-
The Politicization Crusade
May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Deceiver in Chief
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
-
Chronicle of Liberal Disasters
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
President Obama’s Minimum Wage Delusion
February 14, 2013 | 203 comments
-
The Democrats’ Rough Re-entry Into Reality
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
Political Hay
What Defines Our Differences?
What is the encompassing issue that divides liberals and conservatives?
What is the encompassing issue that divides liberals and conservatives?
Consider, for example, the following debates: socialism vs. a free-market economy, higher taxes vs. lower taxes, more regulations vs. deregulation, bigger government vs. smaller government, federal control vs. state and local control, government ownership vs. private property, government-run health insurance vs. private health insurance, or coercion vs. voluntary exchange. All of these debates are different applications of the same principle. What’s at the bottom of the difference between each of the two positions?
The common element in all these debates is this — do we want power and control to be centralized or decentralized? Should control be in the hands of politicians and bureaucracies or individuals and private entities?
For example, think about what actually happens when your taxes are raised. Your control over your own life is diminished, the power of politicians is increased, and control is centralized.
The most commonly used words to describe the two sides of the divide are liberal and conservative. However, the words themselves do not accurately reflect what liberals believe or what conservatives believe. They are not good descriptors. Liberals aren’t really liberal and conservatives aren’t really conservative. Those terms do not help either side understand and define what they believe. The labels “left” and “right” offer even less guidance than liberal and conservative.
Furthermore, the terms have evolved over time. Those who would have described themselves as liberal a hundred years ago would today be called conservative. On the other hand, centralized and decentralized are words that maintain their meanings relatively well.
The centralized-decentralized spectrum closely parallels the tyranny vs. freedom spectrum. Having control over our choices is essentially the definition of freedom. One of Milton Friedman’s most popular books was titled Free to Choose. Friedman saw clearly that freedom is fundamentally about choosing. Another of his influential books was titled Capitalism and Freedom. In that book he explained why true and lasting freedom is a practical impossibility under socialism.
A central difference between liberals and conservatives revolves around the issue of individual responsibility. The more we take the power to choose away from individuals, the more we diminish the meaning of, and opportunity for, individual responsibility. If you do what you do because you’re forced to, are you exercising morality? Are you responsible for your actions? The most insidious result of liberalism is that when control is centralized, so is morality.
There is what could be called the logistics of information — having information at the right place at the right time. Leaving control in the hands of individuals leaves it closest to the information and incentives required for efficient decision making.
No one can know as much as you do about your goals and priorities. Even if you assume that Harry Reid and his fellow lawmakers are smarter than you are, does it follow that they should make your choices for you? It’s not very efficient if information has to make a round trip from you to Washington, D.C. and back.
Not only is the best information held by individuals, so are the most powerful incentives. It’s only natural that you will work harder for your own goals than for someone else’s. This is one of the main reasons why free market economies are by far the most powerful generators of prosperity and economic growth.
The Heritage Foundation’s recently released 2011 Index of Economic Freedom once again confirms the almost perfect correlation between freedom and economic vitality. Terry Miller, one of the survey’s authors, confirms that the freer economies are “more efficient at protecting the environment, better at improving health, and better… in enhancing life satisfaction and overall happiness.” Rather than “spreading the wealth” as Mr. Obama wants to do, we would be better off if we spread the control.
When making choices with their own money, individuals are most motivated to make careful decisions that produce the desired results. Individuals don’t typically spend their own money on mini-versions of “pork-barrel projects.”
If choices are made for you, you will not automatically agree with them. Consequently, centralization always involves force.
Most people have probably not thought about controversial political issues along the lines of centralized and decentralized. Nevertheless, it is probably the best way to frame the debate for a number of reasons.
About the Author
Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (120) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ron Ross
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/21/what-defines-our-differences
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 1.21.11 @ 7:34AM
One of the many problems facing this Nation is facing the fact (s) that the supposed liberal mind is undebatable, always right, and don't believe our lying eyes, don't believe it?, every day those of us on the Conservative side of life believe there is always room for debate, all sides should get in on the act, but, not if you are a liberal. Liberal, far from it, they are in fact destroyers of the human experience with all they have laid claim to. I call them liable, they are liable for the destruction of the morals of this country they own it but will never answer to the charges, they are liable for the destruction of the dollar, but, again will not answer to the charges, every city holding a liberal agenda holds the keys of their destruction, will they ever answer for the destruction, no, they are liable for the lose of individual responsibility, once again they claim we are all in this together, another lie, liars one and all. Talking points are simply lies repeated, repeated, and repeated again to ensure everyone on that side of the lie get it straight for yet, another talking point to lie again.
Individual responsibility is a hallmark to ownership, be that of property, decisions, or whatever, you break it, you own it. We will never get out of this morally misguided compass they have forced upon this Nation, it matters not what side of the issue one stands on, you take away the responsibility factor to any argument, every one loses. But of course, if you listen to the liberals all of these failings are the direct fault of the very people who have yet to start hunting them down and making them pay for this destruction they never answer for. But their day is coming and it will hit them like a ton of reality, the reality is, in this life of the next, they will pay for the willful destruction of God's promise to the entire world through our cherished institution, called freedom.
SonOfSam| 1.21.11 @ 9:10AM
Ret Marine, that is why I will never call them liberals. The last liberal died the day they put that commercial on TV stating that if Goldwater became President, he would start a nuclear war. We don't have conservatives and liberals, we have patriots and traitors. And in our own particular age, the traitors should be referred to as ObamaNazis.
skip| 1.21.11 @ 1:40PM
The defining difference is intelligence and honesty.
Conservative patriotic decentralists have it.
Liberal traitorous dentralists don't.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 4:36PM
Repuglicans only care about their own families.
Tim the Enchanter| 1.21.11 @ 4:52PM
Alan- if that's going to be the extent of your contribution to this discussion, it would be best if you would simply go away and take your nonsense with you. Come back when you grow up.
Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 6:40PM
Yet it is an obvious fact. Everybody else can just drop dead as far as you are concerned. You possess the form of Christianity, but not the substance.
C.K. Amos| 1.21.11 @ 8:30PM
And you're the arbiter of what is the substance of Christianity?
By the way: Repuglicans? Oh, please.
RN in Houston| 1.22.11 @ 1:19PM
So, it is a fact that conservatives only care about their families? Some might but you can't take the case of a few and generalize. Most of love our country and mankind. Yours is a false analogy, much like what libs do about everything. Your side lied about national health care, Tarp, stimulus, the Start Treaty, DADT, cap & trade, and deregulation to name a few. In fact, I contend that most libs are disingenuous liars including you Mr. Brooks.
equisrider| 1.22.11 @ 6:27PM
Actually it has been shown over and over that conservatives are more generous than liberals. We live our Christianity and do not need the government taking money and spending 90% of it on bureaucracy and much of the rest on people who need to get a job. We give to charities, take people into our homes and foster the children of the bums the government insists on supporting.
db| 1.22.11 @ 8:19AM
Mr. Brooks, So, are you a centralist or a decentralist? C'mon be honest. There's no shame in being honest. I demand a response.....
Tom Osterman| 1.22.11 @ 3:49PM
In the absence of ANY supporting evidence, I'll just call this a slander and let it go, except to ask what that's supposed to prove?
Lesser Weevil| 1.22.11 @ 11:25PM
Whereas Alan cares deeply about the natives of the Borrioboola-Gha.
figusjanus| 1.21.11 @ 7:34AM
This is one of the best articles I have read in recent times.
This can help people talk to each other with out getting into fights by boiling away all of the rhetoric. I will send this to everyone I know. I even have some ignorant relatives that might benefit from this article. Thank you very much.
AR Ar ar| 1.21.11 @ 7:36AM
Excellent. Thank you, this could very well be the way to engage a decent discussion of what in the end is a persons philosophical approach to government as it applies to our daily lives. But you are right the terminology has little pizzazz.
Darin| 1.21.11 @ 7:39AM
When someone says centralized control is better, turn it around and make it personal. When they say they prefer centralized control, they are by definition saying someone else should be given the authority to run THEIR life. To make decisions about what THEY can and cannot do. Focus the discussion on how much they think they should be allowed to run their own life. Perhaps the light will go on, perhaps not.
The Big E| 1.21.11 @ 10:07AM
Personally, I've tried this approach on numerous occasions without effect. The lefty in question generally responds that government control over decisions does NOT effect their life because they already make the "correct" decisions. Therefore, government control only effects those who do not make the "correct" decisions, and those people need to be forced to make the "correct" decisions anyway. They don't seem to view this as tyranny, holding to the position that freedom only means the freedom to choose "correctly."
Felix| 1.23.11 @ 11:53AM
Sounds like voluntary compliance.
Appleby| 1.23.11 @ 8:36AM
No, what they are saying is that they believe THEY should be in control. The overarching belief of all these types is that when the Revolution comes, THEY will be in charge.
They never realize that Satan does not take partners -- nor that the people who will end up in control are preaching that when the Revolution comes, all the people like them will be executed.
Jacobite| 1.23.11 @ 8:25PM
Humans are social animals. Humans live in social groups, which are defined by acceptance of group norms (competing for conventional; goals by conventional means). The idea that a man can live according to his own personal morality is Enlightenment delusion. Hey, there was no Social Contract. Humans were living in social groups long before they were human. Too bad, but there it is. Leftists and Libertarians are united by thyeir refusal to acknowledge Human Nature. Libertarians won't kill you as Leftists ultimately will, but they'll destroy your society, which leaves the alienated individuals remaining unable to organize for self-defense and they soon become slaves or extinct.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 1.21.11 @ 7:49AM
Conservatives (Decentralists) get out of the nest and fly on their own because they want to, Liberals (Centralists) turn to their Mommy and Daddy and say their still not ready to fly (for the fourth decade in a row), but they're getting hungry for worms again. One of them isn't scared to fall on its face, because it already has. The other one is scared to fall on its face, because its afraid of being laughed at when it fails. Ironically though, the only reason we really laugh at them is not because they might fall on their faces when they try to fly, we laugh at them because they still need their Mommy and Daddy to get their worms for them to eat. Get your own worms, chirp, chirp!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.11 @ 1:39PM
Lullabys,
Please contact me at
sales@texassaidno.com
Thank you
JimH| 1.21.11 @ 7:52AM
Neither party of themselves embody any ideology. They may have represented certain principles when they were founded, but now they are only vehicles by which certain factions and interests gain and exert political power. Both parties have members who themselves stand for certain ideologies. The parties themselves stand for whoever are the dominant factions at the time. I think one of the best ways to view various political positions, including attitudes to centralization is via the chart known as the Pournelle chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
Richard Baker| 1.21.11 @ 8:01AM
One word. LIBERTY.
TL | 1.21.11 @ 2:57PM
Yes. Liberty and tyranny. Freedom and despotism. Capitalism and communism/socialism/marxism/fascism/whatever. Good and evil. We already have plenty of accurate words for this. We shouldn't let those on the wrong side of freedom scare us off of using them.
Curly Smith| 1.21.11 @ 8:18AM
The abstract notions of "centralized and decentralized" tend to fall apart on the voter level. In urban centers power is often decentralized into the hands of thugs, while in other parts of the community the Home Owners Association is run by petty tyrants who use micrometers to measure the height of your grass. If asked, those impacted would much prefer "centralized" power.
The question is really "Do you own your life or are you owned by the Government?". Are you a free person or are you a slave? The ongoing discussions in Washington are not those of politicians governing free people; rather, they're the mutterings of slave masters trying to quell a slave revolt.
TL | 1.21.11 @ 3:03PM
". . . the mutterings of slave masters trying to quell a slave revolt." Perfect!
Alan| 1.21.11 @ 8:24AM
More simply: the divide is between 1) those who believe in individual freedom, and 2) those who think people should be ruled by others.
Those who believe in the 2nd option typically imagine themselves ruling others due to their intellectual and moral superiority. The sheer stupidity of this thinking is made clear by asking a simple question: who gets to decide who rules whom? Since none of us would volunteer to be ruled, it degenerates into who can impose the most force on others.
Options include soft force (comply with government-regulated health insurance or be prosecuted) and hard force (e.g. "submit to slander, Sarah Palin, or receive death threats").
Paul Milenkovic| 1.21.11 @ 6:05PM
The difference is much simpler and more basic than that.
The American Spectator had a column "The Continuing Crisis." Independently from this, my wife observed that the defining characteristic of Liberals is, "that there is some Crisis, there is a solution to that Crisis but people don't want to listen to it, and right thinking people are angry for this state of affairs."
It has taken years for me to see it. It doesn't matter if the issue is Health Care Reform or muddling along, if it is fighting the terrorists overseas or withdrawing to our borders, if it is bailing out GM or leaving everyone to the Free Market.
The defining belief of Liberalism is in the unresolvable Crisis, and the defining strength of Conservatism is to realize that whatever the Crisis, we have some how been able to pull through.
Intelligent Design| 1.21.11 @ 8:27AM
Conservatives believe in the Constitution, liberals don't.
Vern Crisler| 1.21.11 @ 8:27AM
Liberals (or Progressives) substitute lofty communitarian values in place of traditional moral values. They are ready to use just about any means, immoral or otherwise, to bring about those collectivist values.
By elevating ends over means (breaking a few eggs), the far left invented the politics of personal destruction (ask Clarence Thomas). All means are justified for leftists because of the ends they seek to realize.
The viciousness of their recent attacks on Sarah, Rush, and other conservatives -- despite lack of evidence connecting conservatives to the Tucson shootings -- is par for the course for liberals.
IMO, it's this issue of means and ends which ultimately divides conservatives from liberals.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.11 @ 8:30AM
Mr. Ross,
With all respect.....Nah!
I will keep calling communists, (pardon the shorthand), communists, (pardon the shorthand).
I will call them out till the day I die.
I am reminded of Robert Heinlein's words: "You cannot enslave a free man. You can only kill him."
So,
The words I shall use are: "Slave, or Freeman, which are you"?
Louis Jenkins| 1.21.11 @ 8:36AM
Freedom! Less taxation, less controls, less ruling by fiat, less government, less departments of government, fewer governmental employees, less MSN, and on and on.
When you compromise with the leftists, you give up ground, til one day you're in their endzone. Had enough America? Call them by whatever name you wish, but they're all the same.
Petronius| 1.21.11 @ 9:12AM
LL&L has it pegged. The "thing" is maturity on our side, and lack of same on the other. Time for a tax strike. Quit feeding the parasites.
Christopher Landrum| 1.21.11 @ 9:25AM
Centralization v. Decentralization may very well be the apt dynamic for the political divide in our country. The decentralization of Christianity via the Protestant Reformation certainly gave many believers more liberty than the top-down methods that came before it.
I love driving through tiny towns in central Texas and observing the ratio of population to church-denomination running roughly 3/2--this is a cherished consequence of freedom of religion via decentralization.
Unfortunately, I foresee no Luther or Calvin rising up to lead a political reformation in the United States. I myself have no 95 Theses to nail.
Visitor| 1.21.11 @ 9:41AM
Conservative = Sees a problem and thinks, "What can I do to fix this?"
Liberal = Sees a problem and thinks, "Who can I make fix this?"
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.11 @ 1:47PM
VISITOR,
Good thought. Welcome to the conversations, and drop in again soon.
Walking Horse| 1.21.11 @ 9:50AM
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Derek Leaberry| 1.21.11 @ 9:55AM
The biggest difference between conservatives, properly understood, and liberals is that conservatives believe in conserving traditional institutions- the Constitution, Western Civilization, Christianity, neighborhoods, the land, marriage and the like- and liberals despise all traditions and are always on a quest to overturn traditions. Unfortunately, many who call themselves conservative- Jonah Goldberg, David Brooks, David Frum, Dick Cheney, Philip Klein, Aaron Goldstein, David Keene and just about all libertarian-oriented "conservatives"- could not care less about traditional institutions. They amount to being cancer cells within the conservative body.
St. Thor| 1.21.11 @ 10:14AM
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is simple: Democrats love keeping people in slavery and pushing them around; Republicans love freedom. Or, Democrats are the slime beneath your feet; Republicans are fresh air.
W| 1.21.11 @ 10:38AM
If a conservative Repblican decides to become a vegetarian, he stops eating meat. If a liberal or democrat becomes a vegetarian, he wants to pass a law to prohibit everybody from eating meat.
NeilBJ| 1.21.11 @ 10:59AM
Re: "Leaving control in the hands of individuals leaves it closest to the information and incentives required for efficient decision making."
I have also been mulling over the problem with labels. Labels are a short-hand way of representing certain viewpoints, but in any discussion your understanding of that label may not be the same as my understanding.
I posted the quote above because it represents a label that also might be used: "pragmatist."
The question becomes, "Are you willing to accept that which has been shown to work, or do you insist on continuing failed policies?"
I am convinced that if a people honestly confront what works, the free market will win.
I am not saying that this debate will be easy. First, we have to get past the greedy capitalist phase of the debate.
Seapuss| 1.21.11 @ 1:14PM
I disagree entirely with the central premise of this article.
The key concept that defines liberalism is NOT a preference for centralized power and control. To the liberal, centralization of power and control is simply a means to an end. Moreover, depending the issue involved, a liberal will sometimes favor decentralization of power and control. Instead, the one key concept that explains the liberal mindset is this: a fanatical obsession with equality, especially equality of outcomes. Some call this “radical egalitarianism”.
Radical egalitarianism explains virtually every position liberals take on any issue, the way they argue, and the way they view their opponents. To a liberal, radical egalitarianism is a religion and the world of politics is one big morality play. Equality of outcomes is always good—in fact, the highest good. Those who pursue equality are not only wise and thoughtful, but also virtuous, generous, and good. And those who stand in the way of equality are not merely unwise or misguided, but corrupt, greedy, and evil.
Take the issue of poverty, for example. To reduce poverty, liberals generally support lavish big government entitlement programs, government work programs, and high taxes on the rich to support those programs. However, liberals would happily settle for a decentralized approach, in which everyone voluntarily shared all their material belongings and joined hippy communes. On the other hand, conservatives will argue that the best way of reducing poverty is to encourage economic growth and free the entrepreneurial spirit, through low taxes and deregulation, to create a rising tide that raises all ships.
Conservatives critique the liberal approach to poverty as naïve, unwise, unworkable, and counterproductive. But the liberal critique of the conservative approach is not necessarily that it won’t work, but rather that the conservative approach as callous, greedy, and evil. Why? Because to the liberal, the main issue is not really poverty—it’s inequality. It doesn’t matter how well off the “bottom half” of society is. It’s the very fact a “bottom half” exists at all that pisses off the average liberal. The liberal’s primary goal is wealth distribution, not to relieve suffering, but to achieve greater equality of results. The conservative approach, even if it makes the lives of poor people exponentially better, is unacceptable to liberals, because it will tend to perpetuate inequality—the primary evil to liberals.
Consider also the issue of abortion. Conservatives view abortion as the unjustifiable extermination of human life—murder. Conservatives support banning abortion at all levels of government. Liberals, on the other hand, want the issue to be decided by each woman and her physician. Why? Not because they love decentralized decision-making. Rather, abortion is essential to the liberal view of equality. Liberals think that no woman can consider herself truly equal to men—economically, socially, or politically—unless she has complete control over (and, in fact, she severely limits) her own reproductive functions. Centralized authority, including state and federal governments, and especially church hierarchies, can have no say in the matter. Each woman’s affirmation of sexual equality through abortion trumps all other considerations, including the right to life. Those who oppose abortion are seen by liberals as enemies of equality—and therefore evil.
Thus, it is radical egalitarianism, not a fetish for centralized authority, that explains the liberal mind. Centralized authority is often used by liberals to impose their goal of equality, but it is not a goal in itself. In turn, what I think defines conservatism is largely opposition to liberalism. Conservatives analyze the proposals made by liberals and often critique them “stupid”. But liberals view the push back from conservatives as evidence of “evil”.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.11 @ 1:54PM
Sourpuss, (sic)
Quit picking fuzz out of your navel.....stupid!
Seapuss| 1.21.11 @ 1:57PM
In your heart, you know I'm right. :O)~
John Navratil| 1.21.11 @ 2:50PM
Seapuss,
The flaw in your argument is embodied in your statement "liberals would happily settle for a decentralized approach, in which everyone voluntarily shared all their material belongings and joined hippy communes."
Accepting, for arguments sake, the proposition that liberals would be happy in such an arrangement, what is to be done when, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, it doesn't work? More exhortations? More sit-ins? Some other imaginative way to convince people that it be made to work? No! Central authority is always required.
If the policies of the liberal cannot be divorced from the reliance on central authority your analysis, while perhaps an amusing contemplation, is incomplete.
Seapuss| 1.21.11 @ 3:20PM
I think most liberals would agree that hippy communes never worked. And the lesson they learned is that the force of big government is required to impose economic equality upon a recalcitrant society. But the fact that liberals tried hippy communes first demonstrates what primarily motivates them. Through trial and error, liberals now view big government as the means necessary to achieve their egalitarian ends.
I think abortion and other issues show that liberals are not necessarily tied to centralized approaches.
Tim the Enchanter| 1.21.11 @ 5:04PM
Seapuss- You seem to have a view of the Liberal which is incomplete. The Liberal is a Professional Malcontent. You cannot please or satisfy them no matter what you do. The original "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" herd.
Seapuss| 1.21.11 @ 5:19PM
Tim, I do agree with you that liberals are never ever content with the world. The job of the leveller is never done, because equality is not the natural state of human relations.
Walking Horse| 1.21.11 @ 5:56PM
Very kind of you to use the term the Founders would have known - levellers. I cannot help but think that the practical sense of the term is as follows:
From synonym.com:
level, raze, rase, dismantle, tear down, take down, pull down - destroy, destruct
Al Adab| 1.21.11 @ 2:30PM
All the glib comments above aside, I suggest that the distinctions fall into several categories:
1. Central planning vs. Free markets
2. Entitlement vs Self-reliance
3. Group identity vs Individualism
4. Victimization vs Personal responsibility
It is from these differences that debates concerning the proper role of government in society emerge.
I leave it to you to decide which "label" is on which side.
Anthony| 1.21.11 @ 2:35PM
The absolute irony of this article and the wonderful posts that accompany it, which would be a hoot to analyze if the consequences weren't so damn serious, is the irony that it is the "Children of Woodstock Nation" that have brought America to this predicament.
Whatever conclusions posited by Dr. Ross and posters, as to how our differences are defined, it its amazing to contemplate that those who have brought America to the brink of totalitarianism were the same long haired "bourgeous radicals" that stormed college campi in the '6os and '70s screaming "Question Authority" and labeled America "Amerika".
How the " forever young", " free spirit" generation devolved into the jackbooted lockstep army of zombie-like intolerant totalitarianians they've become, will be the subject of volumes from politics to psychology for decades to come.
Of all of the explainations posited thus far by Dr. Ross and fellow posters, let me just say, I believe the root cause for this stunning turn around is rooted in psychotic dislocation.
Seek| 1.21.11 @ 2:53PM
It's wonderful, isn't it, the way the culture war Right, like the egalitarian Left, assumes that opponents suffer from mental illness. I hate to break the news, but a free spirit -- there are many of us on the Right (read Reason magazine for confirmation) -- is not a totalitarian crazy. It's the people who seek to crush free spirits who appear to have a police state complex.
Tom Osterman| 1.22.11 @ 4:00PM
A genuine "free spirit" may be of the left or right, but the fact remains that many who called themselves "free spirits" back in the day have ended up seeking to establish themselves as dictators even if they don't call themselves that.
Come to think of it, few dictator wannabees go around advertising the fact.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 1.21.11 @ 2:38PM
Conservative - All good things & all the answers to life's problems come from The Almighty GOD who created everything in the universe. Without GOD there is nothing of any value or use.
Leftist - All good things & all of the answers to life's problems come from government, in spite of the existence of GOD. Who needs GOD when the state exists to cater to our needs? Mortal, fallible men are their own god through the benevolence of the state & government.
The Big E| 1.21.11 @ 2:48PM
Your article is very much like a description of a painting: you have described in words what we can all see for ourselves. Your construct of centralized/decentralized is useful in some circumstances, but in reality, is no more encompassing then the terminology already in use.
For example, a liberal could look at your centralized/decentralized construct and say you have it backwards. In the liberal mind, it is conservatives who want centralized control. And the truth is that over some decisions, we do want centralized control. We conservatives (in general) oppose the legalization of abortion, same sex marriage, and recreational drug use, we oppose pornography on the public airwaves, and the teaching of “alternative” sexual lifestyles to young children in the public schools. All of those positions - and in reality, many more - are positions in which we favor centralized control, we favor the government through the law taking those decisions out of the hands of individuals.
Therefore, merely saying that conservatives are decentralists and liberal are centralists will, in reality, get us nowhere, because that is not the relevant difference. The relevant difference is which personal decisions each side wants to be under centralized control. In other words, which decisions should be centralized, and which should be decentralized? And most importantly, why?
When you answer that last question, “Why?” then you will have described the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. As to that answer, I would submit the following:
1. Conservatives belief the ultimate force in the human universe, and indeed, in the universe at large, is the Almighty God. Conservatives believe that God is the purest essence of what is Good, and that Evil is the absence of that Good - the absence of Godliness. Conservatives believe that true Freedom can only be achieved when one is acting in accord with the will of God.
2. Liberals believe the ultimate force in the human universe is Man. Liberals believe that the concept of “Good” and “Evil” are constructs designed and used by conservatives to enforce their world view onto other people. Liberals believe that true Freedom can only be achieved by throwing off the construct of “Good” and “Evil.”
3. Because Conservatives belief the ultimate force in the universe is the Almighty God, they believe that all men, regardless of station in life, have been created equal by God, and therefore are entitled to equal treatment by their equals, to be judged upon their character and moral quality. Conservatives believe that all men are fallible, and that all men fall short of their aspirations and goals. Since conservatives recognize that all men are fallible, they also recognize that all men can learn from their mistakes and thereby make better men of themselves.
4. Because liberals believe the ultimate force in the universe is Man, they believe that men should be judged based on their worldly achievements, thus their worship of celebrity and fame regardless of character, and their disdain for the menial. Liberals believe that mankind is perfectible, so long as men throw off the construct of Good and Evil and allow their minds freedom to explore all possibilities. Once man has freed himself of the constraints of Good and Evil, he can make no mistakes, and therefore does not need to learn from his actions.
5. Therefore, conservatives believe that men should be free to pursue the will of God, that decisions which are the antithesis of the will of God are dangerous to mankind, and that such decisions should therefore be centralized. On the other hand, liberals believe that men should be free of the construct of, “the will of God,” that decisions which are based on notions of Good and Evil are dangerous to mankind, and that such decisions should therefore be centralized.
In my opinion, the difference between conservatives and liberals lies not in their views of the relationship between men and the government, but instead, lies in their views of the relationship between man and his Creator. Conservatives believe men should worship God and strive to live by his teachings. Liberals believe men ARE gods, and should therefore strive to live the way the “brightest” and most “enlightened” say they should.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 1.21.11 @ 3:07PM
The Big E, thank you for putting in words my thoughts much better than I did in my post. A perfect post sir. Take care & GOD bless!
The Big E| 1.21.11 @ 4:01PM
Thanks. May God bless you as well!
Tim the Enchanter| 1.21.11 @ 5:10PM
This has been the history of Mankind since the Fall, and the same temptation is still there: "Ye shall be as Gods, knowing Good and Evil." Guess I know which side still eats the apple.
Pelligrino| 1.21.11 @ 6:52PM
The Big E tells the big truth.
The timeless truth.
Secular humanism and secular humanists attack (from all sides) a conservative, eternal values-based society for the very reason he emphasizes: They are waving & shaking their angry fists at a God they choose to ignore (and aim to disobey).
post*tenebras*lux| 1.21.11 @ 7:31PM
The Big E, I agree. Central/decentral; Right/Left; liberal/conservative of what? If anyone would like to know, take an R. C. Sproul course. The answer is Central/decentral of GOD; Right/Left of GOD; liberal/conservative of GOD as sovereign over all. Most people when asked what they are right or left of could not tell you.
Vern Crisler| 1.22.11 @ 11:43AM
This doesn't really explain why Progressivism and liberalism attracted the interest of so many Christians. Why did the Christian William Jennings Bryan become the prophet of progressivism if it's a simple matter of God versus man?
Walkthetalk| 1.21.11 @ 3:12PM
From the Christian perspective the Left acts and thinks the way it does because of SIN, which is simply turning away from (rejecting) God. On the surface sin looks like a mental illness, with distorted perceptions and delusional thinking, fear of having responsibility for one’s own actions (freedom) resulting in banding together (organizations, unions, associations) and encouraging government action, with equality (no punishment for sin) as a goal. Sin controls people and it causes people to be motivated by self-interest (not God interest). To support the rebellion against God they feel impelled to lie (to cover the truth, and encourage others to join the rebellion), to cheat (because God created people with different colors, abilities, and sexes which spawned inequality), to be scofflaws (because God is a God of laws [see 10 Commandments], laws that condemn sin and its adherents) who support constant change (as opposed to the absolutes of God’s laws), and to be haters of whatever God has ordained (thus they attack Christians, Christianity, family, children, etc.). Sin inverts their worldview so good is bad, and bad is good. Thus those who respect/love God are seen as evil, while good is the actions of those who rebel against God (which includes all jihadists, abortionists, tax cheats, etc.).
So, when people on the Right see people on the Left that hate America, hate freedom, hate life (abortion), hate truth, hate absolutes (the Constitution, the Bible, right and wrong), who call names, point fingers (passing blame like Adam and Eve did after they sinned), and see those on the Left justify themselves; know that those people are only doing what is in their hearts. Sin insures that they can do no other. What is manifest by them is simply the results of sin. (For an in-depth look at sin and its results see www.christforamericans.com ) For the secular conservative, there are many ways sin can be explained, including radical egalitarianism, liberal derangement syndrome, Peter Pan syndrome (children who never matured), Mars verses Venus, etc. The Christian perspective simply looks at the root to explain the fruit that defines our differences.
simon templar| 1.21.11 @ 4:35PM
Mr. Ross:
You need to take a long step back and see the forest and not just the trees. There have only been two divergent and opposing political philosophys that have existed in western history...all the rest is smoke, mirrors, and distraction from this reality. The first was essentiallly manifested and born as a form of government nearly three hundred years ago...its called constitutional American Republicanism. It has two flavors that manifest themselves in the two party system. The other philosophy is Statism, its song and dance has taken many forms from monarchism to communism and every twist you can imagine over the last three centuries in particular. Our ruling elite starting around the turn of the twetieth century made a decision to give up on its constitutional republicanism and chart a new progressive Statist course. The punch and judy show you refer to in your article is just that...its not real and never has been. So, shall we once and for all dispense of the distracting labels and false dichotomies?
Marksman| 1.21.11 @ 5:04PM
Simon, you are referring to some recent philosophic nuances, but conservative vs. liberal thought actually goes back to 450 BC. Aeschylus and Euripides represent these lines. Their influence can be traced to many movements over the intervening 2460 years.
Don L| 1.22.11 @ 5:48AM
Actually it goes back to the Garden of Eden. God told us, (without pundits or lawyers to add nuance to His words): we are either with Him or against him. I will not serve is the diabolic cry of the left today, who believe it is they who ought to contol all things, particulally truth and free will - the real sin of Eden.
chris haynes| 1.21.11 @ 5:04PM
Not a word about abortion. The greatest holocaust in history. Whatever.
Hey, lets stick with what's truly important: decentralization.
Tim the Enchanter| 1.21.11 @ 5:14PM
Chris- if you are so inclined, there is a HUGE discussion about abortion on another article here today. Not saying that it isn't an important topic; indeed it is among one of the most important, but there is another outlet for your inputs on this website.
Don L| 1.22.11 @ 5:38AM
There are few topics that separate the souls of the left and the right more than the wanton killing of innocent life. That you should be so unaware of that - or in favor of it - raises questions as to why it bothers you enough to comment against someone who was moral enough to recognize it and bring it up. You can''t serve two masters; conservatism and the culture of deeath.
skip| 1.21.11 @ 5:15PM
Excellent point.
Conservatism versus liberalism.
Decentralization versus centralization.
Free Market capitalism versus socialism.
Liberty versus tyranny.
Patriotism versus treason.
These are really all just subsets of the biggie:
Absolute morality versus relative morality.
(Or, put another way:
Intelligence and honesty versus unintelligence and dishonesty.)
Pelligrino| 1.21.11 @ 7:09PM
Thank you Chris H. and Skip.
Both of you get right to the point. I appreciate that.
And it is why I will use every opportunity in year 2011 to remind that unless we deliberately choose leaders, managers, and appointees who adhere to the absolute truth of God's truth....
we're doomed. It is that simple.
There is no achieving goodness and blessings in our land if we tolerate the immoral and those who have no real, abiding personal faith.
Vern Crisler| 1.22.11 @ 11:53AM
Abortion is a symptom of a deeper problem.
As Seapus pointed out, the goal of radical egalitarianism is at work in the minds of liberals.
They want men and women to be radically equal, and since men don't have to deal with the hardships and inconveniences of childbirth, women shouldn't either.
Hence, this egalitarian (or communitarian) value replaces traditional moral values such as preservation of life.
ec| 1.21.11 @ 6:32PM
The Constitution allows for the co-existance of conservatives' and liberals' opposing ideologies..in separate states. If a state's overwhelmingly liberal population encourages lifestyles that are considered intolerable or perverted to conservatives, then conservatives are free to move to a better state. And visa-versa. The problem is the failure to follow the Constitution in limiting Federal government, thereby creating a mush of weakened state's rights, and forcing similar behaviors amongst all. Had this country followed the Declaration of Independence's and Constitution's overwhelming theme..."all men are created equal" even slavery would never have existed. The answer for both liberals and conservatives is simple...return to the Constitution and state's rights.
a grin without a cat| 1.21.11 @ 6:40PM
The term I favor in describing the left is 'collectivist.'
equisrider| 1.22.11 @ 7:11PM
Perhaps we should nickname them the Borg
Steve in Pittsburgh| 1.21.11 @ 6:55PM
Life and whether it has value.
Whether to preserve our lives and our way of life via a strong military, a good state depertment, CIA, etc.
Whether our military exists to preserve our way of life or if it exists merely for social experiments (women and gays in or not).
Whether individuals or the gov't should determine how individuals should run their lives (school choice, gun ownership, etc.)
Whether individuals can own private property and who/what (owner or gov't), determines how to manage that property.
How much in taxes we should pay. Both individuals and corporations.
C.K. Amos| 1.21.11 @ 9:04PM
Could the difference be that conservatives know there is a Creator, what many call Almighty, and that is not him or her--and that this Creator is absolute.
But the liberal competes with God, tries to drag God down to his or her level, and believes there is no other Supreme but himself or herself--and is exercised to know, in his or her heart, he or she really is not God, something that brings great pain and frustration and rage to the liberal.
Don L| 1.22.11 @ 5:33AM
What's the difference between the two philosphies? The right says "serve God and respect man's freedom and dignity" while the left says that "we are god and man has no dignity -unless we say so."
PaulD| 1.22.11 @ 8:51AM
Excellent article! It very concisely defines the oil-and-water relationship of the two sides. The fact that such opposites can coexist in the same country, I should think, speaks to the wisdom of the Founders. However, the centralists must not be allowed to gain the upper hand or the freedoms we have all enjoyed will cease to exist. All, including the centralists, will be surfs to the ruling elite in Washington. We are now quickly approaching that reality.
Mr ED| 1.22.11 @ 9:48AM
The continuing descent of the public debate as evidenced by the Tuscon shooting is a direct result of the hegemony of Leftists over the media and infotainment worldwide. Leftists know they can only gain control of the levers of power if they control the public debate. Setting the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable topics, language and motives in the public arena of ideas is critical for the Leftists to promote their disastrous policies in the light of the difficult to ignore consequences of those policies.
A simple rule-of-thumb serves as a useful guide here: Conservatives seek to engage in the public debate and expect their political enemies to do the same. Leftists seek to CONTROL the public debate and expect their political enemies to do the same.
Conservatives always bring their knives to the political gunfight because they give their political enemies the benefit of the doubt and concede in advance that the Leftists are fighting in good faith and in observance of the accepted rules of engagement. The Leftists do the opposite and assume their political enemies are driven by the worst of motivations: selfishness, greed and an endless parade of "isms" and "phobias". It's in the Leftist DNA to believe that anyone who opposes them is pure evil. In playing by Maquis of Queensbury rules in a political streetfight conservatives concede a large part of the debate before the debate even begins, and that concession is on full display in the Tuscon event.
The Leftist attack machine is much more than a simple tactic or arm of the of the Leftist machine, it is their Raison d'etre and philosophy rolled into one cohesive ball of arrogant, self-righteous anger and projection. Tuscon was just one more opportunity for them to proclaim what they see as the inevitable result of opposing Leftist policies and Leftist control over every aspect of our lives. "See! See what happens when you oppose our Leftist fantasy vision of the world! Weaker minded individuals take political opposition to Leftist hegemony as license to kill DemocRAts in the streets!".
A 'liberal'?| 1.22.11 @ 11:17AM
Hello everyone. I should start by stating up front that I am a liberal - but I should probably clarify that by saying I'm more of a Christian Socialist/Communist. I suppose I would end up on the centralist/tyrannical end of your spectrum (I hope I don't get flamed!), although in my mind the perfect government would be made up of a small community in which all members made decisions collectively - sort of what Gandhi had in mind.
But - we live in a huge country with the high wealth inequality in the developed world, so that's not really a feasible plan for governance (right now), is it? Anyways, I'd like to respond to what I've seen people saying on this forum--I was tired of the echo chamber of my usual liberal internet communities, so I thought I'd come over here and pick a fight (just kidding).
First of all, people seem to be pretty caught up in the idea that socialism = tyranny. Well, I would disagree. To me, it seems bizarre that people think it is tyrannical to demand health care coverage for every child. It seems tyrannical to me to state that some people deserve better doctors, better health care than others because of the socioeconomic status they were born into. There are children in this country who can't go to the doctor because their parents are out of work. In my mind, it's unacceptable, not to mention humiliating, for the children of the richest country in the world to be unable to go to the doctor when they are sick, to be frequently living in impoverished conditions not seen anywhere in Europe. It's tyrannical to me to believe that some children deserve better schools, better doctors, better nutrition, in other words better lives than others on account of their parents' wealth.
In my mind, frankly, it's tyrannical to believe that people should be allowed to live disgustingly lavish lifestyles while there are Americans sleeping under bridges. I would think any follower of Christ would agree. I know Christ would.
It's confusing to me, why we Americans accept that education is a basic right for all, and needs to be available to all for our society to function, but care of the body is for some reason not provided for. We are one country, together, and we must support the care of the minds and bodies of all our fellow men! We are not separate, and we cannot act as though we can function independently. One man without a home, without food, with no one to care for him is a black mark upon the entire society. And we have millions.
But what confuses me even more is why we grant businesses the same (oh what am I saying? more!) rights than the majority of our children. Corporate entities are not citizens, they are institutions, and far more pernicious than our centralized government. Take a look at Monsanto, AIG, Philip Morris.. need I go on? For reasons far beyond me there are Americans championing the rights of these institutions. And if you want to try to say that our founding fathers would have supported the rights of these corporate monsters, I would point out that when our country was founded, businesses were actually independent ventures smaller than the average family farm. Now, we have corporations that distort the market with their power and money, make life worse for not only many Americans but people the world over, and yet we champion low taxes for them?? These are not people, they are INSTITUTIONS. It boggles the mind.
We are not separate entities as so many here seem to think - we are social beings, and we must care for each other. You say enforced morality is no morality, but I say legions of homeless men, generations of ingrained poverty, rampant meth use throughout many of the poorest parts of our country, people refused the right to have their bodies cared for by a doctor in the face of men making themselves rich through usury is NOT MORALITY. This is what capitalism has wrought on our country.
Poverty and misery can only breed further poverty and misery. Why would we stand by and thereby inflict this upon further generations of Americans by doing nothing? Why would we allow corporations that poison our soil, distort our foods, create unstable situations that lead to rampant anti-Americanism in impoverished countries through their violent policies to continue to profit from their immoral work in this world?
It is this that is immoral. To state that requiring health care for all our fellow citizens is somehow 'immoral' is nonsensical not to mention upsetting.
Vern Crisler| 1.22.11 @ 12:11PM
I see that you have lofty egalitarian, communitarian goals (much like William Jennings Bryan). The question is: what are you willing to do to achieve these goals?
In the past, Gulags have been seen as necessary to bring about these values. Are you willing to go that far?
The problem, as Aristotle argued against Plato, is that such radical egalitarianism or communitarianism is not natural. Men have to be forced to adopt these values.
A centralized command government is the only way to do it because voluntary compliance doesn't last long; men simply revert to their natural self-interested ways -- i.e., capitalism.
However, as Hayek pointed out, centralization and the use of force attracts those who don't care so much about menas, about traditional morality.
The goal is the thing, not the means, in their view. Hence, under centralization, the worst get on top, those who have the least moral qualms or conscience.
I submit that is why Bryan and other Christian progressives would not have gone down the fascist or communist road, as many of their progressive colleagues did.
At some point, you have to make a decision. Do the ends justify the means? Are the means compatible with Christian morality? If not, then you have to choose between socialism and Christianity.
All the goals you have suggested are good in the abstract. But are you willing to violate the commandment against theft by having government steal from people to give to others? How much fascism are you willing to countenance in furtherance of all of your goals?
sarah| 1.22.11 @ 2:34PM
Hey Vern, thanks for replying.
Ok well no, I am not advocating for capital C Communism - in the way it has manifested itself in the 20th century. I'm saddened that I would even need to state that I am not advocating violence - I feel like that should go without saying, at least based on the substance of my comment.
However, I do disagree that collectivism is 'unnatural' as you state. In fact I would say that it is the most natural system in the world - look at any pre-agricultural society, I mean they're all collectivist.
The problems arise when encroaching technology begin to change the balance of power, and an elite emerges. Coming from a late-stage capitalist society myself of course, I need to address the reality at hand.
So - how far should we be willing to go? The very phrasing of the question as such implies that the imposition of collectivist principles always necessitates some form of compromise. Which may be true from certain perspectives - but first I think it's necessary to recognize that capitalism itself is a moral compromise - by accepting it you are accepting as necessary the lowest state of man - it's egotism pure and simple.
This is not at all a moral nor Christian framework to begin with. Our present system is built upon a foundation of usury - let's not pretend that that's 'Christian' in any sense of the word. But beyond that accepting a system predicated upon self-interest as 'Christian' to me seems laughable. Let's get real.
But in any case, like I said before, there is nothing inherently fascist about demanding universal health care for all - nothing more fascist than demanding public schooling for all. Taxation is not fascist in and of itself. Socialism is not fascism. Taxation is not 'stealing' any more than the business practices of the vast majority of the world's corporations are 'stealing' - in fact I would posit that the vast majority of wealth in America has been 'stolen' in that it has been procured on the basis of immoral (to use conservative rhetoric) business practices - manipulation, dishonesty, and blatant exploitation.
So in answer to your question - for a first step I have absolute NO problem with raising taxes on the upper 2% of Americans - who by the way own more than half of the world's household wealth. To me this is not stealing. This is righting a wrong that has progressed far too long. I have a hard time discerning how this is in any way incompatible with Christian morality.
My question for you is - how far are you willing to take capitalism? How far will we be willing to follow a philosophy that believes that man is capable of nothing higher than self interest and egotism, and that creates a world in which the haves are told they deserve what they have, and the have nots are blamed for their own misery? Personally, I cannot conceive of a more sinister system.
Curly Smith| 1.22.11 @ 5:57PM
Actually, you are advocating communism, if not an outright slave state. You're saying that all wealth belongs to the State and that the State determines how much should be allotted to each resident. You're also enslaving the entire medical community to serve the general public.
But more than that you utterly fail to comprehend the main difference between communism/socialism and capitalism. Communism/socialism drives the community to the least common denominator. It says that all receive the same regards of merit, results, work ethic or ability. It allows the least in society to enslave the best. Capitalism, on the other hand, drives society to the highest common denominator. It allows one to earn according to ability, initiative, and creativity.
You also don't seem to understand the concept of "charity".
sarah| 1.22.11 @ 6:45PM
Ok, well I said in the first sentence of my comment that I was a communist. But also, all I advocated was slightly higher taxes on the rich. That's my communism, comrade, that's socialism.
And apparently the difference between your views and mine is that the rich are not 'better' than the poor. Nor are they more deserving. Those who benefit from usury, from greed - these are the 'best' of our society? Does anyone actually believe that? Do you honestly believe that millionaires and billionaires are being 'enslaved' by children who have little to nothing, when I suggest we raise taxes on the rich? You must be joking. If not, please explain how this is enslavement. You are clearly not black, or you would know what real enslavement is. This sort of rhetoric is, frankly, ridiculous.
Capitalism does not drive man to the highest common denominator, unless the highest denominator is nothing more than the ability and desire to make as much money as possible without regard to the welfare of others. This is what capitalism is.
The concept of charity, furthermore, is not limited to the whims of the wealthy. A society that agrees together that no man should be without a home, without food, without care when he is sick is not an enslaved society. It is a society that has decided to make charity a foundation of its principles.
Tell me - to a child without food nor shelter, would you tell that child that it needs to depend upon the charity of others, when that charity is so often not forthcoming?
Also, I would appreciate if you would actually engage my argument, as opposed to just spouting your own beliefs without addressing what I actually said (at length).
Curly Smith| 1.22.11 @ 9:13PM
Take a good look around the world... what do you see? What I see is that freedom breeds prosperity and control breeds poverty. Communism rewards failure and punishes success; capitalism rewards success and punishes failure. Communism discourages innovation, creativity and exceptionalism; capitalism rewards creativity, innovation and exceptionalism.
Your vision of equality is making the rich poorer, my vision is encouraging the poor to become richer. How much "new stuff" has China created in the last 100 years? How about the good old USSR? Yeah, just about zip. Is that because their people are inherently inferior to ours? No, it boils down to governance. Government cannot create wealth but it can create a system that allows wealth to flourish -or- it can destroy existing wealth.
Your dream will do nothing but destroy wealth. You'll take money that could be invested to create more wealth, to raise people from poverty to prosperity, and toss it down the proverbial rat hole. What has the "War on Poverty" done except create more poverty?
As you ramble on about greed you should ponder for a moment that Government is the greediest company on the planet. There's never enough money, there's always the cry to "do more!" but Government doesn't produce anything... it just takes. Good government establishes a framework for success, your form of government (again, just take a look around the world) establishes a framework for misery, poverty and despair.
And yes, I do mean enslavement. If you own my work product then you own me. Communism is slavery.
Skippy| 1.22.11 @ 6:20PM
I can.
A system which penalizes production in favor of equality of outcome.
Example: when English colonists attempted a collectivist system in the new American wilderness, the result was starvation. Actual people actually starved to death. Right in front of their neighbors.
The appointed leaders saw the results and instituted a capitalist system, which brought greater rewards for greater effort.
Result? No starvation; mutual respect and true cooperation among competing farmers.
When I was a wee lad I felt as you did.
I was as wrong then as you are now.
There is nothing new under the sun. The lessons you have not had the time to learn yet are not invalid simply because they seem "mean".
The Buddhists have it right when they begin their philosophy with the assumption that life is a veil of tears.
What we do with the time and resources with which we are blessed determines whether we leave this place better or worse.
Look at the 20th century collectivist societies.
Are their citizens happy? No.
Is their world a better place as the result of their collectivism? No.
Was it nescessary to massacre hundreds of millions of their own innocent citizens in order to make their collectivism work?
Yes.
And that is the big lesson I pray you learn, and soon.
That is also the reason Americans will never be disarmed.
You seem like a nice gal.
Wise up!
sarah| 1.22.11 @ 7:14PM
Hey. So thanks for not calling me names!
It's funny that you mention Buddhists, because I was just going to bring up certain religious societies as examples of successful collectivism.
Amish communities, for one.
But honestly, like I said, most communities were 'collectivist' prior to the advent of agriculture.
It's obviously difficult to go from one extreme (pure capitalism) to another (pure collectivism) without much experience - as the 20th century has shown.
That's why I'm not advocating a revolution over here! I'm saying raising taxes on the upper 2% of Americans can only benefit the majority. I do believe we can work together to make this happen slowly, quietly, correctly. We don't need another USSR, but Canada's doing just fine, and I see no reason for us not to emulate their lifestyle.
And honestly - if that means a few less McMansions and iphones, I'll be fine with that.
simon templar| 1.22.11 @ 7:52PM
Sarah,
You remind me of what Ronald Reagan said of liberals...liberals are not ignorant..they just know such a great deal that's not true. Its odd but I see so much in your line of thought that seems so familar. Yes, me about 30 years ago. I thought I knew a great deal about everything particularly after obtaining my so-called liberal education at a major university. I really would like to respond to your stream of thought here but I don't know where to begin. You really do seem to be a well intentioned person unlike many of the socialist trolls we get out here from the huffington post. So, I am going to advise you to start reading, Liberal Facism, by Jonah Golberg. I have decided not to argue with you point by point. As an old radical turned conservative...you need to trust a stranger here. Hear this without being defensive or taking insult. Many of your ideas are downright incorrect starting with your understanding of capitalism, economics, christianity, to the Amish. These subjects by the way are not up for opinion or ones personal fancy. It took me nearly 2o years of reading on these topics to get to the truth and correct the falsehoods and distortions presented to me at University. Remember this... you do not have to give up being concerned about people or feeling the desire to help your fellow man when becoming a conservative. In fact you will find that conservative thought and philosophy will bring you to a greater understanding of this world and the means by which you CAN make it better.
Vern Crisler | 1.22.11 @ 9:59PM
“I am not advocating violence….”
It’s nice of you to say, but the question is whether or not violence will ultimately be necessary to realize the lofty goals you advocate.
“However, I do disagree that collectivism is 'unnatural' as you state.”
I’ll go with Aristotle on this. It is against empirical psychology to think that men will work without compensation, or will work hard only to see others receive the compensation.
“In fact I would say that it is the most natural system in the world - look at any pre-agricultural society, I mean they're all collectivist.”
I don’t think we know enough about Paleolithic or Mesolithic times to be able to discern whether they were collectivists or individualists. Are you referencing some Marxist stage theory of history?
“Coming from a late-stage capitalist society myself of course, I need to address the reality at hand.”
What exactly is “late-stage capitalist society” other than Marxian claptrap?
“So - how far should we be willing to go? The very phrasing of the question as such implies that the imposition of collectivist principles always necessitates some form of compromise.”
This is the key issue. The more you impose collective solutions, the more you have to decide who gets what and who gets stuck with the bill. IOW, you have to coerce at some point. Hayek argued that a centralized system encourages the worst to rise to the top. It is very hard for people with moral qualms or consciences to coerce to the extent necessitated by the collectivist goals. So only those with small consciences or those with a great deal of moral indifference will arrive at ultimate decision-making positions.
“capitalism itself is a moral compromise - by accepting it you are accepting as necessary the lowest state of man - it's egotism pure and simple.”
As someone once said, capitalism is what people do when they are left along by government. Capitalism or self-interest is the natural condition. That’s why Jesus could use self-interest as the basis for his admonition to be charitable. Love of self, or self-interest, is not an attainment, but a natural condition. When Jesus says love others as you love yourself, he is not denying or demeaning self-interest. He is saying that we should let our charity for others (other-interest) be as natural and as instinctive as our love for ourselves.
“Our present system is built upon a foundation of usury - let's not pretend that that's 'Christian' in any sense of the word.”
Nothing wrong with interest (or usury). All commodities have prices, and the interest rate is just the going price of money. Usury in the Bible is condemned if it’s on charitable loans. It has nothing to do with business loans.
“But in any case, like I said before, there is nothing inherently fascist about demanding universal health care for all - nothing more fascist than demanding public schooling for all. Taxation is not fascist in and of itself.”
Fascism is third-way economics. It’s an offshoot of Progressivism. It sees itself as a middle way between socialism and capitalism. To the extent any program is “third-way,” it’s on a fascist trajectory.
“Taxation is not 'stealing'”….
I’d say anything over ten percent of our income is stealing. Even God didn’t want more than 10 percent.
“I would posit that the vast majority of wealth in America has been 'stolen' in that it has been procured on the basis of immoral (to use conservative rhetoric) business practices - manipulation, dishonesty, and blatant exploitation.”
Nonsense. Where do you come up with this stuff? Are you talking about Microsoft? Are you talking about government bailouts of too-big-to-fail businesses? Or are you recycling some old JK Galbraith stuff?
“for a first step I have absolute NO problem with raising taxes on the upper 2% of Americans”
It wouldn’t be enough. You’d have to go deeper, much deeper, to fund a truly collectivist system. And then it would be the Plymouth Colony all over again -- economic collapse and starvation.
“who by the way own more than half of the world's household wealth. To me this is not stealing. This is righting a wrong that has progressed far too long. I have a hard time discerning how this is in any way incompatible with Christian morality.”
If they earned their money legitimately, why should they be punished for it? Why stop at the upper 2%? Where did you get this number? What rate should they pay? How would you decide this rate? If they’re so evil, why not take all of their money? Maybe we could start with Soros, or all the rich Democrats in the US Congress? No?
“My question for you is - how far are you willing to take capitalism? How far will we be willing to follow a philosophy that believes that man is capable of nothing higher than self interest and egotism, and that creates a world in which the haves are told they deserve what they have, and the have nots are blamed for their own misery? Personally, I cannot conceive of a more sinister system.”
Capitalism says nothing about what man is capable of, nor does it say anything about who deserves what. It’s a system that allows each individual to show what they are capable of, and to make their own choices about what is deserved. Unlike fascism or communism, it’s not some sinister bureaucrat who makes those decisions under capitalism. (For truly sinister systems, see Orwell’s *Animal Farm* or *Nineteen Eighty Four*)
skip| 1.22.11 @ 2:40PM
Christ challenged each individual personally to tithe voluntarily. Christ did not instruct anyone to force their neighbors against their will to pay for others. To do so is not charity, is despicable behavior, and I defy you to find anywhere in the Bible to support this despicable behavior you endorse and claim Christ endorses.
Individuals of earlier generations who worked hard and accumulated wealth and wished to pass the fruit of their labor onto their children, grandchilden, and so forth, is their right and is noble behavior, and it is despicable others would want to steal this wealth from them. I defy you to find in the Bible anything that would support this despicable behavior.
Corporations are groups of individuals joined in a common cause, not some nameless faceless institution. Corporations, free markets, and capitalism have created more wealth and reduced more poverty than any other form of economic system. I defy you to provide one single example of a socialist system that has ever succeeded in eliminating poverty, much less avoiding an increase in poverty, for its individuals.
The parable of the talents in the Bible is solid evidence that Christ had no problem with profit and capitalism. The servant who did not earn a return on investment was deemed wicked and cast out. In the 60's LBJ had his war on poverty. Vast sums of money were spent but poverty was not only not reduced it increased during that time. Every major city in this country has been run by democrats with liberal policies for decades. Each city is worse off than ever and poverty has increased. It is despicable to continue to waste money and effort on policies that have consistently failed.
The United States of America has done more to help other nations, fought to defend, and reduced more poverty in, than the next ten best nations combined, ever. It is despicable for any individual to not even acknowledge this fact.
History is full of proof that tax cuts for businesses actually increase tax revenues, while tax increases consistently reduce tax revenues. It is despicable to cast votes for policies that defy basic economic evidence with the resulting harmful effects.
It is despicable to support liberalism as a Christian when liberalism attacks each of the ten commandments through its policies, including abortion (thou shalt not kill), homosexual 'marriage' (honor thy father and mother), and class warfare (thou shalt not covet thy neighbor), as obvious examples.
You claim to be a Christian and have compassion for others. It is depicable that you support behavior and policies that harm the very individuals you profess to care about, while violating other individual's rights endowed by their Creator whom you profess to follow, through your unintelligence and dishonesty, on not only Christ's teachings, but simple basic economic principles.
And to lecture on immorality from a position of such unintelligence and dishonesty.
sarah| 1.22.11 @ 7:06PM
Well I didn't want to respond to this comment just based on what I consider to be frankly pretty baseless ad hominem attacks (unintelligence and dishonesty? seriously?).
But I guess I will anyways, since this is why I came here.
Listen, I am not advocating some sort of coup that will force everyone to give all of their wealth to the government. If everyone in the society agrees to higher taxes, that is not stealing. It's socialism, and it's worked fairly well in Northern Europe. You defied me to name a single socialist government that has been successful in decreasing poverty - honestly, most of Europe has now embraced socialism. The level of poverty in all of Western Europe is considerably lower than it is here, and that's entirely due to their much more cohesive social welfare policy. And, socialist Europe was doing pretty well until American unrestrained capitalism caused the major global financial crisis of the new century. Of course - the countries struck the hardest were those with the most free markets (Iceland, Ireland)... but I digress.
I really wish you wouldn't keep calling me despicable... it's making me hard to respond to your comment without getting upset. But regardless, I find it 'despicable' for you to imply that greed is anywhere advocated in the bible. Jesus advocated poverty and simple living above all - how this corresponds to capitalist lust for money is honestly beyond me.
And again - raising taxes is NOT tantamount to 'stealing.' At what point is taxation 'stealing' anyways? If you're taxed at a rate of 30% is that ok, but at 38% that suddenly becomes 'stealing' or 'enslavement'? This is ridiculous.
But, as to history, well par rapport a our current situation, you need look no further than the failure of Hoover's policies to create an economic turnaround in the 1930s, and the subsequent success of the FDR's plan for an example of successful implementation of alleged 'despicable policies.'
The rest of your points are frankly sort of all over the place, but let me add that I am in no way defending social liberalism, I'm defending economic liberalism. Like I said, I'm a Christian socialist/communist, essentially a populist, so I'm advocating a pro-choice agenda over here. I'm talking about economics, as per the article I'm commenting on.
Curly Smith| 1.22.11 @ 9:27PM
Before you brag about the great socialist Europe perhaps you should consider the results of the economic system. Try this link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....es_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita ), peruse the listings of GDP per Capita. You'll find that both the International Monetary Fund and World Bank list the United States as 5th, while the CIA Fact Book lists the US as 9th.
While you scan the list for the various European countries keep in mind that we pay for the majority of their national defense via NATO and other arrangements and that those associated taxes remove capital from our system and hamper our ability to grow wealth.
Why do you want a system that destroys wealth?
skip| 1.25.11 @ 1:52PM
Your response, though lengthy, did not address any of the logical and reasonable points made.
You are 'talking about economics' yet you show no comprehension of basic principles at an introductory college 101 level. (The standard for socialism, Sweden, has the highest rate of suicide in the world, and has privatized most of its industries. Europe is in chaos and will get worse.)
Ditto you Christian understanding. (When taxation collected unconstitutionally is deemed charity, terms like 'unintelligence and dishonest are uncderstated.)
You don't even know what 'ad hominem' means. (Appealing to personsal considerations rather than to logic and reason.)
While you're at it look up 'despicable' as well.
Try embracing intelligence and honesty.
Seriously.
equisrider| 1.22.11 @ 7:03PM
Let me make a suggestion. This is a free country and you can go start your own communistic system within our capitalistic system. Find like minded people and live collectively together. Within a short span of time, you will find that there are those who will abuse the system, and not work as hard. Why because they don't have to. A few people will end up doing most of the work and will grow resentful. They either will leave and the system will collapse or they will stop working as hard and the system will collapse. If you don't believe me, go look up the Walden II experiment. This is a micro representation of what happens in socialist countries like Greece, Spain and the defunct USSR.
sarah| 1.22.11 @ 7:22PM
Well you picked out unsuccessful socialist countries as examples. There also happen to be plenty of unsuccessful would-be capitalist governments out there as well.
Most of Scandinavia has successfully implemented socialism. Canada is much more socialist than we are, and has a much higher life expectancy as a result. In fact - I would add that the US has a lower life expectancy than essentially every country in Europe, and even it's own former colony, Puerto Rico! It's actually pretty pathetic.
There are lots of successful collectivist societies out there that I could point to.
But let me say, I really don't need to go join a collectivist society to be treated fairly. Luckily I was born to wealthy parents, attended an elite school, and am now essentially a member of the elite myself. I'm not commenting on here for my own sake. I'm commenting because there are millions of people living in poverty in America, and it's unacceptable.
Raising taxes on the wealthy will not result in a sudden decrease in hard work on American's part. The New Deal should have shut that argument up long ago. So let's put that old war horse to rest, and really address what would be so bad about raising taxes on the wealthy (myself included) by a reasonable (~5%) amount.
equisrider| 1.22.11 @ 8:15PM
The United States life expectency has much more to do with our diet than our capitalism. Diversity in diet and background as well as a much higher percetage of immigrants also influence this.
Since you are a member of the "elite" I would suggest giving all your money away and spending some time serving other people. When you have learned to give away your possessions, then maybe, just maybe you will have some moral standing in demanding that others give away what they have, to a government that wastes 70% of what they coerce out of the electorate.
equisrider| 1.22.11 @ 8:17PM
Oh and raising taxes on anyone will cause them to stop producing. This has been proven over and over again, taxes go up production goes down. Any business person knows this.
equisrider| 1.22.11 @ 8:23PM
One more note: The New Deal did nothing to bring us out of the Depression. The onset of world war II. the introduction of women into the work place, and all the technolgy that came out of the war, and the growth in population from the baby boomer generation brought about a sustained growth in industry. If anything, the new deal impeded the start of this growth.
Question_Assumptions| 1.22.11 @ 11:58AM
I recommend looking at Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions". It's less a matter of government than what one thinks is possible. Sowell defines the divide between the constrained vision, that thinks humans are flawed and we need to guard against that, and the unconstrained vision, that Heaven on Earth is possible if only the right things are done. The constrained vision tends to lead to support of limited government and checks and balances because it assumes we need to be protected from inevitable abuses, while the unconstrained vision tends to lead to support of experts and elites out of the belief that putting the right people in charge with unlimited authority will allow them to fix things and bring about Utopia, but it's not exactly the same thing, and defining the difference in terms of government and control alone leaves conservatives vulnerable to answering questions about support of abortion regulation, a strong military, police and other law and order issues, and so on. So the divide is "constrained" and "unconstrained", not "less government" and "more government".
Jack London| 1.22.11 @ 4:25PM
This is a nonsensical article. It's completely false to say individualism good, centralism bad, as otherwise we'd never achieve anything as a social, cooperative species. You free market freaks always forget that the long boom times for our prosperity came after Roosevelt's government expansion, while the return to deficits and increasing inequality were the legacy of a certain R Reagan.
equisrider| 1.22.11 @ 7:05PM
So you are saying our government is going bankrupt because of business and not because of socialist policies like medicare, medicaid, welfare, and social security?
Greg Andrews| 2.10.11 @ 6:17AM
Yes.
a few hundred billion dollars of no-bid, cost-plus contracts to private companies in Iraq.
The crash, current recession and collapse in tax revenue triggered by deregulation and greed on Wall Street.
700 billion in TARP funds plus somewhere up to another 13 trillion in bailout money to said banks
Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are emphatically not the reason for the current deficit.
proreason| 1.22.11 @ 8:04PM
It's about freedom. Some want it. Others want to take it away and control people. Sadly, others are willing to sell it for a pittance.
simon templar| 1.22.11 @ 8:12PM
Sarah,You remind me of what Ronald Reagan said of liberals...liberals are not ignorant..they just know such a great deal that's not true. Its odd but I see much in your line of thought that seems so familar. Yes, me about 30 years ago. I thought I knew a great deal about everything particularly after obtaining my so-called liberal education at a major university. I really would like to respond to your stream of thought here but I don't know where to begin. You really do seem to be a well intentioned person unlike many of the socialist trolls we get out here from the huffington post. So, I am going to advise you to start reading, Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg. I have decided not to argue with you point by point. As an old radical turned conservative...you need to trust a stranger here. Hear this without being defensive or taking insult. Many of your ideas are downright incorrect starting with your understanding of capitalism, economics, and christianity to the Amish. These subjects, by the way, are not up for opinion or ones personal fancy. It took me nearly 2o years of reading on these topics to get to the truth and correct the falsehoods and distortions presented to me at University. Many of the responses here may have seemed very passionate and sharply critical. You need to understand that the ideas that you are playing here with such as socialism and collectivism are just not just fun exercises in thought and debate of a classroom. Rather they are very serious and dangerous ground to tread on. Contact and ask a recent Russian immigrant what he thinks of socailism. So bear in mind that many of my fellow conservatives here are trying to help you. Remember this... you do not have to give up being concerned about people or feeling the desire to help your fellow man when becoming a conservative. In fact you will find that conservative thought and philosophy will bring you to a greater understanding of this world and the means by which you CAN make it better.
simon templar| 1.22.11 @ 8:14PM
Sarah,You remind me of what Ronald Reagan said of liberals...liberals are not ignorant..they just know such a great deal that's not true. Its odd but I see much in your line of thought that seems so familar. Yes, me about 30 years ago. I thought I knew a great deal about everything particularly after obtaining my so-called liberal education at a major university. I really would like to respond to your stream of thought here but I don't know where to begin. You really do seem to be a well intentioned person unlike many of the socialist trolls we get out here from the huffington post. So, I am going to advise you to start reading, Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg. I have decided not to argue with you point by point. As an old radical turned conservative...you need to trust a stranger here. Hear this without being defensive or taking insult. Many of your ideas are downright incorrect starting with your understanding of capitalism, economics, and christianity to the Amish. These subjects, by the way, are not up for opinion or ones personal fancy. It took me nearly 2o years of reading on these topics to get to the truth and correct the falsehoods and distortions presented to me at University. Many of the responses here may have seemed very passionate and sharply critical. You need to understand that the ideas that you are playing here with such as socialism and collectivism are just not just fun exercises in thought and debate of a classroom. Rather they are very serious and dangerous ground to tread on. Contact and ask a recent Russian immigrant what he thinks of socailism. So bear in mind that many of my fellow conservatives here are trying to help you. Remember this... you do not have to give up being concerned about people or feeling the desire to help your fellow man when becoming a conservative. In fact you will find that conservative thought and philosophy will bring you to a greater understanding of this world and the means by which you CAN make it better.
chris haynes| 1.22.11 @ 8:59PM
My point is there is nothing as important than the bigest holcoaust in history. And what of these pro abortion "conservatives" ? Scott Brown, Gulianni, or agnostics like Daniels, Karl Rove.
Why do you accept those who condone mass murder?
Zilla | 1.23.11 @ 9:43AM
When my dad was still alive, he gave me a fairly simple and easy to understand explanation for one of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans. You can read it here:
http://zillablog.marezilla.com.....ather.html
Oldefarte| 1.23.11 @ 9:47AM
The one word that distinguishes left from right, conservative from liberal, etc is.......INTELLIGENCE. Intelligent people are rational thinkers, which allows them to think for themselves and to make their own decisions in life. Correspondingly, unintelligent people do not have the ability to rationalize, think and therefore make decisions. Intelligent liberals realize this fact and step forward to assume control of unintelligent peoples' lives [through government] for their own selfish/political power purposes. Intelligent conservatives naturally resist and protest same. END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anthony| 1.23.11 @ 11:08AM
Oldefarte, You are correct, the problem is that many of the so called leaders on the right also suffer from intelligence insufficency.
FNS is becoming a joke. Apparently Mr.Hume is so besotted by Obozo that he actually thinks this Clintonian fake to the center is the real deal. Same with Wallace, who is always looking to cast the issues as anti-Republican, i.e "are the Rs looking backwards while the Ds are looking forward on jobs"? Get a clue Wallace.
I guess neither Hume nor Wallace can't see beyond the beltway fog. Hey Britt, while Obozo talks center, his agencies toil away in hard left obscurity. Or have you forgotten Obozo's ability at deception and deflection?
Anyway, check your portfoilios boys and girls and get rid of as much GE stock & bonds as you can, and boycott NBC. This is the worst crony capitalism in recent memory, and the left screamed about Halliburton.
BackToBasics| 1.23.11 @ 12:01PM
ayes, and I still do not understand why anyone would believe him when this false move to the center came only after the electorate largely renounced his leftist governenace.
Its just like a kid who gets caught at something and all he can say is a drolled-out sooorrrry. He does not really mean it and will do it again when the adults aren't watching. It is really at that level and the Repubs should know better than to be taken in by these charlatans.
These centrists and many Repubs are just as stupid as liberals are about reading someone. But in fact most leftists do KNOW that they back scoundrels. They like the scoundrels because they are just like themselves. The Repubs who fall for Obam or Clinton when he did this have no excuse.
Dan Smith| 1.23.11 @ 9:38PM
The simplest way to remember the difference is to keep in mind that "left" rhymes with "theft,"as in from those who work for a living to give to those who support Democrats.
Edgard| 1.24.11 @ 2:55AM
I have come to the conclusion that we should do away with elections all together.
The bureaucracies pretty well run the different departments of the government and it is usually the elected officials that throw monkey wrenches in the system. Most goverment employers enter or advance in the system through examinations.
What I think we should do instead is to have all elected officials retire at the age of 65 or after 20 years service( whichever comes first) of both houses of the congress. Once there is a vacancy, put the job up ON AN OPEN BID + AN EXAMINATION + A WRITTEN THESIS by the prospect , how he proposes to solve current problems. The state electors will decide the which candidate is most qualified. Retiring office holders will retire with 50% of their highest 3 year earnings ( similar as the Military etc.)
Annual pay increases will be the same as the rest of the goverment employees, but may not exceed 3 %. The President and the State Governors still will be elected by popular vote. ED
Renaissance Nerd | 1.25.11 @ 1:02AM
I disagree with the terms centralist/decentralist because neither really applies. I prefer to call myself a Federalist instead of a Conservative because I believe in Federalism: the diffusion of power. It's not decentralized, but spread out between many levels, from the Federal to the States to counties and cities and townships and the individual. I want there to be overlapping areas of authority, and counterpoised stresses such as the 'checks and balances' of the federal government. The GOAL of a Federal system is the maximum amount of freedom for the individual. It's one of the reasons I disagree with Libertarians; legalizing drugs or prostitution at the federal level treads on the rights of states and localities. At the same time I also disagree with criminalizing drugs at the federal level. What I want is decisions to be as close as possible to those who have to live with them at each level.
The other side is romanticist. They're shooting for a perfect world, and that is the central problem. They go for concentration of power because they're trying to run down all the counterpoised stresses with the biggest bulldozer they can find. This applies equally to all the utopians/liberals/socialists/nazis/communists/progressives etc. What they have in common is a romantic view of human nature and a romantic ideal that turns any countervailing argument into proof of perfidy. They don't believe in centralizing power for its own sake; well at least those who actually believe the crap they peddle don't. The leaders are all cynics, and spew the honey-scented rhetoric to keep the flies circling the trap. The true-believer on the 'left' lets the Lenins and Stalins and Hitlers and Maos and Kim Jeong-Ils and Castros and Pol Pots get away with horrific mass-murder because that's what's needed to cut away all the hindrances to the perfect society that's just around the bend. It's often hard to tell who is merely venal and who is a believer, because they all use the same rhetoric. But concentration of power serves them both; the venal get power for its own sake, and the believers get 'progress,' but most importantly they get revenge on the wicked forces that are keeping them from Utopia through sheer meanness.
It's awfully hard to come up with labels that fit reality, and every word ever used has lots of misuse in its history. I think Diffusionist and Romanticist work better than Conservative/Liberal or Decentralist/Centralist. They also provoke discussion, and I doubt either side would object. Conservatives can mostly already see the relevance of diffusion, and liberals are wondering how I could possibly use 'Romanticist' as a pejorative, since naturally everybody should crave such a label.
Seapuss| 1.25.11 @ 10:18AM
Wow. The back-and-forth comments with the self-proclaimed liberal/communist, Sarah, seems to have proved my theory about liberals in spades. At the root of liberalism is the obsession with equality of outcomes, or radical egalitarianism, not a fetish for centralized authority. I rest my case.
Greg Andrews| 2.10.11 @ 6:00AM
To call conservatism "decentralizing" is palpable nonsense.
Economically conservative policies, such as deregulation, lower taxes for the rich etc, concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few. This is unarguable.
Not only this, but the centralization of wealth and power happens outside the public sphere. Governments can be voted out or overthrown, but not corporations or banks. In other words, it reduces accountability and is an anti-democratic process.
Also, conservatism involves a strong streak of authoritarianism in terms of the freedoms and rights of individuals that it is willing to suspend in the name of security. On top of this, cultural conservatism wants to restrict your choices to choose a partner, choose a lifestyle, choose a religion.
Anti-democratic concentration of wealth, authoritarianism, paternalism. Not very freedom-friendly or "decentralizing".
In contrast, policies that "spread the wealth", if they are successful, by definition enable and empower individuals.
The healthcare "debate" was a case in point. Conservatives fought tooth and nail against any kind of public option, even though that would have freed up millions to take greater financial risks and be more economically active. Instead they argued for, and got, a greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the insurance companies.
Seapuss| 6.2.11 @ 2:18PM
Yet another vote from a liberal for my theory!
What defines liberalism is the obsession with equality of outcomes, or radical egalitarianism, not a fetish for centralized authority.
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 5:03AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 2:19PM
By elevating ends over means (breaking a few eggs), the far left invented the politics of personal destruction (ask Clarence Thomas). All means are justified for leftists because of the ends they seek to realize.