jeffs
December 1st 2007, 09:56 PM
The ideas I’m about to present have been ruminating in my head for some time now I have finally decided to go about putting pen to paper (actually fingers to keyboard) in an effort to spell out what I think. This essay is about what I call the psychology inherent in liberal (often Democrat) thought and why this group of people think as they do.
Let’s start with taxes. Here I think there is a strong distinction between liberal and conservative. To the conservative, businesses exist for the welfare of the business owner and the owner is entitled to whatever proceeds he/she/it can muster from the profits of said business. For instance, if my boss pays me $25,000 while he reaps $100,000 for that business, he has no obligation to reduce that difference short of more pay I can get from him of doing my job well and, perhaps, going elsewhere to get better pay. Liberals, rather, I think- in large, Democrats - have trouble with such deficits between business owner profits and the pay of people like myself. To them such business owner excesses represent greed on the side of the owners and it is government’s responsibility to alleviate such immoral conditions rather than letting the marketplace of workers alleviate these conditions. This explains why, most often on the left, Walmart is slammed for being an semi-immoral company because it’s rate of pay is so small compared to, for instance, that of manufacturing entities. The expanses of Walmart signifies to the liberal a company keeping too much of its profits which it should be giving to its workers. This also explains the growth of the idea of a tax on oil companies which would most likely be passed on to the consumer anyway. This tax represents a punitive tax on an entity or entities that are keeping too much money.
Liberals tend to think the same way about benefits and other perks workers get. It is a businesses’ responsibility to take care of workers irrespective of market conditions that enables workers to demand the benefits they get. Hence the allusion to the “right to health care” or some deviation thereof – a concept, I seem to remember, Bill Clinton echoing. Of course a “right” is something then that cannot be infringed and puts any debate as far as what benefits businesses should offer out of reach. I don’t see Republicans and conservatives speaking of a “right” to health care or a “right to abortion” because they don’t believe any such rights exist, metaphysically or governmentally or constitutionally. Rather, they stress the limited things we can do the get these to the workers and the market conditions that might allow workers to get benefits like these, but we must always stress the harm that can be placed on a business by when we burden it with giving away more benefits than it can afford.
Another place conservatives part company with liberals is ethics Liberals don’t believe there are any codes of conduct that are absolute. David Barash, liberal apologist, muses:
The issue of abortion, along with fundamentalists' headstrong insistence on universal acceptance of their moral vision, threatens this coalition of economic yuppies and the religious right. Liberals, by contrast, believe that government should protect rights, not promote private virtue. They are not at all sure that they received the one revealed truth, like Moses returning from the mountain. On the other hand, moralists and religious fundamentalists have no such doubts: They are right and everyone else is wrong. Where liberals fear to tread, they rush in with the certainty of the True Believer. "
Of course what is the decreed constitutional right to abortion – irrespective of the ideas of the people in any state much less what conservatives think – an effort by liberals to rush in with the certainty of the true believer? There is doubtful metaphysical justification for abortion much less constitutional ones, but that doesn’t stop the liberal in declaring this right. Notice Barash’s sleight of hand in the above quote. Of course he wants government to protect rights, not virtue. By asking government to promote virtue, it might be put in a place where it might promote policies that might contradict the right to abortion – like promoting chastity, for instance.
Liberals also run into contradiction when discussing the innate nature of what is normally called “sin” in theistic terminology. To the conservative, sin is part of our nature and only a strong moral compass enforced and backed up by parents, friends, and local government can keep one mindful of our obligations. To liberals, sinful defects are not inherent in humans but are created in large by political and economic bodies. Barash again:
Just as liberals have long held that war could be prevented by certain actions . . . they have been unimpressed with the claim that failing such activities, human beings will naturally slide into war, like a rock acted upon by gravity. Thus, liberals have not bought the argument that war is caused by human sinfulness. They also hold little with innate nastiness, depravity, and free-floating evil. Instead, liberals tend to emphasize the excessive power of political states, psychological "state of mind" theories as well as the role of misunderstandings, and the undue influence of a military/economic/political elite. For many liberals, wars are often analogous to automobile accidents: Most people do not willingly drive their cars into one another. Rather, if they come to grief it is because they were driving too fast, or because of faulty brakes, poor road conditions, insufficient attentiveness, or bad judgment (by oneself or an oncoming driver.) "
And how might these political institutions become evil other than the fact sin is a part of our nature and in institutions where people mobile en masse this nature often manifests in evil deeds?
Here you see the link with abortion. To the liberal, people do not become pregnant by sinful (and certainly not “evil”) behavior. Rather, they are in a situation that causes them to become pregnant – lack of knowledge or just plain inability to control their sexual impulses. To the liberal, rather than provide impetus for them to be chaste – their mistake must be fixed (abortion) and it is the government’s responsibility to make that happen and make sure every state is on board with this concept. Hence, to Barash, it is not the government’s responsibility to tell women and men to refrain from sexual conduct they are incapable of refraining from doing. This would be, per Barash, a case of the government promoting virtue.
This sort of philosophy makes it difficult to deal with genuine evil in, for instance, terrorism. If sinfulness is not an inherent property of humans but something that accrues when people form political and economic entities, then it is necessary for us to teach these people the errors of their ways, negotiate with them, and provide them reasons not to do harmful things. War is never an option and certainly punishment is not when they can be cured or have their mind changed. To a conservative, people often are not open to changing their mind and often war is necessary before peace can develop. This is not to suggest war is always necessary but that sometimes it is because people will not and cannot change their minds because of their desire to pursue ideology.
I cite here a brief blurb from an upcoming book of mine on the philosophy of evolution:
Alison Hornstein's essay about the lack of moral outrage at the attacks to the towers in New York hits the nail on the head. Hornstein, a student at Yale, says many students had candlelight vigils, but by September 12 the shock began to fade. Fellow students of Hornstein's did not revel in the wrongs of such an attack but instead spoke of the differences between our culture and that of the perpetrators which might have caused them to do such an dreadful act. (Notice the similarity between this comment and what I mentioned in my previous discussion of Barash. The assumption in the minds of the fellow students of Hornstein=s is that if you eliminate the misunderstandings between cultures, the fighting will stop. This ignores the fact some people may prefer to fight though there are no misunderstandings.) Such lame reactions, she says, make it apparent that her generation "is uncomfortable assessing, or even asking, whether a moral wrong has taken place." What Hornstein does blame for such a lack of ability to condemn is a school system where multiculturalism is taught at the expense of moral lessons. Her third-grade class read a story about a boy kicking another and the teacher led the class in a discussion of why the boy might have done such a thing. That these feelings did not justify his actions escaped the discussion. Hornstein is glad she was taught not to judge people who eat odd foods, like hoofs or cow brains, but does agree with theists that absolute lines should be drawn. What she doesn't say is that only within a theistic understanding of reality such lines can be drawn. (Hornstein’s essay is in Newsweek (December 17, 2001)
I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh one day when I worked nights and could actually listen to him. He was engaging a liberal who questioned our military buildup. Limbaugh reasoned as usual: our buildup keeps the peace because those who are prone to evil will recognize they have nothing to gain from war since we will hit them back. The liberal had a problem with this line of argument and I struggled to find why until he indicated, quite clearly, that it was a military buildup that caused wars not people that used a military buildup to cause one. Here at least I think this liberal parts company with Barash in that people DO slide into depravity at times, like a rock rolling down a hill. Yet part of the assumption was the same: it is institutions that cause people to do ill to others, not people themselves and hence a military buildup causes wars. Eliminating the military buildup would prevent a war. This ignores the fact people will often fight with whatever they have at their disposal – whether guns, knives, or their fists if need be.
This post has become rather lengthy and I'd appreciate any ideas anyone has.
Jeff STueber, member Lutheran Science Institute and author of "Refuting Atheism"
webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber
Let’s start with taxes. Here I think there is a strong distinction between liberal and conservative. To the conservative, businesses exist for the welfare of the business owner and the owner is entitled to whatever proceeds he/she/it can muster from the profits of said business. For instance, if my boss pays me $25,000 while he reaps $100,000 for that business, he has no obligation to reduce that difference short of more pay I can get from him of doing my job well and, perhaps, going elsewhere to get better pay. Liberals, rather, I think- in large, Democrats - have trouble with such deficits between business owner profits and the pay of people like myself. To them such business owner excesses represent greed on the side of the owners and it is government’s responsibility to alleviate such immoral conditions rather than letting the marketplace of workers alleviate these conditions. This explains why, most often on the left, Walmart is slammed for being an semi-immoral company because it’s rate of pay is so small compared to, for instance, that of manufacturing entities. The expanses of Walmart signifies to the liberal a company keeping too much of its profits which it should be giving to its workers. This also explains the growth of the idea of a tax on oil companies which would most likely be passed on to the consumer anyway. This tax represents a punitive tax on an entity or entities that are keeping too much money.
Liberals tend to think the same way about benefits and other perks workers get. It is a businesses’ responsibility to take care of workers irrespective of market conditions that enables workers to demand the benefits they get. Hence the allusion to the “right to health care” or some deviation thereof – a concept, I seem to remember, Bill Clinton echoing. Of course a “right” is something then that cannot be infringed and puts any debate as far as what benefits businesses should offer out of reach. I don’t see Republicans and conservatives speaking of a “right” to health care or a “right to abortion” because they don’t believe any such rights exist, metaphysically or governmentally or constitutionally. Rather, they stress the limited things we can do the get these to the workers and the market conditions that might allow workers to get benefits like these, but we must always stress the harm that can be placed on a business by when we burden it with giving away more benefits than it can afford.
Another place conservatives part company with liberals is ethics Liberals don’t believe there are any codes of conduct that are absolute. David Barash, liberal apologist, muses:
The issue of abortion, along with fundamentalists' headstrong insistence on universal acceptance of their moral vision, threatens this coalition of economic yuppies and the religious right. Liberals, by contrast, believe that government should protect rights, not promote private virtue. They are not at all sure that they received the one revealed truth, like Moses returning from the mountain. On the other hand, moralists and religious fundamentalists have no such doubts: They are right and everyone else is wrong. Where liberals fear to tread, they rush in with the certainty of the True Believer. "
Of course what is the decreed constitutional right to abortion – irrespective of the ideas of the people in any state much less what conservatives think – an effort by liberals to rush in with the certainty of the true believer? There is doubtful metaphysical justification for abortion much less constitutional ones, but that doesn’t stop the liberal in declaring this right. Notice Barash’s sleight of hand in the above quote. Of course he wants government to protect rights, not virtue. By asking government to promote virtue, it might be put in a place where it might promote policies that might contradict the right to abortion – like promoting chastity, for instance.
Liberals also run into contradiction when discussing the innate nature of what is normally called “sin” in theistic terminology. To the conservative, sin is part of our nature and only a strong moral compass enforced and backed up by parents, friends, and local government can keep one mindful of our obligations. To liberals, sinful defects are not inherent in humans but are created in large by political and economic bodies. Barash again:
Just as liberals have long held that war could be prevented by certain actions . . . they have been unimpressed with the claim that failing such activities, human beings will naturally slide into war, like a rock acted upon by gravity. Thus, liberals have not bought the argument that war is caused by human sinfulness. They also hold little with innate nastiness, depravity, and free-floating evil. Instead, liberals tend to emphasize the excessive power of political states, psychological "state of mind" theories as well as the role of misunderstandings, and the undue influence of a military/economic/political elite. For many liberals, wars are often analogous to automobile accidents: Most people do not willingly drive their cars into one another. Rather, if they come to grief it is because they were driving too fast, or because of faulty brakes, poor road conditions, insufficient attentiveness, or bad judgment (by oneself or an oncoming driver.) "
And how might these political institutions become evil other than the fact sin is a part of our nature and in institutions where people mobile en masse this nature often manifests in evil deeds?
Here you see the link with abortion. To the liberal, people do not become pregnant by sinful (and certainly not “evil”) behavior. Rather, they are in a situation that causes them to become pregnant – lack of knowledge or just plain inability to control their sexual impulses. To the liberal, rather than provide impetus for them to be chaste – their mistake must be fixed (abortion) and it is the government’s responsibility to make that happen and make sure every state is on board with this concept. Hence, to Barash, it is not the government’s responsibility to tell women and men to refrain from sexual conduct they are incapable of refraining from doing. This would be, per Barash, a case of the government promoting virtue.
This sort of philosophy makes it difficult to deal with genuine evil in, for instance, terrorism. If sinfulness is not an inherent property of humans but something that accrues when people form political and economic entities, then it is necessary for us to teach these people the errors of their ways, negotiate with them, and provide them reasons not to do harmful things. War is never an option and certainly punishment is not when they can be cured or have their mind changed. To a conservative, people often are not open to changing their mind and often war is necessary before peace can develop. This is not to suggest war is always necessary but that sometimes it is because people will not and cannot change their minds because of their desire to pursue ideology.
I cite here a brief blurb from an upcoming book of mine on the philosophy of evolution:
Alison Hornstein's essay about the lack of moral outrage at the attacks to the towers in New York hits the nail on the head. Hornstein, a student at Yale, says many students had candlelight vigils, but by September 12 the shock began to fade. Fellow students of Hornstein's did not revel in the wrongs of such an attack but instead spoke of the differences between our culture and that of the perpetrators which might have caused them to do such an dreadful act. (Notice the similarity between this comment and what I mentioned in my previous discussion of Barash. The assumption in the minds of the fellow students of Hornstein=s is that if you eliminate the misunderstandings between cultures, the fighting will stop. This ignores the fact some people may prefer to fight though there are no misunderstandings.) Such lame reactions, she says, make it apparent that her generation "is uncomfortable assessing, or even asking, whether a moral wrong has taken place." What Hornstein does blame for such a lack of ability to condemn is a school system where multiculturalism is taught at the expense of moral lessons. Her third-grade class read a story about a boy kicking another and the teacher led the class in a discussion of why the boy might have done such a thing. That these feelings did not justify his actions escaped the discussion. Hornstein is glad she was taught not to judge people who eat odd foods, like hoofs or cow brains, but does agree with theists that absolute lines should be drawn. What she doesn't say is that only within a theistic understanding of reality such lines can be drawn. (Hornstein’s essay is in Newsweek (December 17, 2001)
I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh one day when I worked nights and could actually listen to him. He was engaging a liberal who questioned our military buildup. Limbaugh reasoned as usual: our buildup keeps the peace because those who are prone to evil will recognize they have nothing to gain from war since we will hit them back. The liberal had a problem with this line of argument and I struggled to find why until he indicated, quite clearly, that it was a military buildup that caused wars not people that used a military buildup to cause one. Here at least I think this liberal parts company with Barash in that people DO slide into depravity at times, like a rock rolling down a hill. Yet part of the assumption was the same: it is institutions that cause people to do ill to others, not people themselves and hence a military buildup causes wars. Eliminating the military buildup would prevent a war. This ignores the fact people will often fight with whatever they have at their disposal – whether guns, knives, or their fists if need be.
This post has become rather lengthy and I'd appreciate any ideas anyone has.
Jeff STueber, member Lutheran Science Institute and author of "Refuting Atheism"
webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber