Liberals and Conservatives Have Different Prisms
Several recent mini-discussions have led me to think about how liberals and conservatives approach issues.
Liberals and conservatives both love the nation and want to defend it, using different models.
Liberals and conservatives believe in the rights of the individual, but use different models.
LIBERALS (within and without Israel) claim, I believe quite honorably, to support Israel.
What Liberals do not support is Israel defending itself through building a wall, hunting down Hamas and other terrorist leaders and killing them, destroying the family homes of "martyrs," conducting economic warfare against Palestinians by blocking workers, occupying land, etc.
In other words, Liberals support Israel in the abstract, but they oppose almost every means of actual defense!
I have tried to divine the minds of liberals for many decades, and let me tell you what I have personally determined – it may be wrong , but it is mine.
Take John Kerry as a prime example of my answer. John Kerry says he is strongly supports the defense of America – I believe he honestly does. But, he voted against several large defense bills that contained many main defense items currently in use in the American Armed Forces: Bradleys, Apaches, body armor, B-2, Patriot Missiles, F-18, etc.
(To be perfectly fair, Kerry did not necessarily personally oppose each and every weapon, but did, at one point or another, vote against bills containing all of the items mentioned. The Republicans tried to make Kerry seem totally against the military, but he did eventually vote for 16 of 19 defense bills. So Kerry strongly supports American defense – sort of, within limits, and on the other hand. Further he voted for it before he voted against it, and…)
Liberals contend that their solutions are more sophisticated, more complicated than the thuggish "conservatives" -- more "nuanced" to use their terms.
Using their frame of reference, they are probably correct.
They REALLY believe that they can defend our nation without defending the nation, let’s say, too much! They believe in an economy of defense – just enough.
Sort of defense using the Just-in-Time model! Winning just barely, so as not to rile too many.
And they want it cheap so that more money is available for social engineering – so money spent on defense early and often is "wasted" in their minds. Not quite Quakers, they believe in "jaw, jaw, not war, war," and are willing to negotiate right up to the moment the enemy attacks. As they do in schools, they don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by ‘defeating" them, believing, sometimes correctly, that the opponents will regroup and come back for more.
Conservatives believe in winning early, winning big, over-engineering…they believe that there will be no social engineering – or even freedom – if we lose. Conservatives are the Mormons of politics – stockpile those damn weapons in the closet, then build more closets! If one is good, 10 is better. Conservatives believe in winning HUGE, overkill, salting the fields, stealing bases in the top of the ninth while enjoying a six run lead, etc.
There are successful long-term models for each strategy, but conservatives are always asking, "What do we do if the Liberals are wrong?" and they revert to overkill, and short-term at least, the conservative strategy has the better historical track record.
I believe the difference between people insofar as their movement along the "left – right" continuum is (primarily) – genetic. And the genes drive them to find different means to arrive at similar ends.
Even when there is general agreement on the strategy, the tactic is always debated. Liberals and Conservatives agree on defending the country – just using different tactics.
Take, just as an example, the quote from an ACLU Classmate of mine from Annapolis days. He posited a concept " A Governmental organization whose powers are always inferior to those of the individuals governed."
He and I absolutely agree on the concept. We will, I suspect disagree on the tactics needed to arrive at that lofty position..
Without trying to put words in his mouth, I believe he would prefer a large government constrained by law (and lawyers), Lilliputian-like, to protect the individual.
I would prefer a tiny government – too small and impotent to threaten the rights of the individual.
Liberals and conservatives both love the nation and want to defend it, using different models.
Liberals and conservatives believe in the rights of the individual, but use different models.
Liberals and conservatives both love the nation and want to defend it, using different models.
Liberals and conservatives believe in the rights of the individual, but use different models.
LIBERALS (within and without Israel) claim, I believe quite honorably, to support Israel.
What Liberals do not support is Israel defending itself through building a wall, hunting down Hamas and other terrorist leaders and killing them, destroying the family homes of "martyrs," conducting economic warfare against Palestinians by blocking workers, occupying land, etc.
In other words, Liberals support Israel in the abstract, but they oppose almost every means of actual defense!
I have tried to divine the minds of liberals for many decades, and let me tell you what I have personally determined – it may be wrong , but it is mine.
Take John Kerry as a prime example of my answer. John Kerry says he is strongly supports the defense of America – I believe he honestly does. But, he voted against several large defense bills that contained many main defense items currently in use in the American Armed Forces: Bradleys, Apaches, body armor, B-2, Patriot Missiles, F-18, etc.
(To be perfectly fair, Kerry did not necessarily personally oppose each and every weapon, but did, at one point or another, vote against bills containing all of the items mentioned. The Republicans tried to make Kerry seem totally against the military, but he did eventually vote for 16 of 19 defense bills. So Kerry strongly supports American defense – sort of, within limits, and on the other hand. Further he voted for it before he voted against it, and…)
Liberals contend that their solutions are more sophisticated, more complicated than the thuggish "conservatives" -- more "nuanced" to use their terms.
Using their frame of reference, they are probably correct.
They REALLY believe that they can defend our nation without defending the nation, let’s say, too much! They believe in an economy of defense – just enough.
Sort of defense using the Just-in-Time model! Winning just barely, so as not to rile too many.
And they want it cheap so that more money is available for social engineering – so money spent on defense early and often is "wasted" in their minds. Not quite Quakers, they believe in "jaw, jaw, not war, war," and are willing to negotiate right up to the moment the enemy attacks. As they do in schools, they don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by ‘defeating" them, believing, sometimes correctly, that the opponents will regroup and come back for more.
Conservatives believe in winning early, winning big, over-engineering…they believe that there will be no social engineering – or even freedom – if we lose. Conservatives are the Mormons of politics – stockpile those damn weapons in the closet, then build more closets! If one is good, 10 is better. Conservatives believe in winning HUGE, overkill, salting the fields, stealing bases in the top of the ninth while enjoying a six run lead, etc.
There are successful long-term models for each strategy, but conservatives are always asking, "What do we do if the Liberals are wrong?" and they revert to overkill, and short-term at least, the conservative strategy has the better historical track record.
I believe the difference between people insofar as their movement along the "left – right" continuum is (primarily) – genetic. And the genes drive them to find different means to arrive at similar ends.
Even when there is general agreement on the strategy, the tactic is always debated. Liberals and Conservatives agree on defending the country – just using different tactics.
Take, just as an example, the quote from an ACLU Classmate of mine from Annapolis days. He posited a concept " A Governmental organization whose powers are always inferior to those of the individuals governed."
He and I absolutely agree on the concept. We will, I suspect disagree on the tactics needed to arrive at that lofty position..
Without trying to put words in his mouth, I believe he would prefer a large government constrained by law (and lawyers), Lilliputian-like, to protect the individual.
I would prefer a tiny government – too small and impotent to threaten the rights of the individual.
Liberals and conservatives both love the nation and want to defend it, using different models.
Liberals and conservatives believe in the rights of the individual, but use different models.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home