingual society and their insistence on sacrificing real and meaningful education on the altar of Diversity, government-sponsored Entitlements minimize, erode, and belittle the value of real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: Liberals know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)