While listening to The Michael Medved Show the other day Medved played a soundbite from famous actor Robert Redford. Redford opined--and I'm paraphrasing--that change was good, accepting change was open-minded, and opposing change was narrow-minded. He was implying that liberals are enlightened for embracing change and conservatives are backwards for not.
Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.
Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.
When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.
Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Shocker
Shocked.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
It's All About Power
A few days ago Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave a struggling Black woman, Ruth Williams, some money to help her out. Romney's kind gesture was immediately denounced by some on the Left as racist. Huh? How is giving a woman of color some help, one human being to another, racist? It isn't, but one particular criticism of Romney revealed the real problem his critics have with his act.
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Rick Santorum, The Greatest Threat To Black People!
A few nights ago I heard on The O'Reilly Factor about presidential candidate Rick Santorum's remark about not wanting to give Black people more welfare money. My sister also e-mailed a video of Santorum saying his very unpc statement. She titled the e-mail "What a bigot!" Rick Santorum a bigot? Not!
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, friends! I pray 2012 will be a blessed and prosperous year for all of you and for our great nation. Let's make that happen. Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)