Post by bombmaniac on Apr 17, 2011 21:32:30 GMT -5
Here's something i found deep within the recesses of my massive hard drives...opinions anyone?
“Obama is the Anti-Christ!” “Sarah Palin is a moron!” “Liberals are Stalinists!” “Conservatives are racists!” We’re all used to political slurs. The question is: are they justified? Are conservatives and liberals really so different? Perhaps in approach, but in essence Conservatives and Liberals want the same thing for the nation. They both have exactly the same goals; the differences are in their respective approaches. Both sides are constantly accusing the other of destroying the nation; however if they stepped back for a second and examined their contentions they would realize that they are both very much the same.
Everyone acknowledges that we have problems in this country; to deny that fact would be idiotic. We have lower and middle classes struggling to make ends meet while the upper class seems to be living it up. Any compassionate human being would examine the situation and arrive at the conclusion that we need change. The question is, what has to change?
The Liberal sees the situation and says “ok, we have people who can’t afford health insurance, food, a house, a car, and various other necessities. People need these things to live; we must help them now! This situation is untenable!” And he goes out and creates a new social program to help the poor and downtrodden. He feels great compassion for those of lesser means. The Liberal goes to Congress and introduces a bill providing housing subsidies, government healthcare, and food stamps. That should help the less fortunate, he thinks, we will give him what he needs and improve his life. The Liberal fights for his legislation in Congress, spending hours and hours explaining and making the case for his legislation. Eventually it heads to a vote. He loses. The Conservatives managed to wrangle a majority on this issue and killed the bill.
To an idealist like The Liberal it seems as though the Conservatives cares little for the less fortunate. How can he be so callous as to nitpick on the practicality of funding this desperately needed social program! We’ll figure something out! The poor need help NOW! The Liberal, as most idealists tend to, gets very passionate about the issue, and in his haste makes a mistake in judgment. In his passion to help the poor, he examines the situation through a clouded lens and arrives at the conclusion that the conservative must be a racist. After all, the majority of minorities are either lower or middle class, the upper class is full of whites, must be that the Conservative is a racist. The Liberal gets on TV and proclaims his opinion of Conservatives loudly and boldly hoping to shame the Conservatives into agreeing with him. And it’s downhill from there. Both sides lose site of the issue and no one benefits.
Let’s examine the situation from the standpoint of the Conservative. The Conservative sees the situation and says “ok, there are people who cannot afford to pay for the essentials, but why is that? They work at underpaying jobs due to illegal immigration lowering the going rate for labor, the deficit is huge and the government is printing money thus increasing inflation, and taxation is ridiculous which makes products more expensive. Health insurance is expensive because doctors have to charge a ton to cover their malpractice insurance. If we change all that, the lower and middle classes will no longer have these issues.”
The Conservative walks into Congress the next day, and what does he see? He sees some Liberal standing there banging his fist and yelling about how we need to spend more money and increase taxes to pay for another social program. He sees the deficit expanding before his very eyes. He sees taxation increasing, making products more expensive and unaffordable for the lower and middle classes. “What is that idiot doing!” he thinks. The Conservative is incensed by the temerity of the Liberal, and vows to kill his legislation. Doesn’t he understand that what the country needs is not more spending and taxation, rather a reduction in both? Doesn’t he understand that illegal immigration is killing the job market making it impossible for the lower and middle classes to find jobs? Doesn’t he understand that if we solved those problems we wouldn’t be here debating the issue right now?
In essence the Conservative and Liberal are both pursuing the same goal but with very different approaches. The Liberal takes the idealistic and admittedly more impulsive approach, reacting in a knee-jerk fashion without taking the consequences into account. To the Conservative this seems myopic. The Conservative analyzes the situation in both the short term and the long term and makes his decision based on that analysis. To the Liberal this seems cold.
The truth is that the Conservative is right. Acting impulsively may provide a temporary relief, but the damage done to the long term would grossly overshadow the benefit, and in fact leads to more impulsive action in the future. One social program leads to another until you have either an unsustainable economy or full blown Communism which, as history has shown us, cannot last while preserving liberty. That is not to say, however, that the Liberal serves no function in society and that he does more harm than good. Idealism is necessary, in fact absolutely essential to effect meaningful change on a society. Idealism however, isn’t enough. One must be realistic or all they are doing is creating a very shaky house of cards.
Think of a car ignition. You turn the key which sends an electrical impulse to a spark plug which ignites some fuel and gets the car going. Apply, lather, rinse, repeat. Idealism is that electrical impulse. Idealism is what ignites the engine of change; realism is the fuel that powers it. Without the Liberal, the Conservative may overlook some issues; without the Conservative, the Liberal would spend himself into bankruptcy. It can never be one or the other because both are absolutely vital to a functioning society. It’s just sad that neither side sees the value in the other.
“Obama is the Anti-Christ!” “Sarah Palin is a moron!” “Liberals are Stalinists!” “Conservatives are racists!” We’re all used to political slurs. The question is: are they justified? Are conservatives and liberals really so different? Perhaps in approach, but in essence Conservatives and Liberals want the same thing for the nation. They both have exactly the same goals; the differences are in their respective approaches. Both sides are constantly accusing the other of destroying the nation; however if they stepped back for a second and examined their contentions they would realize that they are both very much the same.
Everyone acknowledges that we have problems in this country; to deny that fact would be idiotic. We have lower and middle classes struggling to make ends meet while the upper class seems to be living it up. Any compassionate human being would examine the situation and arrive at the conclusion that we need change. The question is, what has to change?
The Liberal sees the situation and says “ok, we have people who can’t afford health insurance, food, a house, a car, and various other necessities. People need these things to live; we must help them now! This situation is untenable!” And he goes out and creates a new social program to help the poor and downtrodden. He feels great compassion for those of lesser means. The Liberal goes to Congress and introduces a bill providing housing subsidies, government healthcare, and food stamps. That should help the less fortunate, he thinks, we will give him what he needs and improve his life. The Liberal fights for his legislation in Congress, spending hours and hours explaining and making the case for his legislation. Eventually it heads to a vote. He loses. The Conservatives managed to wrangle a majority on this issue and killed the bill.
To an idealist like The Liberal it seems as though the Conservatives cares little for the less fortunate. How can he be so callous as to nitpick on the practicality of funding this desperately needed social program! We’ll figure something out! The poor need help NOW! The Liberal, as most idealists tend to, gets very passionate about the issue, and in his haste makes a mistake in judgment. In his passion to help the poor, he examines the situation through a clouded lens and arrives at the conclusion that the conservative must be a racist. After all, the majority of minorities are either lower or middle class, the upper class is full of whites, must be that the Conservative is a racist. The Liberal gets on TV and proclaims his opinion of Conservatives loudly and boldly hoping to shame the Conservatives into agreeing with him. And it’s downhill from there. Both sides lose site of the issue and no one benefits.
Let’s examine the situation from the standpoint of the Conservative. The Conservative sees the situation and says “ok, there are people who cannot afford to pay for the essentials, but why is that? They work at underpaying jobs due to illegal immigration lowering the going rate for labor, the deficit is huge and the government is printing money thus increasing inflation, and taxation is ridiculous which makes products more expensive. Health insurance is expensive because doctors have to charge a ton to cover their malpractice insurance. If we change all that, the lower and middle classes will no longer have these issues.”
The Conservative walks into Congress the next day, and what does he see? He sees some Liberal standing there banging his fist and yelling about how we need to spend more money and increase taxes to pay for another social program. He sees the deficit expanding before his very eyes. He sees taxation increasing, making products more expensive and unaffordable for the lower and middle classes. “What is that idiot doing!” he thinks. The Conservative is incensed by the temerity of the Liberal, and vows to kill his legislation. Doesn’t he understand that what the country needs is not more spending and taxation, rather a reduction in both? Doesn’t he understand that illegal immigration is killing the job market making it impossible for the lower and middle classes to find jobs? Doesn’t he understand that if we solved those problems we wouldn’t be here debating the issue right now?
In essence the Conservative and Liberal are both pursuing the same goal but with very different approaches. The Liberal takes the idealistic and admittedly more impulsive approach, reacting in a knee-jerk fashion without taking the consequences into account. To the Conservative this seems myopic. The Conservative analyzes the situation in both the short term and the long term and makes his decision based on that analysis. To the Liberal this seems cold.
The truth is that the Conservative is right. Acting impulsively may provide a temporary relief, but the damage done to the long term would grossly overshadow the benefit, and in fact leads to more impulsive action in the future. One social program leads to another until you have either an unsustainable economy or full blown Communism which, as history has shown us, cannot last while preserving liberty. That is not to say, however, that the Liberal serves no function in society and that he does more harm than good. Idealism is necessary, in fact absolutely essential to effect meaningful change on a society. Idealism however, isn’t enough. One must be realistic or all they are doing is creating a very shaky house of cards.
Think of a car ignition. You turn the key which sends an electrical impulse to a spark plug which ignites some fuel and gets the car going. Apply, lather, rinse, repeat. Idealism is that electrical impulse. Idealism is what ignites the engine of change; realism is the fuel that powers it. Without the Liberal, the Conservative may overlook some issues; without the Conservative, the Liberal would spend himself into bankruptcy. It can never be one or the other because both are absolutely vital to a functioning society. It’s just sad that neither side sees the value in the other.