Conservative vs Liberal – Analysis Without The Rancor
By Doug Edelman (02/19/06)
In my role as a forum moderator, I see a lot of commentary go by from both the rancorous and the insightful on both sides of the political spectrum. A recent posting caught my interest. It was posted by a person I would generally classify as a left of center – but a rational, reasonable, thoughtful, fairminded and intelligent individual. I thought the posting was worthy of discussion in a broader arena than just the forum in which it originally appeared.
See if you agree:
"The main difference between a Conservative and a Liberal is not that one is evil and the other is good. Both have the same goal but the approach is from opposing directions. Conservatives feel that poor people should be empowered to fend for themselves, Liberals feel that the same need assistance because they don’t have the tools and must be guided. Both have the best intentions just different methods. Each of us align ourselves with a party that meets most of our philosophies. Unfortunately the majority of people on both sides don’t pay attention to the details (people on this blog are an exception) and therefore people are put into power positions that don’t steer the party boat as we would desire. If more people were active politically 365 days a year instead of every 2 to 4 years we would have less problems and our leadership would be better."
Actually, I found the comments above quite insightful.
There ARE INDEED sincere folk on both sides of the political spectrum. It is not about good and evil. Sometimes it IS about right and wrong.
I personally find the "Liberals feel that the same need assistance because they don’t have the tools and must be guided" statement to be condescending toward those very people that Liberals place in that category... which is one of the reasons I am a conservative. But then, the statement is a pretty accurate assessment of the mainstream Liberal mindset. Liberals do tend to view themselves as some kind of elite, who reach down from on-high to stoop to help the "underlings". I think if I were born into a poor minority family, I would resent being looked at as utterly dependent and without potential.
I am in FULL agreement about the issue of those in power within the leadership of the parties. Once retaining power becomes the goal, rather than the advancement of a positive agenda to accomplish the ultimate goals of improving our society... both sides become "politicians" instead of "statesmen". And nobody likes or respects a "politician". In 1994, the Republicans rode to the majority on the wave of advancing a positive agenda. They now risk seeing that majority dwindle as the agenda they rode to power on seems diluted. They too have begun to succumb to the focus of retaining power rather than advancing the goals that put them there.
It is said that Conservatives THINK, and Liberals FEEL. Liberals seem to believe they have a monopoly on compassion. While "compassion" is a word in the vocabulary of both Left and Right… I believe there is a variance in their dictionaries when it comes to defining compassion.
Conservatives hold that it is more "compassionate" to believe that inherent within ALL men (non-gender specific) is the CAPABILITY to excel and to achieve than it would be to assume there are some born to a dependent class that requires a nanny state. Conservatives subscribe to the "teach a man to fish" philosophy. Liberals gravitate toward the "give a man a fish" philosopy. The conservative view (and my own as well) is that liberals are wrong in this approach - though I certainly respect their sincere belief in the compassionate application of their philosophy.
The "progressive" liberal mindset now entrenched in the leadership of the Democratic party is not about compassion at all, however, nor about TRULY elevating the unfortunate. (As such they truly depart from the compassionate mindset of those who elect them!)
Democrats NEED the unfortunate "downtrodden" as a voting block to empower the Party. Therefore they perpetually PROMISE the moon but they DARE NOT deliver on any initiatives which will TRULY elevate the poor, minorities, the working lower middle class. SUCCESSFUL people do not "need" the handouts of the Liberals, and they tend to vote more conservative. As such, there is a DISincentive for liberals in power to really successfully elevate their constituencies and rather there is an incentive to perpetuate their dependencies. Therefore, they can never ACHIEVE what the heartfelt liberal's "compassion" would want them to!
The Party cannot accomplish what it states it's goals are without causing their own demise. Therefore it is at cross purposes. They create an expectation in the electorate that they are the party of help. The have the support of those who view themselves as helpful. They have the voting base of those who view themselves as needing the help. But if they ACTUALLY solve any problems and elevate the needy out of dependency – they ultimately obsolete themselves.
The result is that they must perpetuate the myth of the downtrodden underclass. When an individual departs from the prescribed script, and rises from disadvantage by their own merit – they must be painted as an aberration, or worse, an enemy. Just look at the Liberal treatment of Michael Steele, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Tomas Sowell, etc.
The Democrats have presumed the black community was indeed a monolithic voting block. As long as they could be kept a permanent underclass. undereducated and dependent on the government; they would be a block of votes that would default to the Democrats. It was a formula that worked for decades.
But beginning with the Reagan years more and more persons of African-American extraction began improving their lot. (I look forward to the day we get rid of the hyphenated-American phraseology so prevalent today!) Empowerment rather than entitlement began to see the light of day, and more and more blacks began educating themselves and advancing themselves into the growing ranks of the middle-class of color.
While our society is not yet completely color-blind. the progress we've made so far is significant. Opportunity for minorities to achieve is absolutely there, and more and more of them are laying hold of that opportunity and are succeeding. This in itself is frightening for the Dems, as regardless of race, successful people tend to move to the right of the political spectrum. When your name is on a paycheck instead of a government check. when money going to entitlements shows as a minus [-] on your pay stub instead of as check in your name, your thinking shifts.
Michael Steel is not an anomaly. He is representative of a growing contingent of black people who are no longer liberal by default. Conservative blacks are vilified because they are a threat to the power structure of the Left.
For decades the Left has taken the black vote for granted ("Where else they gonna go?"). But what has the left actually DONE for the black community? Yes, they carp about raising the minimum wage, but who works for minimum wage for more than a year? Even if they don't advance to something more challenging and better paying, don't they at least get an occasional raise?
Liberals keep appealing to those at the bottom of society's ladder, but they never do anything to encourage anyone to CLIMB that ladder. And why not? Because their power comes from maintaining dependence and entitlement. The old adage is true: "Liberals quantify compassion by how many people they provide public assistance to; while Conservatives quantify it by how many they've elevated to no longer need it."
Copyright © 2005 by Doug Edelman
(Printer friendly version) Email: Doug Edelman
