 |
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
No-Respect Politics
By Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post)
Friday, July 26, 2002; Page A33
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.
For the first side of this equation, I need no sources. As a conservative, I can confidently attest that whatever else my colleagues might disagree about -- Bosnia, John McCain, precisely how many orphans we're prepared to throw into the snow so the rich can have their tax cuts -- we all agree that liberals are stupid.
We mean this, of course, in the nicest way. Liberals tend to be nice, and they believe -- here is where they go stupid -- that most everybody else is nice too. Deep down, that is. Sure, you've got your multiple felon and your occasional war criminal, but they're undoubtedly depraved 'cause they're deprived. If only we could get social conditions right -- eliminate poverty, teach anger management, restore the ozone, arrest John Ashcroft -- everyone would be holding hands smiley-faced, rocking back and forth to "We Shall Overcome."
Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.
Liberals suffer incurably from naivete, the stupidity of the good heart. Who else but that oracle of American liberalism, the New York Times, could run the puzzled headline: "Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling." But? How about this wild theory: If you lock up the criminals, crime declines.
Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension. Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean. How can conservatives believe in the things they do -- self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, military power -- without being soulless? How to understand the conservative desire to actually abolish welfare, if it is not to punish the poor? The argument that it would increase self-reliance and thus ultimately reduce poverty is dismissed as meanness rationalized -- or as Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.) put it more colorfully in a recent House debate on welfare reform, "a cold-blooded grab for another pound of flesh from the demonized welfare mothers."
Liberals, who have no head (see above), believe that conservatives have no heart. When Republicans unexpectedly took control of the House of Representatives in 1994, conventional wisdom immediately attributed this disturbance in the balance of the cosmos to the vote of the "angry white male" (an invention unsupported by the three polls that actually asked about anger and found three-quarters of white males not angry.)
The "angry white male" was thus a legend, but a necessary one. It was unimaginable that conservatives could be given power by any sentiment less base than anger, the selfish fury of the former top dog -- the white male -- forced to accommodate the aspirations of women, minorities and sundry upstarts.
The legend lives. Years ago it was Newt Gingrich as the Grinch who stole Christmas. Today, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares the Bush administration the moral equivalent of Jean-Marie Le Pen, France's far right, xenophobic, anti-Semitic heir to European fascism. Both apparently represent the "angry right." But in America, writes Krugman, it is worse: "Here the angry people are already running the country."
This article of liberal faith -- that conservatism is not just wrong but angry, mean and, well, bad -- produces one paradox after another. Thus the online magazine Slate devoted an article to attempting to explain the "two faces" of Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal. The puzzle is how a conservative could have such a "winning cocktail-party personality and talk-show cordiality." Gigot, it turns out, is "Janus-faced": regular guy -- "plays basketball with working reporters" -- yet conservative! "By day he wrote acid editorials . . . by night he polished his civilized banter [on TV]."
A classic of the genre -- liberal amazement when it finds conservatism coexisting with human decency in whatever form -- is the New York Times news story speaking with unintended candor about bioethicist Leon Kass: "Critics of Dr. Kass' views call him a neoconservative thinker. . . . But critics and admirers alike describe him as thoughtful and dignified."
But? Neoconservative but thoughtful and dignified. A sighting: rare, oxymoronic, newsworthy.
The venerable David Halberstam, writing in praise of the recently departed Ted Williams, offered yet another sighting: "He was politically conservative but in his core the most democratic of men." Amazing.
The most troubling paradox of all, of course, is George W. Bush. Compassionate, yet conservative? Reporters were fooled during the campaign. "Because Bush seemed personally pleasant," explained Slate, "[they] assumed his politics lay near the political center."
What else could one assume? Pleasant and conservative? Ah, yes, Grampa told of seeing one such in the Everglades. But that was 1926.
Last edited by Sirotnikov on 29-07-2002 at 22:44
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
Nah... Conservatives (due to religious reasons [minus Calvinists]) generally believe people are fundamentally good and hard-working. but are tainted by a lack of faith and morality. EVERYTHING conservatives stand for is based on this premise. Conservatives are against welfare because they are confident that all men are fully capable of working a good job and making money. Conservatives are against censorship because they believe that people don't care much for sex and violence and will make sure their kids don't see none of it. Conservatives favour low taxes because they believe people will use their money more wisely than the gov't can and give to charity for the poor.
Liberals think people are generally bad and hence don't trust people with their money and don't believe people will give to charity on their own.
thanks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
Stefu:
It might have to do with the fact that drug use surrounds itself with crime. Hugh Hefner generally doesnt bust on competing porno magazine executives.
thanks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I think both liberals and conservatives are misguided
but I think neither, as groups, are evil
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
What verto said was basically what I was trying to say...
and thank you Imran for your support...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Nah... Conservatives (due to religious reasons [minus Calvinists]) |
Line 1: Not all conservatives are so for 'religious reasons' There is a difference between fiscal conservatives and government conservatives.
quote:
[Conservatives] generally believe people are fundamentally good and hard-working. but are tainted by a lack of faith and morality. |
No. You maybe, but I don't even think you qualify as a conservative. You'd scare most conservatives, even the politicians.
If this were so, they'd be more likely to support programs such as Drug Rehab, Welfare, etc. The majority of conservatives don't.
quote:
EVERYTHING conservatives stand for is based on this premise. |
Not all conservatives think the same way, so to declare that EVERYTHING conservatives stand for is based on anything is inaccurate. People are conservative on different issues for different reasons. I'm against Affirmative Action...so I'm 'conservative' on the issue...
quote:
Conservatives are against welfare because they are confident that all men are fully capable of working a good job and making money. |
Probably the only correct thing you've said among this.
quote:
Conservatives are against censorship because they believe that people don't care much for sex and violence and will make sure their kids don't see none of it. |
Bullshit. Conservatives and Liberals (mainly, Democrats and Republicans) stand almost equal on censorship. If anything, I'd expect Democrats and Liberals to be against censorship over Conservatives and (edit Republicans. Tipper doesn't count.
quote:
Conservatives favour low taxes because they believe people will use their money more wisely than the gov't can and give to charity for the poor. |
Partially correct, but screwed it at the end. It has nothing to do with being charitable. Conservatives feel that the money people make is theirs to do what they want with. They feel it is wrong for the government to take from them to redistribute to others. They don't assume they'll give to their favourite charity.
quote:
Liberals think people are generally bad and hence don't trust people with their money and don't believe people will give to charity on their own. |
No. Most liberals think the opposite. They believe in redistribution of wealth because of this principle. To give those less fortunate a better chance, since they deserve one. Sometimes liberals act more with their heart than their brain. It's our one flaw.
Happy now, Speer?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:21
|
|
What this thread obviously needs is my definition of right and left. From a PM to Snapcase:
The basis of whether a position on issue is left-wing or right-wing is simple. The Left wants 'progress', here interpreted as progress towards fairer, more egalitarian society. The Right, for many reasons, opposes the Left in it's egalitarian quest. The main outline of history, at least from 1700 on, is of 'progress' - more egalitarian society. Democracy and republicanism replacing absolute monarchy, serfdom and slavery abolished, socialism and all it's reforms, women's suffrage, quest for equal rights by various racial, religious and sexual groups. Right has opposed these - in name of tradition, in name of God, in name of superiority of whites and males, and lately, in name of liberty. On the other hand, if we take 'progress' to it's logical conclusion, we have society of Harrison Bergeron - people equalized by artificially weakening the strong and stupidifying the intelligent.
Left won't get there, however. Some people value liberty more than fairness or opposition to more fairness. Of course, to most people, liberty is only important in certain causes - but there are always some causes people are willing to support on basis of 'people should be free'. Historically, liberal thought and leftist thought have gone hand in hand - democracy, abolition, women's suffrage and gay rights have been just some causes both sides could support. Lately, however, The Left has started to go with social engineering, with things like Affirmative Action and redistributive taxation designed to artificially level the playing field. That goes against the liberal thought, which can be seen by conservatives around the world adopting the liberal rhetoric. Thus, apart from some causes (like gay rights), further progress in Western society is pretty unlikely, and there might even be some rollback.
As for Albert:
quote:
It might have to do with the fact that drug use surrounds itself with crime. Hugh Hefner generally doesnt bust on competing porno magazine executives. |
That's probably thanks to drug use itself being criminal. If porn was illegal and Hef was still in business, it's possible he would bust on competing porn magazine executives.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2002 22:36
.
when did we believe bush's politics were near the center?
|