The ‘Empathy Slander’: A Lie That Would End Civilization, A Truth That Would Save It
The more one self-identifies with the left, the less likely one is to give to charity (either in total dollar value or in percentage of income) and the less likely one is to donate blood. This holds true in every country where statistics are available.
Conservatism doesn’t need a grand cultural reimagining, it needs to present the most resonant truth. That 81% figure appears to be a leviathan, yet look at it as Mitt Romney, as an American exceptionalist and a clear thinker would, and you should see an exceptional opportunity for success, a great as-of-yet unexplored political message. A supposed greater empathy for “people like me” is directly equivalent to leftist philosophy; leftist philosophy therefore contains a fatal flaw in that in practice its adherents are, statistically, selfish pricks.
Leftists screw up everything, but what they really screw up is … leftism.
They may be wrong on the economy, on the definition of rights, on issues of morality and science, but the only issue that really matters to them, that is responsible for the spread of leftism among its base, in the U.S., South America, anywhere, is the “caring.”
So take that from them, rather than reimagine conservatism and minority outreach for yet one more doomed-to fail PR push. Think capitalist efficiency — just get out the facts on caring.
The ramifications extend far beyond the “caring” voters; this is where my use of “slander” in the title comes in. Every slander about conservative behavior — and perhaps four of them drive voters: racist, misogynistic, selfish, heartless – stems from the “caring” myth. The truth about the caring myth obliterates these empathy slanders. The truth could not be further from the perception — a perception which has done more to destroy conservatism and further tyranny over the past century than any other political lie or misrepresentation.
That 81% figure is not distressing, it’s an opportunity. Enough voters prioritize “caring about people like me” to swing an election. So show them who cares. This doesn’t require a cultural revolution, just the available truth.
Interestingly, we have yet to see a GOP figure advance these facts with any vigor or foresight, despite having had them available for a long while. The party doesn’t have much of a track record with identifying opportunity.
But nobody really “cares” about other people. Conservatives are simply honest about that.
I care about my family and friends. That’s it. Anything else is Mrs Jellyby style moral preening.
Did the pioneers who civilized North America “care” about the starving Africans? Did the Founding Fathers “care” about the Caste system in India? Do today’s lefties really “care” about Tibet? Does any conservative or libertarian reading this hand money to obviously poor people they pass in the street?
Of course not.
A better plan would be to try once and for all to drop the extremely expensive (foreign “aid”) charade that we “care,” focus on ourselves and the truly needy (the mentally and physically handicapped) and tell everyone else (esp. the fake “poor” with their cell phones and two cars and sat. TV) to go blow.
I’m a conservative Catholic. I don’t care for your comment Ms Shaidle. I care for the poor and unemployed. I supported the candidate who created jobs and balanced budgets. I supported the pro business man with the 3.97 GPA in Combined MBA and Law who has the education and skills to fix the mess leftists created.
Thank you Mr. Steinberg for setting the record straight on Mitt Romney. He satisfied the majority on the substantive issues of values, strength and vision but lost on feelings. 17% voted based on uninformed feelings. It wasn’t Mitt Romney’s job to go around describing what a decent and caring man he is. His life of helping other people proves that. Conservative pundits are at fault. They attacked Romney when they should have been praising him for his lifetime of good deeds.
The caring person is first and foremost competent. If he were president Mitt Romney would have had planes loaded with MREs, water, generators, clothing and blankets ready to fly into New York and New Jersey the day after the storm.
Romney did his job. His critics did not do theirs. I would like to know who supported McCain but did not support Romney – and why -other than bigotry and stupidity.
I like your comment. I think they did more to him: They made a victim of him too as they only pointed out that he’s rich and not what he does. But that’s not a victim for them because being well to do is like a crime for them.
I am following the postings and threats and also liked Roger Simon’s posting about the loss of values. What I’m missing so far is s.th.about the fact (if that’s true) that Obama lost 10 Mio voices in comparison to 2008, Romney only 3 Mio. This means to me that Romney didn’t do so badly after all. I consider him a very decent person with very good manners and a great will to work and prepare himself, obvious in the first debate. He was always polite with the president, maybe even too polite. You guys should think about having him run again depending on the situation in four years.
But the most important thing is that the MSM stop being so one-sided.
It is the bias of the MSM that forces us to choose Democrats in Republican clothing such as Romney every election. Anyone else is villified as heartless and uncaring, like the article says. She’s right, though. We aren’t supposed to care, and the reason Romney lost is because he tried to out Democrat the Democrat.
We have to show, not that we care, but that our caring is leaving them alone. That the dependency they’re on is like a drug. They’re high now, but it costs ever more for less and less high, and the bills come due. That won’t happen until they start to crash, unfortunately. The marxists have committed us to enough Cloward Piven to achieve the crash, I believe, and now it’s a matter of time.
If Greece was Western, why does Huntington’s Clash consider it part of the Islamosoviet block? Greek religion begat Islam and Communism because it rejects Original Sin. Fascist Sparta farmed Sicily and so begat Rome, but democratic Athens farmed Scythia and so begat Moscow. Westernism is the Carolignian idea of the Three Reichs: Charlemegne, Napoleon and Hitler. Who else promotes it but Pat Buchanan, protege of nazi collaborator Fr Coughlin.
Terry Gain may or may not have intended the meaning which I read into his statement, “I care for the poor and unemployed”–I surmise that may be directly through his personal volunteer efforts.
I am a conservative Presbyterian, and it has been my experience, in 8 different states where I have lived or served as a pastor that the vast majority of those who:
–volunteer at homeless shelters
–volunteer at food pantries
–volunteer with Habitat for Humanity
–volunteer at free medical clinics
–volunteer in disaster cleanup and rebuilding for the poor and their homes
–volunteer in going on overseas mission service trips to aid the poor.
–volunteer in prisons (Prison Fellowship)
–volunteer with holiday (holy day) and year-round programs for prisoners (Prison Fellowship’s Angel Tree)
–volunteer with holiday (holy day) and year-round programs for our suffering, poor international neighbors (Operation Christmas Child of Samaritans Purse)
are by a HUGE margin of percentage conservative Jews, Christians, & conservative folk of various other faith communities.
This is news that should be trumpeted from every rooftop in the nation. Mitt Romney could certainly be a “poster boy” for this kind of selfless service–using ones free time not to rub shoulders with the rich and famous, but to “get down and dirty” in the compassionate work of TRULY aiding the poor.
Of course, the way things are going, the Federal Government may continue to make it more and more difficult for churches, synagogues, mosques, and wards to do this vital work which truly saves lives and saves the government billions of dollars a year.
You see, the left doesnt’ think it’s generous or charitable to reach into your own pocket, to directly do something to help another human being. When non-leftists do such things, it doesn’t count in the left’s calculus.
To the left, it only counts when you back having the government force or intimidate someone else — e.g. “the rich” — to hand over their earnings… just the opposite of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim view of charity/chesed/tzedekah.
I sometimes get the impression many of them don’t think individual human beings exist — only classes, races, castes… and they consider all those who respect individual rights as “selfish”, regardless of how much more they voluntarily give and do.
It’s just twisted.
Kathy, you suck – and people who think like you should stay out of politics/government.
Kathy, leaders care about those they lead. You don’t have to know someone personally to care about them and not want them suffer. I don’t think I personally know anyone on Staten Island. I still want them to get help, and I can still put myself in their place and know what kind of help I would want if I were.
“Nobody really cares” is subjective, projective, ignorant and unbelieving. One of our Lord’s commandments, which we must obey to attain heaven and evade hell is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.He tells us that few will be saved, so some, at least, will obey in love.Our neighbor, it turns out, is everyone we have the opportunity to love/help.And the kind of love enjoined is self sacrificial. Are you, Kathy unaware of people who so love? The doctor who does not go home until he has visited the last patient, even though his family needs him at home? The attorney who risks disbarment to save an innocent defendant? The professional who extends her/his services pro bono to a needy indigent? The small boy who puts his allowance in the tin cup of the blind man? The myriad old ladies who routinely skip a meal or a bus ride and go hungry or wearily walk to church so they can put a couple of coins in the collection plate? Or the one who becomes suspiciously thin and investigation reveals that her/his lunch money is doled out to hungry kids near his place of business?Or the paratrooper who quits his NFL career to die for what he believes to be the protection of some innocents in a foreign land? Or the missionaries who give up a comfortable life here to travel to a terrible part of the world and put their helth and lives at stake to save some primitive people?Or the gal, deserted by her impregnator, who sacrifices her life to raise his progeny and make them into professional persons? Or the immigrants who live like dogs so their children can have college degrees and their grandchildren doctorates?And those wonderful few, always on the lookout for the needy- and always ready to help fix the problem?
Granted, most of us are rotten clear through; that is implied in the Lord’s admonition that few will enter heaven. But some of us are splendid at self sacrificial love. And we can all, every one of us, be just as good at it as we decide to be. Got it?
Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor as ourslef, to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked; but he directed those moral instructions to self-sacrificing individuals who are thereby morally obliged to help the poor brother to brother, face to face. Jesus did not give those commands to a self-serving Orwellian “Big Brother” government.
Of course people care about each other. Not all, but I believe most do. That is why the U.S. (and other Western nations) send millions in relief to other countries who suffer catastrophes, even if they are hostile to us. People are generally good, not evil. It is built in our DNA to want to help our fellow man.
Kathy Shaidle: “A better plan would be to try once and for all to drop the extremely expensive (foreign “aid”) charade that we “care,” focus on ourselves and the truly needy (the mentally and physically handicapped)…”
Kathy is right because the whole Marxist/Socialist system is built on a self-serving lie about caring for the poor. The collectivists do not care about the poor little people out there; they only care about the act of collectivization from which they are able to wield power over others, support a lazy so-called proletariat class, and feather their own nests. The Marxist/Socialist system is in fact the chief cause of poverty in the world because it destroys the work ethic of the lazy non-disabled recipient of aid “according to his need” among a so-called proletariat class where need is unlimited, and it simultaneously destroys the work ethic of the actual working man because it excessively taxes him “according to his ability.” The Marxist/Socialist system ends up destroying the work ethic universally, and that is when serfdom and poverty likewise become universal. If you care about the poor you should do away with this Marxist/Socialist system – it is an organized crime against humanity.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we’re doing… Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of power is power… Always there will be the intoxication of power… We are the priests of power… It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it [The Socialist Party of Oceania] was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc [Socialist Principles of Oceania], which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.” George Orwell – 1984
If you really care about an able-bodied poor, then point them in the direction of their own creative labor, and their God-given right to the product of their own labor.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Benjamin Franklin
Now THAT’S CONSERVATISM!!!
‘But nobody really “cares” about other people.’
Leads me to wonder why I’ve donated money to organizations like the Special Olympics or the Muscular Dystrophy Association.
I’d say the crucial words in the question above are not “he cares” but rather “people like me.” Like Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, and every other state containing more than one nation/people, the first, last, and only question is race/ethnicity. Let’s see…. 12% black; 12% Hispanic; 21% consider that issue to be number one. Coincidence? This is also why it isn’t the economy, stupid; it’s race.
Kathie Shaidle is spot on.
The entitlement brigades don’t need our help.
It makes no sense to squander billions on the third world and to Muslim nations if all we get in return is more hatred.
Care for your own, that’s what matters.
Ms. Shaidle, I hope you realize you’re not speaking for most Conservatives. I’d really like to know how you came to the conclusion that we don’t care about anyone other than family and that it’s “moral preening” to care about others.
Apparently you don’t read any articles about conservatives other than in HuffPo, Daily Beast, D.U. or Daily Kos because as others have said before me, Conservatives, by a large margin, are the volunteers of the country. Perhaps it’s because most of us have a religious background which encourages people to take care of those who are needy.
*** leftist philosophy therefore contains a fatal flaw in that in practice its adherents are, statistically, selfish pricks.***
I agree with Mr. Steinberg’s assessment;
One more thing I have to say abut Mitt Romney: He is a problem solver, not a problem maker as is the one in the Oval Office now and I can’t think of another man or woman who could target what is wrong and then fix it!! I believe this is what was behind his bid for the presidency. He is impelled to fix what is broken!!
And by the way: notice the _selfishness_ in the idea that some stranger should “care about someone like me.”
Wow. I can’t imagine even thinking that thought. How small minded and arrogant and pitiful.
I hate a lot about Ayn Rand but she was onto something when the topic was altruism and selfishness.
Dennis Miller says something like Help the Helpless, Forget the Hopeless (ie parasites and free riders.) Sounds good to me.
You say you “hate a lot . . .” Why not expend some of that energy in a charitable service? The paradox of human happiness is that when you do everything for yourself, you will certainly become miserable. Taking care of number one seems like it oughtbto work, but it does not. I’m not opposed to rational self interest, I’m saying that the only thing of real value is our human relationships.
I agree with you. For some of the commentators here, you may be telling the truth too harshly. But still the truth.
Recall the famous Phil Donahue Show with Milton Friedman. Professor Friedman was correct that no system rewards virtue. Is political virtue any better than economic virtue? There is a youtube segment, with more than 1,800,000 views, with Prof. Friedman asking “where will you find these angels to run the government….” and finishing with “I do not trust you”, the “you” referring to Phil Donohue. But something was missing in that segment, understanding the essence of conservatism. I was able to put together the entire Phil Donohue show and you find that Prof. Friedman continued: “I do not trust myself”.
That is the difference between the Leftist and the Conservative: the Leftist blames everyone else, the Conservative knows that part of the blame is within him. The Conservative understands the need of self-restraint. The Leftist wants and needs to restrain others, not him/herself.
Everyone pursues one’s interest. The Free-Market proponent pursues his own interest on his own effort. The Leftist pursues his own interest on someone else’s effort.
One asks: are you not responsible for your brother? I answer: I have a secondary responsibility, not the primary responsibility. The primary responsibility of my brother lies with himself.
One asks: what about an orphaned new-born baby? I still have primary responsibility to myself and a secondary one to the baby. If I die of starvation by neglecting myself, how can I serve the baby? When traveling by airplane, the flight attendants tell you to put on the oxygen mask on yourself before helping your neighbor passenger.
One asks: are you not selfish in saying your primary responsibility is to your self? I answer: No. I provide goods and services to people (you call it caring) because the goodwill built increases the likelihood that favors and services are rendered back to me. Increasing the likelihood of goods/services/favors rendered back to me is in my selfish interest.
In my neighborhood, I give nothing to the regular bums: they have chosen a lifestyle I will not subsidize. With the other neighbors, I helped cutting tree branches after a storm, lending flash lights during a power outage, etc..
God’s system rewards virtue. And eternally punishes its lack.And you evolved your weltanschaung from a Phil Donahue session? Is this really 2012? Or maybe 1984 in disguise?
The Left does not believe in God. But the Left does believe in Lucifer, to whom Saul Alinsky dedicated his work “Rules for Radicals”. The Left does not believe in the afterlife, let alone an eternal one. If you believe in God and Afterlife, it is re-education camp for you! I can quote a number of works or clips. I understand your allergy to a popular YouTube clip which offends your collectivist sensibilities.
Since you mention God, may I quote the Bible (I can use another sacred book of another religion)? The story of Joseph and Mary. King Herod was pursuing the killing of all jewish male infants. The poor did not offer refuge. The various temples and priests of the time did not offer refuge. But a member of the eeeviilll, blood-sucking, exploiter-of-the-masses class, an inn keeper did. And at no charge. How wicked can the inn keeper be! The HORROR! Did he had some self-interest in the offer? Yes. If Joseph/Mary survive the ordeal, the word of mouth will bring him extra business!!
God’s “system” only rewards it’s “believers”, and then, only in their imaginations. Since your rewards come after you die, no one ever sees them, so no one can believe in them the way they see the rewards of other systems.
Uh Bill, you can be in my foxhole anytime. Yes. Caring, with perspective and using our own resources. And I also appreciate, especially, those small business owners who care for me as they start up against the odds and keep offering — amidst many obstacles — the products and services which make my life better at reasonable prices.
Excellent commentary!
Thanks for being one of the few to understand my point.
To the other commenters, please reflect on the arrogance and self-aggrandizement in your responses, in which you boast in pubic of specific acts of charity you have committed.
perhaps asking you to reflect on that irony is too demanding for some…
People engage in altruism in order to feel better about themselves.
To correct the majority’s ideas about “caring” assumes that most people are rational. They are not. There is more magical thinking among all of us than conservatives and Republicans want to admit. For instance, the archetype of the “Magical Negro” along with the aura exuded by the Beautiful People need to be better understood. I started that here: http://clarespark.com/2012/11/08/the-magical-power-of-negroes-and-other-beautiful-people/.
Meanwhile, as death panels appear and the shortage of doctors make themselves evident to the majority, there is yet hope for a more rational approach to political choices.
It is increasingly the case, the lies/ties that bind leftists are those most dangerous to dispel, as well as lethal to western civilization.
Many people do not understand how urgent it is to shatter said myths of ‘caring leftists…we share your pain’ mantra. And the best-but most labor intensive-way to do this is to take back the bully pulpit. In other words, the gravest mistake made by conservatives is they neglected to understand how thoroughly the left co-opted ALL cultural/educational power centers.
It is one thing to have Rush Limbaugh and others on the airwaves. Fine. But what about academia, the real breeding ground for generations of leftist foot soldiers?
The fact of the matter is that the left, for decades, infiltrated the public schools and higher ed. And the right did next to nothing about it.
As to the media – if the above was not taken over, then its journalism schools would not have been taken over by the same radicals!
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/21/the-paradox-pitfalls-of-liberal-democracies-in-a-time-of-immoral-relativism-the-havoc-wrought-by-leftist-academia-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
And these same kiddies are now up for grabs, from kindergarten and up! How many know this tidbit – Exeter, one of the most prestigious prep schools in the US, has been infiltrated – top to bottom – by Islamists? Its principal is one of their sympathizers. Wifey too.
This could not have transpired without the radical left’s penetration, as they led the way for their alter egos – Islamists. Again, the morphing of the Red/Green alliance.
To wit, if conservatives are serious they must bust through the school system forthwith!
Homeschooling, for those who can. Alternative schooling, for those who can’t. Here in Texas, my daughter goes to Premier High School, and they have lots of campuses around the state. Not sure if they are anywhere else. In your state, depending upon the laws, there will be places like this.
ATTN:
PREMIER HIGH SCHOOL IS FREE TUITION
Why? Because they follow the state rules for the most part, which aren’t as stringent as your local school board would lead you to believe, and they qualify for YOUR TAX DOLLARS, just like your local school did, by attendance of your child.
There are other opportunities. My wife’s coworker is from Argentina. She is so far right it’s funny, her and my wife alone amongst all those women and one gay man. Her son is autistic, and has made Glen Beck his personal hero. They have about eight weeks worth of food packs. Imagine if anyone in New York had done that, huh? You can let them go to school, and watch carefully what they teach, asking them every day (EVERY DAY!!) what they talked about in school that day. It could be something as innocent as a remark, but don’t let them go.
Those who deal in words in prosperous times/places are more powerful than those who deal in/with actual THINGS, because they have full control over their tools and can “create reality” – at least until the money well and truly runs out, as it is about to. Image is everything, until it isn’t anymore.
I’d like to participate in efforts to “take back the culture,” or even dispel this one immense lie, but have observed one little problem: THE CULTURE DOESN’T WANT TO BE TAKEN BACK. Every conversation on this and similar topics I’ve ever had with a well-meaning liberal or an intellectual leftist has ended in the same way: I prove my point, he turns away in contempt, generally speaking the exact words: “I don’t want to hear it.” Dennis Prager is right: Leftism is a religion, and mere facts can’t shake it.
People don’t even really want to know that a philosophy works in practice. As long as their physical needs are met, they want to know that their philosophy makes them smart or cool or nice, especially smarter or cooler or nicer than other people. Justifying their envy is a popular winner, too. Little else matters until food is hard to find. Most importantly, if you offer people an out from personal responsibility, they will grasp it and hold it close to the heart even at terrible cost.
Here’s an example. The only people who seem to care at all about the disintegration of the family in the black community – the cause of most of its misery in the last few decades – are conservative intellectuals. The black community ITSELF doesn’t seem to be worried about it; in fact, it regards the concern of those conservative intellectuals as the prime exhibit of their “real” problem, which is white racism. I do not see any way of getting past that.
And I’m past trying. For over twenty years I’ve felt like a captive in enemy territory, and am resigned to being caught up in the whirlwind this country is about to reap. I don’t have the financial and status resources to protect my family from it. We could flee when it hits the fan, but the only place that’ll have us is Israel, and who knows how long that will remain.
Your comments about the black family are spot on. From Moynihan and Magnet onwards, white intellectuals have tried to raise the alarm about the black family and been called racists for doing so by… blacks. Interesting, no?
Your comments about the black family are spot on. From Moynihan and Magnet onwards,
in which you reference 4. werewife‘s comment about the black family seems to have an analogous situation in South Africa where as a friend writes about the situation after almost 20 years of black rule little has been done to improve the lot of the black family.
The majority live in squalor and degredation while the elite parties.
It all comes down to recognizing that one is not dealing with sincerety in that crowd but must accept them as bigoted hypocrites vying for power and influence, and the wealth that it brings.
From the Tutus through the Jacksons and Sharptons, the Tony Blairs to the socalled charities one can see the the manner in which they take advantage to fill their pockets, as the Red Cross did after 9/11, as HRW in its choice of which human, what rights and when to shout about them, as with Dr’s without frontiers and their expired drugs they pushed onto Africans and ostracizing an Israeli medical team treating Africans with severe burns, to governments giving billions to the thugs controlling African countries as if it were aid while the citizens continue in misery, all the while appealing to Americans to pay for a “feely good” sensation.
Obama “cares about people like me”.
Excuse me, I couldn’t help it. And I’m not noted for my sense of humor. (I think Monty Python’s Flying Circus and the works of Douglas Adams are funny, and that’s about it.)
It should be painfully obvious to anyone who’s paid attention for the last four years that The Self-Exalted One not only doesn’t “care” about anybody but Himself, or anything but His own ambition, He doesn’t even seriously believe the rest of the world exists except as a construct in His Immaculate Mind.
This is very likely why he’s such an adept and compulsive liar, as well as the reason every promise he makes has an expiration date. (Usually about five minutes before he makes it.) If no one else is real, and nothing really exists, then nothing he does can possibly be “wrong”. If the results are bad, he’ll just deny they happened- and wish them away.
His obsession with “fundamentally transforming America” (to something that is even now failing in Europe, China, and the Islamic world) bespeaks someone who believes that he can remould the world to his conception through sheer force of will. People who think he believes in working through his “charisma” haven’t been paying attention. First of all, he doesn’t have any, and secondly, he knows it.
Which is the reason that, when his “will” fails, he immediately defaults to lies and coercion. Anything to avoid examining his own “dreams and motivations”.
This is a man who has both an exaggerated self-image and utter and complete contempt for everyone else. That’s easy when you don’t believe “everyone else” really exists to begin with.
Anyone who thinks he “cares about people like me” has fallen for a con. Or else, they want to take what others have without having to exert any effort to do so.
Obama likes that, too. Because it’s one more way he convinces himself that he’s the only real thing there is.
clear ether
eon
…someone who believes that he can remould the world to his conception through sheer force of will.
Yes, I know, I am skirting perilously close to Godwin’s Law, but where have I heard that before?
No need to invoke the Mr. H. The idea of the New Man is one of the core believes in Socialism/Communism. Che was especially obsessed with the idea that the state can influence people to act a certain way. Of course, when reality intervened he just decided to kill anyone that didn’t “fit in”.
I know many will pull out the “No True Scotsman” defense, so let’s just say socialism/communism as practiced in the real world and not on paper.
Exactly. According to Lenin, the “New Soviet Man” was supposed to be able to accomplish the same feat.
When one actually tried it -his name was Josip Vissarionich Dzugashvili, but he was better known as “Stalin”- the results weren’t quite what Lenin had in mind.
The moral being that the differences between the different “brands” of socialism (Fabian, Marxian, Leninist, Maoist, Italian Fascist, German Nationalist, whatever) are ones more of style or lack of same rather than substance.
They all tend to fail the same way at just about everything.
Well, except for killing people. Either deliberately, through sheer thundering incompetence, or both.
They’re really good at that.
clear ether
eon
“Image is everything.”
–Andre Agassi
“I care, I’m just not going to do anything about it.”
–Barack Obama
Thanks, eon. I’ve been kind of scratching my head over that sentiment myself.
Even if I felt “caring for me” was a valid reason to support a candidate, I’m having a hard time seeing that Obama fills that requirement.
I frequent a few Leftist sites (gotta keep an eye on the other side!) and a non-political one that has an Off-Topic section that often veers off into Leftish, anti-conservative diatribes.
One thing I’ve been hearing recently is what a wonderful speech Obama made at the end of election night, that he talked about what he’s learned from people, about coming together, blah, blah, blah.
That’s very true, it was a wonderful speech. He just doesn’t usually talk like that.
His speeches are more along the lines of jabs against “bitter clingers to their guns and religion”, “bringing guns to knife fights”, “you didn’t build that”, and “sit down and shut up”.
I don’t think Obama cares about me, or people like me, any more than this table my computer is sitting on does.
Rush is right; they want Santa Claus. We need to cast ourselves adrift; we know their ship is sinking. After four+ decades living in San Francisco I realize they can’t be reasoned with; they don’t use it. If we don’t carve out a constitutional island in red state America we drown too. When they drive away the job creators, and investors in job creation, and skilled talent, we’ll get them.
Paul, the answer is not sharing a border with the 3rd world country we will leave behind. I suggest we move elsewhere, perhaps Australia. After whoever begins the emigration, I predict a massive wave to follow.
Welcome to Texas. For details on the TX vs CA highlights, see this blog:
http://www.battleswarmblog.com/?tag=california
Hey, back in 2000 Texas governor George Bush ran for president under the mantle of so-called “compassionate conservatism.” How did that work out? Oh yeah, he was elected twice.
In fact, Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.
If Romney had done that well with Hispanics, and if Romney had done somewhat better with women, he would be President-Elect today.
Actually, that “compassionate conservatism” is a redundant term – conservatism is by nature compassionate.
He was just hiding that he was a big government conservative, that leviathan could be used for good. Not exactly a conservative philosophy IMO.
You also must consider that his challengers were McCain in the primary and Gore in the election – Bush looked good compared to those guys. Same with 2004 – Kerry.
Bush was simply the best of an obviously poor set of choices. And conservatives were mostly not too happy with his “compassionate” edicts that grew government and budgets.
I voted for W the first time because his opponent was a government cheesemonger and pompous prique. I absolutely detest the formulation of compassionate conservatism, aka dem-lite. I voted for him the second time primarily because he kept his eye on the ball with regard to islamist terrorism, that and his opponent was a government cheesemonger, and a treasonous, pompous prique.
I heard an excellent sermon about a year ago when Prince William and Katherine married. The basis was as God is pushed from peoples lives people still have a void. They seek to fill that void with other things and people. He admonished the young couple that their mate could not fill that void and to attempt to put that much on another human was to ask too much and what led to a lot of divorce.
These people are looking for someone to fill that void. So they want to believe that Obama (Beyonce, Oprah, Hillary, Bill Clinton) care about them. It is much the same reason people fall into cults. Our culture has pushed God or anything that might be considered bigger than oneself out and has then set about breaking all family and community bonds to set people adrift. Republicans tell them to stand on their own two feet. They can’t. They are void of all reference points, family and inner strength to do so.
Ione, your pastor is VERY wise and so are you. Yours is the thread winner, IMO.
The truth of your point is best demonstrated in the famous “Julia” ad. Conservatives were bewildered by it: Who would want to live such a life, the state holding your hand as surrogate parent at every step? But it DID have a very powerful appeal to single women, and offered them what they saw as optimum conditions!
Good comment, Ione. Spot on.
Good article and spot on. I am disappointed by the results this week and what this will mean for our economy, national security, and our future. We came close to winning, let’s figure out how we can prevail next time. Because we do care about things beyond ourselves, every bit as much or more than the Dems.
They vote based on empathy because they have been primed through K-12 education since the 90s through outcomes based education to believe and feel rather than know. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/instilling-desired-feelings-and-political-values-via-sel-in-children-taps-for-the-republic/
Outcomes based education just went through name changes when it became controversial. It has never gone away and is now coming in on steroids as all standardized testing is being removed as part of the new types of assessments via Common Core. The formative ones that can include values in open ended group projects seeking solutions for real world problems. A world where “Growth” and “Student Achievement” are the measuring goals and they are full of affective elements that each student must demonstrate. “Does the student put others first?” “How does student daily demonstrate compassion for others?” “Which students believe their intelligence is personal instead of readily acting as a tutor for others whenever asked?”
You think I am kidding? You should see the Resource Manual for Moral Competency and Performance Competency I took off the website of an Illinois School District. We need to up our explanation on why communitarianism does not work. Because both K-12 and higher ed are being reconfigured around social and emotional learning and interpersoanl skills that exalt the Common Good first. Built into the definitions of all measurements. Does student manifest the desired Attributes and Dispositions?
We have to understand the Left’s intentions and language better than they do. Time to develop those real Glossary of Euphemistic Terms designed to Lure Us Into Complacency until the Mental and Personality Changes are Irrevocable.
We can do this. We still have the Axemaker Minds being targeted. We know what is coming. We are the least likely to be broadsided. So let’s use that acuity to prepare to sell our case.
The only problem with this argument — and it’s one I try to have with my lefty friends, pointing out, as just one example, that virtually all of the hospitals in my city were founded by religious groups, Jewish but mostly Christian — is that the Leftards who say they care don’t really care.
So how is appealing to their “care preference” (sic) and pointing out that conservatives actually care in the concrete far more than the so-called bleeding-heart Leftists going to help?
The thing about the Left is that they don’t care about facts, they just rely on mendacious memes, and the more you point this out to them, the testier they get and the harder they dig in their heels.
The problem here is the Left’s aversion to truth. There is a truth deficit. Leftards don’t care about truth. They don’t care about facts, historical or otherwise. They care only for their own comforts and their “progressive” (sic) world view.
Their motto is, “Don’t confuse me with the facts.” They live in an uncaring La-La-Land that cocoons them with the lovely thought that they are the ones who “care” — ’cause their government hands out solace and food stamps to the downtrodden — while those nasty conservatives live in their gated communities and drink Dom Perignon. ‘Never mind that this is an obscene stereotype of both sides. The Left feeds off this lie — and like all parasites, they’re sucking the life out of their host.
The Obamanation’s re-election scares the living daylights out of me.
As we all know the President is a smooth talker, at least when the teleprompters are in working order. He’s also very good at seizing the moment, saying whatever will advance his narrative at that particular instant. And should he later be called on the truth of his words, well, we just have to reinterpret his real meaning. So, yes, there is a distinct lack of truth in this administration, and if you have not gotten used to that so far you’re in luck. You now have four more years to let it truly (pun intended) sink in.
We are going to have to get over it emotionally and stop complaining. Also Romney was not our problem. Someone find me a more decent honest and well qualified candidate? The problem is a population of drones who fall for the continuing lies of our opposition party and the MSM that enable them. That is the group that should be villified, targeted, opposed, boycotted, and rediculed. Really think about this. No matter who we put up to include the second coming of Jesus Christ would be mocked and insulted as a wacko evangelical snake handler by the likes of Chris Mathews. I am in mourning for my country right now but when I get back in the fight, my first order of business will be to never watch, listen to, buy a product, or give the slightest financial benefit to any of these jerks. That is job one. After the MSM the next group of propagandizers of the young and ignorent are the unionized school teachers and academia in particular. How did we end up with citizens so lacking in critical thinking skills that could support this lazy BS artist for president. Give me a brake! Finally Good Luck and God Speed to Mitt and his wonderful family for making the sacrifices to run for this office. No one is perfect but in the coming years, we will come to regret losing him as our President. The worst is yet to come. Get ready!!
Romney was the problem. He was a liberal Republican. He had too much baggage (Romneycare, gay marriage, abortion, etc.). Sure the wife and I votrd for him; but many folks saw no difference and stayed home.
It would help if we conservatives focused on some real examples.
I have a friend who was born with Type I diabetes. He has a pre-existing condition and can’t find individual health insurance.
What happens to him?
“Caring” is an abstraction.
What most Americans mean by it, is that if someone is down on their luck through no fault of their own (born with a chronic illness, left paralyzed by a hit-and-run accident, swindled by Enron, the victim of an enormous natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy), that they won’t be forgotten and someone will throw them a lifeline.
Will we?
Too often, we conservatives end up sounding like Ebenezer Scrooge: If someone is down on his luck through no fault of his own, screw him. Life’s tough, and if you fail at the game of life, that’s just too bad.
Don’t laugh, I’ve heard that attitude from some (fortunately not most) on our side of the political fence.
The problem here is that you believe strangers ought to be compelled at gunpoint to support people like your friend and anyone else who comes along with a hard luck story instead of the charities that were driven out of business under LBJ like the Woodmen’s Circle and others.
There used to be a great many private charities that took care of people and we had far fewer societal ills. This is the legacy of LBJ’s Great Society: https://www.google.com/search?q=woodman%27s+circle+home+sherman+tx&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-nightly&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=JwOdUIfNKsHfyAGb-4GoAQ&biw=1366&bih=588&sei=KwOdUOCjIOTIyAH5iIGwBw
@sinz54
I know someone with diabeties as well, my wife. She’s dealt with it for years, in addition to astma and most recently, quadruple bypass surgery. Yet my new employer of less than three months has covered her, no questions asked. None of my employers over the past thirty five years has ever denied coverage to any member of my family. No coverage for pre-existing conditions by those evil insurance companies, which I have heard from the “caring” set for my entire life is, at least in my experience, an untruth of epic proportions.
Mr. Steinberg tells a major truth he is still fighting the wrong battle. The left is about creating the 20/75/5 society. That’s 20% on welfare, 75% working poor and lower middle class ruled over by a 5% kleptocracy. The goal of socialism always has been rule by kleptocrats. The Left “cares” about the 95% only as means to power.
The Left has finally discovered the flaw in socialism. The promise of a “radiant future” that never comes eventual destroys the system. It is the main contradiction of traditional socialism. They have learned that you first create a culture of poverty by passing out free stuff and then you make the people poor. Since the people will already have the mindset of the welfare class, they will never notice their poverty. Like the inhabitants of Oceana in 1984 who believe that their chocolate ration was increased to a lower level, people trapped in the culture of poverty will believe things are getting better as their standard of living falls just because they perceive themselves as getting more free stuff.
The left has no use for an independent middle class. They will only tolerate as much as is necessary to maintain their lifestyle. All unnecessary professionals, skilled tradesmen and entrepreneurs will be eliminated by destroying their livelihoods and dropping them into the ranks of the poor. The left has created a society where those who produce will never be a significant factor in society again. Voting will continue but, like Chicago, it will be meaningless. California has always led the nation in social and economic trends. Look where California is today and that’s where we will be in four years.
Exit polling showed that 59% of the voters were pro-choice and 55% of white women voted for Obama.
You’re seeing “cares for people like me” and imagining that people have their hands out, the people are vapid children, all is lost, woe is us. The sheen of smug superiority pervades your writing.
I see “cares for people like me” as a huge unmistakable middle finger aimed directly at homophobic and anti-abortion busybodies and other right wing statists. The far right is statist; it seeks to impose values via government. This was rejected.
The people are not only not vapid children, they’re actually pretty clever. Try some optimism. You’ll feel better.
The left seeks to impose its values on America just as surely as the right does – that’s why we’re in this battle.
You happen to be a leftist, so for you the leftist agenda doesn’t feel like an imposition. It feels normal – the way things “should” be. You don’t have a problem with it.
To people on the right, the leftist agenda does feel like an imposition. We’re being forced by the government to accept things that go against our values. We’re fighting back.
It’s amazing that anyone could lack the self-awareness to understand all this.
Let’s see, I’ve voted R for the past 8 presidential cycles. Surely that is the dead giveaway of leftist thought. Perhaps it doesn’t occur to you that there are valid reasons to vote R that have precisely dick to do with culture war crap.
The left isn’t seeking to impose values. This is the perception of the religious right, and only the religious right, and it’s simply wrong. Moreover, the fight of the far right in the culture war (the taliban-like jihad waged against cultural progress) is and has been a losing proposition. e.g. abortion was legalised permanently 40 years back, and the far right is still hammering away at it. In fact I can’t think of any part of the culture war the far right wants as having been won by them. Can you? You guys were wrong about contraceptives, wrong about the pill, wrong about abortion, wrong about forcing everyone to put up with religious iconongraphy in the public square, etc., and you are just as wrong about gay marriage here and now. Have you EVER been right or won? No.
So tell me, conspiracy nut, what *is* the “leftist agenda” outside their obvious pro-regulation luddism? I don’t see one. All I see is that the far right is killing the GOP’s pro-capitalist stance on energy and business by conflating religious culture warrior and GOP voter. These are not the same things, and the sooner you figure this out, the better off everyone will be.
“The left isn’t seeking to impose values.”
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I mean, really… how could I ever have thought otherwise or been that careless.
Sorry, my bad.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I mean, really… how could I ever have thought otherwise or been that careless.
Illustrate how the left imposes its values, in that case. Spell it out. Usually when clowns like you claim “the left is imposing its values!” you’re doing little more than feeble lashing out against more vote-losing stuff like bashing gays. I want to see these values. If you’re on about gays, for example, the left isn’t imposing anything at all; it is the taliban-like far right wielding bibles who seek to impose their notion of what ought to be referred to as marriage. And gays are but one minor example of this phenomenon.
Before you taliban types got into seriously suppressing the gays I didn’t care one way or another. I ignored it. Let gays go do whatever it is gays do. But now I see that the far right seems to think they (you) are the owners of morals, ethics, etc. and think they (you) therefore have a right to dictate.
So, spell it out using a big crayon for silly little me: how is that an example of the LEFT imposing values?
The Left imposes its self-serving value of collectivization where some men do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor. The Left suppresses the Conservative’s value of individualism, where each man does as he pleases with himself and the product of his own labor. The Left are the people in charge of all that is collected – primarily property – but also information – and eventually the guns. Under a system of collectivization, the collectivizers, by the very nature of collectivization, become “more equal than others,” superior in their own eyes in human value, and thereby superior in human rights and superior before the law, and finally, superior in property – which is their final goal.
“With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.” Abraham Lincoln
stonewall — The Left imposes its self-serving value of collectivization where some men do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor.
Seriously? You’re giving a textbook definition of communists, not US democrats. Good heavens; you’re so far around the fascist fantasy bend that you can’t tell the difference, can you? News flash, sparky: American democrats are still Americans, and they have more in common with you than not. They’re your neighbours.
Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Obama hung out with Marxist professors at Occidental College and Harvard, and he partnered with William Ayers, an avowed terrorizing Marxist. Obama sat for 20 years in the so-called church of Jeremiah Wright who preached Black Marxism, and he appointed Marxists to his cabinet and as so-called Czars – like Van Jones. Obama is a Marxist, but so are all the top leaders of the Democratic Party, including Bill and Hillary Clinton. The leaders of the Democratic Party are anti-Americans because Marxism is anti-American; I have nothing in common with them other than DNA; they are not my neighbors.
As for Fascism, that fits nicely into a Marxist framework; the former is concerned with control of business via law and regulation, while the latter is outright government takeover of business. In the end there is little difference between Marxism and Fascism; elements of each can be incorporated as the need arises, and such a hybrid can be called Statism, which is what we now have in the United States.
“Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation’s economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property – so long as the state reserves to its self the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property. If “ownership” means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed… which conferred no rights on its holder. Under Communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto.” Leonard Peikoff
http://www.peikoff.com/lr/review_rand.htm
Surely you jest! The Left keeps pushing all the values out of our society that were there for hundreds of years. Are you so blind you cannot see that? I think we’ve just found the reason for the hypocrisy of Liberals (and don’t tell me you voted Republican for the last 8 election cycles). Liberals lie and then call Conservatives hypocrites when we try to refute those lies.
Can you truly not see the abasement of the moral fiber of this country? If the Liberal view was so fantastic wouldn’t violence, theft and murder be almost gone? In every central city in this country run by Liberals the students (those who show up) run roughshod over their teachers and there are always police in the schools. The students are not punished for misbehavior, the girls dress like sluts, they’re given contraceptives which should have cut way down on abortions in the inner cities, instead they’re increasing. Is this supposed to be helping? Democrats made sure that fathers were effectively removed from their families and it was do what feels good! Just think a little, you’ll come up with a hundred more things that have been done to these people under the guise of “caring”. The result? Their family values and neighborhoods in shambles!
Go peddle your concern trolling somewhere else.
If you don’t have the IQ to discuss stuff, it’s simpler to just shut up.
If only he would take his own advice.
Surls
Comment on the exit poll numbers. Do they tell you that you won the culture war or that you will win?
Contraception is the enemy. We can win this fight, but only if we stop regarding children as a liability. We need to repent of our contraceptive mentality and start breeding our army.
randomengineer – While I agree with most of the postings I’ve seen from you, I disagree about your contention that the GOP should embrace gay marriage. This is not for religious reasons (I’m not religious) or because I have anything against gay people in general (I don’t). It is because I have opposed the gay agenda ever since I realized what it’s really about.
First, let me state that what I call the gay agenda is what is being pushed by a small, but extremely vocal, minority within the gay community. These people are the gay-rights activist zealots, and in my opinion, comprise maybe 1 or 2% of the gay population. Unfortunately these are the ones that get all the attention from the MSM and politicians. Here are some of the things these zealots have managed to accomplish:
1. Hate crime legislation. As a libertarian, and an American, I believe in equal rights for all (more on that later). Under hate crime legislation, in the eyes of the law, it is a greater crime to assault a gay person than a straight person. That equates to special rights for gays, which is wrong. No minority or majority should have special rights.
2. Hate speech legislation. This is a direct assault against the first amendment. Under these laws, a person can be prosecuted for saying something that a gay person finds offensive. Remember the purpose of the first amendment is to protect offensive speech. Non-offensive speech doesn’t need protection.
3. Anti-bullying laws and rules in schools. While being against bullies sounds good to most people, anybody with the slightest perception knows that’s not what it is really about. In fact, it is the gay-rights zealots who are attempting to bully the schools, using the force of the government, into pushing curriculum advocating the gay lifestyle to children.
Which brings us to…
4. Gay marriage. Marriage is an institution that has been around for millennia and has always been between a man and a woman. It is the basis of the family, and THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY IS THE BACKBONE OF ALL CIVIL SOCIETY. The gay-rights zealots, in their attempt to redefine marriage are really attempting to replace the traditional family unit with the socialist notion of collectivism.
Personally, I support civil unions, where gay couples have the same legal rights as married couples and the vast majority of gays are fine with that concept. You will never find a gay-rights zealot advocating for civil unions, though. Have you ever wondered why?
Despite what the gay-rights zealots preach, this is not about equal rights. Gay people have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as everybody else. If I had a dog, and really loved it, I couldn’t and shouldn’t be able to claim that I am being discriminated against because I can’t marry it.
So, when you say the GOP should advocate gay marriage, to me you’re really saying the GOP should cave to the gay agenda and support special rights for politically-correct groups, eliminate free speech, destroy the backbone of civilization and allow children to be further indoctrinated by socialist radicals. I will never support that.
So, when you say the GOP should advocate gay marriage [snip]
The official position of the GOP should be “no comment.” The GOP needs to stay out of culture war issues, especially ones in which it is a guaranteed losing position. You don’t load the gun and hand it to the enemy.
Oh, and yeah, I said guaranteed. And how do I know? Simple. The culture warrior crowd has a long history of losing starting with Galileo and the dawn of the enlightenment. They have been on the wrong side of everthing they have fought against: astrophysics (the earth goes round the sun!), geology (the earth is quite old), biology/evolution, the pill, abortion… you name it, the culture warriors lose. They have ***NEVER*** won. Not once. And right now they’re pointlessly flailing about gays. You put your money wherever you want.
I’ll elucidate a bit further. The GOP shouldn’t have culture warrior planks. With no planks to defend, Akin wins against the execrable McCaskill. How?
Simplicity itself:
“My opinion isn’t why I’m here; it’s unimportant. I’ll tell you that I have constituents who are concerned about this issue and my job — a very serious job — is to listen to their concerns and work for them. I also have constituents who have asked me to voice their concerns about bicycle safety laws and equipment, and I will do everthing I can for them as well. Do you have other questions?”
Thanks for the response. Obviously I misunderstood what you meant in the start of the thread. I agree, the GOP should remove the culture war rhetoric from its planks. While that may aggravate some conservatives, it certainly wouldn’t make any of them switch to Dems and probably would make voting for the GOP more palatable for fiscal conservatives who are social liberals, and libertarians like me.
Personally I’d like to see the GOP adopt a more libertarian attitude/plank, but without the isolationist nonsense espoused by Ron Paul. I think that would attract the majority of younger voters.
When the GOP has a culture warrior plank, Akin is *forced* to deal with it *and* defend it. He has no other choices.
Reporter asks for personal opinion re abortion:
A: “My personal opinion doesn’t matter, I am here to work for…”
R: “Ummm… does that mean you disagree with the official stance of the GOP?”
A: “…my constiuents voice their concerns…”
R: “The official stance of the GOP is to outlaw abortions. Do you agree or do you not agree with this? You *are* a republican candidate, right?”
You see where this goes? The culture warriors, by insisting that the GOP have abortion as an official position, force all republicans to defend this position and stack the deck against these candidates. I imagine that *most* candidates pray that they don’t have to answer abortion questions, especially in today’s world, because this is a losing position by definition.
After this last election I’m going to start pounding the Republicans with some hard truths about their party.
Republicans ALLOW themselves to be painted as the haters of the poor, as racists, and as protectors and champions of the rich. Nevermind that Goldman Sachs was a major Obama donor, nevermind that so many of those banks in New York are also major Democratic donors, the Republicans are the party of the rich. Just ignore all those Hollywood Celebs living lavish lifestyles while partying with Obama, the Republicans are the 1%.
For the most part, Republicans just take it. They don’t fight back, they don’t refute, they don’t do anything to overtly demonstrate this is not true.
They also say really stupid things about abortion and gay marriage that they think sounds caring while sticking to their values but really comes across as horrible. Republicans desperately need to work on their messaging.
What is the solution to this? Beats me. Believe me, I have been thinking about it. What I do know is this quiet sort of stoicism many of them display is not working. The media jumps all over them every chance they get.
There is some truth to the “Get in their face and punch back twice as hard”. There is value in turning the other cheek and there is a time to show grace. There is also a time to show some spine and stand up for yourself. In their efforts to “play nice”, many Republicans allow themselves to be painted as uncaring robots. Maybe playing nice all the time isn’t the way to go?
The biggest mistake of all we made is underestimating and misidentifying our Enemy Number One. That is the legacy media, which even worse than in 2008 has basically dropped all pretense of being anything other than “DNC operatives with bylines”. Every idiotic comment by some Akin was blow up out of all proportion while major-league scandals like Fast & Furious or Benghazi — that would have brought down any GOP president — were soft-peddled.
Sites like these are generally frequented by news junkies and other high-information voters. The EneMedia may be down but it’s not out — it still has a lock on the low-info voter demographic. In war, underestimating your enemy is deadly. We should assume in the future that the DeMSM are the enemy and treat them accordingly.
Now, “unexpectedly” we are hearing about mass layoffs that were kept out of the news until the New Class dragged its chosen one’s sorry *ss across the finish line (with some “help” from “unusual” voting patterns in places like Philly — “unusual” for those who never lived in Chicago, that is).
Excellent point, Mr. Steinberg, and also some thoughtful responses that meld with my ongoing attempt to understand the paradigms and motives of the many leftists in my life. You’re right, most of them don’t care about others or future generations beyond their own family, and the ones that do are focused on the plight of individuals current challenges rather than root causes or long-term solutions.
You are right, Kathy.
Caring about the people beyond our circle of immediate family & friends is something we have to learn as children from our parents, like so much else of the Good that we are capable of.
But caring about them in the right way is even harder.
There was a Methodist Church I used to attend that is demolished now (the congregation of close to 300 has dwindled down to 20, 30 on Easter & Christmas). One evening several years back, I was leaving some event or other there and saw a rat dying of the kind of rat poison that my Mom was given in small & controlled doses after her mini-stroke. It was in plain site, shivering and unable to move. I was horrified to see one of God’s creatures die like that, but I did not know what to do. I was useless.
The Steward of the church knew what to do. He dropped a cinder block on the rat, ending its suffering. The meeting inside the church was a waste of time. The dispatching of the rat, the ending of its suffering was the the only Mitvah that happened that evening.
Caring for others is difficult, and more so because it takes on forms that are unimaginably harsh. Letting someone who is not willing to work go hungry and homeless, for instance, means caring more about them than feeding or housing them and letting them think that being lazy and shiftless is okay.
And finishing off programs that have only been encouraging people to be lazy and shiftless is a Mitvah.
Jesus said if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish he’ll eat for the rest of his life. Seems like Conservatives have been too focused on the long game while ignorning the current suffering.
Charity is not bad. Giving someone temporary succor and comfort is not bad. In order to convince someone to improve their situation we often have to give them some temporary relief.
Sometimes that means helping people who are NOT going to further themselves. That may be the only way to attract people who need help but are reluctant to seek it.
Conservatives are too focused on the long game. If someone cannot pay their electric bill, has no food in the fridge, and has their shoes worn out TODAY, they are not thinking about a job or an education. All they are thinking about is how miserable they are. Does that mean diverting government dollars? No it does not. What it does mean is that until we acknowledge the short term needs of the suffering, it will do no good to offer them long term solutions.
There’s a difference between being too distracted by the problems arising from being jobless and not caring at all about getting a job.
The Early Christians would take care of you for 3 days, then expect you to start contributing to the community.
I have the incentive of having to work hard because I was out of work for a very long time, and told by my family that there was a limit to how much help I could expect from them. They will not be supporting me if I muck up my retirement years.
My Extreme Left friend knows that he can live a marginal life, listening to Occupy Wall Street Radio on Pacifica Radio and spouting his nonsense to whoever is left will listen to him (he trained to be a Yoga teacher but lost a gig filling in for a Yoga teacher with a following at a private health club because he resents anyone who is “rich” enough to afford to be able to pay for his services) because his brothers will put him up in a furnished basement in one of their houses when his current long-term landlord sells the house.
Jesus didn’t say that – it’s a Chinese proverb.
The system would be improved if fishing lessons were made mandatory for all able-bodied persons receiving government-issued fish.
Well, whoever said it first was right.
I’ll take Wisdom even if I can’t give an Attribution to the quote.
I like Frank J Fleming’s quote better: “If you give a man a fish you’ll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish he’ll never vote for a democrat again.”
Crazed Java: “Jesus said if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish he’ll eat for the rest of his life. Seems like Conservatives have been too focused on the long game while ignorning the current suffering.”
Jesus never said that! Some UN pamphlet did! Jesus did say, “Love your neighbour as yourself and do good to those that hate you.” Loving your neighbour as yourself presupposes that you take care of and love yourself and, then, you take care of those in need. You don’t have to be opulent in your giving but where a Christian sees a need, there’s an obligation to help because s/he and others are born in God’s image.
I don’t know, Crazed Java (too much coffee?), where you get your info, but it’s well-documented that those who attend church on a regular basis give over 65% of charitable donations — not just to their churches but to other charities as well. They are much more generous with their time and talents, too, not just their treasure.
Jesus said nothing of the kind. Which is rather unfortunate
Hi Kathy! ‘Not sure what’s unfortunate about it: is it that Jesus didn’t say it but should have? It’s actually a pretty mundane statement even though it`s true!
OTOH, Jesus’s whole life was about truth — “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” — and He did far more than teach people how to fish for food: He taught them how to fish for hearts and minds and how to reach out way beyond their own circumstances.
It’s a fact that active Christians give far more to charity — time, treasure, and talent — than those who have no church affiliation and that they also give disproportionately higher monetary givings, as well as volunteer hours, to secular charities. The number-one provider of education in the third-world (including teaching how to fish) is the Catholic Church, something the secular do-gooders either don`t know or, if they do, never mention.
Jesus didn’t need to teach people to fish; He taught them how to love their neighbours as themselves and how to live sacrificial lives. I know many people who live sacrifical lives — not all gloom and doom; they`re the most joyful people I know — and the world’s a better place because of them.
It’s obviously more complicated than just cutting the lazy and shiftless loose to fend for themselves. There are people who really, truly can’t find a job – or at least a job that will support them and their families. Those are the people we need to concentrate on helping. Help them survive. Help them find work. I don’t think conservatives or liberals would argue against that.
What bugs me is, as you say, the lazy and shiftless. The problem with the welfare state is that it doesn’t care WHY someone isn’t working. The premise that food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc., are RIGHTS rather than things people have always had to WORK FOR, makes working for a living optional. And God knows there are plenty of people who will opt out of working.
It’s great that some of our tax money goes to help our less fortunate fellow-citizens. It’s not great that some of our tax money goes to subsidize and perpetuate an underclass of people who do not and will not work for a living
Liberals confuse caring with being given free stuff (paid for by money stolen from someone else). They support the Democrats because the Democrats promise more and more free stuff: free healthcare, free college, free birth control, free food, free housing, free walking around money. Those liberals who actually have jobs fall for the “caring” of being given government imposed “rights” just one of which is the caring by proxy feeling they get because of all the free handouts the party does (not to mention that they probably get a little touch themselves from the handout man).
In truth all they are doing is keeping some people perpetually poor and/or dependent on them for power of just to feel good.
JESUS AND THE DEMOCRAT
( I don’t care what party you like, this one’s funny!)
A Republican, in a wheelchair, entered a restaurant one afternoon and
asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. The Republican looked across the
restaurant and asked, “Is that Jesus sitting over there?”
The waitress nodded “yes,” so the Republican requested that she give
Jesus a cup of coffee, on him.
The next patron to come in was a Libertarian, with a hunched back. He
shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a
cup of hot tea. He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, “Is that
Jesus, over there?”
The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give Jesus a cup of
hot tea, “My treat.”
The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat on crutches.
He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered, “Hey there honey! How’s
about gettin’ me a cold mug of Miller Light?” He too looked across the
restaurant and asked, “Isn’t that God’s boy over there?
The waitress nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold
beer. “On my bill,” he said loudly.
As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him
and said, “For your kindness, you are healed.” The Republican felt the
strength come back into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door.
Jesus passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said, “For your
kindness, you are healed.” The Libertarian felt his back straightening up
and he raised his hands, praised the Lord, and did a series of back flips
out the door.
Then, Jesus walked towards the Democrat, just smiling.
The Democrat jumped up and yelled, “Don’t touch me .. I’m collecting
disability.”
Romney lost for the same reasons that made Sarkozy loose in France: Too dynamic, too successful , too energetic, too arrogant, to well spoused to a nice and rich girl.Sarkozy was too much a success in every part of his life and the middleguy could not stand that.His opponent (Fr.Hollande ) played the part of the humble, the normalcy, the little civil servant and won by a narrow margin.So next time you GOP strategists select a candidate it should be as close as possible to Mr Nice Guy and nothing above.
As Dennis Leary put it, “I don’t want a someone who is as smart as me to be President. I want someone who is smarter than me.”
The truth of the matter is that most people work for someone else because they do not have what it takes to successfully employ themselves or anyone else.
It is a matter of either being the boss, or making sure to seek out and impress the right boss.
Something is the matter with Democracy and I do not think conservatives, in general, have the time to convince someone that they should learn to rely on themselves first and foremost. Being that we work and are generally committed to our families – and do not strive to be a government technocrat, we will always be less involved in shaping the landscape….unfortunately. Am I wrong/
I don’t think that’s right. Romney is not arrogant while Sarkozy was. Romney wouldn’t call people “scum”. Romney would take people seriously. You’re comparing the wrong men. And you know, Michelle? She’s not a “nice girl”? She wouldn’t wear fancy dresses, go to expensive places? And Romney has his first wife, not the third. Sarkozy had a wonderful wife before, she came from a known composer family. I think people were sick of his shallowness. And I thought Obama would lose it because of his terrible corona of Hollywood- and pop stars. But I was wrong. I think Romney lost it (narrowly if you take the voter turnout) because there are people who were not informed enough about Romney’s qualities, people who wouldn’t watch the debates, people who don’t care about foreign politics. I think it’s more like Simon wrote yesterday, a cultural problem, people spoilt by entertainment, not educated enough or wrongly educated.
We all know what road is paved with good intentions. It’s not just who really cares but about results. If I’m having a heart attack I want to be helped by the person who knows CPR and is rational enough to administer it, not the person who “cares” so much they’re too overwhelmed to know what to do or so focused on “caring” that they never bothered learning CPR.
The problem with so many people is that they focus on who seems to “care” the most and don’t pay any attention to results. It doesn’t matter how much you “care” if your solution does more harm than good.
I think Maggie Thatcher said it best:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. ”
Based on the proof of our recent national election a majority of our citizens believe that they are entitled to free stuff paid for by that evil greedy productive class. It is, you see, so much easier to rob someone of their hard earned wealth if you first demonize them.
The thing is, small business folk have been “going Galt” in their own limited fashion for the past couple of years at least. They are not starting new businesses, not expanding existing ones, not taking on new employees. Or at least not nearly as much as they would in a healthy economy. Now that we have a clear picture of what to expect for the foreseeable future; ie higher taxes, very expensive energy, greater restrictions on any business venture by complex and onerous regulations; our choice is clear. Hunker down, preserve what you have, protect your friends and family, and resist a government that considers you nothing more than a revenue source to be bled til you’re drained.
Last week we were on the cliff. Today we’re sliding down the slope into a sh!thole that we will be a generation or more climbing back out of if we ever do.
In the quiet of late evening I weep for my grandchildren.
The problem isnt Obama…it is the utter lack of moral standards that can be traced all the way back to 1963 when the Bible was no longer required reading in our public schools. The people now have no moral compass. They claim to be Christian , but unfortunately it is in name only. Just because one attends a church on Sunday does not a Christ follower make. There are certain tenets that the Bible and Jesus ask of us , for sadly for the most part , people want to pick and choose which tenets are right for them. This kind of thinking leads people to believe that they somehow know better than God , what is right for them. Hence we have what has been described as ‘lukewarm’ Christians, not willing to go that extra mile to do what is morally, logically and philosophically right. So in this day and age the divorce rate hovers at 50% . In the Book of Malachi, 2:16 our Father states very plainly that He ‘hates’ divorce !! The Bible says that man should not lay with another man, or a woman should not lay with another woman, but our society is divided on the issue of same sex marriage. The Bible also says that we should not murder…but since 73′ with Roe vs.Wade, 60 million innocent babies have been aborted, the Holocaust of WWII pales in comparison.So maybe the problem is just plain old defiance against the moral teachings of our Holy Father….and the Bible states clearly that the “wages of sin, is death’…..it has almost assuredly killed this great nation as we have lost the blessings of a benevolent God…..
BB, I sadly agree that much of our nation has lost its moral compass.
But to make reading the Bible a required activity in public schools (even though that would really open up some eyes and hearts) would be an absolute disaster for any and all future local or national conservative candidates.
The answer lies in really growing the financial and active support for private and religious schools combined with a nationwide availability of things like school choice and charter and magnet schools. Add to that a much easier way of getting rid of bad teachers who consistently cheat our kids and deprive them of a better future.
It also wouldn’t hurt if people of faith made a more consistent effort to lead by example and maybe read their own Bibles a little more often.
As if “caring” is all that is needed to get the job done. My mother probably care more about my recent oral surgery than my dentist. Does that mean I want my mother performing oral surgey on me?
An experiment in perspective: what if the Democrats weren’t looking for a handout but attempting to band together without other citizens to deal with problems that they can’t deal with as individuals? A system of health care that covers everybody is not, after all, a free lunch; and Democrats are damned well aware of that fact. Everybody pays, at least to the extent that they can. You guys think of such a system as a way of abdicating responsibility. Democrats, including me, think of it as a way of taking responsibility both for ourselves and our countrymen. (It’s also a way of dealing with the disastrous economic consequences of America’s incredibly bad health system, worst in the industrialized world. Even those with an I’m-alright-Jack outlook on life should recognize that.)
The problem, Jim, is that by trying to “band together with other citizens” by using government, you’re resorting to the use of force.
Insurance companies are also examples of people banding together with other citizens in order to help each other; they are voluntary. Fraternal organizations (Masons, Moose, etc.) used to provide insurance and informal assistance to their members; they are also voluntary. Charity — religious and secular — is also voluntary.
What we cannot understand is why you insist on using the threat of violence to force EVERYONE into your schemes, and particularly why you insist on forcing people to violate their moral beliefs.
(And if the left knows it’s not a free lunch WHY IS IT SOLD THAT WAY?!)
The Health reform wasn’t sold as a free lunch. I was listening. You need to distinguish reality from your narrative in which the other side is made up of a lazy freeloaders who don’t really know what’s good for them being manipulated by unscrupulous demagogues who are just using them, etc. In fact, as is particularly obvious to the working poor, the current system is literally deadly for many Americans since emergency rooms and random charity simply aren’t a good way of delivering health care and never will be.
Conservatives supposedly value historical experience. Well, there’s a hell of a lot of that re health care, a good hundred years of experience. Which is why I sometimes feel that arguing for health care reform is rather like arguing in favor of indoor plumbing to people who, for some inexplicable ideological reason, insist that we should crap outdoors. All the health care systems that deliver a good result at an affordable price are universal for well understood reasons. Some of them really are socialized medicine (Britain, for example) but most of ‘em are insurance schemes (France, Germany, many others). What they all have in common is some version of the individual mandate because in the absence of that, none of them could work. Calling the individual mandate violence is a hair hysterical isn’t it?
By the way, your “forcing people to violate their moral beliefs” bit is pretty rich coming from a Conservative who, I’m guessing, has no problem at all forcing their religious beliefs on everybody by outlawing abortion and giving tax immunities to churches. What you call “forcing people to violate their moral beliefs” always seems to come down to denying some church or other the right to inflict their beliefs on others. If the Democrats were obliging anybody to use contraception or have an abortion, that would be quite different.
Jim,
I demand that you do not do the following things:
- Rape
- Kill
- Steal
- Enslave another human being
Am I “forcing my beliefs” on you? Where do you think the basis for law, any law, comes from? It is a shared moral decision.
Answer this: Was it wrong for the North to “force their beliefs” on the South by spilling their own blood and treasure to free enslaved men, women and children who they had never met? Or should they have stood by and done nothing? Answer please.
Hey we agree. Law is based on shared moral decisions. That’s what the last election was about and why a universal health care system isn’t a violent imposition.
Conservatives obviously want to impose sectarian religious ideas on people who don’t share their faith. Right to life, for example, is pretty clearly based on a sacred biology, which is about as rational as transubstantiation. And making it hard for people to get contraception also has a religious rationale. What it is missing is a secular one.
By the way, the women who were upset that their insurance wouldn’t cover contraception were absolutely not asking for a government handout. They were asking to be able to pay for insurance that covered contraception. You conservatives want to give some bishops the right to tell them what they can or cannot buy. The hell with that.
It’s called freedom of religion, Jim. Contraception is against our religion. We believe that using contraception or helping someone else use contraception is a mortal sin, meaning that it places your soul in danger of Hell. BTW, Catholic hospitals have 30% of the hospital beds in the country, and we WILL shut them down if forced to choose between shutting them down and obeying the administration.
“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.”
“If tempted by something that feels “altruistic,” examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!”
As written by the master himself, Robert Anson Heinlein from “Time Enough For Love” the Notebook of Lazarus Long.
I “care” for my dog because I love him and he is dependent upon me and will always be dependent on me. He will never be able to fully care for himself. I “cared” for my children with they were under my roof because they were dependent upon me.
However, the difference between my pets and my children is that the most unhealthy thing I could do as loving parent would be to teach my children to be dependent upon me. That is one generation from complete dependency, followed then by breakdown and chaos.
There is no better example of the myopia and false promise of “caring” for someone than the Great Society. It has destroyed the black family, black community.
True caring for someone is teaching them self reliance. I have no problem giving someone a hand up. I have a huge problem of buying someone for a handout.
And that is exactly what the Democratic Party has accomplished.
One must understand that to some people “cares about me” means “will give me stuff.” Abstractions like wanting people to be independent functioning adults doing the best they can in a difficult world does not compute.
I wish Romney had asked 0bama at one of the debates: (1) Why do you have relatives living in New York City on the dole in public housing at US tax payer expense? (2) Why is your half brother living in a packing crate in Nairobi, unable to pay for needed medical care?
0bama may care, but he shows his care only by spending money he takes from others.
I think you all are conflating two different words. “Caring” means all of the things associated with puppies and children (and grandchildren) and wives and husbands and lovers, etc etc. “Compassionate” means having pity for another’s misfortune – not laziness, genuine misfortune – and having the charity to give of one’s own resources to assist a person in need. Caring doesn’t mean taking from others and giving to anyone who holds out their hand. Charity doesn’t mean supporting able-bodied people for their lifetimes, their children and grandchildren with money taken from those who work, earn, save and build.
As may be, the bottom line is that progressives-democrats-liberals are all skilled at talking about charity and caring, but their actions are all accomplished with other people’s resources, taken by force … taxation. To those of you who list your charitable actions and denigrate those who do not, I remind you of the passage in the Bible – forgot the citation – that goes something like this, “The Pharisee stood near to the Veil of the Temple, looking upward, and prayed saying, ‘I thank you Lord, that I am not like others’. The publican, casting his gaze downward, prayed, “Lord, have mercy upon me, a sinner.”
It is not the “cares” that is relevant to these voters. It is the “ME”.
There are two types of leftists. The first is the “average joe” leftist who does care about other people and wants “the rich” (not himself) to care for them. The second is the powerful/political leftist who, basically, is a sociopath. These are the ones running the country now and they care only about accumulating ever increasing wealth and power for themselves.
When you stop and think about it, you have to give these sociopaths credit, the caring meme is absolutely brilliant! For anybody who understands feedback mechanisms this is perfection. As the sociopaths implement laws, regulations and policies designed to impoverish ever-increasing numbers of Americans, these newly-poor citizens will be seeking politicians who “care” for them and “feel their pain”. It becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. Not only do the sociopaths get to confiscate most of their victims wealth, but they also get their votes so they continue their plundering until they’ve amassed everything for themselves. Brilliant.
Your article is not really saying anything…by rejecting the rather radical assumptions you so glibly take for granted, eg that “cares about people like me” automatically means “low or no income”, seems absurd. I for one identify more with the label “college student working full time to continue my education and support a family”. Why assume people all identify primarily with class values? It’s a bit presumptuous. The rest of the article as it stands really says nothing. You make a handful of doubtful assertions with no evidence in support. But this isn’t an intellectual argument you’ve presented, it’s simply partisan self-consolation. For what it’s worth, neither of these parties care about people as such. The difference between the parties is grossly exaggerated and only betrays an utter lack of intellectual integrity. Of course, this may be hard to stomach if your worldview is built around this false dichotomy, but I assure you, the world is bigger than these partisan and (and frankly rather lazy) oversimplifications suggest. Not trying to change minds here, just asking folks to maybe remember sometimes somebody may wander onto your propaganda sites and genuinely wish to find some honest-to-goodness intelligent arguments and discussions. There is a broad array of literature on empathy and its place (or lack thereof) in politics. Shame this seems to me little more than a place for the disappointed to find some vague and ill-defined sense of moral superiority. Just don’t fool yourselves into thinking you’ve earned it. For that, real intellectual work is required.
What a crock of shit. It’s scary how delusional the arguments are because they sound intelligent and well thought out. The reason Romney lost is because he tried to define himself with strength and conviction in each and every vacillating position he touted, all in an attempt to win an election he didn’t want. Don’t confuse leftist with liberal. They are both defined in the dictionary and are not synonyms. Fortunately, this article is obscure, as is this blog, and will be convincing only for a few. Unfortunately, few will notice the gap in rationality and the rise of the hysteria contained in it. This blog is the Neo-Con version of UFO blogs.
David gets it. Conservatives, not just GOP candidates, need to constantly make the case not just that we care about this or that person, but make the case that the Lefties, the Liberals, the Progressivists, the Democrats, the Socialists, the media talking heads (birm) don’t care about you. They care about power and the money and fame that comes almost effortlessly from holding it. Demonize the Left.
I work in a preschool poverty program started by LBJ. There is a great difference between the “care” the welfare poor and regular poor care about. My grandmother was poor. she made sure each of her 5 sons completed high school, attended religious instructions, helped look after and teach their younger siblings and loved their country.She worked by knitting at home and selling it to support her family. The welfare poor I see don’t bother to volunteer in school even though they don’t go to work. Their kids don’t know their last names but can tell who had Ralph Lauren Polo boots,They don’t know what the letters are named but can sing all of JZ and BIonce lyrics Many of these people are driving up to school in cars they own,with their designer nails and fifty dollar hair weaves.They don’t seem to love their country but love Obama. And they complain they should get more.
Ah, caring. The idea that what the poor need most is the affection of liberals.
Anyone who think “conservatives” are caring need only look at the tone of most of the comments on this particular thread to see how wrong that thought is. Liberal/conservative has nothing to do with it. Being human is what matters, and what I see is neither human nor humane. You’re going to have a very tough time trying the convince people you demonize that you are on their side and those untrustworthy Liberals aren’t. So go ahead — try to convince me, since I take Social Security and Medicare and paid for both for 45 years, that you care. Gonna be tough when what I hear from “conservatives” is that I’m enslaved by my reliance on social programs, and that I need to give all that up to remain a real American.