It's very popular right now to be a liberal. The candidate most likely to take the presidency this November is far and away the most radically liberal candidate ever to be nominated by either of the major parties. The Democratic nominee is greeted as more of rockstar than a politician and where the term "liberal" used to be a hiss and a byword, it's now an honorific title that people pin to their own chests. The buzzwords of the radical left saturate the media and fill the mouths of the general public. Whenever something becomes this loud and this publicly uncontested, it's time for that thing to fall under review.
It's par for the course for me to not be cool, especially in the public arena. While it was relatively recent that I decided to shrug off the title of conservative, I've known for a long time that I wasn't a liberal. My reasons stem from the fundamental assumptions that are the core of liberal ideology.
Before I even come to the ideology itself, I find myself put off by liberal tactics and methodology. Calls to liberalism from my peers and from the media come in the form of appeals to my feelings. When a politician - not a musician or a film maker, mind you, but a politician - has feelings as the go-to tactic on his tool belt, I grow suspicious. I don't like the idea that the person in charge of policy and procedure affecting my daily life has to resort to ad hominem arguments to gain my support. What about reason? Logic? Economics? Any kind of logistical specifics at all? All of that seems to go out the window and is supplanted with pithy buzzwords like "hope" and "change." Hope for what? Change from what? To what? As I said recently, when one tries to blur the giant, glow-in-the-dark line between "thinking" and "feeling," 999 times out of 1,000, there are dishonest intentions involved.
Even if their special, logic-free form of PR didn't leave such a nasty, sulfuric taste in my mouth, the basic ideology would. From the liberal left you usually hear the word "social" used with reference to certain programs and laws. This word is almost always a euphemism for the word "enforced" (i.e. "Enforced Security," "enforced medicine," "enforced welfare"). The basic concept is that the weight of everyone's burdens is upon everyone else's shoulders. It's like Robin Hood, ostensibly, except that in this story Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham are the same person, and at the end of the story, everyone is poor.
Here's my main bone of contention: You do not have a "right" to my property. Since you did not do my work, you are not entitled to my earnings. That's the problem with "social" programs, they basically say, "Hey you! Yeah, you, over there earning his living. Yeah, this guy over here isn't, for whatever reason, so we're going to take some of what you've earned... What? No, we're not asking you. We're telling you." And since the "we" in this case is the government, they are taking those earnings at gunpoint.
This is the point where the formulaic, ad hominem arguments begin. "But don't you care about the poor?" and "What about compassion?" and "Don't you feel for anybody else but yourself?" The answer I give (which the people making these accusations-disguised-as-questions never believe) is yes, I do care about the poor. I merely disagree on the modus operandi of acting upon that feeling. But the fact that I disagree is apparently intolerable. The blind, backwards-binoculars view that is given my observations on the matter is in the vein of, "If you don't agree with me on all accounts, you're heartless." Once again, logic and reason are being severed of their limbs and locked in a jail cell, and in such a vacuum of rational thought, there can be no common ground upon which to base any kind of objective judgment. Quite an interesting approach for the school of thought which is constantly applauding itself for its open-mindedness.
Yes, I care about the poor, but - pardon the cliché - giving a man a fish and teaching a man to fish produce completely different results. The latter creates a productive member of society, the former creates a worthless rotter. In effect, these "social" programs do far greater harm to those whose interests they claim to serve than does their poverty. They fill their bellies at the expense of their souls. They teach them, in effect, that one needn't work, because those who do will support them. This is a far greater injustice than any of the supposed causes of their poverty. And in the end, it teaches them to neither hope for anything more than the bare subsistence afforded them by their Socialist bankrollers nor to be ungrateful for their unearned donations and complain about not being given more. If the government were a business, these programs would have bankrupted it several decades ago. It is by the fact that these "social" (enforced) programs demand the money of the citizenry at the point of a gun that they continue to exist.
I read a story recently which was obviously made up, but which demonstrated well the twisted logic of liberal ideology:
I am not a liberal because, in the end, liberalism is the message that one ought to be punished for being successful and responsible, and rewarded for being lazy and/or incompetent. It is the idea that other people are entitled to what belongs to me. It is a self-licking ice cream cone which logically can not continue indefinitely. I am not a liberal because it is an ideology which does not allow for me to be what I want to be.
It's par for the course for me to not be cool, especially in the public arena. While it was relatively recent that I decided to shrug off the title of conservative, I've known for a long time that I wasn't a liberal. My reasons stem from the fundamental assumptions that are the core of liberal ideology.
Before I even come to the ideology itself, I find myself put off by liberal tactics and methodology. Calls to liberalism from my peers and from the media come in the form of appeals to my feelings. When a politician - not a musician or a film maker, mind you, but a politician - has feelings as the go-to tactic on his tool belt, I grow suspicious. I don't like the idea that the person in charge of policy and procedure affecting my daily life has to resort to ad hominem arguments to gain my support. What about reason? Logic? Economics? Any kind of logistical specifics at all? All of that seems to go out the window and is supplanted with pithy buzzwords like "hope" and "change." Hope for what? Change from what? To what? As I said recently, when one tries to blur the giant, glow-in-the-dark line between "thinking" and "feeling," 999 times out of 1,000, there are dishonest intentions involved.
Even if their special, logic-free form of PR didn't leave such a nasty, sulfuric taste in my mouth, the basic ideology would. From the liberal left you usually hear the word "social" used with reference to certain programs and laws. This word is almost always a euphemism for the word "enforced" (i.e. "Enforced Security," "enforced medicine," "enforced welfare"). The basic concept is that the weight of everyone's burdens is upon everyone else's shoulders. It's like Robin Hood, ostensibly, except that in this story Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham are the same person, and at the end of the story, everyone is poor.
Here's my main bone of contention: You do not have a "right" to my property. Since you did not do my work, you are not entitled to my earnings. That's the problem with "social" programs, they basically say, "Hey you! Yeah, you, over there earning his living. Yeah, this guy over here isn't, for whatever reason, so we're going to take some of what you've earned... What? No, we're not asking you. We're telling you." And since the "we" in this case is the government, they are taking those earnings at gunpoint.
This is the point where the formulaic, ad hominem arguments begin. "But don't you care about the poor?" and "What about compassion?" and "Don't you feel for anybody else but yourself?" The answer I give (which the people making these accusations-disguised-as-questions never believe) is yes, I do care about the poor. I merely disagree on the modus operandi of acting upon that feeling. But the fact that I disagree is apparently intolerable. The blind, backwards-binoculars view that is given my observations on the matter is in the vein of, "If you don't agree with me on all accounts, you're heartless." Once again, logic and reason are being severed of their limbs and locked in a jail cell, and in such a vacuum of rational thought, there can be no common ground upon which to base any kind of objective judgment. Quite an interesting approach for the school of thought which is constantly applauding itself for its open-mindedness.
Yes, I care about the poor, but - pardon the cliché - giving a man a fish and teaching a man to fish produce completely different results. The latter creates a productive member of society, the former creates a worthless rotter. In effect, these "social" programs do far greater harm to those whose interests they claim to serve than does their poverty. They fill their bellies at the expense of their souls. They teach them, in effect, that one needn't work, because those who do will support them. This is a far greater injustice than any of the supposed causes of their poverty. And in the end, it teaches them to neither hope for anything more than the bare subsistence afforded them by their Socialist bankrollers nor to be ungrateful for their unearned donations and complain about not being given more. If the government were a business, these programs would have bankrupted it several decades ago. It is by the fact that these "social" (enforced) programs demand the money of the citizenry at the point of a gun that they continue to exist.
I read a story recently which was obviously made up, but which demonstrated well the twisted logic of liberal ideology:
There was a little girl, the daughter of some friends, and she said she wanted to be President some day.
Both of her parents, liberals, were standing there with us and I asked the little girl, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"
The little girl replied, "I would give houses to all the homeless people."
"Wow, what a worthy goal you have there!" I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house."
The little girl thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me, seething, and then replied, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5 dollars?"
"That's a good question."
I am not a liberal because, in the end, liberalism is the message that one ought to be punished for being successful and responsible, and rewarded for being lazy and/or incompetent. It is the idea that other people are entitled to what belongs to me. It is a self-licking ice cream cone which logically can not continue indefinitely. I am not a liberal because it is an ideology which does not allow for me to be what I want to be.
8 comments:
Well done! You make all of us "heartless Conservatives" proud. I think you should expound upon your ideas here into a full-blown thesis. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
~ your Mom
I would generally consider myself liberal, so I have to make a few comments (necessarily condensed).
First, you seem to make no distinction between socialism, welfarism and a mere safety net.
I also take issue with the notion of social programs being "forced" by gunpoint. Yes, even if you disagree, you have to give your money to that cause. However, isn't the idea of a democracy that the citizens decide how tax dollars are allocated? You refer to the government forcing it upon you, without any reference to the citizens that are (to some degree) responsible for it. Maybe your issue is with the state of democracy?
Finally, while moral hazard is definitely something to be wary of with social programs, I don't believe it to be a necessary part of them (it would take a lot of footwork to show it is a necessary part). You also have to admit that, due to forces out of anyones control (genetics, history, random chance), some of us are born with greater opportunity to be successful. You don't really believe in the Horatio Alger myth do you? So, in at least some cases, social programs aren't about rewarding laziness, but trying to create a more even playing field to begin with.
Isn't it a lucky that you happened to be born into a middle-class white family in the US? If I remember right, studies show that while members of the middle class are mobile within that class, one can expect members of the lower and upper classes to stay where they are.
Just a few thoughts.
Yet another reason you and Darrell will be friends forever! Oh, and me too! There are far more non-liberals (don't want to assume they are all conservatives) than liberals out there. Unfortunately, the liberals outweigh the nons vocally. And really....are the recipients of our hand-out-welfare-system any better off after their handout than before? They are completely dependent upon another for their every need (and too many times their wants). They are slaves (non-working, but slaves nonetheless) to the government. The most successful "welfare programs" are those that require the recipient to work for that which they receive and by so-doing, they learn the skills necessary to be successful when the welfare ENDS. (I know--novel concept that welfare should actually come to an end!) DUH! Okay, get me off this soapbox. But first, what is this about citizens deciding how tax dollars are allocated? The decision I prefer is this one: lower taxes and fewer programs. Ok...the soap box is now officially someone else's.
I suppose I should have been more clear. My point was that it is misleading to talk about the government enforcing these social policies by force. This is because the voters have some degree of control over the policies being made (we at least put the politicians into office). So, any talk about the "government" forcing us is a bit misleading. I could make similar complaints about any policy, like being forced at gunpoint to pay for roads that I won't be driving on. The point is that it has no direct bearing on any specific ideology. It is either a criticism of the decision-making process, or it is just rhetoric.
I'm watching Meet the Press. This is not something I ordinarily do. But Sen. Gramm said something hysterical. (I'm not quoting verbatim, thus no quote marks). Trying to decide Barack Obama's position on an issue is like trying to nail jello to the wall...it just doesn't work. ROFLMAO!
If I have such a big say in the way my tax dollars are spent, then why is my money still going to Social Security? And why are there still generations being raised on welfare? Sure, I get to elect people into office, but are there enough good candidates out there? Hardly.
Your money is still going to Social Security because the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America. Also, there are apparently about 300 million other Americans and some of them don't agree with you.
That isn't the point though. The point is that being FORCED to support these programs that you disagree with is nothing unique to any particular ideology. Either it is rhetoric, or you disagree with the way policy is determined (an issue which doesn't seem to fit within the scope of the original discussion). So, empty rhetoric, or digression...
That was kind of a downer after watching all those LARP videos...
Post a Comment