Thoughts on Life: Are Liberals & Conservatives That Different?

Friday, May 27, 2005

Are Liberals & Conservatives That Different?

Here is an amazingly written post to the Huffington Post blog which does a GREAT job of asking a question I've been trying (and apparently, failing) to ask for some time.

He details his position on five issues (six, actually, but in five bullet points), and I can't disagree with him on any of them, and the only one I really even understand being a big issue is abortion (because if you believe it's murder from the day of conception, you believe it's murder from the day of conception, so his argument for you would boil down to "Sure, murder is awful, but if we make it illegal, women are still going to murder, but they'll do it in back alleys and many will die doing it").

You have to read it very carefully, because it also manages (without directly identifying them as such) to point out a number of the reasons why I really dislike the Bush administration, and why in my view, that doesn't make me a liberal any more than decrying Charles Manson (a white murder) makes me black. I'm sure for many, the knee-jerk "If you're not 100% with me, you're one of *THEM*" kicks in, but from what I've seen on this blog (comments, e-mails, people I know who read it), we have a more than average intelligence here. I'm betting we can all read through it and debate (if there's anything to debate) its merits without rancor or the automatic "us vs. them"-ism so prevalent in our political landscape.

Liam.

4 Comments:

Ralph said...

Responding to your question - What are we fighting over again? from HUFFPO.
1. I agree with this point but wonder why it is that liberals have a different threshold for definig "crazy pie in the sky programs make all people the same programs" and "lazy layabouts".
2. Can't agree when tax reduction (or returning money to the people who earned it) is defined as a tax break. People who earn money are the ones entitled to tax reductions and if he wants to call them rich, I can't stop him.
3.Air and Water pollution - no disagreement on ends but the means seem to become devisive.
4.I agree that a strong military is important (and the major function given to the federal government in the constitution). I believe as well that it is important to use it to defend our country. Apparently our disagreement is what constitutes a threat to our country.
5. Abortion- it is murder and unnecessary. We probably can't stop it but it should be restrained and the evil partial birth abortions should be outlawed.
6. Same sex marriages. I have no problem with homosexuality or legal arrangements to provide financial benefits to same-sex partners. It is not marriage and should not be called marriage.
As I think back on the post, it occurs to me that this is typical liberal blather. We are really on the same page on principles, its just that you are a looney extremist while I am reasoned and fair.

Friday, May 27, 2005 5:18:00 PM

Liam said...

OK, responding to your responses...

1) If you learn nothing else from me, please learn that "liberals" don't think anything. Neither do "conservatives". There are ideals that most liberals cleave to (and ideals most conservatives do), and there are concepts that only the most extreme of each side agrees with. That whole "lumping everyone into one category, and then using the arguments of the most extreme to tarnish the arguments of the more reasonable" thing may be very effective, but it isn't really fair or valid. For example, I think that Bush and his cronies are pretty damn extreme in a lot of ways. But I don't presume that all conservatives agree with him (in fact, I know quite a few who would prefer him out of office... just not if Kerry is the alternative).

But the problem is, both sides have their "pie in the sky" programs. The Democrats tend to be more towards giving money to those they believe need it (paying little or no attention to those who cheat the system, thereby turning our good works into a free ride for freeloaders). The Republicans tend more towards spending huge amounts on questionable defense things, like missile defense systems which have yet to proove to work, and military aircraft which even the military doesn't want.

2) Tax reduction is great, if it's done responsibly. I would like nothing more than to see our government run efficiently, so that spending was under control, all of the money we've "borrowed" out of Social Security was paid back, etc etc. And once that's done, yes, we should start returning money to those who paid it in to the system. The issue is over whether ANYONE should be getting tax breaks at a time when we've turned a balanced budget around and back into record setting deficits. I can't do that. I'm not allowed to go out and buy a new car on credit every year, going further and further into massive debt. Eventually, they'll stop loaning me money. And the bank that holds my mortgage isn't likely to forgive my mortgage payment because I decided to buy a round for the guys at the office rather than pay my bills. Why does government think it can operate any other way? Pay your bills, balance your budget, and THEN start talking about tax breaks (at which point we can debate to whom the money should go).

3) True, but it doesn't seem like means when we weaken the EPA, allow companies to flout the rules, and start allowing drilling in one of the few areas set aside to be a nature preserve.

4) We agree on this one. Although I would still like to see a convincing argument as to how Iraq posed a threat to our country. Preferably one with facts, and not the same old administration talking points which have not proven to be true.

5) I thought this one would be the most divisive, and I don't dispute your reasoning. I would prefer abortion only be used in cases of serious risk to the mother's health. On the other hand, I've got a lot of unpopular opinions on the subject of abortion and reproductive rights. I posted something on another blog which one day I may re-work and post here. I virtually guarantee no one on either side of the ideological aisle will like it.

6) You are far more moderate than the religious right, some of whom have said that homosexuality is an abomination and we should remove any legal recognition or protections. I disagree on not calling it marriage only because I don't like "separate but equal" because it's rarely equal. Now, if you have the same laws cover both marriage and "civil union" and merely use a different label, that's acceptable. But when they fall under completely different sections of the legal code, the risk is high of separate-and-not-equal.

One of the biggest questions I have for those (not you) who disagree even with civil unions is: One of the biggest arguments against homosexuality is the belief that gay people are particularly promiscuous, spreading disease and just being all around dangerous in behavior. So why would you want to prevent them from entering into the same pledge of faithfulness that straights do?

Boy, I feel so strongly on this one, I could go on for hours, but the biggest point is one Lewis Black (the comedian) made: "With all the crap that's going on right now, THIS is what we're going to worry about? This ranks on the list of things to worry about somewhere on page 10 after 'do we eat too much garlic as a people'."

And by the way, the tactic of trying to define yourself as reasonable and fair and the other side as looney and extremist has been used extensively by both sides. Not really fair to call that a liberal tactic, when it's being used to such great effect by the Republican party in regards not just to liberals, but to ANYONE who disagrees with the party line.

Liam.