HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Brooks A. Mick, M.D.
May 11, 2006 A recent article here (http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/06may/article099.html) illustrates a major difference between conservatives and liberals: Conservatives, by and large, think that liberals are misguided. Liberals, on the other hand, think conservatives are evil. That is a major difference, because, by considering conservatives as evil, liberals thus give themselves permission to lie, cheat, steal, dissemble, obfuscate, and otherwise behave despicably in their quest for power. For, of course, they are only doing it to combat EVIL. Among these allowable techniques are the creation of straw men, the deliberate misstatement of the opposition's position, and the clever bait-and-switch, changing the nature of an argument in the middle of a discussion. When "objectively" analyzing an era, the 1950s, is it reasonable to lump political, social, medical, and other aspects into a whole and then imply that conservatives would want to turn the clock back on all of them? For example, to point out that medical science has advanced since 1950 has no conservative or liberal implications. The advances in medicine were made by both conservative and liberal physicians and nurses and drug companies and medical equipment manufacturers, and neither conservatives nor liberals would wish to negate these advances. The civil rights advances were accomplished, one should note, because a majority of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not because Democrats voted for it. Conservatives are, in the main, for more personal freedom and no significant number would wish to turn back the clock on equal rights for all. One could safely say that the 1950s (and the 1940s) did have much to recommend them as a time for growing up. As a child of 4-6 years old, I could walk across town to the county library to check out a book. As a 6-yr-old, I could walk across town to the grade school. The average person was better educated. They could find Missouri and Louisiana on a map of the USA. They knew 2+2 equaled 4 no matter what your racial background. Student sknew they had to behave in school or their parents would give them a good spanking when they got home--after the teacher or principal had given them a whack or two. Teachers didn't live in fear of irrational, overprotective, delusional parents filing lawsuits against them. Criminals were treated as criminals, not victims. Victims were treated as victims, not welfare recipients. Hobos were recognized as lazy or alcoholic, not considered victims. Alcoholics and drug abusers were considered to have a character flaw, not considered victims. (Think about it. The argument usually used is that the alcoholic has an inborn metabolic or brain chemistry problem which makes it difficult for him to stop drinking once he starts. OK, fair enough! But what makes him take the first drink after he has learned this about himself? Therein lies the character flaw: the inability to avoid the FIRST drink of the day!) There was much to recommend those decades, though, for sure, they were not Utopia. Conservatives, I propose, would be selective in choosing those sociopolitical areas to which it would be good to return. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think it fine to discard ALL from the past. They in fact appear to consider the past itself, not just conservatives, as evil. There has been, to be sure, much squirming and writing and shifting of various political principles. One notes that it is the liberals of today who mostly favor censorship, heckling conservative speakers, attempting to block their speaking on campus, throwing pies at Ann Coulter, etc. I know of no similar episodes of significance where conservatives tried to prevent a liberal from speaking. It's likely that a rare example of such could be found, but for every one, I could find 5 or 10 wherein the liberals were attempting--and often succeeding--in their censorship. I note it is liberals who try to get conservative talk shows off the air or promote a spurious and mis-labeled "fairness doctrine" to try to get more of their left-wing programming rather than competing fairly in the marketplace. I can see why they avoid the latter and promote censorship, however, because they always fail in the marketplace! Air America has to steal from charity and get subsidies from rich liberals to get the money to remain on the air. Nobody's listening and advertisers aren't buying air time. I am not sure laziness is an inborn human trait--I would more be inclined to believe that being industrious and working hard is an inborn trait. I think laziness is taught by being given things, food and money, without being required to put out the effort. This begins often at home and it is perpetuated by welfare payments. One notes that unemployment tends to cease abruptly just as soon as the unemployment checks stop coming. It is clearly documented that people receivign unemployment benefits do not return to work until the benefits run out. Thus, extending the period of unemployment benefits, during the 2001 recession, merely extended the period during which a lot of people would be unemployed. It was a counterproductive strategy, though certainly rooted in compassion. Way too much compassion, way too little conservatism. A conservative would know that "you get what you pay for." If you pay for not-working, you'll get more not-working. A conservative wouldn't want to reward the behavior one didn't want. Same principle in reverse as taxing that which you want less of. A conservative knows that taxing innovation and hard work means you'll get less innovation and hard work, thus fewer jobs for all in the long run. There is one specific statement with which I disagree: "Conservatives everywhere cling to what they have and know and often, this goes against the common good." My position would be that EVERYONE, especially in times of stress or threat, often reverts to behaviors and attitudes learned in the past. This applies as well to liberals as conservatives. The piece which precipitated my writing is full of all the old stereotypes. As to reverting to the past, one notes that liberals frequently revert to the FDR 1939 politics of government make-work and welfare rather than the proven method of promoting personal responsibility and self-reliance. Those kicked off the welfare roles by the REPUBLICAN welfare reform of 1996 moved on to higher incomes and more self-esteem than when they were on the dole. I propose that current political evidence suggests that, at least between 1994 and 2004, Republicans were the party of political innovation, while Democrats clung to the past. The latter are still not the party of any new proposals, being mainly the party known for being anti-anything-Bush-proposes. Note: Much of this has been, unavoidably, generalities. But then we are discussing general philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals. To sum up, conservatives want to preserve the best from the past while promoting, as much as possible, personal responsibility and self-reliance. They often, through the pernicious influence of inside-the-beltway liberals, stray from these laudable goals. Liberals, in the main, want to promote big government solutions which devalue individual self-reliance, and they are often the most vindictive, vicious, and anti-freedom side of the political spectrum. In this they are reinforced by the inside-the-beltway liberals and by the major media. They thus have a great advantage. Their major disadvantage is that their belief systems are simply not congruent with reality. Their beliefs are much more suitable to bees, ants, and termites than human beings. They see humans as groups (workers, soldiers, queen bees, etc) insted of individuals capable of great things. Lastly, despite their general nastiness and snide remarks, I don't think liberals are evil. Well, maybe Hillary is evil, but otherwise, they are just misguided and have a utopian view of possible futures, they are often for change just for the sake of change without any real understanding of the effects of those changes on human beings. In other words, their views are not very congruent with reality, which is why, whenever they are tried, they don't work, and why the liberals have to keep proposing the same ideas over and over. If they worked, they would solved allthe problems and we would be living in Utopia now. ------------ About the author Brooks A. Mick: Physician, still practicing medicine but retired from the US Army. Write just for the fun of it, but working on novel in the vein of Tom Clancy's politico-military genre. Email: brooks15@cox.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
