Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on August 14, 2003, 07:18:19 AM
-
Does this describe you to a tee or what!? ;)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml
What makes a liberal?
Dennis Prager
August 12, 2003
Why do people hold liberal-left positions? (Liberal and left were once very different, but not anymore.)
This question has plagued me because I have long believed that most people, liberal or conservative, mean well. Very few people wake up in the morning planning to harm society. Yet, many liberal positions -- I emphasize liberal positions rather than liberals because most people who call themselves liberal do not hold most contemporary liberal positions -- have been wreaking havoc on America and the world.
How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions?
There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive.
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.
A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.
Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.
"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?
The second major source of modern liberalism is narcissism, the unhealthy preoccupation with oneself and one's feelings. We live in the Age of Narcissism. As a result of unprecedented affluence and luxury, preoccupation with one's psychological state, and a hedonistic culture, much of the West, America included, has become almost entirely feelings-directed.
That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality.
A good example of liberal narcissism is the liberal position on abortion. For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn't, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth.
There are not many antidotes to this lethal combination of naivete and narcissism. Both are very comfortable states compared to growing up and confronting evil, and compared to making one's feelings subservient to a higher standard. And comfortable people don't like to be made uncomfortable.
Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments.
-
:D
-
Yeah...... The Ten Suggestions..... sounds so laid back.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah...... The Ten Suggestions..... sounds so laid back.
LMAO!!!!
-
Does this describe you to a tee or what!?
No.
There are many different flavors of liberals out there, as there are many different flavors of conservatives.
Nice try to paint with a broad brush, though.
Anyone who believes that there is one and only one definition of a liberal or a conservative, or even a moderate.....is a fool.
Rip, surely you are smart enough not to believe all that crap you post here?
-
Originally posted by banana
Rip, surely you are smart enough not to believe all that crap you post here?
From the discussions I've had over the years, pretty much paints the picture I've seen at a generalized level.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
From the discussions I've had over the years, pretty much paints the picture I've seen at a generalized level.
Ya know what they always say, when you're young and liberal, it shows you have a heart. When you're old and conservative, it shows you have a brain. Or words to that effect, anyway.
:p
-
That's a Churchill quote...... sorta. ;)
I kinda a figure it goes along with "When you're young and have no money, it seems smart and easy to spend someone else's money. When you're old and have worked all your life to earn what you have, it seems like other folks ought to do the same and spend their own money."
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's a Churchill quote...... sorta. ;)
I kinda a figure it goes along with "When you're young and have no money, it seems smart and easy to spend someone else's money. When you're old and have worked all your life to earn what you have, it seems like other folks ought to do the same and spend their own money."
Actually, Churchill never said it as I found out last year at their web page.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/
Go to Speeches/Quotes, then "Quotes falsely attributed"
-
For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn't, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth.
Bingo... but it's not narcissism. It's the desire to keep the government out of decisions that should be entirely personal. The moment someone starts yapping about making abortion illegal, they then follow up with a list of exclusions and reasons why it would be allowed.
Seems to me that the right is constantly looking for ways to legislate morality.
-
Liberals suck, are stupid, mean, condescending and just plain moronic people. Cant stand em. Some people think they are liberals but are just repressing horrible childhood memories and usually snap out of it around 45 yrs of age.
-
Hey banana, for the record, you're a democrat, you're the farthest thing from a Liberal I've ever met (unless you are indeed porking that blow up sheep you had!)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Bingo... but it's not narcissism. It's the desire to keep the government out of decisions that should be entirely personal. The moment someone starts yapping about making abortion illegal, they then follow up with a list of exclusions and reasons why it would be allowed.
Seems to me that the right is constantly looking for ways to legislate morality.
Like Gun control, right? Yep! Leave our Gun rights alone! :)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Liberals suck, are stupid, mean, condescending and just plain moronic people. Cant stand em. Some people think they are liberals but are just repressing horrible childhood memories and usually snap out of it around 45 yrs of age.
Hope you dont mind, Yeager. ;)
-
Sandman, I agree its not narcissism, but rather "how do I feel right now" syndrome with out thinking about the future consequences of one's actions. That is the big difference. Responsibility, or should I say the lack there of, is the single most over-looked charateristic by people today, especially those of younger ages. I was no different when I was at that age, but as I have gotten older I see that actions DO have reactions. Gonna have unprotected sex at 19? Better be prepared to deal with the consequences. The biggest difference is thus, Liberals "You can't do anything without OUR help!" Conservatives "You can do it on your own and we can show you how." Those are broad geralisations but it clearly illustrates the basic core philosophies of each camp.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Liberals "You can't do anything without OUR help!" Conservatives "You can do it on your own and we can show you how." Those are broad geralisations but it clearly illustrates the basic core philosophies of each camp.
I see liberals as more left than a typical Democrat though...liberals never take responsibility for their actions, its always someone elses fault. I actually have the utmost respect for Democrats and I'm very glad their is a two-party system though we could really use a strong 3rd party to get these politicians working hard for us, and non-partisan. But liberals are out there on a limb, and I'd like that limb cut off the tree so that the tree may broaden and grow.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hey banana, for the record, you're a democrat, you're the farthest thing from a Liberal I've ever met (unless you are indeed porking that blow up sheep you had!)
I'm a liberal, Rip. But I'm not your typical stereotyped liberal. I am pro-life and pro-capital punishment. And, as much as I hate guns and violence, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that war is an unfortunate neccessity sometimes. Unlike some of the "Hippy Dippy" liberals, I am smart enough to know that a military armed to the teeth can prevent war just as well as faithful negotiations.
I do have some common ground with conservatives, but only on a few issues.
My perception of you is of a conservative, but not the garden variety, "tow the party line" reactionary type like say, Martlet or Yeager is.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
we could really use a strong 3rd party to get these politicians working hard for us, and non-partisan.
I couldn't agree with you more.
-
Originally posted by banana
I'm a liberal, Rip. But I'm not your typical stereotyped liberal. I am pro-life and pro-capital punishment. And, as much as I hate guns and violence, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that war is an unfortunate neccessity sometimes.
I do have some common ground with conservatives, but only on a few issues.
My perception of you is of a conservative, but not the garden variety, "tow the party line" reactionary type like say, Martlet or Yeager is.
You're not a true liberal banana. Sorry to burst your bubble. You might think so per the dicitionary description (marked by generosity; given or provided in a generous and openhanded way; broadminded; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms, lacking moral restraint, licentious but by U.S. definition of voting, you're not.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're not a true liberal banana. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I may not be a liberal in your narrow definition, but I do consider myself to be mostly liberal in my views. I don't really like labels, but in this forum we seem to be unable to discuss issues without name calling, so for the sake of argument in here, I ally myself with the liberal camp.
That's the one thing that bugs me about *most* conservatives. Instead of debating the issues, they resort to name calling and dehumanizing their opponents. Why? To me, it's because their arguments don't stand up to the logic test. So they have no other recourse than to sling hate and invective.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Seems to me that the right is constantly looking for ways to legislate morality.
You got it backwards, bud. Morality is not being legislated, but legislation is based on sertain moral principles, whether it be in the States or elsewhere.
Those moral principles are what the liberals have a problem with. You would prefer an amoral world so that personal responsibility, and guilt, for that matter, for your actions no longer exist.
-
Originally posted by banana
That's the one thing that bugs me about *most* conservatives. Instead of debating the issues, they resort to name calling and dehumanizing their opponents. Why? To me, it's because their arguments don't stand up to the logic test. So they have no other recourse than to sling hate and invective.
But if you watch the "talking heads" these days, it just the opposite of what you imply. Its the left doing the slinging...desperation is at hand, since the conservatives control the house, senate and presidency. (If you're talking at a BBS level, well, my slinging is well-rehearsed and propagated to get a reaction :) )
-
You want to plop me into the garden variety conservative?
Thats fine, just dont call me a republican.
I was probably a pro military democratic leaning centrist before Klinton took power but once I saw what he and those other fake humans were trying to do to my ability to own guns I learned to despise them powerfully.
I honestly look for a good person to vote for but until one shows up (if ever) I will have to vote republican just to *try* and preserve my rights without needing to actually fight for them.
Stupid idiotic people. Democrats have had such wonderful opportunities but they keep allowing those moronic soclialist freeballers to hijack the good party of the working class.
Some of those a**wipes should prolly swing from a rope (and I dont mean playground).
Anyway....have a niceday
-
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)
BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.
The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.
The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.
The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.
Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).
Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.
This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.
The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.
While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.
As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.
The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."
They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.
"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.
This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.
The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.
"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.
Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.
The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.
Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.
Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."
Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.
He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."
-
Originally posted by sonostudmuffinun
You got it backwards, bud. Morality is not being legislated, but legislation is based on sertain moral principles, whether it be in the States or elsewhere.
Those moral principles are what the liberals have a problem with. You would prefer an amoral world so that personal responsibility, and guilt, for that matter, for your actions no longer exist.
This is fallacy. Liberals are not necessarily immoral simply because their morals do not equal your own. For me, it's not about personal responsibility. I think everyone should be responsible for their actions. Still, I have absolutely no use for the biblical moral compass that seems to motivate the right. I have my own. I've never been arrested. I pay my taxes. I provide for my family... and I haven't hurt anyone in doing so.
Oh... and I'm not a democrat.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
Umm, could I use Rush Limbaugh's webpage for a reference in what makes a Liberal? Would make as much sense as using "Little Havana" (we like to call Berkeley) as a reference for Conservatives..:D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This is fallacy. Liberals are not necessarily immoral simply because their morals do not equal your own. For me, it's not about personal responsibility. I think everyone should be responsible for their actions. Still, I have absolutely no use for the biblical moral compass that seems to motivate the right. I have my own. I've never been arrested. I pay my taxes. I provide for my family... and I haven't hurt anyone in doing so.
Oh... and I'm not a democrat.
Read again. I didn't say immoral, I said amoral. I meant without a moral compass. Morality is not always based on bliblical principals, although the Bible does provide a solid foundation.
-
Liberals are generally athiest but many seem to actually hate the concept of god. Poor bastards......
-
Originally posted by banana
That's the one thing that bugs me about *most* conservatives. Instead of debating the issues, they resort to name calling and dehumanizing their opponents. Why? To me, it's because their arguments don't stand up to the logic test. So they have no other recourse than to sling hate and invective.
The exacted opposite is true. When you listen to liberals the first words out of most liberal’s mouths when referring to conservatives are, “extreme, racist, homophobe, McCarthyism, stupid, uncaring, anti-environmental, anti-civil rights.” History, and voting records have show that Republicans have voted in greater numbers as a percentage of delegates in favor of all these issues then Democrats.
-
Originally posted by sonostudmuffinun
Read again. I didn't say immoral, I said amoral. I meant without a moral compass. Morality is not always based on bliblical principals, although the Bible does provide a solid foundation.
Same thing... liberals aren't amoral simply because their morals don't equal your own.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Liberals are generally athiest but many seem to actually hate the concept of god. Poor bastards......
Hehe... I don't hate it. I just do not see the necessity of it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This is fallacy. Liberals are not necessarily immoral simply because their morals do not equal your own. For me, it's not about personal responsibility. I think everyone should be responsible for their actions. Still, I have absolutely no use for the biblical moral compass that seems to motivate the right. I have my own. I've never been arrested. I pay my taxes. I provide for my family... and I haven't hurt anyone in doing so.
Oh... and I'm not a democrat.
You too, Sandman?
Looks like at least two liberals aren't the "bad guys" they make us out to be. Wonder if there could be more? ;)
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
Your not really site a BERKELY research paper on conservatism are you?:rolleyes:
The dean of liberalism
-
Originally posted by sonostudmuffinun
Read again. I didn't say immoral, I said amoral. I meant without a moral compass. Morality is not always based on bliblical principals, although the Bible does provide a solid foundation.
Let me get this straight. All liberals have no morals(amoral), and all conservatives are moral.
Riiiiiiight. :rolleyes:
-
Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)
BERKELEY – ....
-
This is the part I like. Im almost ready to classify it as a *gem*
====
Liberals are not necessarily immoral simply because their morals do not equal your own.
====
I think without recognizing it, the author has broken down the hype and called liberalism what it truly is.
-
Regardless of the source, I think this is spot on:
"Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity."
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Umm, could I use Rush Limbaugh's webpage for a reference in what makes a Liberal? Would make as much sense as using "Little Havana" (we like to call Berkeley) as a reference for Conservatives..:D
Umm, you already dredged up the scribblings of some bottom-of-the-barrel conservative "columnist," who apparently reached his conclusions over a cup of coffee (that his kids spit in, prolly) and a copy of National Review, from a website in the dark, far, far right-wing corner of the Internet.
But of course, if you bothered to read the article I quoted you would have found out that it is simply a news brief summary of a published psychology article written by researchers from Berkeley, Stanford, and UMD. But you're prolly just too skurd to find out about yourself what we already knew about you anyway.
haha
-
Originally posted by JBA
The exacted opposite is true. When you listen to liberals the first words out of most liberal’s mouths when referring to conservatives are, “extreme, racist, homophobe, McCarthyism, stupid, uncaring, anti-environmental, anti-civil rights.” History, and voting records have show that Republicans have voted in greater numbers as a percentage of delegates in favor of all these issues then Democrats.
Just like the first words out of conservatives mouths when referring to liberals are "communist, socialist, amoral, unholy, unpatriotic, crybabies, deadbeats, welfare mongers, etc."
I agree, it's sad that both sides use these tactics.
-
I don't know what I am!
I'm so confused. I think I'm mostly Conservative with a few liveral views.
Where do I take the test to find out what I am?
-
Simple, Muck. If you don't agree with Yeager's world view, you're a bad guy, and should be hanging from a rope!
Have nice day!
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Same thing... liberals aren't amoral simply because their morals don't equal your own.
Let me clarify myself. When I refer to liberals in the above context, I refer to diehard liberals who base their morality on their own perception of the way things ought to be.
You may have not made the transition to conservatism yet.
My transition started when I started having children and started worrying about the world that they would grow up in. With the coming of my grandchildren, I have blossomed into a diehard conservative.
Now, rather than tell my children that I personally believe that , for instance, abortion should be rare but legal, I can teach them that abortion is absolutely , without a doubt, the killing of a baby who had no chance to have his or her rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness considered whatsoever.
-
"(Liberal and left were once very different, but not anymore.)"
Only the first sentence and he has proven beyond doubt that he's a simpleton.. Why bother posting something by someone like that? Guess it's very convenient though if you need clear and rigorous divisions to avoid getting confused...
-
Originally posted by sonostudmuffinun
Let me clarify myself. When I refer to liberals in the above context, I refer to diehard liberals who base their morality on their own perception of the way things ought to be.
I've seen this before... I just don't understand it.
You may have not made the transition to conservatism yet.
My transition started when I started having children and started worrying about the world that they would grow up in. With the coming of my grandchildren, I have blossomed into a diehard conservative.
I have two teenage children and I'm over 40. I'm about as conservative as I'm going to get.
Now, rather than tell my children that I personally believe that , for instance, abortion should be rare but legal, I can teach them that abortion is absolutely , without a doubt, the killing of a baby who had no chance to have his or her rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness considered whatsoever.
I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice simply because I believe that this is a very difficult decision that belongs to the parent and not some government entity. I do not believe that a group should have the right to say what a women may or may not do with her own womb. Certainly, many will lament the lack of personal responsibilty. I dislike the lack of personal authority that goes with this complaint.
-
This author pretty much sums up my feelings:
Conservatives believe in the wisdom of common Americans to manage their affairs and make decisions for themselves. Exceptions to this are the half of the public who regularly vote Democratic. These common Americans are unfit to run their affairs and make decisions for themselves. It is because they been deluded by liberal propaganda.
Liberals also believe in the inherent wisdom of common Americans, especially those who don't have any. They think that the mother lode of wisdom lies on the low side of the bell curve. They discern qualities in the stupid, ignorant, and shiftless that engender a capacity to govern a country they can't spell. Coincidentally, these people vote Democratic.
Liberals do not believe in the wisdom of the half of the country who vote Republican, as these are all CEOs of major corporations. The Left knows that CEOs, unlike welfare recipients, are motivated by economic interest.
Conservatives believe that it is not the business of government to legislate morality, and thus want laws against abortion, pornography, sex education, and marijuana. Liberals don't want to legislate morality either. They want to eliminate it, along with learning, thought, civility, and other impediments to the undisturbed enjoyment of uniform mental darkness.
(A third point of view is held by Libertarians, but I'm not sure what it is. I have never been able to distinguish Libertarianism from a bull session in a sophomore dorm.)
The Right believes passionately in freedom, particularly economic freedom. The conservative therefore cherishes his right to strip-mine Appalachia. He does not, however, believe in your right to build a hog-rendering plant next to his house. That would violate zoning laws.
The Left believes in economic freedom too, specifically the unalienable right of the shiftless to be supported by someone else. Oddly, the someone else is usually a conservative businessman.
Now, confusion is essential to politics. Just as third-world countries regularly mistake incompetence for socialism, liberals mistake peasantry for equality. Thus they promote the decline of civilization with the enthusiasm of Crusaders sacking Jerusalem, making us into dim comfortable serfs ungrammatically grunting.
Conservatives also are subject to confusion. They regard unrestricted rapacity as a virile expression of freedom, like being in George Washington's army, and so favor reproductive incontinence, overbuilding, and the making of anything slow enough to be caught into dog food.
In short, Left and Right both strain to make the world unlivable, with liberals degrading the human world and conservatives, the natural. We can work together if only we try.
Economically, conservatives say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Liberals say that if it ain't broke, tax it till it is. The economic philosophy of conservatives is to take what they can get. The liberal philosophy is also to take what conservatives can get, and use it to buy votes. This is a form of trickle-down. Consequently liberals are seen to be Reaganites. The study of politics is endlessly enlightening.
Race is a major divide between Left and Right. Conservatives don't give a wan emaciated damn about blacks, whom they regard in electoral terms as the equivalent of a golf handicap. This distinguishes them from liberals, who don't give a damn about blacks, but find it useful to pretend. Blacks don't give a damn about blacks either, or they would cause their children to do their homework. In this tripartite agreement we may have the seeds of national accord.
Racially, the underlying difference between Left and Right is that the liberal policy is active, the conservative passive. Conservatives are content to do nothing and let blacks rot. So, usually, are blacks. Liberals make sure that blacks rot by promoting bastardy as a birthright and illiteracy as a credential of cultural authenticity. Otherwise blacks might make money and vote Republican.
However, liberals and conservatives agree on one thing. When their first child reaches school age, they head for the white suburbs. The difference is that while conservatives admit to each other that they are avoiding black schools, liberals say that they seek the wide open spaces or want their little boy to be near the hockey rink.
The Right opposes abortion as being murder when someone else's sixteen-year-old is pregnant by a tattooed drifter with a guitar and a vanishing IQ. This is why Roe-vs.-Wade will never be repealed: Conservatives also have daughters. Conservatives do think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest, making it acceptable to murder children whose fathers behaved badly.
While conservatives see abortion as murder, liberals see murder as convenience. If a woman changes her mind twelve seconds before giving birth to a perfectly healthy baby, liberals want a doctor to kill it for her. Presumably it takes a curious sort of doctor, but that is another matter.
Left and Right differ in social consciousness. Liberals oppose elitism, and send their children to Harvard to avoid it. Conservatives support elitism, and send their children to Harvard to practice it. By elitism, the liberal elite mean that everyone but themselves should live in a uniform state of social and moral degradation. The conservative means by elitism the view that the better is preferable to the worse. He dislikes degradation, in part because it invariably produces Democrats.[/size]
Liberals like government because it enables them to misbehave. Conservatives believe that the best government is the least government. The perfect government is therefore no government. Thus conservatives are seen to be anarchists, like Bakunin.
Conservatives oppose the intrusion of government into the private life, which explains why a Republican administration is rapidly turning the United States into a surveillance state. Yet the leftist American Civil Liberties Union opposes the creeping advance of the unblinking eye. This might seem puzzling. Actually we are witnessing the formation of a hybrid system: The wretched political aims of communist regimes pursued by efficient capitalist means. No communist state could make computers good enough for the new watched hive. (I think of this convergence as Bimeddlism.)
Left and Right work together more often than you might think. Hollywood, the home of freewheeling unprincipled capitalism, is also the wellhead of the socially destructive social agendas of the left. The movie industry grows rich by promoting promiscuity, violence, and the use of drugs. Then its denizens appear on television to denounce the chaos they have engendered, blaming it on capitalism and conservatives.
OK. I've understood all the politics I can handle today. I need a drink, or maybe anesthesia. I know a bartender who has knockout drops.
-
Conservative are a bunch of dung smelling, reactionary, pseudointellectual, namby pamby, let others do their fighting, things were better in the '50's believing, ignorant, fools.
(the anti-Yeager)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Conservative are a bunch of dung smelling, reactionary, pseudointellectual, namby pamby, let others do their fighting, things were better in the '50's believing, ignorant, fools.
(the anti-Yeager)
In the 50's, conservatives today would have been Democrats back then...but as my father says..."I didn't leave the democratic party...IT left ME!"
-
forgot one..... ,No sense of humor having ......
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
forgot one..... ,No sense of humor having ......
We certainly do! Its just that what you fail to see through that shroud of brainwashed liberalism is that we're not laughing with you, we're laughing AT you!
-
straw man. It's like saying all conservatives are reactionary *******s whose greed and oppression of their fellow men gave them an unfair share of the pie and will now do all in their power to increase the sufferings of others in the name of personal security and comfort.
It doesn't hold up.
oh yeah, and:
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good
Yeah, replace "liberalism" that with "Christianity".
-
I feel your pain.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Umm, you already dredged up the scribblings of some bottom-of-the-barrel conservative "columnist," who apparently reached his conclusions over a cup of coffee (that his kids spit in, prolly) and a copy of National Review, from a website in the dark, far, far right-wing corner of the Internet.
But of course, if you bothered to read the article I quoted you would have found out that it is simply a news brief summary of a published psychology article written by researchers from Berkeley, Stanford, and UMD. But you're prolly just too skurd to find out about yourself what we already knew about you anyway.
haha
If you bothered to read the research article itself, you would have seen that the summery makes conclusions the original article never made.
-
Originally posted by JBA
If you bothered to read the research article itself, you would have seen that the summery makes conclusions the original article never made.
So what. The summary gives quotes that were taken from the authors' response (also published) to the research article. Oh no!