The Other Side
posted at 9:48 am on May 5, 2009 by Doctor Zero
printer-friendly
Those of us who strongly oppose President Obama’s policies often find ourselves wondering how anyone could possibly be in favor of them. It’s an important question to resolve, as we work to recover from the political losses of the past few years. In a country where 51% of the popular vote is considered a landslide, and some of the worst congressmen come from districts that only cast a hundred thousand votes in each election, understanding the other side can be as important as understanding ourselves. Conservatives who hope to bring the Republican Party together on a unified message should give some thought to the audience awaiting that message.
The bulk of Democrat voters are not indentured members of the dependency class… at least, not yet. Some of them are liberals simply because they hate conservatives. They are surrounded by an academic and media culture that works hard to cast any objection to fashionable liberalism as so far beyond the pale that its enemies can only be evil, selfish, or primitive. Many liberals have a particular aversion to anything that smacks of religion, which they regard in exactly the same way that college students view the military draft. Some people fall into the liberal camp because of a single issue, because they find the conservative position on that issue to be intolerable: abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, or similar hot-button topics. Often the liberal is misinformed about the conservative position on such an issue, which is not entirely due to media bias, since Republicans haven’t done a very compelling or consistent job of explaining those positions over the last twenty years.
Republican politicians often forget that conservatism is an argument, while liberalism is a promise. The conservative champions both the moral and practical superiority of liberty and individualism. The liberal promises tangible rewards in exchange for votes. The conservative argument will never be over, because any free-market system will always include a certain population who fare poorly. No matter how small that population is, or how much the overall wealth of society eases the burden of their poverty, they will always be extremely receptive to the seduction of collective politics: You’re not responsible for your lot in life. You were cheated. The wealth of others is unfair. Give us the “freedom” that wasn’t doing you any good anyway, and we will sharpen it into a weapon against those who took advantage of you. Give us your undying support, and you’ll never have to worry about feeling confused, guilty, or inadequate again. Voting for the Democrat ticket will fully discharge your moral and intellectual duty as a citizen – we’ll take it from there. In fact, we’ve got ACORN representatives standing by to fill that ballot out for you. You have a “right” to housing, a job, health care, a college education, easy credit, and a host of other benefits, and the liberal promises to provide all of these things, while making nameless rich people pick up the tab.
Liberal socialism is the ongoing critique of capitalism’s imperfections. To the casual center-left voter, the world seems overwhelming, confusing, and unfair. This was never more obvious than in the financial crisis that erupted last fall, when a large number of citizens became very angry and frightened about a crisis they couldn’t begin to understand. They just knew something terrible was happening, and they demanded action. The Democrats stepped in with a ready-made narrative, which the Republicans suicidally left unchallenged, and offered the exact same solutions they have offered to every problem since the days of FDR: massive government spending and control. Conservatives found this dismaying and horrifying – who in their right minds would solve the problem Barney Frank created by giving Barney Frank more money and power? But Democrat voters were willing to accept this diagnosis and solution, as they always seem ready to accept liberal solutions, despite a century-long track record of absolute failure… because they need to believe that someone out there knows what they’re doing, and has the answers to the overwhelming problems produced by a complex economy, and packaged by a sensationalist media in love with Big Solutions to Big Problems.
Voters who grew up in the past five decades know there are people smart enough to put men on the moon, create fantastic electronic devices, cure terrible diseases, and riddle out the secrets of the cosmos. They wonder why such intelligence can’t be put to use in reducing unemployment, stimulating the stock market, and making sure everyone has a decent house to live in. When the media tells them the latest Democrat superstar has a brilliant plan to solve everything, and it won’t cost “hard-working American families” a nickel, they’re ready to believe the hype. Barack Obama really was the one they thought they’ve been waiting for… and before him it was Bill Clinton, and his wife, the smartest woman in the world.
We might ask the rank-and-file liberal why he’s so willing to believe slippery, corrupt characters like politicians would be better suited to distribute the wealth of the nation, than the people who earned that wealth. The answer is the talismanic power of democratic elections. The American voter has been raised since childhood to believe voting is a sacred process that confers tremendous moral legitimacy on the winners of elections. Dollar bills are ugly instruments of crass materialism and greed in the hands of private citizens, but they acquire a luminous aura of virtue when handled by an elected official. The liberal voter believes his political leaders are entitled to control whatever portion of their constituents’ wealth they require, because the voters gave them this power, voluntarily. They see ballots as an unlimited power of attorney to act on their behalf. Conservatives view their votes as a way to restrain politicians, while liberals view them as decrees of informed consent.
The liberal is comfortable with members of his Party descending from the heavens in private jets, to lecture citizens on the need to drive tiny fuel-efficient cars, and is untroubled by the spectacle of politicians who amassed vast fortunes through political corruption attacking private citizens for their greed… because those politicians were sanctified through the ritual of the popular vote. You might get a friendly liberal to admit that most politicians are crooks… but he’ll hasten to add that businessmen are all crooks too, and at least the politicians gained their power and comforts through the informed consent of the voters, instead of stealing it from them with elaborate business schemes.
The gulf that divides liberal voters from conservative ideas is a crisis of faith. The liberal voter does not believe the system is fair, or that businessmen operating in a free market will provide the necessities of life that every American is entitled to. The upper class liberal doesn’t have faith in the ability of the poor and downtrodden to seize the opportunities provided by capitalism, and build a better life for themselves. The dependent voter relies upon the benevolence of Big Government because he doesn’t have faith in himself – he sees the competition of the free market as a rigged game he is destined to lose, rather than an exhilarating opportunity. The moralistic liberal has no faith in the judgment or compassion of ordinary people, who are products of a society forever mired in racism, sexism, phobias, and greed. The cynical young liberal thinks he knows what the ultimate goals of a wise and just society should be, and doubts that uneducated, Bible-thumping rednecks will ever arrive at those goals of their own free will. The working-class liberal is fearful that collapsing corporations will leave hordes of unemployed people who won’t be able to find another decent job. High schools and colleges are filled with kids who have been taught to have no faith in the ability of free people to take proper care of their environment.
Above all, every type of liberal has been taught to have absolutely no faith in the intelligence, wisdom, or even basic humanity of Republicans. The long conservative battle against communism, in which liberals were either agnostic or actively rooting for the other side, was a psychosis. The defense of America against a vicious attack was cynically exploited to gain political influence over frightened voters, if not actually perpetrated by agents of the evil Republican hierarchy. The war in Afghanistan was a hopeless battle against the invincible Pashtun warrior, which any fool could see was a futile waste of young American lives. The war in Iraq was a brutal occupation designed to steal their oil. Tax cuts are a scheme to steal money from the Treasury, and stuff it into the pockets of rich Republicans. Social conservatives are shock troops for religious fascists. If some of the liberal conventional wisdom during the last eight years has seemed ridiculously over the top to you, remember that liberals have faith in no one except their political and cultural leadership… which they invest with the authority to renounce the blackness of Clarence Thomas, the womanhood of Sarah Palin, or the humanity of George W. Bush.
This is the challenge for conservative leadership, as it prepares for 2010 and 2012, and meanwhile rallies public opposition to the worst excesses of the Obama Administration: to address the lack of faith in enterprise, tradition, and opportunity that makes Democrat voters willing to settle for the slow, numb, bitter dissolution of the mighty nation their forefathers built through daring and industry. Republicans should remember they’re offering leadership to people who wearily voted for a man they were told they needed a damn good reason to vote against, and who promised them Hope and Change, but delivered absolutely none of either. It’s a mistake to think that people will easily accept painful truths about someone they were told to accept as the only worthy object for what little faith they have left.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The gulf that divides liberal voters from conservative ideas is a crisis of faith.
Great way of putting the cookies on the bottom shelf, as it were. Simplistic, direct, to the point, and 100% accurate.
ladyingray on May 5, 2009 at 9:56 AM
This is an interesting theory Doc, but as with many theories explaining the political split of today’s electorate, I think it only gets at part of the issue.
Naturally many on the left are critical of free markets, but many of them are unwilling to repudiate them completely.
And doesn’t every position require a certain degree of faith? Conservatives, in their support of the free market, have faith that the markets will behave rationally. This is true on average, over time but not always (as has become obvious). Aren’t the left’s fears at least somewhat justified?
I think the split may just have to do with something even more basic – competing beliefs about human nature. The left takes an idealistic approach; that humanity can improve over time and ultimately reject the need to compete for scarce resources and instead embrace altruism. The right believes that greed is a good and necessary motivator, and failing to account for it spells doom for any political system. There’s more to it, but I’d like more discussion. Thoughts?
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Wonderful post again Dr.
“Opportunity of Results” was the term used in my Political Science studies – of which you are explaining detailed and very well.
Conservatives believe that opportunity is is afforded through American values, laws and hard work. Liberals do not believe in this opportunity – which allows them to force wedges between classes, races, religions and cultures. The idea that people are “born downtrodden” is the precedence that lends to government solutions around every corner and what has become known as the current “nanny state”.
Odie1941 on May 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Doc:
Wonderful post and a good & proper start on so many necessary tasks:
* To Rick Moran, et al – what exactly do you believe in and how is it going to win voters over to ‘our’ side of the argument? In other words – enough about what we shouldn’t believe in … what are you people FOR …. and why should anyone be inspired by it?
* To all stripes of conservative – economic / defense / social – the truth of our side of the argument is not self-evident. People motivated by fear – - – - which is very common in our electorate – - – - don’t like risk. The voter who is confident in himself and his future wants government “off my back”; the voter who is afraid wants the government insurance policy. How do you convince a voter he’s capable of taking care of himself and that he’ll be better off if he does it?
Voters who are confident in themselves “don’t want government on my back”; fear
How will you dispel this fear?
BD57 on May 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM
That’s a very good point about the Left being unwilling to completely renounce the free markets. In fact, you could say they really only want to renounce the “free” part. Socialist leaders in the West generally want to keep some form of market capitalism around as a work horse, shackled to a vast state apparatus it drags slowly along behind it. Rank-and-file liberal voters generally wouldn’t say they want to abolish free markets, but they are prepared to accept a very low percentage of actual freedom.
I thought the concept of a lack of faith might be the key to explaining the mindset of a large portion of the persuadable Democrat voters. They’re not hard-core ideologues – how many ordinary people really are? The great stumbling block to presenting them with the conservative argument is their crippling skepticism about traditional institutions, capitalism, and their own prospects for translating economic opportunity into material success. It takes a measure of confidence in yourself, and the other people who share the free market with you, to believe it’s a fair game that everyone has a chance of winning, and that everyone does better as more people participate. The liberal promise that you deserve everything for nothing, paid for people that will still be rich after the government sucks millions of dollars out of them, is always easier to believe – it’s flattering, it requires nothing of the believer beyond his vote, and like any other con job, its victims desperately want it to be true.
I don’t believe it’s impossible to restore enough faith, in a substantial percentage of these Democrats, to give them the courage to turn away from a lie that is rapidly deteriorating before their eyes. I think we’re working against the clock, though. Too many socialist doomsday scenarios are getting ready to play themselves out, nationalized health care among them, and we’re perilously close to the systemic crash at the far end of liberalism’s unsustainable promises. I wrote my post because I thought we might start by reminding Republican leaders how important it is to restore the voters’ faith in themselves, and show them how they can do better things with their freedom than just hand it over to people who promise to take care of them. We’ve had too many years of Republicans who think the path to victory is promising to run the snake-oil wagon a bit more efficiently, and sell a healthier, lower-fat version of the snake oil.
Doctor Zero on May 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I’d argue that this describes most Democrats.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 1:34 PM
No, 365 to 173 electoral votes is considered a landslide.
Your problem is cultural and demographic evolution.
strangelet on May 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Ain’t that the truth, some people simply gravitate to the side that appears stronger, that fights for itself.
Why can’t the RNC figure that out?
Fake8 on May 5, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Sorry, but conservatism is not an “argument”…it is a direction, a policy, a belief.
To say I am a Christian, is not and “argument” but a statement of faith.
So being a conservative is a statement of faith.
The faith that smaller government, less taxes, freedom of education, the education of all, sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and many other ideals.
Your “cute” saying, minimizes what a conservative really is, it is a belief system the we feel better benefits Americans.
Now you may defend that belief system with “arguments”, but the belief is real and profound.
Liberals are the ones that want to “argue” their point, because their system is based on counter arguments, not a a system that is supportive of individual rights.
I am afraid you got it all screwed up Doc….
Arguments are transitory…conservatives thoughts are ideals laid down by our founding fathers.
Best if you just take this post down….but then you would argue you are right. And that’s all it would be, an argument.
right2bright on May 5, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Liberalism thinks it can overcome human nature. Unfortunately it’s about bringing out the worst in it.
Envy
Gluttony
Sloth
Conservatism understands human nature. It wants to bring out the best of it
Respect
Hard work
Strength
Self reliance
blatantblue on May 5, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Rush Limbaugh just said for 20 years people have asked him why the Republicans don’t go on the attack more or defend themselves better. Then he said that when he talks to GOP legislative members about why they don’t go on the offensive more or take principled conservative positions they tell him ‘we won’t get the media coverage if we do’. There in a nutshell you have the problem: the GOP not having faith in the American people that they will find other ways to hear principled messages and cogent arguments by Republicans through other means than the MSM. And to boot Fox News is numero uno and the ratings of the other cable networks are currently going in the tank.
technopeasant on May 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM
So you think some races just naturally want to have their lives run from Washington?
lorien1973 on May 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM
The sad things is that I don’t think eyes will be opened until it is too late.
They can’t let go because it would mean a total collapse of individual faith in the system, yet they can’t hang on either, because it is obvious that the system is going to fail.
I think the term for this phenomenon is cognitive dissonance.
Good insights, Doc.
Otis B on May 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Doctor Zero… though physically impossible and definitely TMI, I would like to have your babies. Thank U.
LibTired on May 5, 2009 at 1:49 PM
As usual, love your posts, Doctor Zero. We have had conversations in the past about similar issues, too. I do agree with most of what you said.
However, I am not sure whether this appeal to Republican politicians will be useful.
The snake oil is actually what politicians aim for. All politicians crave for power, and the bigger the government, the more the power. Hence, speaking strictly from a selfish viewpoint (no reason to believe politicians are altruistic), it makes more sense for a more talented politician to go with a party that favors big government as opposed to one that favors the exact opposite. This results in two issues : (1) smart people coming into the fold want more of the “snake oil”, or (2) less talented politicians join the fold.
This has resulted in the GOP gradually succumbing to the big government frenzy that we saw during the Bush years. I can envision no scenario (meaning a political force winning in both houses of Congress and White House) that can effectively tamp down the increase of government. Unless of course, we get rid of politicians completely and have online elections for everything (I know, we talked about it before, it can be a mess – at least initially).
peter_griffin on May 5, 2009 at 1:51 PM
This is true. But I’d go even further. Not only are they not ideologues, they haven’t even given much thought to their political leanings. We’re abnormal for even thinking about this stuff as much as we do.
One of the biggest challenges may be lie in shaking off voter apathy to the political process. Then the persuasion may begin. Or maybe an infusion of confidence will catch their interest. Who knows?
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 5, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Govt interference with the market is proof that the market will sometimes behave irrationally?
The free market is not perfect, and no rational person argues that it is. It is however vastly superior to any planned economy.
Before you can justify govt interference in the market, you first have to prove that govt ineficiancies are less than market ineficiancies, and that is an impossible task.
MarkTheGreat on May 5, 2009 at 1:53 PM
But, the “belief” that you speak of, is borne out of certain arguments that Doctor Zero talks about – like success of free markets and failure of big government bureacracies, right?
peter_griffin on May 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM
technopeasant on May 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM
The problem with elites, both ours and theirs, is that they have no faith in average people.
And it shows.
MarkTheGreat on May 5, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Republicans/conservatives can’t imagine how democrats/liberals can think the way they do.
Democrats/liberals can’t imagine how republicans/conservatives can think the way they do.
Thus has it ever been, thus shall it always be.
LODGE4 on May 5, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Well, there is a theoretical result that shows purely free market system (perfect competition) will eventually create a Pareto distribution of wealth, eventually triggering popular unrest, leading to government (read people, in a democracy) intervention. So, I guess it all depends on what your definition of efficiency is, mathematically – if all you are considering is the growth in GDP, you are right – however, if you consider standard deviation of the incomes, then you are not.
peter_griffin on May 5, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Man…
OTFM
Typhoon on May 5, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Cmon, it’s not that bleak. Most people are really concerned about the *effects* of policies and much less about ideologies, so if they don’t see an election helping their wallets, the scale will tip the other way. That is why we have very swift changes in political landscape in our country.
peter_griffin on May 5, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Wow. You read that and you realize “This is just some commenter on a blog.” Yet a single paragraph of Doc Zero’s essay is worth twenty op-ed pieces by a Frum or Brooks upon the “troubles of conservatism.”
The lack of talent on the conservative bench in politics is nothing compared to the vacuity of our elite “conservative” critics.
George Orwell on May 5, 2009 at 2:05 PM
I have some sympathy with liberals for this observation, but as you say, their solutions are the same old poison. The financial crisis came from a fusion of large government and large business interests. The near constant turmoil of a 24/7 world and large-scale corporatism are factors in the atomization of communities and family life (though not totally to blame by any means). This was not the norm in the post WWII period.
The first task in any case will be to restore some semblance of limited constitutional government with representatives much more connected to the electorate and nationhood. Next, there needs to be some recognition of the need to discourage “too big to fail.” These huge financial entities cause too much turmoil when they fail and failure depended on political connections. Many are failing anyway.
I hate to admit it, but like liberals, I have little faith in such huge concentrations of economic power, just as I and fellow conservatives have little faith in huge governmental powers. Decentralization is my watchword, but it also applies to business.
Tricks and deception in such things as the credit card industry lead me to believe that there must be checks and balances that sometimes come from government. Decentralization means more of this goes back to the states. Anti-trust law is not without its merits, minus such punitive things as high taxes. Market-earned monopolies aren’t necessarily bad things, but abuse of monopoly power is. Megalomania is a human risk not confined to government.
I don’t want conservatives to become liberals, but maybe it’s time to look at some these pestilent stressors and acknowledge that some conservatives fell for the same concept of extreme equality as liberals. Many thrive and succeed in a high stress environment, while others have values they cherish more than an enhanced personal bottom line.
Doctor Zero, thanks for your thought inspiring article. Gotta leave now.
Feedie on May 5, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I think you’re taking the term “argument” a bit differently than I mean it. Arguments don’t have to be hostile, or futile. An argument is a process of persuasion. A sizable portion of the electorate is willing to listen to the argument put forth by conservatism, if we are willing to make it with passion and logic.
It shows no disrespect to your heartfelt beliefs to say that in a free society, you will need to persuade other people to adopt them, if you wish to expand their reach and influence. Liberalism persuades with a promise, which is simple, direct, and false. The conservative has a system of freedom and liberty to defend, against an ideology that will never stop attacking it.
The task ahead of you is not “arguing” to convince everyone you’re a good Christian. The task is making the argument that your Christian beliefs can illuminate a free and prosperous society that does not necessarily share them. Or, you could withdraw from the arena of ideas, keep to yourself, and watch the rest of our nation degrade as you use the power of your beliefs to nurture your own family and fellow believers. That doesn’t strike me as a truly Christian attitude, and in any event, I don’t believe Obama and his followers will leave you the option of keeping to yourself for very much longer.
Doctor Zero on May 5, 2009 at 2:38 PM
The steady drip… drip… drip of the theme: smaller government, free markets, and individual freedom and prosperity for all. It’s easy to see how what is going on now is defiling every element of this message. We need spokespeople who are not in Congress. We need captains of industry who believe in this message to stand up and speak out. People pay attention to the T. Boone Pickens’ and Bill Gates’ of the world. Surely they would champion this message. Or would Bill Gates say, “Gee, I think having Obama and the government run Microsoft is a good thing?”
kens on May 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Oh the free market is incredibly efficient. It’s just incredibly unforgiving if you do something stupid. And the sad truth is that a rather large cross section of the population is stupid most of the time, and most of us are stupid at least some of the time.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Not the social conservative. The social conservative champions the moral and practical superiority of strict conformity to a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle.
In a healthy economy, this wouldn’t be enough to win any elections. A modest program of welfare for the desperately poor protects the free market from socialist overtures during economic crises. Welfare is not socialism. Neither are the other spillover benefits the government provides, like the highway system, public education, and the courts.
Compassionate conservatism could have succeeded along these line, if only the politicians had been more interested in helping the genuinely poor than subsidizing home loans to the borderline middle-class.
RightOFLeft on May 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Our challenge is to educate the growing masses of non-whites about the need for respnsible spending. If we focus on getting poor minorities interested in learning how to start a business and run it right, appriciation of expense dollars will be a result. Jack Kemps enterprize zones would help the minorities start businesses, but intense thought leadership from a Republican business developement organization could make the difference.
Something stronger than The SBA.
saiga on May 5, 2009 at 2:50 PM
There are a large number of fairly successful entrepreneurs in the Hispanic community…
peter_griffin on May 5, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Those are interesting points. I’ve always thought one of the worst aspects of Obama-style corporate statism is that the government can’t effectively fulfill its job as an honest, impartial regulator when it’s an active participant in the markets. In a free society with free markets, the government should increase consumer and investor confidence, by protecting them against the worst excesses of illegal and fraudulent behavior. Obama has been destroying confidence by invalidating contractual agreements, nullifying the judgment of market forces, and distorting the value of money by pouring it on politically favored “stimulus” targets, leaving titanic piles of debt in his wake.
I wouldn’t disagree with the need to make adequate provisions for the truly disadvantaged. The citizens of an advanced, prosperous democracy will never be willing to watch poor people die of hunger in the streets, or waste away without urgently needed medical care. The problem is that welfare *has* been socialism for my entire lifetime.
Even if we can return to being a free people thriving in free markets, with the needs of our least fortunate citizens comfortably taken care of, it won’t be long before “community organizers” begin trying to convince those citizens they aren’t nearly comfortable enough. That’s what I meant when I said conservatism is an argument, and the argument will never truly be over.. Collective politics will remain a challenge that free men and women must be well-prepared to answer.
Doctor Zero on May 5, 2009 at 3:08 PM
I can’t wait to be able to tell my friend “I knew Doctor Zero back before anyone even knew who he was”.
Security Mom on May 5, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Dr. Zero should be required reading for every politician who wants the Conservative vote………..
Seven Percent Solution on May 5, 2009 at 3:22 PM
How? By welfare, I’m talking about food stamps, public housing, medicare, things like that. Very few people actually qualify for those benefits, and nobody who has survived on them really wants to go back to it. Hardly anybody who doesn’t need them wants to live that way, either, because there’s such a social stigma attached to it and it’s such a meager existence.
Yes, conservatism is an argument, but it also has to be a political movement. It’s pointless to sit around ruminating about how disastrous Obama’s policies will be while there’s nobody in congress to vote against them. Basically, conservatives are going to have to offer a more attractive compromise, and they’re going to have to do it now, or suffer the consequences of some very dangerous policies.
RightOFLeft on May 5, 2009 at 3:42 PM
OMG. Spot on. If you don’t immediately recognize every Liberal you know, in this essay, you are a Liberal. Just what I was thinking earlier today – Liberals truly are society’s losers.
gopmom on May 5, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Very insightful, Doctor Zero. It appears you have removed the last layer from the mind of the Liberal and now we’re to the chewy center. This one was especially poignant:
I agree with Seven Percent Solution, this article should be required reading – but for every Conservative. If for no other reason than to understand our opponent. From that understanding, we can develop arguments that will work. For the longest time, it bothered me that the logic of Conservatism and Capitalism seemed lost on the average Liberal. Now I realize that I may have been speaking in a different language.
Our argument must change to fit their mindset.
RedDotRedState on May 5, 2009 at 4:45 PM
The terms “liberal” and “conservative”, as used in this essay, are not quite the right ones. “Liberal” and “liberate” come from the same source, and imply greater freedom. “Conservative” and “conservationist” are similarly related, and both imply prudent stewardship and maintenance of the status quo.
What is really being talked about is statism. As we’ve seen over the last eight years, statism can be Democrat or Republican. Where the state has already intruded into society, statism can be conservative — Barney Frank, for instance, is highly conservative when it comes to his beloved CRA. When the state is taking new ground, it can be very liberal — spending freely to nationalize automobile companies, perhaps.
By clinging to the liberal/conservative nomenclature, and using Democrat=liberal, Republican=conservative shorthand, we allow ourselves to be put on the defensive in any argument. Who could be against freedom?
But, just as in Orwell’s 1984, if “freedom” is just a label that the state puts on slavery, then how can you argue that freedom is a worthy goal?
cthulhu on May 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Arguments defend a faith or your beliefs…they don’t define it.
Arguments are created to defend the belief.
So an argument is created to defend being a conservative, and the arguments may vary and change, but the basic premise of being a conservative does not.
Otherwords, arguments are fluid…like the arguments to defend the constitution, they defend the basic creed that is already outlined. That outline does not change, just the arguments.
As I stated, you have it backwards, the liberal use the arguments as their foundation, and those arguments change depending on whom they are speaking to.
Their tenets are basically, “anything except what conservatives believe”. Then they form their arguments.
We (conservatives) can just point to the constitution and say “There it is, no argument”.
You really did a disservice posting this…and I am surprised how many bought into your analogy…
right2bright on May 5, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Count me out…conservatives are more then a bunch of arguments.
This is a silly path to take.
We are conservatives because of basic core values, and we defend them with arguments.
And “argument has two sides” core values do not….the Doc is way off base.
right2bright on May 5, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Dr. Zero, cogent argument.
One way to change the ground of the argument is to show our path works. Michigan and California as pathfinders for America are not frightening the masses. I’m not looking forward to a deep trough in prosperity teaching useful lessons to Obama voters.
What state (in 2009 America), in you opinion, is closest to getting the message that reinforcing success works? And how can we make that state more successful, to shine as a beacon to others?
NaCly dog on May 5, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Another great entry from Doctor Zero. Thanks.
I keep forgetting about the Green Room and Doctor Zero’s entries. I habitually go to the home page of HotAir and scroll around. Those are pointed stories about this or that episode of the day. A number of them I find aggravating. It’s just frustrating to read about the changes happening and the speed with which this is all happening.
But Doctor Zero, your entries are so important because you are helping us find a way through this, find a way to see a solution by understanding more about the problem. That’s what we need to do right now.
I’m going to reflect on what you’ve said here and I hope to respond again when I have more time. In the mean time Thanks again. And be sure to know, as you probably already do, that your efforts are highly regarded here. Thanks for all your contributions.
tartan on May 11, 2009 at 8:43 PM
What’s so great about this post is it’ll be as true today as it will be in 3 and 7 years from now.
It’s like you took the words right out of my mouth and actually arranged them into a readable format!
AeroSpear on July 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM