Greg -
Read your last comment under the whole MH discussion and I think there's something there. Broadly speaking, liberals are defined as being people who care about the "have nots," while conservatives are defined as being people who care about the "haves." But is it possible that the liberals, by catering and pandering to the "have nots" actually have a lesser view of them as people? Is it possible that what is passed off as concern in actuality comes closer to condescension due to an unspoken belief that the "have nots" can't make it without their handouts.
Of course, there are systemic issues as well. Japan, for instance, was in no place to rebuild itself following WWII. There was a needed intervention. But at some point, once you reached a critical threshhold, it is possible that the "conservative" position is actually the one that holds human beings in higher regard?
Just a thought.
Read your last comment under the whole MH discussion and I think there's something there. Broadly speaking, liberals are defined as being people who care about the "have nots," while conservatives are defined as being people who care about the "haves." But is it possible that the liberals, by catering and pandering to the "have nots" actually have a lesser view of them as people? Is it possible that what is passed off as concern in actuality comes closer to condescension due to an unspoken belief that the "have nots" can't make it without their handouts.
Of course, there are systemic issues as well. Japan, for instance, was in no place to rebuild itself following WWII. There was a needed intervention. But at some point, once you reached a critical threshhold, it is possible that the "conservative" position is actually the one that holds human beings in higher regard?
Just a thought.
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 5:18 PM
2 Comments:
Scott, you're preachin' to the converted here...
See--you've touched upon a core tenet in conservatism. It's an inherent belief in the individual's ability to improve their own reality. A core principle in conservatism is faith in the person's potential; it's faith IN the person, and what the person CAN do. (As opposed to faith in the government, and faith that people have limited capabilities. The tandem reality to this perspective is that the elite few--the pointy headed elite--are the ones that are smart enough to rule for the dumb masses.)
I'd love to go into more detail about this, if/when I get more time and if there's interest.
But yes--your post is touching upon a grave reality relative to the soft bigotry of liberalism; it's the fundamental belief that people have limited potential; that a person cannot succeed on their own; that the person NEEDS government (or government entitlements) to provide FOR them, as opposed to the person providing for them self.
And here are two dirty secrets:
1) By providing FOR the person, you ultimately kill their spirit--as they become dependent on the state. Make no mistake about it, there is a sense of pride, accomplishment and self-sufficiency when a person makes it on their own. And once a person tastes success, they crave more of it. (I see this every year with my undergrad students that turn a corner in their lives.) The very concept of entitlements, hand-outs, and even affirmative action ultimately undermine the person's psyche. It re-affirms the person that they indeed CAN'T make it on their own. That they CAN'T succeed w/o government.
2) The concept of a government that sustains its people (who cannot sustain themselves) becomes a slippery slope toward becoming a religion; a replacement for God. In essence, the expended federal government--providing personal entitlements to those that "cannot" provide for themselves--ultimately serves to replace God. I imagine that this concept is quickly and immediately rejected by most people... It's a wild concept, but I challenge you to think about it for a while. It took me about a year to figure out... but now (more than ever) I see it prevalently in the liberal agenda.
Post a Comment
<< Home