I also see conservatives categorize liberal positions in extreme light and I've been known to do this myself. I try not to but perhaps it's just human nature to view others who do not agree with us in an extreme way. I have found that many conservatives (myself included), were actually quite liberal when we were younger. We have a very clear understanding of how and why liberals think the way they do. We have merely grown up and have developed a much deeper understanding of individuals and how they influence the whole.
To myself, I view the majority of liberals as having good intentions but misinterpret the meaning of selfish vs. self-interest. Aside from that, they tend to live for only one or two of the three parts that make up an individual life -- the spirit, the body, and the mind. For some liberals, they may consider themselves to be extremely spiritual but lack understanding of the material world (the body). In other cases you will see people who have worked to develop superior minds; they are leaders in the world of science and mathematics or other academic areas. Unfortunately I find that many of these people may ignore spirituality, often professing that G-d or another higher power does not even exist. The body, the spirit, and the mind must all be fed equally because they are all important and encompassing in leading a fulfilling life.
I also notice that many liberals are ironically limited in their perceptions. They often subscribe to false dichotomies - the either/or principle. They also tend to lean towards the zero/sum principle which states that if one has, someone else loses. So if one person is successful, there is another person who is losing because of that success.
Time and time again I repeatedly see that so many liberals simply do not "get" the conservative message. It's not that they lack intelligence; it's simply they have closed their minds off to better understanding why it is a conservative believes the way we do, and why should they? With a media and Hollywood that is constantly telling them how stupid we are and how idiotic our beliefs are, that puts a type of peer pressure upon individuals to go with what they are being told, rather than thinking for themselves.
Knowing this, it is vital that conservatives in this modern day see this as a challenge, rather than a problem. We must challenge ourselves to better communicate why it is we believe what we do. We are not stupid, nor are we selfish or idiotic. We must be proud of what we believe and we must be able to articulate our beliefs in a way that will help penetrate the proverbial hate-shields that have been placed upon our political opponents.
A website called Addicting Info posted an article about crazy conservative contradictions. It was posted back in June but I ran across it and began to read it. It is a prime example of how many liberals view the conservative ideology. I will make an attempt to explain why the ideas are not only inaccurate but actually are borderline or outright silly.
Please not that I am speaking from my point of view. One thing people must learn is that those on the right, just like the left, are made up of different people who do not agree completely on every single issue. We are bounded by some core values but as with any other group of people who identify with one another individuals come with a variety of beliefs and understandings.
First of all, the author tells us that liberals view conservatives as crazy, which I cannot help but chalk up to projecting one's own image onto others but in any case...
1) The first contradiction listed is the claim that conservatives do not believe in regulating corporations, we believe that they will move to fulfill the demands of the consumer -- the "invisible hand" theory. We also state that corporations work for the bottom line and we cannot expect anything else.
While most conservatives are capitalists at their core, to say that we believe in unfettered capitalism is rather simplistic. It is akin to saying all liberals are communists. The issue of economics is just like any other science, it's complicated and requires constant review along with modifications.
Conservatives by nature do subscribe to the "invisible hand" theory that essentially states the market will lean or move towards the greater good of the people. In other words, what the people demand, the market will provide. This idea is quite simple to understand when we think of someone wanting to start a business. In order to be successful, you have to offer a product or service that is in demand. In today's world, a person going into a business selling old computers that cannot access the internet would not be able to get off the ground. In addition, competition leads to lower prices and better options for the consumer.
When conservatives are discussing "the invisible hand" we are speaking of very general, basic concepts. We often do not agree with abuse of government regulations but to say that we oppose all regulation is absurd and frankly goes against reality. Believing in responsible regulation has always been a core belief among many conservatives.
The claim goes on stating that conservatives do not believe in environmental or consumer protection which is utterly ridiculous. History shows us that most environmental protections has come from Republican administrations like Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and even Nixon. As for consumer protection, we have seen Republicans go against large bills but it has more to do with sweeping regulations where cost cannot even be specifically defined. Read here and here for some details. If you have a bill that is filled with cost and over-regulation with no oversight, how can you possibly complain when someone objects? The fact is, most of the bills that our current democrat president wants to pass are extreme in nature. Sure, more jobs will be created, but what will those jobs entail? They will be people assigned to comply with rules; they will not be selling or providing any service to the economy directly. Yet, if a conservative or Republican challenge these great, lengthy acts that have been proposed, they are labeled as anti-consumer protectors. Again, we see the mentality of people who believe in false dichotomies. It is either/or for them because it seems that some liberals have difficulty understanding that many people do not support these bills for other reasons not given.
Truth is, Republicans would like to see opportunity for small and large businesses and not have all their decisions be made by bureaucrats who live in Washington.
2) This contradiction states that while conservatives believe corporations should have free speech and be treated as individuals who can sway elections, they do not support unions who band together and do the same. It also states that conservatives do not believe corporations should be arrested for manslaughter or negligent homicide? There is a reference here to adding known carcinogens to baby food on purpose.
Well, to address the claim of putting known carcinogens in food, on purpose...I am not sure what this author is referring to. I found an urban myth on baby carrots. I also found an article about media hype as it pertains to carcinogens in foods. I tried doing a few searches and pulled up nothing so I am weary of this claim. Considering the rest of this article, it appears to be something of a myth or perhaps something that is being exaggerated in order to bolster a point.
Unions perhaps at one time were indeed needed to protect a work force that was being exposed to dangerous conditions. Laws needed to be changed concerning child labor and companies requiring workers to stay for too many hours with little pay and no vacation. Still, I am confused as to how anyone can see that unions have not turned into monstrous organizations themselves, forcing businesses to move elsewhere. They have become exactly what they initially fought against. Here is why I Hate Unions. Unions support workers no matter how low their standards become, how little they produce, or how often they show up to work. They even support workers who use drugs on the job. Those people that want to work are threatened and in some cases attacked.
3) This claim discusses how conservatives do not like unions but support CEO's making more money and that we don't want to limit their severance pay. Basically it is claiming that we don't care about the workers, only those that run the company.
Again, the claim is based on a false dichotomy. If you support the executives, you obviously hate workers and there is nothing factual (once again), that supports this author's claim, other than paranoia or a complete misunderstanding of what conservatives believe. Yes, conservatives support business in general and they support businesses being able to make their own decisions but to make a blanket statement that suggests we hate workers or all unions is rather silly and unfounded. I would say that most of us hate what unions have become but to say that conservative principle is to only support executives is ludicrous.
4) This states that conservatives are always telling celebrities to shut up while supporting the likes of Victoria Jackson, Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight. Well, in some ways I suppose I can see where a liberal would see this as a contradiction. So, I can agree that there might be a contradiction here but it's no more of a contradiction when we see liberals who talk about women and blacks holding office, unless of course they are Republican/conservative. In fact, liberals hate black conservatives so much, they are referred to as Uncle Tom's. What I find most disturbing about Hollywood specifically is whenever they have a part for a gay character, they hire a straight person for the role. Are they suggesting there are not enough gays in Hollywood to fill the role?
Fact is, liberals love their Hollywood celebrities.They worship them with their non-stop coverage of each and every move celebrities make. They give them interviews, magazine covers, award shows, and constant fawning. It is almost vital for an entertainer to profess their liberal views, as we all know conservatives can be blacklisted from Hollywood. The rare occasion when one of them makes support of conservative values are often celebrated because we understand how difficult it is for them to come forward with their beliefs.
5) This claim talks about government jobs and how conservatives claim that they do nothing to reduce unemployment yet complain we have lost public sector jobs under Obama (which I was unaware of). Conservatives indeed favor the private sector and protest government jobs that do not actually contribute to the economy. No, we don't want a government that runs the entire work force. Obviously that's an extreme example but for some reason many democrats seem to profess that only government can provide a solution for our troubles. I'm not really seeing a contradiction here, other than a difference in beliefs.
6) We invaded Iraq to rid the world of a horrible dictator but are against action in Syria. Well, if it was that simple, I guess this is a contradiction for liberals as well, correct? After all, liberals screamed bloody murder towards Bush about him taking care of Iraq but now support Obama.
What the author fails to state or perhaps does not even know is that Saddam had been in violation of a treaty that was placed back during the end of the Gulf War. He had violated the treaty years during Clinton's presidency; Clinton did nothing. Saddam had gassed his own people. He was also threatening our ally Israel, offering money to Palestinians who would kill Israeli's as suicide bombers.
Also let us consider this:
Christopher Hitchens was also apparently surprised when Ron Reagan, Jr. made a similar assertion recently and you may find his response to be most enlightening:
“CH: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?RR: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…
CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? … At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?…
RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.
CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?”Source
There is no doubt Iraq was a threat to their own people as well as the United States. Click here for more. On the other hand, Syria is much different. They are not a direct threat to us but by invading we will be putting Israel in harms way. Iran has already said they will attack Israel; an attack in Syria will be taken as an excuse to fire back. Furthermore, going into Syria will put us in a position where we would be defending Al-Qaeda.
The fact that conservatives are able to recognize the many differences between action in Iraq vs. Syria is hardly a contradiction. Not all conservatives agreed with the war either. Lumping everyone into the same camp just because Bush had an (R) behind his name is obviously a desperate attempt to attack all conservatives.
The contradiction lies with Obama when he spent his time lecturing the country about how there was no need to ever go into Iraq and now seems to think Syria is worth losing American lives over. Mind you, I did support Iraq and I do understand the importance of our nation doing good work and not allowing dictators to attack their own people but if that means putting us on the side of our enemies and risking the lives of our allies, I hesitate to throw my hat in the ring.
7) This contradiction says that conservatives blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11 because he ordered the attack but say that Obama gets no credit for killing him because all he did was order the attack.
Well, first of all Osama bin Laden told the world he ordered the attack on the United States, so it's pretty hard to argue that he wasn't responsible, considering all the other information we have concerning the attack on 9/11. As for Obama, the plans to kill bin Laden were already in place before Obama ever got into office. As far as I know, most conservatives give him credit for not impeding any action or changing any orders. I think where conservatives take issue is when liberals want us to believe that Obama is some sort of hero concerning the attack. We simply want credit to go to the people who actually carried out the actions.
8) This contradictions says that those who questioned Bush during war are traitors yet, it is patriotic to question Obama.
Umm...to this I have to say..."what?" I don't remember anyone calling the left traitors. I remember the left constantly ranting about how patriotic they were because they questioned Bush but their perceived "traitor" status was self-induced. Perhaps they feel like traitors, I don't know but the hype concerning this issue came from the left entirely. In fact, those on the right pointed out the hypocrisy of the left, who under the Clinton administration said NOTHING about attacking Serbia (did I mention they had been our ally since WW1?). It seems that some dems would like to lie about what happened in order to cover up for Clinton -- read here. Make no mistake -- liberals have nothing against war. In fact their history shows this. The ONLY time most of them question is when there's an (R) supporting a war, and exactly what is wrong with the other party questioning? It's part of the political process and the checks and balances that our government is supposed to have.
With that being said, there were indeed some people who were against the war that I would categorize a traitors. These were fridge groups but nonetheless they held signs depicting Bush as Hitler; they said that our troops deserved to die, and a host of other disgusting things. Again, these were people who were on the fridge but they were also the people who the media was covering and outlets like talk radio discussed this.
9) The contradiction here says that while conservatives call welfare and other types of entitlements socialism, they have no problem with giving entitlements to banks.
Well, I think that this, so far is the only real contradiction found on this list. However, I would like to point out that while Bush did support the action of bailing out the banks, this was roundly criticized by mainstream conservatives -- especially those in talk radio. This was NOT an action that is consistent with conservative core values in anyway. Most people on the right argued against this. Unfortunately just because someone has an (R) behind their name, doesn't mean they are always going to make decisions we agree with and that goes for people on the left as well. I'm sure many dems have been disappointed in what their representatives have done from time to time.
10) This supposed contradiction has been around for ages. Apparently conservatives do not support abortion but we also do not support providing care for pregnant women.
Oh, hogwash! I've heard this for years. Yes there are some fringe folks who indeed feel this way but, the issue with abortion lies mainly with how the law was created by the courts. It is NOT their job to create law -- they are to interpret the law only. This means abortion should be a state issue, voted upon by the people of that state. However, many on the right ARE Christian and do NOT believe in abortion. We believe in teaching women to keep their legs closed and not encouraging young, impressionable minds that it's okay to be promiscuous. A woman needs to respect her body and that means protecting it; it also means being selective about who to engage in intercourse with. It's hard to find sympathies for some women who deliberately go out and impregnate themselves because they want child support from a man who has no real interest in committing to them and raising a family.
Okay, no that's not all cases but it does exist. I've seen it with my own two eyes. In any case, I don't know of a Republican or conservative that wants to deny a pregnant woman care. That is ludicrous and does not reflect the values of conservatives in the slightest. It is merely a scare tactic that is used by the left to demonize those on the right.
11) This next supposed contradiction is absolutely preposterous. I am actually insulted at how utterly hateful this assertion is. The claim is that conservatives claim Islam is a religion of terrorism and yet we also say...I won't paraphrase, I will just write word for word what this author said.
The Contradiction: All homosexuals should be put to death! They are the work of Satan! If we cannot pray away their gay then we must do as the Jayzus commands and stone them to death!Unbelievable. I cannot believe someone would dare say such a thing. Never have I ever heard any conservative call for the death of homosexuals. I can only conclude this author is trying to lump that sick Westboro church (?) with conservatives somehow, which is just plain shameful.
There is nothing to add here because the claim is entirely rooted in lies and another sick attempt to demonize conservatives. Oh but at the beginning of this article the author writes: There’s a reason liberals look at conservatives like they might be insane. To which I can only respond by saying, you're obviously looking in the mirror, bud.
Need I remind this author that while not all Islamists are terrorists, most all terrorists are Islamists. This is not a typical "religion" by any means. There are many who consider themselves to be fundamental Islamists who are set out to destroy the Western world. This is a conversation this nation MUST have and the sooner the better; we must look at what is happening in Europe and begin to prepare ourselves and what direction we want to move in. Islam also promotes the stoning of homosexuals so while liberals want to hide behind homosexuals and pretend to fight for their rights, they also want to consider Islam a legitimate or "equal" type of religion, so I ask again, where does this contradiction lie?
12) This contradiction seems to be the same as the previous one. It's just repeating this idea that conservatives wants to protect the right to worship and have their religion (predominately Christian), but want to restrict those that practice Islam by complaining about building masques.
First of all, nobody has set out to infringe the rights of Muslims to worship.
You damn right we complained about building a mosque at Ground Zero! Are you people nuts? Liberals are seriously going to question our objection to this building project? The more appropriate question should be, why are liberals NOT upset by this as well? We have a right to protest this action. They certainly see no problem protesting things they don't agree with but how dare anyone protest against the things they like. The outrage over a mosque being built at Ground Zero should not be about politics. This is definitely an issue we should ALL be supporting together.
13) The contradiction listed for 13 has to do with conservatives supporting the Constitution and accusing liberals of ignoring it, while wanting to ignore the 14th Amendment.
I have not heard anyone wanting to ignore the 14th Amendment but I have definitely heard people argue to get rid of it or change it some way in order to ensure that we are protecting ourselves from a scam referred to as "anchor babies" or "daisy chaining." Both parties have issues with different parts of the Constitution. This is nothing new. It's about debating and discussing and going through proper channels to change things. I'm not sure how this falls under the category of contradiction. It's called politics.
14) Finally this list rounds out in a typical, predictable fashion. Conservatives do not like activist judges that are liberals because they interpret the law to fit their socialist agenda yet, they supported the Supreme Courts decision as it pertained to the election of 2000.
Well, interestingly the author leaves out the entire story behind the election, as many liberals would LOVE the American people to either forget or remain in the dark concerning the details of what happened. In short, the media called the state too early, causing citizens in the panhandle not to vote. From there the count was very close and there were issues concerning the ballot itself since many votes were inconclusive -- double punches, hanging chads, etc. To top this off, Al Gore was insistent on only counting four counties in the state, which just so happened to be strong democrat counties. In addition they had fought to throw out military votes. Bush obviously thought the entire state should be recounted due to the direct ballot issues. Yes, the court decided in Bush's favor and more importantly they were right. Al Gore did lose the election and all the media outlets that went down to Florida to do their own research concluded that Bush indeed won. In addition we have an electoral process as it pertains to winning the presidency, not a popular vote.
I think it's time for all Americans to move on from some of these issues from the past -- conservatives and liberals alike. We need to move forward together but, it would be nice if some liberals would at least try to better understand us, rather than demonize us. We are all mostly loving and caring people who want the best for all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment