Posted on 12/22/2004 6:06:38 AM PST by LarkNeelie
About ‘discrimination’. I’m really sick of that word’s noble meaning being perverted by Liberals to willy-nilly provide cover for virtually any and all anti-social and/or dangerous activity or trend. Unwarranted discrimination is certainly an injustice. But what about discrimination that IS warranted? Does nothing in this world warrant rejection as unwholesome or dangerous?
The reason conservatives usually snicker or roll their eyes when Liberals or Leftists claim to have ‘moral values’ is because that statement indicates NOTHING against the traditional meaning of the phrase. The word ‘value’ is itself one used to express a definite or to describe the end result of quantification. For conservatives, ‘moral values’ defines a set of known general standards under which umbrella all are expected to operate, more or less. And though detested and vilified by Liberals, conservative values do leave quite a bit of room for interpretation and accommodation. But one big difference between the Left and the Right (critical, in my view) is that conservatives tend to view things in terms of the ‘bottom line’. (must be our big bad corporate mentality) When pressed to ‘tolerate’ new or expanded X activity or X philosophy, right off the bat Conservatives usually want to know the following :
1) What is the consequence or price to society, even if unintended, of embracing X?
2) Does embracing X infringe on the majority?
3) Is the benefit of embracing X great enough even if X infringes on the majority or extracts a steep price?
4) Is X a correction of an ingrained wrong or just a license for hedonism and anti-social behavior?
Merely asking these reasonable questions is sure to bring the ACLU and A.N.S.W.E.R. running, not to mention certain elected Democrats and sundry assorted Liberals and Leftists, much less the considered determination that X is not worth the price to society! That affront to Liberal "values" is usually followed by an appointment with SCOTUS.
But these are important, necessary and worthy questions lest our society devolve into something unrecognizable. So what’s wrong with a ‘new’ society, many ask? And what’s so great about preserving American society, in particular? Its success speaks for itself. Judicious application of the old axiom “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is crucial if we are not going to irrevocably tamper with the winning formula.
When Kerry spoke of a ‘global test’, he was ignoring the value of passing a ‘national test’. He seemed to value the opinions of those he would not lead over those he sought to lead. Since the absolute number one (bi-partisan even!) tenet upon which our nation was founded was the principle of “by consent of the governed” this was an eminently foolish stance. I mean, really! What football team hires a coach that has best interests of the rival team at heart?
Whether he likes it or not, Kerry is a citizen of America, not France or Vietnam. If he wanted to lead a French-like population, then he should have run for office in France. But if he wanted/wants to lead America, that entails an American population in an American-style society.
Kerry was beyond foolish (and so were his Liberal supporters) to invoke the opinions of foreigners with vastly different societies and values than ours as proof we should elect him. And in a circular argument, the very existence of that foolishness renders him unqualified to lead the local VFW flag-raising, much less the entire nation.
Kerry became the figurehead for the American Left’s headlong rush to restructure American society and for foreigners who wish to remake America in their own image, never mind that their own societies - every one of them engineered - show signs of fatal decay and moreover, have failed to do exactly what the engineering was designed to accomplish. He also forgot that the vast majority of Americans are descended from those who left Europe and Asia and Africa and South America on purpose precisely because they could get here what could not be gotten at any price there, then OR now. We’re not so ready to discard the society that embraced and nurtured our grandparents for the societies of nations our grandparents fled in the first place - none of which have, in the intervening years, managed to even come within reaching distance of the good life available in America.
Like it or not, basic rules of society are those that have been distilled from countless thousands of years of social development. Not social engineering, mind you (which attempts have been shown pretty much across the board to be useless at best and horrific at worst) but through a fairly steady path of evolution, attrition and self-defense. Practices that don’t contribute to the health and prosperity of a particular society tend to be discarded or reshaped over time. Woe betide those societies that cling to inefficient traditions or policies! The evidence of that can be found in many places including Cuba, the former USSR, the debacle that is Africa under tribal rule and warlord tyranny, and the pitiful widespread destitution in Islamic nations which ironically have access to immeasurable wealth.
Somehow, in comparison to the rest of the world, America hit upon a winning formula, not least because the Judeo/Christian ethics and traditions upon which this nation was founded provided for personal liberty while operating within rules that safeguard the society as a whole. Throw in a founding framework that mirrors those traditions and which exact existence is designed to prevent the creeping encroachment of harmful or destructive devices and voila! Two and a quarter centuries of unequalled prosperity and liberty, unique to the history of mankind.
Even the manner by which necessary changes can be made is carefully spelled out and it’s not by coincidence that implementation of said change is difficult. Our Founders were mindful that not every idea had merit, no matter how fine it sounded or how it may promise to redress real grievances. They knew that sometimes the cure was worse than the disease and that any requested societal changes must undergo careful scrutiny to guard against such imprudence. How do I know this? Because they say so, right there in the Declaration of Independence.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…It is also no accident that the guarantee of rights bestowed upon man by his Creator is limited to the pursuit of happiness.
Too many people think it’s life, liberty and happiness. Ask any lawyer, politician, diplomat or linguist and they‘ll agree that a single word changes everything. Consider the difference between a guarantee of happiness and a guarantee of the right to pursue happiness. One need look no further than a comparison of Marxist theory and free-market capitalism to discern the impossibility and destructiveness of the former.
Not only that, the Declaration makes it a deliberate point to say that government’s only job is to secure the rights that were given to us by the Creator!That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.How ironic that secularists wage battles against the mention or consideration of ‘God’ by using those very rights bestowed by God.
Further, this nation did not spring forth, fully prepared for the instituting of the philosophies held forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights on July 4th, 1776. Quite the contrary, by 1776 fully one hundred and fifty years had passed from the day the first pilgrim set foot on Plymouth Rock. The Founding Documents themselves were the result of a decade of wrangling after several earlier decades had already been spent trying to come to terms with the problems the colonies faced against British Crown Rule. These were no hastily formed rantings of a hysterical population, but rather the considered judgment that were the result of hundreds of years of combined experience. The brilliance of our founders cannot be overstated, and their philosophies should not be dismissed out of hand as outmoded, outdated or irrelevant to the modern world.
That the founding philosophies have stood the test of time is clearly evidenced by America’s position of power in the world. The Left decries America’s great wealth and power, pointing to the misery and poverty still existent in the world and even within our own borders. In a glass half-full fashion, allow me to point out that America’s wealth and power have allowed it to feed, protect, shelter and help millions, even billions. If we were a poor nation, who could we help?
Conservatives believe in sharing the formula for success while Liberals seem to want the formula abandoned and for America to take up failing policies so the ensuing economic and societal woes will ensure that other less-successful countries won’t feel any sense of low-esteem or loss of power. This mirrors their handling of the US public education system. Instead of challenging students to rise to high expectations, liberals instead lowered the bar so no one felt ‘left out’, thus condemning generations of Americans to failure to achieve their full potential.
Liberals assume that the bottom line is ‘to be loved’ when actually, the bottom line is ‘to be successful‘. Conservatives know that practically speaking, love - a feeling - never fed or sheltered anyone; hard work and wealth is what does that - and power is what protects those who do the feeding. America somehow managed to create a nation of prosperity populated by people who are eager to share and embrace others. Prosperity doesn’t automatically equal greed or selfishness and it is wrong to assume so.
The American Liberal Left is somehow offended by excellence and prosperity. Strangely enough, though, and highly ironic given their vilification of Conservative red-state ‘corporate whores‘, influential (moneyed) Lefties seem to work overtime to provide themselves with awards for excellence and accumulation of wealth. Consider the self-styled accolades in which members of the film and music industry indulge. Can anyone name off the top of their head all the different ’awards’ programs? Does anyone even know how many there are? Don’t any of them find it hypocritical to speak at a rally against environmental abuse after having been driven to the event in a stretch limo that gets 15 feet to the gallon and they live on an estate for which 30 acres of forest was cleared? How about decrying the state of urban minority schools while draped Mr. T-style in the ’bling’ bought and paid for with money from songs that encourage rejection of schooling or parental authority? And what about organizations like the NAACP led by the oh-so-sanctimonious, openly racist Julian Bond, nominating the likes of R Kelly for Man of The Year? (Was the nomination made before or after they sponsored a workshop on addressing the need for sex education to combat teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs and AIDS in the black community?)
On the whole, Conservatives are no hypocrites. We pretty much say, “I worked for it, I earned it, and YOU can’t have it. And if I’m lucky, I’ll be a gigantic corporate billionaire someday. And if you want some of what I earned, you had better be truly needful and you’ll only get it after you have shown me your eight broken legs and three broken hands. And even then, it‘s up to me if I want to share.” Of course, most Conservatives, like Liberals, live modest lives, and a significant portion live paycheck to paycheck. Even so, they have a long history of charitable contributions - no less so than Liberals. Perhaps the greatest contribution a Conservative makes to society is the rearing of a responsible citizen who doesn’t think the world is his for the asking.
Conservatives are vilified as complacent, rich, bigoted, close-minded, theocratic, ignorant fat cats whose opposition to ‘change’ reflects their diabolical desire to continue running up their platinum credit card bills for products made by a 3-yr-old in the wilds of the Indonesian jungle while the two-year-old sibling cranks the steam-driven riveter by hand. To add insult to injury, according the Left, those ill-gotten products are paid for with ill-gotten gains procured through slave labor of the American unwitting working masses who are, somehow, relegated to lifelong servitude. Apparently, no amount of diligence, education or skill will allow them to escape their lowly rank. Liberals might be right. But we’ll never know unless the “slaves” try, eh? Liberals can help unshackle the ‘slave class’ in America by emphasizing the need to get a decent education and choosing responsible behaviors over hedonistic, feel-good, self- or instant-gratification.
In all the history of the world, no one has gotten ahead by sitting back on their laurels. Unearned wealth is frequently squandered and ruinous to the life of the lucky lottery winner, instant star or inheritor. Ask any movie star, music phenomenon, corporate giant or best-selling novelist that has maintained their success over a long period of time and they’ll all tell you the same thing: they got where they are through back-breaking labor sustained over a long period of time, coupled with careful decision-making and periods of self-denial. Luck, talent and connections were incidental to the diligence of their efforts since while those benefits may catapult someone into an amazing opportunity, without the work and lots of it, it’s just another flash in the pan.
America is no flash in the pan, and it should not be treated as such.
The true definition of discriminate means to differentiate between two things. Not a bad word or action per se. I'd like to be able to discriminate between good and bad at least.
Good article. I remember when the word "discriminate" meant that people look for hte best. I remember back in the 1970's, I think it was Radio Shack, stereo advertisements used to emphasize that their systems were sought after by "discriminating" listeners. Back then, I remember conductor Arthur Feidler hawking Radio Shack (Realistic) stereos. Today, if you are discriminating, to the libs, you might as well be spawn of Satan.
Nice piece of work.
Oh absolutely. Liberals reject and fear Christians more than anything in this world.
I thought liberals proved that child molestation does not harm children.
I tell my children that if they don't discriminate for themselves someone else--undoubtedly a liberal--will do it for them.
btt
btt
btt
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.