Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Those who stand for nothing ...

I was browsing HuffPo this afternoon (I know, I know but I was really bored at work) when I wandered into this post. Just to save you the time of reading it, Bush is Bad, Feingold was a little too energenic, but 100% correct in calling for censure, and the Dems are losing because they refuse to lower themselves to the Republican's level. (In what world does one have to living where they think Democrats have been playing to nice? Have you not read a paper or seen a TV for the last 6 years? All one has to do is Google "Howard Dean" to see just how kind and loving the Dems have been towards the conservatives.)

He did make one good point though, conservatives groups and officials do tend use similar talking points when explaining their views on an issue while liberals are routinely all over the map. As usual, he attributes this to conservatives all reading from some form of central play book or 'script', as if we all need to be told what we believe. His mistake is to attempt to use liberal logic to understand a conservative mind.

Conservatives, in general, share a similar set of values and beliefs, with the cornerstone being self reliance. This set of moral certainties, which help define what is good and what is bad, act as a moral compass. Using those values as a decoder-ring type tool, any person could look at a situation and 99 times out of 100 come up with the conservative stance; no outside influences necessary.

Liberalism, as practiced in North America, by it's very nature stresses the individuals feelings and as such introduces a much larger emotional quotient in it's decision making process. As everyone brings different emotional baggage to the table, it is nearly impossible for any two people to come up with the exact same view of a given set of circumstances. They may agree on the final outcome they want, but they both arrived to that opinion through very different means. This leads to a more case by case review of a situation and to moral relativism, as certain groups or individuals try to explain why something that was considered good or bad in one situation, is entirely different when put in a different setting.

This helps explain why at the various left wing rallies you routinely see groups who should be mortal enemies, marching side by side. How else do you explain hard line Islamists groups marching next to women's rights groups, or supposed racial rights leaders sharing the podiums with open anti-semites. These groups have learned long ago that because there is no uniformity within their ranks, to take whatever assistance they can get, whenever they can get it.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the why is as important as the how or the what. You and I may both agree that border security is important, but if your main reasoning is that you just want to keep all foreigners out, then you won't be invited to my march.

Just think of how many times a conservative has been ostracized by their own organizations for expressing what are considered to be unacceptable beliefs (racial attacks for example). Now compare that to the number of times liberals have publicly rebuked a member of their party for anything, with the exception of defending a conservative viewpoint.

Liberals may appear to be more tolerant of each others beliefs but it's really a false tolerance as is quite easily seen when reading any of their views of conservatives. They allow so much dissent within their ranks not because of a special ability to accept people for who they are, but because they understand that the time may come when they will need that other person's aid. This generally makes it easy to get together large numbers of people to fight against something, but much more difficult to get those same people together to fight for something, where motivations become such an important factor.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who Links Here