Posted on 01/25/2011 7:01:23 AM PST by Kaslin
Liberals are “one issue” oriented.
If they are pro-abortion they would support ANY candidate who will allow them to have abortions. Same with ‘gay’ rights.
You could be a DECLARED nazi socialist muslim terrorist and they would still support you if you were pro-gay.
And they think the government can solve any problem with their pet isssue.
That would depend on the type of conservative. Social conservatives are notorious for wanting to impose beliefs. Remember the old saying "Democrats want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet, Republicans want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom."
In a sense, everything is political. By that, I mean that any given individual's entire weltanschauung is reflected in their politics, their religious beliefs, and in fact, virtually every interaction they have with their fellow human beings.
The primary differences between contemporary American conservatives and liberals can largely be found in the Declaration of Independence. Conservatives call upon "the laws of nature and nature's God," and "unalienable rights." Conservatives identify absolute baselines in truth and morality and assess the world around them in how closely things approach, or deviate from those ideals. Liberals live in a realm of moral relativism and situational ethics. Liberals live in a paradoxical cloud in which they accept as their only absolute rule the premise that "there are no absolutes." Both views apply not only to their respective view of politics but virtually every other aspect of their lives as well...economics, diversions and hobbies, sexual relationships, work, charity, etc.
When it comes to the individual's relationship to the state, a conservative who believes in the immortality of the soul, views one's citizenship and membership of the state as a transient identity, albeit it one with duties and responsibilities. The soul will outlast the state, and indeed, many governments do not outlive the average human lifetime. A conservative views the state (consistent with the Declaration of Independence) as something instituted to serve the individual and protect his unalienable rights.
A hard left, liberal secularist sees the individual as subordinate to the state, and views the state as an entity to be servedby the individual.
Virtually every difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" derives from these dichotomies.
BUT WHAT DOES HOLLYWOOD WANT YOU TO THINK!
Take violence, for example. I think the template for violence was establish a long time ago with Hollywood. The movie Easy Rider (1968) shows the hippies are peaceful and the rednecks are violent. From that its easy to make the connections that hippies = peaceful = Democrats and rednecks = violent = Republicans. That is what Hollywood has given us ever since the 60s: the conceptual building blocks that form our views. We grew up with this in the air since kids.
In the movie Pleasantville (90s) people go back in time to remake the 50s into the morally lax, peaceful, colorful 60s. The mayor is a holdout and is violent Republican. And this brings up another point: if the Republicans arent rednecks they are a cabal of evil business men who use violence for profit (Sum of all Fears, Shooter, etc.). Again, to reiterate the template: hippie = peaceful, non materialistic, cool = Democrats; Rednecks and businessmen = violent, materialistic, uncool (look at Mr. Lebowsky from the Big Lebowsky) = Republicans. As well, Democrats are young and say yes, Republicans are old and say no. This is what Hollywood wants you to think and, more importantly, wants you to feel is true.
No, it just wasn't done right last time. The current lot of course have a plan that will work, unlike the previous hundred of attempts. Communism is a good example.
Liberals smell worse than Conservatives, and they are uglier too. :)
So where does a conservative secular atheist fit into this paradigm?
I guess “results” is a different concept from “outcomes”.
One of the noticeable differences in policy considerations and behaviors between the two groups is how they treat disparity of outcome.
Conservatives don’t see any problem with disparities of outcome when everyone “playing” abides by the rules agreed on, or at least known, at the start.
Liberals hate the idea of fixed rules, because they view themselves as intellectually and morally capable enough to dictate “fair” outcomes, rules be damned.
You just gave me a Weird Al flashback, “Those weird talk shows about transsexual Nazi Eskimos...”
But some of those HIPPY girls from the 60’s were KNOCKOUTS!
OOhh here’s a big one...
If you are a conservative you try to educate those who disagree with you, and hope and pray you can convert them to your way of thinking.
If you are a Liberal you want to kill them.
That's for that person to decide. I would only say that the Declaration of Independence is this nation's birth certificate." It identifies our entire reason for being, our purpose, our identity. If you don't believe in the "laws of nature or nature's God," you have to resolve and reconcile the source of this nation's very right to exist. Obviously you would be at odds with our founders who found their (and by extension, "our") right to exist in some absolute source that existed on a level higher than any man or concensus of men.
That person would further have to resolve that somehow we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and yet, there is no party that does the "endowing."
Sum of All Fears was the worst. The original book was a coherent story, with the bad guys being Palestinian terrorists. The movie clumsily replaced them with a rich dude.
Yes on the former, no on the latter.
Then I think you would be hard pressed to define yourself as a "secular atheist".
If you believe in natural law, you accept at least some premise of moral absolutism that exists on a plane higher than humanity and the perceivable world. In fact, you apparently subscribe to a set of perfect-form ideals that likely will never be fully realized on this plane of existence, and I suspect that at least a few of our founders held the very same or similar beliefs, although would probably not have identified themselves as "secular atheists."
In any case, for me personally, it seems only rational that such immutable laws could only proceed from a "law giver," but others may come to other conclusions that they find more satisfactory.
The difference between liberals and conservatives mirrors the difference between urban dwellers and rural folks.
Urban dwellers are dependent on services brought to them. Rural folks take care of themselves.
Urban dwellers are far less in touch with the natural cycles of life/death, and nature in general. Rural folks know it all too well.
Urban dwellers have too much time on their hands. Rural folks are busy using their hands.
Urban dwellers look down on rural folks. Rural folks pity urban dwellers.
Urban dwellers don’t bother looking up at the stars because they have all the light they need. Rural dwellers look up and see the hand of God.
Urban dwellers preach about saving the environment. Rural folks know that to be a true environmentalist, live where the environment will kill you. You’ll learn to be a true environmentalist real fast.
There are those urban dwellers who have the rural soul, but many have forgotten that it is the individual, not the state that created that urban environment they live in.
I don't know whether it's because Liberals are less empathetic than Conservatives, merely less tactful, or actively antagonistic - or maybe (((shudder))) I happen to give off a strong Liberal vibe to strangers, but I've never had anyone (i.e., someone who didn't already know my political leanings) blithely complain to me about the "current administration" except when Republicans were in office.
In other words: Liberals are much more daring in simply assuming that they already know your political persuasion and/or that you'll be in agreement with them when they bad-mouth Republican politicians and/or administrations, while Conservatives will not be so arrogant as to assume in advance that they know your stance.
Anyone else ever encounter this phenomenon?
Regards,
As Ann Coulter opined, liberals not only think that it's okay to lie, but that lying (about everything) is a sort of sporting event with them.
I think that (as a group) the tacit acceptance and approval of lies as a cornerstone one's political belief system is a form of hysteria... leftists lie, then believe their own falsehoods as a way of feeling like a member of the gang.
.
“Social conservatives are notorious for wanting to impose beliefs.”
So, according to you, when an economics-only conservative or a libertarian insists on making illegal drugs legal...they are not attempting to “impose their beliefs”?
Silliness.
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.