Why is a “liberal” liberal”; Why is a “conservative” conservative?

I was having a discussion with some liberal and conservative friends this evening and posed the question:  What in our backgrounds, do you suppose, caused you to become liberal and caused me to become conservative?  Of course we could have each told the other that they grew up as a clueless idiot.  But we were polite.

In fact, liberals and conservatives are pretty much polar opposites of one another in our world/life view of most things that matter.

Liberals are suspicious of business/free enterprise; conservatives believe business/free enterprise is our nations best hope and creates the motivation that made our nation great.

Liberals favor more government programs and government spending which require bigger/more government; conservative are suspicious of big government and want it smaller with less taxes.

Liberals believe people need to rely on government and are often incapable of solving problems on their own; conservative feel that problems are best solved by individuals without government intervention.

Liberals tend to be for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens; conservatives favor secure borders and enforcement of immigration laws.

Liberals tend to be amoral, live and let live, less spiritual/religious; conservatives tend to be more concerned about morality and tend to be more spiritual/religious.

This list could go on for several more feet.  Needless to say – we are very different from one another.

Why?  What caused us to be so different?

Certainly it couldn’t all be because of the way we were raised, could it?  We are all capable of independent thinking after we leave home.  Are the childhood biases we acquired so firmly implanted that we can’t escape them?

How much does our later education, college or otherwise, influence our basic world-view mindset?  Does one side or the other have better critical thinking skills?  Does it depend on what our career is – the special interests that we feel compelled to defend or promote because our livelihood depends on a given world view? 

Is it some significant life experience that turned us on or off to one set of views or another?  Were we influenced by who we associated with and respected the most?

In all likelihood it is a combination of all these factors that resulted in certain character traits that cause us to tend toward conservative or liberal.

My set of conclusions, given my world/life view are that the character traits each group develops are different in the following ways:

• Conservatives are more engaged in learning the issues while liberals are superficially engaged and follow populist fads like global warming
• Conservatives have better analytical skills and rely on facts while liberals are more gullible and follow whatever is popular sans facts.
• Conservatives are more open minded and receptive to objective information; while liberals base their preferences on emotion.
• Conservatives have a more independent spirit, tend to be more self-sufficient problem solvers  while liberals tend to be whiners and dependent on others and expect others to be the same.

So, do you think my analysis is spot on?

Other than that, we’re all the same.

LiveJournal Tags: liberals,conservatives

Groundswell of pessimism toward the human spirit…

Obama's election and continuing popularity isn’t about a a radical American president.  It isn’t about Chicago-styled politics.  It’s not about socialist or Marxists in the White House promoting their liberal agenda.  And it has nothing to do with his campaign “tricking” people into voting for him.  He was honest in what he proposed to do.

The significance of Obama’s election runs much deeper than that.  The support that he still receives has demonstrated to me that there is a groundswell of pessimism toward the human spirit.  This has been building for several decades and has erupted in the current spate of politicians and Presidential advisers who trust more in government than in the capacity of the individual to resolve human problems.

Individual initiative, hard work, personal responsibility, and perseverance are no longer considered adequate to solve problems and improve our lot.

This is the primary distinction between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals don’t trust the individual to solve problems.  To the liberal, individuals are either a victim, are too ignorant, or are too greedy to act appropriately.  Government must take over the responsibilities once held by individual Americans, whether it is their health care or their buying habits.  Government must keep us safe and healthy.  Government must control what we eat and what we drive.  Don’t trust the individual.  A “free market” is comprised of individuals unrestrained by government.  Therefore a free market is not to be trusted, either.

Conservatives trust the individual more than they trust government.  Conservatives believe the productivity, ingenuity, and success of our culture is the result of unrestrained individual initiative motivated by prospects for success and profit.  Conservatives believe in the individual; therefore they believe in the free market. 

The figurative “iron rod of morality”, essential for a healthy free market, helped restrain greed and dishonestly among individuals.  This influence has greatly diminished over the past decades.  And with it, the trustworthiness of the free market has also been reduced.

There is a groundswell of pessimism toward the capacity or desire of the individual to solve our own problems.  It is no longer popular or uplifting to hear motivational speeches about what the individual can accomplish.  That is out of vogue.  It is more popular to listen to motivational speeches about what the government should do for us.

Liberals now believe it is too difficult for individuals to problem solve – to pull themselves up and make a go of their lives.  They believe things are too hopeless for that to occur.  So they redirect their politics, their speeches, their candidates, their government programs, their whole philosophy of life to ignoring the capacity of the individual, and building the capacity of government.  They believe it is ok for individual initiative to be stunted, even neutralized, in favor of building a big and benevolent government system to do things that they believe individuals will not do for themselves or their fellow man.

Liberals are selling out the human spirit in favor of an elusive collective that reduces the individual to “useless eaters.”

What liberals have in common with the ignorant

Ignorant in the good sense:  Being unaware.

On virtually every topic I have the opportunity to dialogue with liberals about, the one thing they have in common is their ignorance of the topic about which they opine – or rather about which they throw out trite phrases.

Example one:  Discussion about morality or lack thereof of “free trade” - how freely corporations pollute and indulge in child labor and slave wages in other nations to avoid being subject to the laws and economy of our own nation.  Her response:  “You can’t legislate morality.”  The reality is every law on the books legislates morality, from the prohibition of  murder to having only one spouse, to not stealing someone else’s property.  The debate is over whose morality is legislated, not whether morality can be legislated.

Example two: Discussion about the nature of Islam.  He opined that Islam is indeed a religion of peace.  It is difficult to discuss a subject with someone who is totally oblivious to the facts without sounding preachy and condescending.  But a head in the sand will avoid the truth every time.

Example three:  She said Obama will be a great president and voted for him - even after I pointed out all his radical associations and socialist policies enunciated in Audacity of Hope.  Fuzzy hope prevailed over logic and wisdom.

I am convinced that liberals are who they are because of a genuine lack of information, concern, or a desire to remain oblivious.  They live in an information vacuum that is filled by whatever media fluff fills their senses.  These are not stupid people as in “lacking intelligence.”  They are certainly intellectually capable.  They just have no desire to understand many of the issues around them.  To defend their ignorance, they dogmatically repeat trite, warm and fuzzy sentiments that feel good, but bear little relevance to the topic being discussed.

Frustrating.

Aid to Enemies; Betrayal of Allies

Obama continues his insane Husseinness.  It is becoming even more painfully obvious that his prior sucking up to Islamist, socialist, and communist nations were not isolated events.  That is his continuing practice – with a vengeance!  It is not enough to become buddies with Chavez and his friends, Hamas and other Islamists in the middle east and in the USA.  It is not enough to turn our backs on Israel.

So now we have the dismantling of our defense shield in Europe.  We have our long time allies saying Obama betrayed them.  We have millions of Americans saying “what the hell are you doing?” (I don’t have a link to that sentiment yet, but I see it coming real soon.)

Most of us agree that American is stretched too thin and cannot continue to be the worlds’ cop. But, if we want to note another clear divide between liberals and conservatives in this nation, it is all about how we sprinkle our resources around the world.

Liberals tend to treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies.  Aid is cut off to those most likely to be our friend and aid is increased to those who have declared us their enemy.

Conservatives tend to treat enemies like enemies and friends like friends.  We think helping our friends and cutting off assistance to those who declare us “infidels” and wish our destruction are good ideas.

Obama wants to buy the love of our enemies.  He naively believes if only we are nice enough to them, they will embrace us – their fundamental reasons for their “former” disdain will melt away.  But that is not enough for him.  We also have to demonstrate to our enemies that we are backing down from aiding our friends.

This practice might pluck the heart-strings of the half-thinkers for a few months while they hear the heaps of praise from the fascist nations who are the beneficiaries Obama’s misspent gifts.  Talk about waste of taxpayer dollars.  Shooting ourselves in the foot would be more cost-effective.

Challenging evening with liberal friends…

Frustrating, because they don’t like to talk “politics” - no discussion allowed.

We had another wonderful time with these great friends this evening, playing cards, munching and talking small talk.  Two bits of “small talk” provoked some interesting deeper insights.  Incites might be more to the point.

One was a short discussion about the direction of music from generation to generation.  I brought up the increased vulgarity, lack of melody, harmony, general musicality and sense of discipline and musical talent as we experience in the rap, hip hop and heavy metal of much of today’s Top 40 compared to the music of 30 to 50 years ago.  Our friend corrected me and said “vulgarity is your term.  What’s vulgar to you isn’t vulgar to others.”  I agreed with that.  Some people are more vulgar than others and may not consider what they do and say to be vulgar.  But then I went a step further and asked our friend “if the music and behavior of subsequent generations is increasingly rebellious and vulgar in the eyes of the previous generation, will there be a point when that vulgarity becomes so vile and demeaning that it is damaging to society – becomes destructive – even to the point of threatening its very existence?”  She dismissed that prospect by reminding me that every new generation goes through this “rebellious” phase.   That’s when I quit my end of the conversation realizing she is a moral relativist.  To her there is no “right or wrong”; no distinction between good behavior and bad behavior; there is no behavior or attitude that will bring the culture down.  It all just “is.”  She just dismissed one of the major reasons for millennia of failed civilizations.  How can you argue with that?  So I didn’t.

The next tidbit of conversation was during a Cat Stevens song.  I mentioned it would be interesting to hear his conversion experience to Islam.  Our friend pondered that comment for a moment after the cards were dealt, and then mused “it makes sense, because Cat Steven’s songs were often about peace.”  I questioned that conclusion when I said “it sounds more like an oxymoron to me – converting to a religion that is certainly not known for peace.”  She countered with great surprise giving her view that Islam certainly is a peaceful religion.  Then she said “look at Christianity and the Crusades.”  I reminded her that was over a thousand years ago and expressed my own amazement that anyone today would consider Islam a religion of peace instead of the violent fascist political system Islam is today.  She dismissed my thoughts as just focusing on a few radicals. 

Knowing they don’t like to discuss politics, I exercised an uncanny amount of self-discipline and didn’t expound on the true nature of present day Islam.  It was enough for the moment that I planted seeds of bewilderment that anyone would think of Islam as “peace loving.”  If she was open to anything, I would certainly share these websites with her: The Religion of Peace and Jihad Watch and a couple of my previous posts here and here.  If I could, I would pry open her brain and pour the content of these sites into her.  But I think there may be some sort of Teflon coating on the synapses that prevents absorption of new information.

Parable of the Talents, Liberals and Conservatives

I recently had a discussion with friends about the meaning of the Biblical parable of the talents (see Matthew 25:14-30.). While “talents” at the time of the writing of this parable referred to a denomination of money, by coincidence of language, it could also apply to the current meaning of “talent” , that is, the innate or “God-given” ability to accomplish great things with what you are given.

My initial impression of the parable was that it was mean-spirited against those who lack God-given abilities. It gives preference to and rewards the wealthy or “gifted” among us. It condemns those without much ability to “outer darkness”, which in Bible-speak, means outside of God’s light, presence or grace – in another word, they are condemned to hell. Isn’t that a bit over the top?

Here is the quote of the entire parable:

13 “Therefore stay alert, because you do not know the day or the hour. 14 For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, each according to his ability [underlining added for emphasis]. Then he went on his journey. 16 The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work270 and gained five more. 17 In the same way, the one who had two gained two more. 18 But the one who had received one talent went out and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money in it. 19 After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled his accounts with them. 20 The one who had received the five talents came and brought five more, saying, ‘Sir, you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ 21 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 The one with the two talents also came and said, ‘Sir, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more.’ 23 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! 28 Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. 29 For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” [underlining added for emphasis.](Matthew 25:13-30)."

Initial impressions do not necessarily result in correct interpretations. My initial impression tended toward the passive-aggressive, siding with the third slave. "If the Master (or God) is going to do that, he really is mean!" Our worldly biases and experiences often cloud our understanding, unless additional time and reflection is invested in understanding. This is true of my understanding of this parable.

Several points of understanding were gleaned from spending some time trying to understand this parable.

1) Knowing God. The third servant misunderstood the nature of God, as revealed when he told his master “You are a hard man…so I was afraid…” He was unnecessarily fearful because he didn’t know the nature of God. Fear is the bane of our existence. Fear makes life miserable – especially fear of God, our “Master.” Yes, Scripture encourages us to “fear God”. But I’m afraid that is where context and translation of ancient languages fails us. There are two different original meanings associated with our present day usage of “fear.” “Fear God” is used in the sense of exercising awe and reverence. Being “afraid”, a form of fear, is a waste of energy and emotion if you truly know God.

2) Using what you are given. The first two servants effectively used what they were given. The value doubled – compare that to today’s “value added” provider. The third did not use what he was given at all. He just buried it. There was no value added. When someone is given money, raw materials, talent (todays definition) and does nothing with it, what does that say about the person? What words come to mind? The words Jesus used were, you “evil and lazy slave.”

3) Be creative and show initiative. Apparently God likes us to think, to be creative and to show initiative. He doesn’t like excuses. He doesn’t like us to find fault with our master (‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground) and then use that as the basis for doing nothing. This principle applies to our secular responsibilities as much as it does to our relationship with our God. Actually, a current day term for the behavior of the third worker might be “passive aggressive.” I guess the Master was lucky the slave found what he buried!

So, how might this apply to Democrats and Republicans; liberals and conservatives, the “entitleds” and the producers? Here it is: The Democrats, liberals and entitleds are going to hell. The Republicans, conservatives, and producers better not become passive-aggressive just because they are pissed at the Democrats, Liberals, and entitleds for being lazy SOBs.