Posts Tagged ‘Conservatism’

Transcending Politics

August 13, 2015

I have to confess that I have been making fun of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. I do not have any particular animosity towards either him (He hasn’t had any surgery yet, not that that would really make a difference) or his choices in life. The reason I have found Caitlyn to be a legitimate target is because he is a celebrity in the public eye, and because of the inherent silliness of a sixty-five year old man claiming that he is now and always has been a woman, despite exterior appearances. Still, I ought not to be too harsh on Jenner. Except for his gender confusion and marriage into the Kardashian family, he does appear to have his head on straight. Consider this story I found posted at the Media Research Center.

Caitlyn Jenner, who famously came out as a Republican and a Christian, is now having his position as a spokesperson for the transgender community questioned after voicing criticism of the welfare state.

In a clip from last Sunday’s episode of “I am Cait,” Jenner stunned friends when discussing social welfare programs. In a conversation about providing entry-level jobs to struggling transgender people, Jenner asked, “Don’t a lot of times, they can make more [money] not working with social programs than they actually can with an entry-level job?”

“I’d say the great majority of people who are getting help, are getting help because they need help,” one of Jenner’s friends asserted.

“But you don’t want people to get totally dependent on it. That’s when they get in trouble. ‘Why should I work? I got a few bucks. I got my room paid for,’” Jenner responded.

These remarks made Jenner’s friends appear physically uncomfortable.

Jenny Boylan, a transgender activist, told the camera, “Now I am worried. Caitlyn has every right to be just as conservative as she chooses, but many transgender men and women need social programs to survive. And that’s nothing to be ashamed of. Living in the bubble is an impediment to understanding other people. If Cait’s going to be a spokesperson for the community, this is something she’s going to have to understand.”

I find it curious that there is an expectation that a person who is transgendered must also be a political liberal who supports the welfare state. Why? What possible connection could there be between the issues of gender identity and economic liberty? One would expect the same diversity of opinion on political issues among the transgendered as among any other particular group with varying economic circumstances and past experiences. The idea seems to be that if you belong to X group, you must have the same political outlook as everyone else in group X and usually this political outlook is assumed to be left-wing, or at least in support of the Democratic Party. Why is this? Thus, Blacks like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell or women like Sarah Palin or LGBT like Caitlyn Jenner who identify as conservative are considered to be traitors to their race, sex, and sexual orientation respectively. Besides that, there is the expectation that lower income people who vote Republican are somehow voting against their own interests.

Why is this? One would expect as great a diversity of opinion within each of these, and similar, groups as there is in race, religion, gender, sexual orientation between them. Yet the expectation is that the members of each group must march in lockstep, all supporting the same sorts of policies that they perceive to be best for their particular group. It is as if each person is not really an individual with his or her unique thoughts and feelings but simply a representative of a particular group. Come to think of it, haven’t leftists and socialists always spoken of the masses or the workers and never of individual people. Marx believe you are what your class is. The Fascists said you are what your race is. The modern progressive seems to share this general viewpoint. If Caitlyn Jenner is transgendered, he must have the same thoughts as every other transgendered person.

Well, I am glad that Mr. Jenner has wandered off the reservation, though I am afraid that his credentials as a spokesperson for the transgendered community is in serious jeopardy. But then, perhaps we need fewer spokespersons and more thoughtful individuals.

Advertisements

Weapon of A.S.S Destruction

December 5, 2013

If you have not seen Alfonzo Rachel’s ZoNation videos on PJTV then you are really missing something. I do not believe that there is anyone out there so consistently and zealously making the case for conservatism as Mr. Rachel, or Zo as he is called. Think of Rush Limbaugh, only younger, more energetic and cooler. Zo’s rapid speed delivery anticipates and blows away the arguments that liberals make before they even have a chance to make them.

Zo

Zo

Zo’s book, Weapon of A.S.S.Destruction began as an audio book and I believe that the printed book that I read is a transcription of that audio book. The book reads just as Zo speaks and I can almost hear his voice as I read it. The style is fun and easy to follow with Zo giving his take on one conservative issue after another. I was finished with Weapon of A.S.S Destruction almost before I even began.

index

If Zo has a fault, and we all do, it is that he does tend to talk and write faster than he thinks. The views he expresses so well can be somewhat simplistic and he does need to take more time to establish the facts to support his positions and think through these positions a little more thoroughly. With that said, however, I can recommend Weapon of A.S.S. to any reader, especially the novice conservative and I think that it will make an excellent Christmas, sorry Holiday, gift to any liberal of your acquaintance.

 

 

Uppity Peasant

June 5, 2013

Here is a video of a rant by a  radical, extreme, anti-government teabagger who is undoubtedly a racist and a member of the Religious Right. Her family may even own guns.

How dare this peasant, this serf lecture her betters. Who does she think she is, a free American? If she had any education at all, which living in flyover country, she doesn’t, she would know that all of our rights and freedoms are granted to us by the government. Rather that fearing government tyranny, she should realize that government is everybody doing things together, all in one great collective village, as envisioned by our Dear Leader.

Anti government traitors like her should be put before a firing squad.

I am almost afraid to post this, since there are a large number of liberals who might read this and think I’m serious.

Seriously though, this woman says everything that needs to be said.

 

 

Liberals and Conservatives

May 20, 2013

About two weeks ago, I read a column at Townhall.com by Kyle Olson, alleging that a school assignment on civics was a thinly disguised attempt at political indoctrination.

Eighth-graders in Wisconsin’s Union Grove school district were assigned to fill out a “Liberalism vs. Conservatism” crossword puzzle, and they learned some new and very questionable “facts.”

Students learned conservatism is “the political belief of preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms … ”

Conversely, they learned liberalism is “the political belief of equality and personal freedom for everyone, often changing the current system to increase government protection of civil liberties.”

The crossword puzzle was part of a civics assignment that was forwarded to EAGnews by Tamara Varebrook, a local conservative activist whose eighth-grade daughter received the lesson at Union Grove Elementary School yesterday.

Varebrook said she posted the assignment on her Facebook page to share with other parents who might not be aware of the blatant political bias and effort at indoctrination, disguised as “civics.”

“The definitions of conservatism and liberalism make me sick,” Varebook told EAGnews. “I think it’s horribly distorted and it’s biased.”

Varebrook, who serves on her local Republican Party board and has appeared in commercials promoting conservative values, said she was particularly disturbed by the definition of conservatism as “restricting personal freedom.”

“It’s insinuating conservatives don’t believe in people having civil liberties. That it’s only for old-fashioned fuddy-duddies,” Varebrook said. “That’s completely negative. It’s completely false.”

Last time we checked, it’s the big government progressives who are determined to restrict personal freedoms. You know, the bans on sugary drinks, fatty foods, snacks at school lunch time, salt intake, etc.

I am not sure if political indoctrination is the intent here, although in our public schools that is always a possibility. As far as I can tell, the definitions of liberal and conservative are accurate, at least according to the dictionary. The real problem is that the dictionary definitions of words like liberal and conservative do not do a very good job of describing American politics and are actually very misleading.

Consider the dictionary definitions. According to The Free Dictionary, to be liberal is;

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
while a conservative is someone who is;
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
If you think about the history of American politics for the last few decades, it always seems to be the “conservatives who favor new ideas, while the “liberals’ always seem to be the ones who oppose any change. The conservative Ronald Reagan wanted to make changes in the tax code, etc. The liberals in Congress tried to stop him. Newt Gingrich was the conservative who wanted to change things. His opponents were the Democrats who wanted to keep things the same. The conservative George W. Bush wanted to partially privatize Social Security to keep it solvent. The liberals were determined to prevent any reform of Social Security. More recently, the conservative Paul Ryan has wanted to change Medicare and make cuts in government spending. The liberal Barack Obama wants to keep Medicare the same and continue to increase government spending. Conservatives believe that racial attitudes in America have changed sufficiently that laws passed in the Civil Rights era may no longer be necessary. Liberals shout, “affirmative action today, affirmative action tomorrow,  affirmative action forever!!!”. Obamacare is a major change in the health care system in this country, yet it seems to be a program closer to the sort of one size fits all government programs of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society or Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, than something appropriate for the post-industrial, information age, economy of the twenty-first century. It is a policy taking us back to the past rather than forward into the future.
If you go beyond dictionary definitions into the actual ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, the discrepancy becomes even clearer. Historically, liberals have believed in the rights and freedom of the individual, limited constitutional government based on natural rights and natural law, and free trade and the free market. This does not sound very much like the beliefs of contemporary liberals. Conservatives have generally emphasized tradition,religion, authority, the concept of society as an organic whole, property rights, and the concept of experience over ideology in setting policies. I am not sure that any party in America entirely subscribes to this set of ideas, not even Rush Limbaugh, who is actually a classical liberal.

That famous liberal Rush Limbaugh

That famous liberal Rush Limbaugh

I think that what has happened is that conservatives in America have become conservative about liberal values. In other words the sort of things that conservatives want to conserve as traditions and sources of authority are the classical liberal ideas of human rights and freedom. The political philosophy that has emerged from this amalgamation cannot be accurately described as either liberal or conservative. Perhaps the conservatives ought to be called conservative-liberals, or liberal-conservatives, or something like that. Libertarian would be a good title but it has already been taken by the people who want practically no government at all.
What about the “liberals”. I suppose people like Mayor Bloomberg, with his obsession over what New Yorkers eat and drink, as well as many liberals who seek to control our lives for our own good, could be seen as acting in the tradition of paternalistic conservatism. When you consider the liberal desire to prevent any serious reform of New Deal or Great Society programs, this might make sense. Still the liberals seem uninterested in conserving any part of society except for the state and they are certainly not interested in preserving traditional values of any sort. I am tempted to refer to them as Socialists, since many, if not all the people who identify as liberals prefer the widespread government control over the economy that is the aim of Socialism. Since the one value that all contemporary liberals support is the exaltation of the state or government over every other institution, perhaps “Statist” is an appropriate name for them. Since they seem to believe that every aspect of life, even the most personal, should be politicized and  under the control of government, totalitarians might be accurate.

Bullies

April 3, 2013

I do not like bullies.

Neither does Ben Shapiro and neither did his mentor Andrew Breitbart, which is probably why Breitbart devoted his like to exposing the biggest bullies of all the contemporary Left, and why Shapiro continued his work by writing Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Intimidation and Fear Silences Americans.

CF742F2E0411482D8242CFDE1D5653B6

In Bullies, Ben Shapiro describes in exacting detail how the Left uses bullying tactics to shout down and silence all who oppose them. He tells how Leftist bullies in government, in the media, on the university campus, and elsewhere use their position and power to force their viewpoints on people. He writes how liberal bullies in politics use the nastiest and slimiest personal attacks against conservatives to get their way, and then blame the conservatives for the incivility in politics. Green bullies want you to be poor to save the Earth. Secular bullies want to forbid you from praying in a public space. Race and class bullies want to pit Americans against each other. Anti-patriotic bullies want you to be ashamed of your own country. The entire Left is composed of bullies who want to tell you what to do. If you don’t like it, than sit down and shut up.

Luckily, Ben Shapiro is able to relate these stories of the power hungry, bullying Left with a sense of humor. Otherwise, this book might be painful to read. As it is, he writes with just the right, slightly mocking touch that makes his book actually fun to read. Like all bullies, the Left does not like to be laughed at and maybe more books that are humorous will help to put them in their place.

Ben Shapiro concludes Bullies with a rousing appeal to his readers to pick up Andrew Beitbart’s mantle and continue the fight against the thugs and bullies of the Left. Bullies who are unchallenged only get worse so if we want our descendants to live in a free country, we have no choice but to fight them.

By the way, if there is any doubt that Leftists are nothing but bullies, check out the one-starred reviews of this and other conservative books. There seems to be a clique of people who have nothing better to do, they probably collect unemployment, but to publish nasty reviews of books they have not read. Typical.

 

 


%d bloggers like this: