Posted on 09/12/2008 11:38:39 AM PDT by goldstategop
Well actually, SOME well-educated (East-coast multi-degreed) persons believe that our economic interest is best served by opportunity (and concomitant risk) - the ordered meritocracy rather than hierarchy. We thrive on the uncertainty of trying. We wither under a guaranteed, but lower, reward schedule. In otgher words, our economic interest is freedom.
The challenge for the liberal mind is evident in this piece - to not be overly reliant on critical thinking and its inevitable proof of the flawed liberal hypothesis.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I think this thread on Bidens charity contributions helps illustrate some of the points this author makes perfectly.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081006/posts
You mean, like, with, <gasp!> another PERSON?
You could be right.
I see some progress in this article, but the author clings to his myopic worldview to the end. Durkheim is not the key to understanding the soul of conservatism, and I much misdoubt that other liberals accept his watery definition of "social justice".
He's got a ways to go yet.
A truly interesting perspective. We get them, but I doubt they will ever get us...
What the author means to say is that the Democrats are perceived by their supporters to offer a much better chance of them sharing in the loot from the common coffers, and above all from the coffers of those better off than themselves.
The fact that is only true for those on welfare, and then not very often, seems lost on the author. More often than not, a Democrat administration of anything just means that more people will be entitled to share in an ever diminishing source of benefits. "Means Testing," is indeed a great way to pay for votes.
For the Democrat thinking classes, however, the rewards of power are immense, as a look at your local school administration will attest.
IMHO, this also makes the Republican efforts to outspend the Democrats in a vote-buying attempt even more pathetic.
But why does it always require government intervention and picking someone else's pocket to pay for their moral urges?
I always get a kick out of libs decrying Christians imposing their moral values on others. When's the last time a preacher used IRS thugs to fill the church coffers?
Why do San Francisco libs need to work through the Democratic party and the federal tax code so checks can be sent to Washington, and then sent back to be disbursed to the poor of San Francisco? Wouldn't a little private organizing be more effective and more rewarding to these people?
Similarly why do the libs need a government dictum to make them stop using fossil fuels? Just stop! Why are the streets of San Francisco full of cars?
Apologies for the tangential rant. I feel better now.
LOL. Good point.
He’s confirmed several things I already knew about leftists -
no respect for authority or family (honor for parents & ancestors)
no respect for private property (coveting, theft)
base carnality (adultery)
no respect for human life (murder)
leftists respect no freedoms except those that allow them to rub their jubblies wherever they please without consequence.
A good article, but I would say that conseervative political orientation goes beyond moral concerns. Despite whatever “help” the government might provide, a large number of people simply do not want government intrusion in their private lives. And they wisely perceive welfare as a loan, a debt that can never be repaid, rather than the commission of charity.
The author correctly points out that many of the things our culture regards as “wrong” are in fact mere custom (not eating dog meat, for example). Every culture has customs, and the fact that an act is outside of custom (though not immoral) does not mean that it is any less repugnant to that culture.
But the welfare state is hardly an instrument of unalloyed social good, and there is an element of immorality (and not simply transgression of custom) in a provider state. To make the system work, wealth must be taken away from those who produced it, and given to those who did not (usually the recipients are in some politically favored group). Hayek showed that private human action more efficiently distributes capital than central planning. So under a welfare state, everyone is less well off so that less productive people are better off. The producers of wealth have their assets expropriated for uplift programs that are rarely,if ever, exposed to rational scrutiny.
It is difficult to justify the welfare state under either a consequentialist or a utilitarian moral system. So leftists resort to a Rawlesian system of natural rights. Of course, Rawles had to ignore property rights as a human right to make his system work. History shows us that human rights are not long tolerated by the state when there are not strong property rights.
Further, to quote the author, “If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. “ This is also true of those on the left. Do government programs actually help their intended targets? If so, are the benefits received greater than the social costs? Let’s use the construction of large-scale housing projects in the 50s and 60s under the aegis of the FHA as an example. Nearly two trillion dollars were spent on projects such as Cabrini Green and Stateway Gardens, and on Section 8 vouchers, for which we have little to show today except empty lots where the buildings stood, and a black underclass.
Leftists usually ignore unintended consequences, while avoidance of unintended consequences is a central feature of conservative and libertarian political philosophy. Perhaps working class people accept the existence of unintended consequences, and align themselves with the more conservative of the two parties as a result? Leftists really are more “intellectual” than those on the right, in the sense that when ideas clash with reality, leftists cling to their theories, and try to force the world to conform to them.
It’s a good read if your are interested in pyschology but as an analysis of Americans voting Republican it misses a few things.
The supposedly sophisticated thinking of the Democrats only applies to about a tiny, intellectual fraction of them. I seriously doubt that the black voter which composes 20% of the party seriously cares about or utilizes any of the things noted in this article. Nor the 15% of Hispanics. Nor the 20-30% of the masses that can only think about what the media tells them to think about.
Most of the democratic party votes democratic because they are shortsighted and want a free buck today rather than 10 dollars tomorrow. Just like Europe fell into a socialist malaise, these people think there’s a thing as a free lunch.
Values are but a part of the equation. Conservatives are winners. They are pro-active, think deeply about issues, and realize that success is predicated upon a certain set of values and living those values. Redistribution of wealth is outside the moral realm of government, the process must remain fair, the results are irrelevant given process.
Its that simple. Democrats lose because they are the party of convenience and the party of stupid.
Thanks, interesting. Will require some thought.
whenever you see the word “justice” in the context of liberal democRATS...substitute “revenge” and that spells out their entire mentality.
social justice = social revenge
economic justice = economic revenge.
bump
Even if they grasp it, it’s impossible for them *as a party* to take a more benign view of religion (much less a somewhat positive view).
It is impossible for them *as a party* to demonstrate their understanding of and affinity for the nation’s symbols-—the flag, for example.
It is impossible for them *as a party* to accept that the use of military force is not always evil.
It is impossible for them *as a party* to give up their hyper-individualism and their inclination to either (1) deny the fact of personal responsibility, or (2) outsource one’s personal responsibility to one’s fellow man to the government.
fantastic article, thank you for posting it.
See tagline
Really? Then how come in Christianity the central tenet is personal salvation by a personal relationship with God?
Actually the notion of Christianity as a personal relationship with God is relatively recent. Historically Christianity has been viewed by Christians and by non-Christians as a collective entity. Remember, not every collective institution is a statist one. Families are collective institutions, for example. I think the author's point is that Democrats dismiss all these collective social institutions (except for the government) and they are foolish to do so, given the way humans are hard-wired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.