HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar. 7, 2007 "O'Splotchy" (my affectionate moniker for the Fox "News" darling, Bill O'Reilly), portrays himself as a moderate, having at the ready a short list of left-leaning issues that he supports. O'Splotchy is of course very clearly conservative in terms of his philosophy and how he views the world, as most any reasonable person would admit, despite his sometimes childish utterances to the contrary. This controversial lady is very clearly a liberal in terms of her philosophy and how she approaches a problem. Yet, she supports some Right-leaning issues such as the war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, she now works for an American conservative think tank. Some writers dislike labels and avoid political debate, but most reveal, on the main page or the forum, their political inclinations like so: I am Conservative. I am moderate. I am left-leaning . Few openly admit that they are in fact liberals; the Republican marketing machine has worked for years to make "liberal" a bad word and too many folk who seem quite liberal to me, both in terms of issues and interpretations of our world, bite into this hook, line and sinker. Ann Coulter said that by age twelve, one knows if one is liberal or conservative. I used to think this was a bunch of baloney quite frankly - issues change, people change, circumstances change. Now, sheepishly, I admit that I've come to agree with Ann! See, it's not about the issues at all, but rather, how one approaches a problem or views humanity. Environmentalism is a good example. While the modern movement has a very long and complex history, for the sake of brevity and context, I'll just point out that back in the late 19th century in the USA, conservatives championed conservation. Again, keeping it simple, Liberals at the time were more concerned with the welfare of the down-trodden, and thought that such land could instead be used to help people, that industrialization and progress were better uses for "wild" land. Few at the time thought, or had any scientific reason to suppose, that man could change the entire environment of the planet negatively. As the years passed, and the science accumulated, it was clear that man could indeed damage the human life-support system. Liberals changed their view. Generally speaking, the welfare of all of mankind trumped most other concerns. Conservatives, gradually, took the opposing view based on reasons having little to do with science or research, and this remains so today. We could argue the reasons for their change of heart; personally, I think it has to do with the party that came to project their political will, the Republicans, and their ever tighter affair with big business, but that's for another article. One philosophical view changes as the facts change without changing their core belief that happiness belongs to everyone, that we are all entitled to equal rights (not just wealthy educated white Christian men), that the progressive ideals of the West are what in fact make this a good country, even if these come at the expense of long held views, taboos and biases. Traditions have value, in other words, but they must take a back seat to the facts at hand. So, while I support the industrialization of third world countries (albeit in a green way), globalization and free trade (albeit in a positive, moral and Tom Friedman kind of way), the expansion of nuclear power, strict dress code enforced, performance-based public school systems and other issues which often lean right, I am NOT a left-leaning moderate in terms of my philosophy. I am a LIBERAL. And so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the woman described at the link above. Many of her views match mine. When I heard this inspiring show with her as quest, I knew that I had to write about it. I really like the way that she honestly bashes the evils of the colonialism and the West, while also revealing why she loves the West. I appreciate her nuance, her ability to keep several distinct thoughts in her head, the way she can organize her beliefs without delusional, nostalgic, tradition-based bias. I've debated in the UK forum against religion's influence in American politics many times, being a secularist and opposed to religion in the public square, and/or the government's current preferential treatment for Right-wing, politicized, Christianity. Some argue that America is blessed by God and that the Right-wing is on the right track. Others downplay or deny any problem at all, holding a view somewhere between apathy and willful ignorance, thinking, "it will all work out in the end". There was another interesting view in the mix: support the Republicans in their religious-flirtations, not because the particular Evangelical notions about human sexuality and science and women's rights and so on are correct, but because of the belief that a unified Christian America will be better able to fend off a unified Muslim invasion, be that invasion by force or by culture. I agree that America could be more united, and I have no doubt that we'd be a force to be reckoned with on any front were we all devout Evangelicals. But why become the enemy? This view essentially boils down to copying the worst of what Muslim society offers, at least philosophically. I don't much care who's infringing on the rights of gays and women or who's tampering with science and keeping silly sexual taboos alive, Pat Robertson or an edict by some future American Imam, in other words. The costumes, rules and supernatural holy books might be different, but the damage to humanity's future is the same. I'd honestly rather have America sink into temporary chaos with hopes of a secular rebound than embrace a stagnant and dogmatic, anti-progressive, calm. My answer to that view, instead, was that humanism could be our unifying force. Or, a European-type welfare state, or more likely, some combination of both. One of my examples was the Netherlands. One forum-mate jokingly doubted that socialized health care or similar could be much of a unifying force! But, the Dutch seem proud of what they've accomplished. They bask in their very successful welfare state system, their modern, high-tech economy, their almost idyllic society - idyllic at least compared to the vast misery that is human history. I bring this up because Ayaan Hirsi Ali also incorporates this very idea into her responses. She marvels at, as she says, "what the Dutch have achieved [...] their level of civilization". It's part of the reason that she's willing to risk her life . Sounds like it can indeed work as unifying force, without all of that phony-baloney superstition and anti-science damage that comes along for the ride with the current American religious push. Should anyone wish to comment on this article, please, listen to the interview first. If anyone is unable to listen to the audio for technical reasons, let me know. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
