Conservative Liberals For Example

They are all-wise. They are the people. They understand all issues and can deal with them in the most intelligent way.

Right now they have evaluated the current administration and know it is wrong on every issue. And they lead others in protesting against it and them. Especially any change from what the previous administration decreed.

Health care, tax policies, administrative rules, military policies – all of what was passed in the past is better than any change that has been proposed, or might be offered by the opposition. They prefer the past to the present. Much like classic conservatives – only their standard for the past is the last administration and its bureaucrats rather than the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Both liberals and conservatives agree on the concepts of equality and liberty, only their definitions and points of reference differ. For conservatives equality was judged on the basis of opportunity, while liberals considered equality of results to be the Holy Grail; for conservatives liberty meant being left alone while for liberals liberty requires that the government attend to all your needs so you won't have to worry about them. But both rely on what is past. To that degree the liberals are also conservative.

The liberals often accuse their opponents of error and inconsistency, of bias and class warfare – of defending the rich and scorning the poor. And, in some respects they are right. Liberals, however, are similarly guilty. They are inconsistent when they promote diversity to the point of demanding housing at universities for specific racial groups while applauding interracial marriage which guarantees the mixing of heritages and a form of assimilation. And they don't seem to be concerned that their desire for race-specific college dormitories or other housing is another form of segregation – no matter how righteous they are about it.

Nor do they realize that providing “entitlements” to the poor is a patronizing act. Indeed, liberals scorn the poor as they favor the “middle class.” It's not the “rich,” who, they insist, are benefited by the conservatives, but it is not the poor. Many of the poor recognize the hypocrisy and vote for the conservatives. This is not to suggest that entitlements are unwelcome, but the building of industry and the provision of more jobs would be better for the individuals involved and for our country as well. Some of the liberals would increase the laws that add to entitlements and oppose any change in past offerings. But, after advocating for the past, they would oppose any recollection of those parts of our history that offend them. They favor statutes over statues, as long as those statutes fit their ideology. And as long as it is more fashionable to eliminate uncomfortable history than to explain historical context and present the current point of view for all to consider.

What they propose is to compensate for the prejudices of the past. The way they choose to do it, however, is equally problematic. Subjugation of one race while benefiting another is indefensible. Sadly, there are many, primarily conservatives, who continue to promote the same biases, biases which should never have existed, but they did and should be left in the past.

Unfortunately the compensation that many propose, and many institutions accept, is a tool of the past. It is the award of preference to the descendants of those who suffered discrimination in the past. It is affirmative action most prominently practiced in academia. The obvious problem with this practice is that it is another example of bias – one favoring groups that previously suffered discrimination, but a practice that discriminates against non-members of the preferred group. In this instance they mimic uncomfortable history rather than explain historical context and present the current point of view for all to consider; they imitate past practices rather than living up to the principles they claim to espouse. Moreover, the principle of affirmative action – the display of preference – extends beyond the universities.

Those who subscribe exclusively to their own precepts would countenance complete freedom to say and practice anything that promotes the cause. Some liberals are not merely conservatives, but libertarians – as long as their political theory is advanced. But so are some staunch conservatives. Indeed, some are forceful in promoting new ideas to advance their goals.

Actually there are two types of people, politically speaking. I'm not referring to liberals and conservatives. Together, the good ones – the majority – in both groups, notwithstanding the faults on both sides, make up one of the categories of which I speak. (When I've used the terms up to now I was emphasizing the “outliers” – the squeaky wheels, the vocal leaders of the fringes, and the fringes themselves.) While the majorities may differ in terms of methods and approaches to solving problems, both are concerned about the same problems – the fate of the country, its needy, and the rest of us.

The other group, however, is concerned with the same problems, but not as final goals – only as tools for helping them advance themselves, both politically and economically, and to their dream of gaining power. Thus, for them, the needy and the country are tools, not ends. And another motivating force among them is ideology, which is more important than accomplishment to help the electorate. Its main value is for public relations: to attract the interest of lobbies and the voters.

Most see the value of debate with those having a different viewpoint, of compromise in order to achieve progress toward correction of the issues that separate us. Admittedly they have dissimilar ideas about how that should come about, but they are eager to discuss them. The aim is accomplishment, not obstruction. Not everyone – often no one – is happy with the results, but there are results.

There is value in much of what has already happened, though we may disagree over what should be emphasized, and we are hopeful of what the future holds, recognizing that there will be changes of which we disapprove. There will always be outliers (and all too many outright liars) but they will be far outnumbered by the “inliers” who need to make their voices heard. The silent majority – whether liberal or conservative – are better representatives of public opinion than the grandstanders who promote disunity.

August 23, 2017