Yesterday, I decided to re-read, "The Theme is Freedom", by M. Stanton Evans. I had read it several years ago and read seversal chapters a few month ago. It is about religion, history, politics, and the American "tradition". I absolutely love what I have read. It resonates with me. His thesis is that liberty is America's primary value and the liberal has undermined liberty by "social programs" and "social engineering".
He argues and makes plan the outcomes of such programs and engineering. And it is pertinent to the problems we have today. He also argues for the value of religion in America's "liberal" climate. I recommend that you get a copy and find out for yourself what "true conservatism" is about and why we must change the way America is headed.
I will write more after I finish the book!
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Superbowl, Free Speech, and 'Political Correctness"
Free speech is again in question. It seems that some think that it is inappropriate to feature an ad taken out by "pro-lifers". The question posed to Palin tonight was; Was this appropriate? Was the Superbowl the place to feature a "controversial" ad. Palin, of course, was supportive and definite in her commitment to the right to "free speech".
I don't understand why this would be controversial in a free society where free speech is supposed to be valued. Why would it be offensive for a mother and son to tell their 'story' of "family"? This son was thankful that his mother decided to choose life for him. Why is this offensive?
I am wondering why conservatives always seem to suffer under the scrunty of liberal snubbery. Liberals can "get away" with indiscretions. I have often told my husband that I think it is because liberals don't hold to "higher standards" and conservatives do. So, when a conservative "fails" to meet their own standards, the hypocrisy is an obvious political bullseye.
On the other hand, when democrats promise big, but don't deliver, the American people are outraged. So, whether through the ideal idealism of the conservative, or the political hypocrisy of the liberal, both are becoming disgusting to the American public.
Not many believe that free speech is in danger, but political correctness is a short step to propaganda. And sometimes I wonder if it isn't propaganda, when it becomes clear that the politicians are not connected or caring about the people they are to represent. Free speech is NOT their right to act in the way they want, but to listen to those who are speaking. It is the people that need to be heard, while the politician listens and explains.
I'm listening, but there is little explaining.
I don't understand why this would be controversial in a free society where free speech is supposed to be valued. Why would it be offensive for a mother and son to tell their 'story' of "family"? This son was thankful that his mother decided to choose life for him. Why is this offensive?
I am wondering why conservatives always seem to suffer under the scrunty of liberal snubbery. Liberals can "get away" with indiscretions. I have often told my husband that I think it is because liberals don't hold to "higher standards" and conservatives do. So, when a conservative "fails" to meet their own standards, the hypocrisy is an obvious political bullseye.
On the other hand, when democrats promise big, but don't deliver, the American people are outraged. So, whether through the ideal idealism of the conservative, or the political hypocrisy of the liberal, both are becoming disgusting to the American public.
Not many believe that free speech is in danger, but political correctness is a short step to propaganda. And sometimes I wonder if it isn't propaganda, when it becomes clear that the politicians are not connected or caring about the people they are to represent. Free speech is NOT their right to act in the way they want, but to listen to those who are speaking. It is the people that need to be heard, while the politician listens and explains.
I'm listening, but there is little explaining.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Values Come Before Virtue
Values are defined as beliefs that we have an emotional investment in. Our beliefs underwrite our practices. And our practices are the public realm of "living in the world". Thus, politics is the arena that values plays itself out.
In a free society, values should be discussed in an open-ended way, with no discrimination toward the religious or the atheist. All should have voice in the public square to voice their opinion and allow all to come to some resolution, or to a consensus. There should not be propaganda, but investigative reporting, which should lead those who hear to investigate themselves. A free society does not remain free, if its freedoms are ignored, or under-valued, whether the error is in an ultra right-wing religious beliefs, or a radical left-wing secular view.
I just read on "Exploring Our Matrix", that conservatives are re-writing the Bible. These believe that the political agenda of Obama supporters was too liberal for them. Was this decision made because of some specific conservative values, such as abortion? Or a political stance on the economy?
It saddens me that conservatives do not think they have a voice or that they must segregate themselves from others who may be more informed than the wider population. And, as always, those who think that their "purity" values are being undermined have separated themselves to "form a new group". This is the Protestant Principle at work.
I agree that our society seems to be more politicized than it ever has been. But, does this mean that conservatives should withdraw to another part of society, which they create to form their own values without "outside information"?
Virtue is a response to values that differ. Virtue has to have a "context" to express itself. And usually that context is defined by the "sacred or secular", that has erred on one side or another. This is where difference can "make a difference" in virtue ethics.
"Good sports" know how to loose. And loosing does not have to mean that one become passively submissive or dependent on the winning view. Politics demands that we do not give up. Losers seek a way around the views they disagree with. But, to re-write Scripture without any scholarship, seems a little misguided. This is how cults are started. Shouldn't all conservatives be open to those with understanding about these areas of interest?
Values have become so concretized, that one cannot differ in anyway from the "party line". "Party lines" limit critical thinking, education, and a broader understanding of the issue. Broader understanding of a value is mandantory unless we want to "follow the leader" without questioning why these are values that should be maintained.
The Bible. after all, was not the focus of religious life in the Church's early history. Possibly the Bible is too much of a "value" of conservitism. Is this the "problem"? Surely these conservatives kow that the Trinity was not even formulated until the Church had existed for several hundred years.
American Conservatives should be a little more nuanced than narrowly focused and formed "group think"!
In a free society, values should be discussed in an open-ended way, with no discrimination toward the religious or the atheist. All should have voice in the public square to voice their opinion and allow all to come to some resolution, or to a consensus. There should not be propaganda, but investigative reporting, which should lead those who hear to investigate themselves. A free society does not remain free, if its freedoms are ignored, or under-valued, whether the error is in an ultra right-wing religious beliefs, or a radical left-wing secular view.
I just read on "Exploring Our Matrix", that conservatives are re-writing the Bible. These believe that the political agenda of Obama supporters was too liberal for them. Was this decision made because of some specific conservative values, such as abortion? Or a political stance on the economy?
It saddens me that conservatives do not think they have a voice or that they must segregate themselves from others who may be more informed than the wider population. And, as always, those who think that their "purity" values are being undermined have separated themselves to "form a new group". This is the Protestant Principle at work.
I agree that our society seems to be more politicized than it ever has been. But, does this mean that conservatives should withdraw to another part of society, which they create to form their own values without "outside information"?
Virtue is a response to values that differ. Virtue has to have a "context" to express itself. And usually that context is defined by the "sacred or secular", that has erred on one side or another. This is where difference can "make a difference" in virtue ethics.
"Good sports" know how to loose. And loosing does not have to mean that one become passively submissive or dependent on the winning view. Politics demands that we do not give up. Losers seek a way around the views they disagree with. But, to re-write Scripture without any scholarship, seems a little misguided. This is how cults are started. Shouldn't all conservatives be open to those with understanding about these areas of interest?
Values have become so concretized, that one cannot differ in anyway from the "party line". "Party lines" limit critical thinking, education, and a broader understanding of the issue. Broader understanding of a value is mandantory unless we want to "follow the leader" without questioning why these are values that should be maintained.
The Bible. after all, was not the focus of religious life in the Church's early history. Possibly the Bible is too much of a "value" of conservitism. Is this the "problem"? Surely these conservatives kow that the Trinity was not even formulated until the Church had existed for several hundred years.
American Conservatives should be a little more nuanced than narrowly focused and formed "group think"!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Healthcare and "Local Politics"
Conservatives are known to be "localists". They believe that the local government knows best about what its people need, or want. Liberals on the other hand believe that government must be centralized for there to be a unification of purpose.
Isn't it interesting that Obama believes in universal healthcare and communitarian service? These seem at odds, but perhaps, it is only the localists that will be called to re-distribute our wealth.
This morning Newt Gingrich was on NPR. He said that he would propose several smaller bills to improve the system, as otherwise, a large monstrosity, such as this one, would lead to "buying votes". And "buying votes" always leads to "pork barrell spending".
It will be interesting to see what happens to healthcare.
Isn't it interesting that Obama believes in universal healthcare and communitarian service? These seem at odds, but perhaps, it is only the localists that will be called to re-distribute our wealth.
This morning Newt Gingrich was on NPR. He said that he would propose several smaller bills to improve the system, as otherwise, a large monstrosity, such as this one, would lead to "buying votes". And "buying votes" always leads to "pork barrell spending".
It will be interesting to see what happens to healthcare.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Kindergarten Teaches You All You Need to Know...
I heard a good way to distinguish a liberal and a conservative today on the radio.
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Our Reality to Come...in the Political Realm
I read where the Republican strategy is to counter the liberal and ultra-conservative, by gaining back a Congressional majority by "centering" themselves. I hope this strategy works.
The strategy is to be to analyze the vacancies and determine whether the State can vote in a Republican or "loose" by voting in a conservative Democrat! This would bring Congress into center, where consensus can be built and legislation can be made concerning issues about our government. A centered Congress may not be ideologically driven along certain conservative or liberal social issues, but could gain much for fiscal and foreign policy. These are the issues that concern America today.
It is speculated that Newt Gingrich will run for the nomination. I hope so, as I have always been impressed with him. He has built consensus, has taught history and understands the political machine enough to know how to lead.
The strategy is to be to analyze the vacancies and determine whether the State can vote in a Republican or "loose" by voting in a conservative Democrat! This would bring Congress into center, where consensus can be built and legislation can be made concerning issues about our government. A centered Congress may not be ideologically driven along certain conservative or liberal social issues, but could gain much for fiscal and foreign policy. These are the issues that concern America today.
It is speculated that Newt Gingrich will run for the nomination. I hope so, as I have always been impressed with him. He has built consensus, has taught history and understands the political machine enough to know how to lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
