Posted on 02/23/2010 4:10:06 AM PST by look.a.liberal
I came here to understand the conservative point of view. I've lurked for a while now. I decided it'd be appropriate for me to say a few words.
I think that you are patriotic Americans. I am a patriotic American too. It is our right and duty as Americans to vehemently disagree with eachother about how this nation should be governed. It is also our right to call into question the patriotism of those with whom we disagree, but it is our duty not to. It was patriotic to protest the government four years ago, and it is patriotic now. I thank you for this patriotism.
Here are some of the things that I believe:
I support the constitution. I support second amendment rights as well as first amendment rights. I think that it is necessary and good that a court interpret these amendments, but I am as appalled by the notion of a free speech zone as I was by DC's handgun ban. I'm angry about the recent encroachment against the fourth amendment, and the steady erosion of the tenth. It affects blue states as much as red ones. I don't care for drugs, but you tell me how the interstate commerce clause empowers the federal government to keep my neighbor from growing and then smoking a plant without leaving his back yard.
There is little doubt that the federal government exercises more power than it is allowed by the constitution. On the other hand, I think that the infrastructure of a modern country demands more federal powers than are described in the constitution. Instead of amending the constitution, we allowed more and more powers to be read into it. Now it's a status quo that we can't easily abandon.
I support abortion rights, but I think that the opposite position is also very reasonable. If abortion is murder, then there is no question that it should be banned at the federal level. If abortion is simply a medical procedure, then it is tyranny for the government to forbid it. Either way, it would seem that the question should be decided on the federal level. Yet, if we can't reach a consensus about something as basic as whether abortion is murder or an operation, how can we choose to forbid or protect it? I think abortion is a federal-level question that for the moment must unfortunately be decided at the state level.
I am a liberal. I don't think Obama is more tyrannical or arrogant than past presidents. I think a government health-care option would be good for Americans. I don't care that Bush wasn't eloquent, and I also don't think that intellect in the narrow sense is the most important quality for a president. On the other hand I think that the Iraq war was a catastrophic mistake that America won't live down in my lifetime. It weakened America financially, diplomatically and militarily. So, I am very much a liberal. Still, I think we have some common ground.
I'd like to say something a bit more personal. I'm an academic. We spend a lot of our lives thinking about very abstract, technical things. This makes academics prone to elaboration and understatement in our area of expertise, and simultaneously to oversimplification and overconfidence outside of it. We can be short on common sense, but we can have counterinuitive insight in technical matters. It takes academics, entrepreneurs, and factory workers to make a plane fly, and it takes all of us to make the right decisions for America. I think that anti-intellectualism marginalizes an important part of American society, and I think it's destructive. To those who say that small businessmen have nothing of value to say about the US economy, I say you're wrong, and to those who say that academic economists have nothing to say about the US economy, I also say you're wrong.
Please leave comments if you'd like. I'll try to respond tomorrow.
We, Americans, conservative and liberal, need to figure out our own compromises, because our media and our politicians sure as taxes won't do it for us. Like it or not, we're in it together.
IBTZ! No liberals allowed!
“last four years” = “last eight years”
The oh so compasionate, holier and trendier than thou liberals are so monolithic and I doubt would ever post here. It must feel oppressive to be where one is supposed to think a certain way, espouse certain causes etc. just to be accepted. Do you not believe a little diversity would be a good thing at the university?
Finally, do you not see the great harm to the country having the Chicago machine run Washington? Do you not feel embarassed that a radical law professor, with no practical experience, is so ineptly trying to run the country? Do you feel bad that one of your radical liberals is making George Bush look like a good President.
Thank you for posting here and I hope your visit here results in enlightenment on bothe sides of the fence.
So Red Eye fan Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, emailed me this weekend to tell me about a paper he wrote, due out today in the scientific journal Social PsychologyQuarterly.
It's entitled "Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent."
Already I hate it.
See, according to Satoshi, humans are "evolutionarily designed to be conservative and religious, and it is unnatural for them to be liberal and atheists." But he found that smarter people are more likely to go against their evolutionary design and become liberals and atheists. That kind of rebelliousness doesn't show up in the rest of us dumb folk, apparently.
A conservative himself, Satoshi says he doesn't like these findings, but as a scientist he has to publish them. Good for him. Of course, the findings will be trumpeted far and wide by the left - just as it would have been by the right - if the results were different.
Which is poo-hicky. I can safely say that I am smarter than most lefties - so smart, in fact, that I can use words like "poo-hicky" and get away with it.
And here's why. Satoshi's is really suggesting that smart people are more likely to experiment, take risks and question the status quo. This makes sense. But this link between intelligence and rebellion is only temporary.
It happens that I was once a pimply-faced liberal, a perfectly normal state of rebellion for a typical attention-seeking teenager. But, after awhile, I started rejecting the easy romance of leftism, as hard reality started hitting me in the face. So,while it takes brains to question the natural state of things, you need even more brains to later question the questioning. Smart people question their parents, but then smarter people realize that after a brief intellectual vacation, their parents were right all along (unless mom or dad is a Baldwin).
Bottom line: braininess isn't reflected in rebellion against common sense. Instead, it's rebellion against rebellion that is the proof of highest intelligence of all.
That - and an acceptance that unicorns rule and griffins suck.
And if you disagree with me, you're probably a racist leperchaun who eats babies.
From the sensible quality of your comments, I surmise that within five years you will no longer be a liberal.
You said something I found very curious. You wrote that as an academic “...we can have counterinuitive insight in technical matters.” This is important. The problem I find with many in academia is they tend to treat counter intuitiveness as a moral virtue much like they treat recycling and diversity. Counter intuition is great when the subject matter is technological. But when it comes to matters of moral imperative it falls short of Kant’s moral test.
Welcome to FreeRepublic. If you are sincere, I’m sure you will be given many opportunities here, to test the merit of your rational conclusions, which lead you to call yourself a liberal. Have fun.
A very thoughtful post. Thank you for sharing your views.
I agree. LaL is more conservative than he/she thinks.
Academic is a vague term that describes someone who works for a college or university. You haven't stated what it is you actually do. Therefore, it is a little difficult to tell what your perspective is.
Anti-intellectualism is the currency of liberals and leftists. They routinely shout down those they disagree with and they refuse to engage in honest debate. If you are an academic you must know that political correctness is another staple of the left. Political correctness is simply anti-intellectualism enforced by rules and speech codes. Communism, Marxist-Leninism, leftism etc are confiscation of property, the denial of individual freedom and anti-intellectualism enforced by the state. The only difference between a leftist and a thug or common thief is the strategy that leftists use to confiscate other peoples property.
Another example of anti-intellectualism among liberals is the whole global warming fraud. Like typical liberals they falsified data, tried to get opponents fired from their jobs and ridiculed anyone who disagreed with them. They then said that ordinary Americans must pay enormous taxes just to heat their homes, drive to work or use electricity. This is what liberalism is: lies, confiscation of other peoples money and property and the use of force if you resist.
Great post!
Hi fellow liberal,
Yes, I’m one too.
That’s why I’m a conservative.
>>>IBTZ
Why ban him? I see no harm in polite discussion.
Welcome. Very glad you have come here and have been brave enough to post.
I have a couple of questions for you.
Do you listen to NPR?
Do you watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS?
Do you read the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune?
If you answered “Yes” to any of those questions, then you must understand that you have been fed propaganda and lies for a very long time (I imagine). You have been brainwashed.
That is an ugly word - but it’s the truth.
Communists and cults the world over know how effective brainwashing is which is why they spend so much time and energy doing that to their “prisoners”.
So the first priority for you - and it looks as though you have taken some important first steps in this direction - is to get away from the propaganda - cold stop - and to immerse yourself in the truth.
In other words, immediately STOP listening to NPR (there are other sources of classical music out there if that’s one of the things you enjoy about NPR).
This step is not optional.
Step two is to always turn off the TV or turn away the channel whenever CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC are on.
This step is also not optional.
If you subscribe to any of the above listed papers or your local liberal rag, step 3 is to cancel your subscription(s) and to not pick up one of those papers again (except in the future when you want to do some opposition research - but for now - cold stop).
If you are serious about seeking to work together to find solutions that will save this nation (and I think you are)...please, I really implore you, to take these first steps. What have you got to lose if you do this?
Now the next steps you appear to have already begun.
Come to Free Republic to get your links to your news stories and to read the comments by FReepers (and to make your own after awhile).
From Free Republic, you will find sources that you like, that you appreciate, and that you want to hear from more regularly and you can go out and subscribe to those sources if you like - or just keep coming here and then going there.
If you like to listen to the radio, try these alternatives:
Rush Limbaugh (you may not be ready for this yet)
Sean Hannity (a bit lighter fare but you may think he is a bit lightweight - but Sean hits some topics others don’t do)
Mark Levin (you really have to have matured a bit and been away from the propaganda sources to be able to take him in but he is well worth the time to listen to once you are able).
Since you are in academia - there will be many books recommended to you - but here are some I would recommend:
Witness by Whitaker Chambers
Coming out of the Ice
Gulag Archipelago
How Shall We Then Live by Francis Schaeffer
Any number of excellent Biographies of George Washington
I like:
Washington, The Indispensable Man
George Washington by Thomas Flexner
Now if you will take these simple steps....you will begin to have the light of truth dawn on you and it will be a glorious time of revelation!
If you don’t really want to work together to save this nation (and the world) then keep on with your propaganda sources and stay in chains.
Welcome and feel free to Freepmail me any time.
Oh and don’t let those who may “attack” you get to you. As Sarah Palin said, what they say does not matter - so you just plow right through it!
This description sounds more like a fence sitting Independent than a true Liberal to me.
I think that the infrastructure of a modern country demands more federal powers than are described in the constitution.
How has that expanded federal power made our roads and bridges better? Is traffic congestion decreasing or increasing? How has that expanded federal power made our drug discovery and delivery better?
The problem with your belief is that a large federal government is inefficient and incapable of delivering what you envision.
If abortion is murder, then there is no question that it should be banned at the federal level.
You are unsure if a fetus is life. I am a deer hunter. If I look through my scope and am unsure of what I see, I do not pull the trigger. Likewise, if something landed on earth that appears to be living, but we are not sure...do we kill it?
The flaw in your position is that if you are unsure if a fetus is a living thing, then you should not kill it.
I think a government health-care option would be good for Americans.
As I gave examples above of our highway system, the federal govenment is a very poor administrator. Even if you gave healthcare to the poor (which we already do via Medicaid), it is substandard.
Wouldn't it be better to solve the problem by allowing people to get the healthcare they want at the price they want? Why do gov't programs always fail to solve the problem they were created to address? Why do gov't programs grow when they should solve the problem and shrink away.
Our military is a good example. Our military is a small portion of the budget in normal times. When called upon, it "fixes" the problem and returns to being a small portion of the budget. Shouldn't most gov't programs work the same way?
Which country do you want to live in: (1) a country that has hundreds of gov't programs that grow forever and never solve the problem or (2) a country whose people can take care of themselves?
You will choose (2) every time.
Why don't we work towards solving the problem of poverty instead of throwing money at it forever? Because it gives some politicians more power.
Why don't we work towards solving the problem of illegal aliens? Because it gives some politicians more power.
Liberals tend to trust gov't. Conservatives trust their fellow citizens. Politicians play them off against each other to gain power.
The two terms "abstract" and "technical" are mutually exclusive. Technical, ie: electronics etc...are scientific and therefore black and white. There is no gray area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.