Inside every compassionate conservative, I believe, like me, lies a liberal just waiting to get out. In my case this is literally true. As you may know, I was a long-haired, mantra-spouting, anti-Vietnam, anti-Nixon, pot-smoking liberal airhead in the 70’s. I was a good person. I was a bright airhead, just young and naive. My heart was in the right place. I cared. Maybe I was even correct in my views at the time. Looking back on the Vietnam thing, though, I don’t think America was necessarily wrong in fighting that war. But I do believe we fought it in the wrong way—politically correct, with our hands tied behind our backs, instead of the Harry Truman way, which is to win.
I care deeply about the homeless, the destitute, the mentally challenged, the people who are discriminated against (which, in my opinion are now mostly whites), and those not blessed by fate, good health, good genes, nor wealth. So, I want to be liberal. I want to give homes to the homeless, medicine to the ill, sanity to the insane, justice to the discriminated-against. I want to make love not war. I want to bring peace to the world. I want to cherish a Muslim and bring him home to dinner (which I’ve done, by the way. I’ve also been a guest, many times, in some wonderful Arab homes).
I want to be a liberal, but I can’t. Because liberalism, as defined by the current left today, doesn’t work. I do believe in the social safety net that Roosevelt created, including welfare, disability and unemployment insurance, MediCare and MediCal, etc. I do not, though, believe in the “Welfare State,” with unending handouts, fiscally irresponsible entitlement programs, nor in stealing from the rich with higher taxes. Socialism and communism just don’t work. Peace advocacy leads to war. Appeasement leads to bloodshed. I do not believe in open borders. I do not believe in multi-culturalism that abandons the unity of being an American, speaking English, and loving freedom. I do not believe in hugging a terrorist. So, I remain just your regular ol’ compassionate, hard-ass neo-con, with a stymied liberal inside.
Unfortunately, the liberal idea that all people are good is just plain wrong. Some people, and some nations, are evil. George Bush? Good. The U.S.? Good. Al-Queda? Evil. Martha Stewart? She’s not evil, but she aint pure either. Al Franken? Dumb and on the side of evil. Not evil himself probably, just a hod-carrier for the devil, without realizing it.
Me? I’m a saint, a genius, and humble about it.
Salam Aleichem, Shalom Lachem, Peace Be Unto You. Я хочу вас иметь мир.
Rock
14 comments:
I agree with you that "liberalism" has taken a wrong turn and dependence on government handouts have led to mental and physical stagnation for certain portions of the populace. I feel myself turning away from supporting certain social welfare programs not because they aren't good, but because they're designed to keep people under the financial umbrella rather than equipping them with skills to move up economically. Maybe that's why I refuse to call myself "liberal". However one thing out of this whole post struck me as odd:
the people who are discriminated against (which, in my opinion are now mostly whites),
HUH?!?!?! How are White people the ones being discriminated against? In order to discriminate, an offender needs power. Last I checked, 98.9% of the nation's CEO's are White, 92% of the legislature is White, 89% of the Supreme Court is White. So rich White people are discriminating against other White people? What kind of asinine statement is that? I have YET to see, hear of or witness any evidence to suggest that there is a civil movement by government, corporations or local shop owners to limit the rights of White citizens. Here's a better question: How have YOU personally been discriminated against?
I m an Indian youth - middle class one - striving to create life and identity - like many of in my classs- see ur comments with doubts, anger and love.... u r the lost sheeep!!
lynd george
breakfast4you.blogspot.com
Hmmmm.....Posted a rather long comment on this blog yesterday and it was chosen to not be included.
Your call, but I will not waste my time here any longer.
HUH?!?!?! How are White people the ones being discriminated against? In order to discriminate, an offender needs power. Last I checked, 98.9% of the nation's CEO's are White, 92% of the legislature is White, 89% of the Supreme Court is White. So rich White people are discriminating against other White people? What kind of asinine statement is that? I have YET to see, hear of or witness any evidence to suggest that there is a civil movement by government, corporations or local shop owners to limit the rights of White citizens. Here's a better question: How have YOU personally been discriminated against?
I think it's amazing that people just keep living in the myths they have developed for themselves. I live in Los Angeles. Los Angeles now is officially an Hispanic city. I walk into any grocery store, anywhere, and I mostly hear Spanish, all day long. Many people who serve me don't understand me the first time I ask for something.
The last job I had the company started out as a diverse one, with Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in equal thirds. It evolved, rather quickly, into an Hispanic-dominated company. Then, the Hispanics took over management. Then, they started discriminating against Whites and Blacks. They are being sued left and right at this time. When I say discrimination, I mean overt—with Hispanics being promoted over Whites and Blacks, with actual comments being made about Whites and Blacks, with any complaints by them being ignored, and so on. I'm talking Deep South in the fifties type discrimination tactics.
Your estimation of the situation is a joke, paz. I am the minority in Los Angeles now. I am often the only White at the bank, at the grocery store, at the City Council, you name it. You talk about power? Where have you been? Our mayor is Hispanic. Our governing bodies are Hispanic and Black, with the number of Whites dwindling. Whites in Los Angeles no longer have power. And, we are being discriminated against.
If you are White, your chance of getting into a top California University is about zero, even if you have, let's say, a 3.5 GPA. How do I know? I worked with youth for years, and see the differences. My Hispanic and Black kids get into Berkeley et al with 2.8 GPA's and my White kids had to go to Junior Colleges with 3.8 GPA's. This kind of thing is rampant. Minority businesses have preference. You have a better chance of getting hired if you're "minority." and so on.
Wake up, paz. Discrimination is discrimination. Even Hispanics tell me they are aware of racial discrimination within the Hispanic community.
I said before that we (Whites) are the new American Indian (Native American-like). I meant it. We have been invaded. Our culture has been overwhelmed. We are robbed of our jobs, our language, and our power. And this is only the beginning.
lynd george,
I m an Indian youth - middle class one - striving to create life and identity - like many of in my classs- see ur comments with doubts, anger and love.... u r the lost sheeep!!
Thank you for your heartfelt comments. Are you Indian from India, or Indian Native American? Go ahead and tell me where your doubts lie, and anger. Plus, thank you for your love.
You sound like a nice person, and I can feel warmth for you already. Blogging can be better than therapy, because people get to express how they really feel, and they don't get a chance to do this in everyday life.
Your thoughts and feelings are welcome.
paz,
I agree with you that "liberalism" has taken a wrong turn and dependence on government handouts have led to mental and physical stagnation for certain portions of the populace. I feel myself turning away from supporting certain social welfare programs not because they aren't good, but because they're designed to keep people under the financial umbrella rather than equipping them with skills to move up economically. Maybe that's why I refuse to call myself "liberal"
paz, you have just restored my faith in humanity. I don't mind if a person comes down on the side of liberalism. As you've seen, I have a liberal inside of me just waiting to get out. I do hope, though, that this person will be reasonable, demand fiscal responsibility, and accountability. Give me a reasonable liberal over an idealogue conservative anyday. I really am for Truth, not conservative truth. It just so happens that, with me, I believe Truth at this time in history lies on the conservative side. You may disagree with me, many times, about this or about my views, and that's okay. Just know why you disagree, and back it up.
Then, I can respect your arguments.
This will not negate, I know, our vehement differences about several issues, but it's nice to know we can have some common ground.
Take care.
Lynn S.
Hmmmm.....Posted a rather long comment on this blog yesterday and it was chosen to not be included.
Your call, but I will not waste my time here any longer.
I have never intentionally deleted anyone's comment except for igor. If I unintentionally deleted yours, I apologize. I don't have time today, but on Saturday or Sunday I'm going to go back and look at the comments you made and try to find the one that you submitted that I deleted, and reinstate it. I promise you, I thought I had pressed the "publish" link and not the "delete" link.
I know how hard you work on your comments and I would never delete anything you say. You are bright and insightful and always respectful, even of igor, so I would never have a problem with your comments.
Trust me, if this happened, it was a mistake.
I like to keep my Comment Moderation off, but igor gets so disrespectful that I can't let him lower the tone of my blog.
You, paz, kyotoe, all of you, can say anything you like, without fear that I'll delete it. Plus, if igor gets his act together and just stops calling me an asshole, then I can turn off Comment Moderation off altogether.
I'm not interested in censoring anything or anyone, just keeping the blog respectful.
Rock
Lynn S.,
By the way, I had a problem with my site recently. Recent posts were not showing up. I thought there was some kind of problem with specific posts, so I erased them and tested my site. I still had the problem, so I put the posts back in, but I noticed the comments were missing. Duh! I should have known this would happen, but I'm still a little new to the blogging programming stuff.
I went back into my emails and tried to reinstate all the missing comments. You can see where I mention this problem in some of my comments to comments. I thought I had reinstated all the comments I had mistakenly deleted. Again, maybe yours was one of the comments I deleted, and didn't find that I had--so it still remains to be reinstated.
Again, though, you have my word, unless you call me an asshole, or some such disrespect, I will never, ever, delete any comment you make.
Incidently, the problem I had was just with Firefox. I had to go in and erase all the caches, so now my recent posts are showing up again.
Rock
Hey, Rock, thanks for explaining whatever may have happened. Yes, that post did take some time to pound out on the keyboard.
Since Igor seems to get under your skin with his word-choices, and you do tend to defend your choice to enable the comment-moderation here, maybe it's time to just make that George Carlin list of no-nos, get them all on the e-table and let 'er rip!! Those who aren't ever going to engage or go-there, still won't. And the one who seems to live-there, might actually tire of it or see so much stooopid that he'll learn what embarassment is about. Just a thought....
Lynn S.,
Hey, Rock, thanks for explaining whatever may have happened. Yes, that post did take some time to pound out on the keyboard.
Glad you're back. I apologize again for inadvertenly deleting your comment. You are a very welcome commenter on this site, and always will be, no matter what you say. I hope I will have time to find the comment today. Do you remember on what subject it was about? Which post? I'll look anyway, and I will find it, sooner or later.
Since Igor seems to get under your skin with his word-choices, and you do tend to defend your choice to enable the comment-moderation here, maybe it's time to just make that George Carlin list of no-nos, get them all on the e-table and let 'er rip!! Those who aren't ever going to engage or go-there, still won't. And the one who seems to live-there, might actually tire of it or see so much stooopid that he'll learn what embarassment is about. Just a thought...
I'm not sure I understand the suggestion. I'm a little thick sometimes. The only thing I want to ban on my site is unrelenting hate-speech. igor is an unsocialized guy who would be banned from every talk radio show, television show and so on. He would be banned from Air America as well as Fox News. I think my expectations are pretty simple, and pretty clear. I've only had one guy whom I would ban. I think that's pretty open.
i would never ban you, for example, even when you passionately disagree with me, or even call me names, I don't care. I don't get hatred coming from you, so, you're on--and all your comments. Period.
Thanks again for coming back. You add a lot. igor adds a lot too, so I regret having to censor him. But that's tough shit. Let him join the human race.
I have a BS in Computer Science....I was taught early-on to SAVE TO DISK!
Here is the comment I wrote:
Rock, I really do not believe that inside of every compassionate conservative there lies a liberal just waiting to get out. I can sympathize and appreciate that your interests includes 'doing right' for everyone, but in actuality, you are imposing your value system on others. Clearly, your value system includes having a home, having proper medical care, and medical coverage. These ideals are simply not the same ideals that everyone has in America. Not everyone wants a "home" or a responsibility. Some people actually want to fail, to disconnect. Of all people, I would think that you would realize this since you have a background in psychology.
Placing your values on others and assuming your value system is the same as all other value systems, is wrong. You are calling this 'compassion' but this is something that you are showing personal bias to. Your feelings/compassion are formed by your value system and it shows bias. I feel that this is inappropriate and is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why extreme liberals are unable to fathom why their ideology is not well received by everyone.
Some homeless people actually choose homelessness as a lifestyle. Some people on-the-system are on self-destructive courses, while others are willing themselves to succeed. Some people choose to disconnect, to fail, to have no responsibilities. Another segment of our population believes in taking care of themselves and their responsibilities.
America provides people with many choices and opportunities. America can also provide people with the means to barely-survive, to go rock-bottom, if they so choose. People, being unique individuals, have a variety of influences that form the human foundation. This you know. There is no way that anyone, any group, or political party can "save everyone". There are too many variables.
Humans are a species that, like many other species, are a combination of genetic material that is individually exclusive for each organism within the same species. Our biological reproduction is not yet a cloned/identical process and until then, we are a population that is comprised of unique beings. Unless geneticists begin tampering with controlled DNA to create clones or selective breeding techniques, we will always have a subset of our species that represents the weaker population. This is nothing more than basic genetics.
If we were to "save everyone" we would need to implement a genetic "breeding program", because it is the most realistic and most scientific method to enable our population to become a more viable population. It is about biological control. Would you REALLY want this? (And let's please not even bring religion here -- that is a huge issue to itself.)
If genetic breeding were to be entertained/pursued, we would need to determine what factors would be bred OUT of our human species. Then we would clone asexually. To do that, what would constitute those 'weak' genetics? So here we are back at the idea that homeless people are weaker and need to be tended to and cared for and coddled. Or people who do not have the means to obtain medical care are weaker and need to be tended to and cared for and provided for. See where this is leading, Rock?
To define the weaker segment of the population, one must determine what constitutes that scientific value (not including personal value systems as you are doing, but objective, numeric quantifications). Then, through selective breeding, our species could HOPE for a 100% outcome of successful candidates to represent the human species.
Until then, we all begin as an organism, a neonate, and are nothing more than a genetic luck-of-the-draw, the combinatorics being the contributing factors to our very unique creation. After our birth, our environment will shape our perceptions and we will be formulated into the maturing human.
You know this, Rock. Why not get out your textbooks again and consider science? Let "survival of the fittest" actually take its natural course. Our government needs to stop tampering with human biology by continuing bail-out programs everywhere. Any other species unable to provide for themselves, will perish. This is natural law and natural selection is everywhere around us. We accept this biological process with every other species on Earth, but when we look into the eyes of a fellow human who seemingly has "less" than we do, we sometimes get irrational. Some people call it 'compassionate'. Too many people forget that we humans are just another species on this planet.
So, Rock, now that you have become 'brighter' and have seen the evil ways of your youth, do you feel more secure in your present surroundings as a 'conservative?'
As you are interested in 'the truth' could you tell me if there are any 'bad' conservatives? Just curious to see how fair and balanced you are.
So, Rock, now that you have become 'brighter' and have seen the evil ways of your youth, do you feel more secure in your present surroundings as a 'conservative?'
As you are interested in 'the truth' could you tell me if there are any 'bad' conservatives? Just curious to see how fair and balanced you are.
Hopefully everyone becomes "brighter" as they grow older. My ways as a youth were not "evil." As I said, I was a good person, and right on some things. Having a liberal heart is not a bad thing. The brain just needs to follow.
Do I feel more secure as a conservative? I don't know what you mean. I'd feel more secure if there were fewer liberals. Our country would be safer, and better. Or, the alternative would make me feel more secure, if liberals could learn to think again, or return to classical liberal values. Present company excluded of course.
Bad conservatives?
Tom DeLay. George Bush is bad on many issues, like immigration, overspending, ability to communicate, and the way he has run the war on Iraq. George Allen just put his foot in his mouth, with "Macaca." John McCain is a panderer.
Michael Savage makes many legitimate points that I can support, but he often becomes just a ranter, and strays off into illogical venting.
The whole Republican congress has performed poorly. They spend like liberals, pander to Hispanics, try to seem like nice guys instead of being courageous, and are afraid to stand up for the war in Iraq. They deserve to be replaced.
Inside every compassionate conservative, I believe, like me, lies a liberal just waiting to get out.
I can believe this; it's human nature to wish to aid others who are in need in any way possible, magically cure those who are ailing, reach world peace, suffrage, and prosperity. Most politicians possess basic human nature ("most" added jokingly... I think). Unfortunately, many of these "liberal" things are unrealistic, and other "liberal" things have been added to the bill that are impossible, absurd, or otherwise negative to many peoples' viewpoint.
Unfortunately, the liberal idea that all people are good is just plain wrong.
Thank you. This, in my opinion, has to be the absolute worst idea that you listed in your post. My theory is that people begin life with a slight inclination towards good or evil at birth (this being due to natural personality traits), and then either get swayed into the opposite direction or further fall in their initial direction due to various influences inflicted upon them. Most people probably start with an inclination towards good, though certain personality traits or even disorders could cause the opposite to apply. Anyhow, case in point, not everyone is good and righteous and all that jazz. That's a stupid idea.
I apologize if I'm missing something big here; this could be due to one or both of two reasons. Firstly, politics is not one of my main interests. Secondly, I'm 16 years old as of now, so my, oh, "wisdom from living" isn't very high yet, supposedly.
Post a Comment