A Clarification
There seems to be some confusion on the last paragraph of my previous post. I tried to find the initial article that I was referring to (it was in World Net Daily) but I couldn't find it.
Some time ago I came across a new look at liberalism. I can't remember who wrote it but it was fascinating. It said basically that socialism was a philosophy based on envy that gave legitimacy to theft while liberalism was not so much a philosophy as it was a defense mechanism and survival strategy designed to deflect that envy to others and protect one's own property from being confiscated by the socialists. It was long article but I think it needs to be looked at, as this "defense mechanism" is now getting in the way of our cultural and national survival.
Perhaps I worded it wrongly but I need to clarify.
Socialism is nothing more than an envy based legalized form of theft through government action. There seems to be very little problem with that.
Liberalism is a defense mechanism to deflect that envy. I do not mean a psychological defense mechanism but rather a cultural, economic and political defense. Many liberals are affluent if not outright rich, yet they favor socialism for others. Now if they were serious about believing socialism was the right thing to do and they wanted to do it, they would start with their own property. The fact that they do not is proof that they are not serious about socialism but, being rich, they know they would be the target of a socialist takeover. By liberal they are telling the threatening socialists "Look! I don't want you to be poor! I favor socialism! I'm one of the good guys! Not like those nasty conservatives! I'm your friend." Thus they believe they will be spared the wrath of the masses.
Perhaps it also a psychological defense mechanism as well. They see the poor and feel guilty about having so much. By endorsing liberalism they can soothe their consciences and feel good about themselves without having to personally give anything up.
The thing is that their liberalism hurts the middle and working classes more than it hurts them and it helps the government bureaucrats more than it helps the poor. They have to know this. Simply giving money to these people to improve their lives doesn't work for a very good reason; you cannot improve a person's life without first improving the person. The Salvation Army understood this and while they fed the poor, they concentrated on improving the person so that they could eventually help themselves. (This is the difference between Christian Charity and secular welfare!) Great Society welfare with its "no strings attached" mentality only threw money at the problems with no attempt to improve the personal quality of the people receiving it; that's why it failed. If they truly cared about the poor then they would be finding a better solution.
Some time ago I came across a new look at liberalism. I can't remember who wrote it but it was fascinating. It said basically that socialism was a philosophy based on envy that gave legitimacy to theft while liberalism was not so much a philosophy as it was a defense mechanism and survival strategy designed to deflect that envy to others and protect one's own property from being confiscated by the socialists. It was long article but I think it needs to be looked at, as this "defense mechanism" is now getting in the way of our cultural and national survival.
Perhaps I worded it wrongly but I need to clarify.
Socialism is nothing more than an envy based legalized form of theft through government action. There seems to be very little problem with that.
Liberalism is a defense mechanism to deflect that envy. I do not mean a psychological defense mechanism but rather a cultural, economic and political defense. Many liberals are affluent if not outright rich, yet they favor socialism for others. Now if they were serious about believing socialism was the right thing to do and they wanted to do it, they would start with their own property. The fact that they do not is proof that they are not serious about socialism but, being rich, they know they would be the target of a socialist takeover. By liberal they are telling the threatening socialists "Look! I don't want you to be poor! I favor socialism! I'm one of the good guys! Not like those nasty conservatives! I'm your friend." Thus they believe they will be spared the wrath of the masses.
Perhaps it also a psychological defense mechanism as well. They see the poor and feel guilty about having so much. By endorsing liberalism they can soothe their consciences and feel good about themselves without having to personally give anything up.
The thing is that their liberalism hurts the middle and working classes more than it hurts them and it helps the government bureaucrats more than it helps the poor. They have to know this. Simply giving money to these people to improve their lives doesn't work for a very good reason; you cannot improve a person's life without first improving the person. The Salvation Army understood this and while they fed the poor, they concentrated on improving the person so that they could eventually help themselves. (This is the difference between Christian Charity and secular welfare!) Great Society welfare with its "no strings attached" mentality only threw money at the problems with no attempt to improve the personal quality of the people receiving it; that's why it failed. If they truly cared about the poor then they would be finding a better solution.
posted by shoprat at 9:19 AM
10 Comments:
Jesus was a Liberal. "It is easier to get a Camel thru the eye of a needle than to get a rich man to go to Heaven".
tim If you mean liberal as the word was understood 50 years ago, I would agree with you as I have said in an earlier posting in the 50s a person with my beliefs would have been considered liberal. The contemporary liberal is an entirely different animal, and is every bit as greedy, materialistic, and self-centered as the worst stereotype of a conservative. Look at the epitomes and champions of modern liberalism (Ted Turner, Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Eisner, Barbara Streisand etc.) and tell me if they are truly examples that Jesus would have us follow. Yes there are bad guys in the conservative camp but they do not rule the roost.
Yeah, probably if you are talking about the "elite" of either party. I think both parties are really so far out there anymore that a sane, Bible believing Christian (of which I count both of us, although I have never studied for the clergy and defer to you on the finer points of the Faith) can except. The pardon of Libbey (the rule of law is what we say it is) the war in Iraq, the invasion of privacy into our daily lives, Cheney's paroniod secrecy, and the list goes on. 50 years ago, the definition of a "Conservative" was a person whom realized that the "social welfare state" was inevitable but wanted to slow its growth and preserve the small business person's right to make a living by minimizing regulations and taxes and therefore promote economic self sufficiency for the middle class. The "conservative" of today is all about squeezing the middle class in favor of large global corporations that pay huge campaighn contributions and provide consulting opportunities upon leaving office. They also want to roll back our constitutional rights and criminalize freedom.The conservative of today is a reactionary. Granted, liberals at the top are not much better. I justread Buchanan's "Where the Right went Wrong", and although I didn't agree with everything in there he made a lot of great points.
BTW- what ever happened to "What HE said"?
Somehow, I knew what you meant about all this in the previous post. I have to say, "I concur."
As was recently proven when noted that more Democrats were millionaires than Republicans in Congress. . .
BZ
The biggest problem with liberalism is it's promoters refusal to accept any evidence that a program didn't work as intended, or worse, failed completely.
The "Great Society" idea of welfare, and tax credits being the prime example. Instead of strengthening families and getting them on their feet they've made an incentive of being single and having more kids.
The Earned income tax credit and "head of household" filing status create a disincentive to actually forming a real family, that would cost you free money come tax time.
AFDC rules make it more advantageous to get pregnant than married.
Since LBJ's grand program poverty among minorities has moved the wrong direction, but any suggestion of changing the programs are immediately met with howling rants.
Liberals are "have your cake and eat it" pseudo-socialists. They don't have to be logical.
Thanks for the clarification, Shoprat. I appreciate it and did initially misunderstand fully your last paragraph in the last post. I don't think it was a case of you writing it poorly but more of a case of my being a bit dense.
An old poli sci prof put it this way... socialism is a plan, liberalism is an excuse.
Tim,
I have to admit that you continue to surprise me ... "The "conservative" of today is all about squeezing the middle class in favor of large global corporations that pay huge campaighn contributions and provide consulting opportunities upon leaving office. "
... unless, of course, you're just being tongue-in-cheek (which I doubt).
Conservatives ARE the middle class. They're the ones who resent being taxed so that idiot liberals can practice "wealth distribution" ... without ever contributing THEIR wealth.
Oh, and by the way, that whole global corporation envy thing? Well, basically, you may need to read a book or two about taxation and who pays for business taxes. (hint: check your phone bill and see how all the fees and levies and surcharges and surtaxes are passed on to YOU.)
One thing that I noticed a long, long time ago ... the less a person does to EARN their money (look at the list SR has in his response to Tim), the more likely they are to be liberal. How many celebrities are conservative? And, the more money they make without contributing to the GNP (think someone totally and utterly wirthless like Babs), the bigger and badder a liberal they are.
Post a Comment
<< Home