Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Why conservatives run the world
Published on September 25, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

In the real world, I don't care much about politics.  Sure, I'll debate it with someone if they'd like but I'm not particularly motivated politically. On-line, I'll talk trash about politics taking a much stronger stance on positions than I would normally give since the point is to get energetic discussion going.

People who know me would describe me as a political "moderate" on most issues. But in reality, I'm all over the place. A left wing position here, a right wing position there. I cherry pick my ideology.  I'm very conservative on business/tax issues and somewhat liberal on social issues. But like I said, in the real world, I'm not motivated very much by politics. I deal with the world as it is. And in that sense, I am a conservative.

It's been my experience that people who are conservative tend to be more effective in getting things done. Things that actually do something. It's the liberals who do things that are described as "trying to make a statement".  Candle light vigils and showings of solidarity and other warm fuzzy activities make for good PR but ultimately are pointless. These activities are the hallmark of the left.

Go to a business conference of entrepreneurs and you won't find too many liberals there. In fact, the more successful someone is in the private sector, the more likely they are to be conservative. Outside entertainment and academia, you won't find that many wealthy successful liberals.

So why is that?  I think it's because conservatives deal with the world as it is rather than how they wish it was.  They are much more end result oriented. Liberals, by contrast, tend to be much more "wish really really hard that things were different".

Conservatives also tend to look at cause and effect. They have to because they end up being the ones who actually make decisions that deal with change in the real world.

Take the minimum wage or living wage advocates. They're the same people who also are against outsourcing of jobs. Well which is it?  They aren't willing to accept the reality that if you increase low skill labor costs that you are increasing the incentive to move the business out of the country. Conservatives don't have that luxury. They're the ones running those businesses. Raise their costs and they have to make some tough choices -- ones they'll be demonized for by the very people who advocated the policies that caused the problem.

And reality is a messy thing. There are no perfect solutions. There are no perfectly elegant solutions either. Most solutions require substantial trade offs.  Worse, those trade offs tend to get exponentially nasty as you near a "perfect" solution. 

Want 100% health coverage instead of 90%? Fine, expect massive trade offs in exchange in the form of waiting periods, a slowing in innovation, and decrease in quality of care.

Want to reduce CO2 emissions substantially today? Fine, increase the required gas mileage on cars to 35MPH. But that will mean the end of SUVs, mini-vans, and the subsequent loss of millions of jobs. Which some guy like Michael Moore would then promptly blame on "greedy fat cat businesses".

Want to "save" a few hundred acres of tundra in the ANWR? Fine, but expect our dependence on foreign oil to increase at a faster rate which helps fuel the problems in the middle east.

Conservatives, by their nature, tend to be much more pragmatic. They look for solutions. Real solutions. A protest march isn't a solution.  It's a hobby.  This tends to make conservatives seem like the bad guys because they end up having to make the tough real world decisions that have negative consequences for some even as they try to benefit the many.

Where the liberal would go all out to save a single person in the village, even if that meant potentially sacrificing the entire village, the conservative would be more likely to take the "cruel" but pragmatic route of letting the individual villager suffer for the good of the entire village. That's not because they like to see people suffer but because they have to weigh the larger issues.

It's sad that millions of children live in poverty. A liberal would argue persuasively that a nation as wealthy as the United States should ensure that no child lives in poverty.  A conservative would agree that it's a shame but that as a practical matter, unless you're willing to sacrifice the rest of the society for it, you're not likely to solve that problem. Virtually all children (statistically) that live in poverty do so because their parents made very bad and irresponsible choices. Every practical solution to solve this will end up seeming cruel (take the child away from the irresponsible parent looks cruel and adds more expense for instance).

Liberals are also the ones who push for more help for Africa.  A land where the populations are simply far too high to be supported by the land they are on (with some notable exceptions where corrupt government is the cause).  Do you send over food aid, artificially masking the underlying problem and creating generations of dependents living in misery? The liberal won't worry about that. They just want to show how much they care. The "cruel" conservative is more likely to look at the big picture. Consistent food aid creates extensive long term damage and can prop up corrupt and brutal regimes.

By the same token, liberals tend to be the ones who argue for AIDS treatments to be sent to Africa at low cost. Thus increasing the healthy life span of the millions of Africans who are HIV positive. Sounds wonderful doesn't it? Except that it also increases the length of time that the disease spreaders will be able to effectively spread the disease. 

Then again, liberal groups also got DDT banned for export which was the world's most effective way of killing mosquitoes. Malaria now kills millions of Africans because there is no substitute for DDT that is remotely as cheap and effective. But some birds are safe. Well, maybe.

I could go on and on but I think the point is made. It's not that liberals are bad. They're not. They're just ineffectual in the real world. They are too busy trying to do emotionally satisfying deeds rather than deeds of practicality.  Where they do have an impact is in stifling the ability of conservatives for doing what has to be done by constantly demonizing them.

Liberals decried the sanctions on Iraq that had allegedly killed 500,000 children. If you lift the sanctions, Saddam would have gone forward with his nuclear program (that, btw, is something that they did find ample evidence of in Iraq -- he was just waiting out the sancations).  The other option is to remove Saddam and put someone in that isn't going to try to create nasty weapons, invade their neighbors, and aid terrorists.  Those are your 3 choices and no matter which choice is made, the liberals will demonize the result.

Conservatives who try to put forth practical realistic solutions get demonized as being "hateful", "bigoted" and be called (of course) "Nazis" or "fascists" (even though Nazis and fascists were socialists and technically left wing -- Hitler was many things but the vegetarian artist from Austria was definitely not a conservative).  It's demonization that liberals have any general real world impact and that's only because they're impacting the people who actually do things in the real world - conservatives.

I don't expect to change any minds here. You'll have the liberals who have excessive free time trying to nit-pick my examples with exceptions to a generalization as if that somehow disproves the generalization ("Hey Bush is trying to send AIDS help to Africa too!") but none of that changes the bottom line: That the people who run the companies, who actually create the "stuff" we use, are almost always conservative in nature because to accomplish things in the real world means dealing with the world as it actually is rather than as we wish it was.


Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Sep 26, 2004
It seems that life is a balance of Pragmatism and idealism, for after all, if there is no idealism no dream for the future then you are trapped living in a society that will never aspire for greatness. It is true though about wishing about a greater tomorrow while sacrificing today is akin to sticking your head in the sand instead of doing something about it. Advocacy is the key answer here and I think you’ve shown in your examples which groups are acting upon a given situation and which group is placidly just idling by.
on Sep 26, 2004

I'm really tried of people actually thinking that someone can live on $5.15 per hour. If one were to work full time (without overtime, bonus, supplement fee reductions) you are looking at around $824 per month. This is at least half of a liveable wage. The real solution to this problem may be to have a complete free market approach in those who can not afford to pay a living wage do not deserve to run a business and would be removed from the market. Of course this would never work, and with a total free market would come utter corruption and maybe even the return of slavery. If true capitalism without any social construct could exist, which it can't.

Since when does a completely free market prevent people who cannot pay every employee a living wage from creating a business?

You're right though. It wouldn't work. It'd kill the economy (as well as millions of jobs).

If not increase the wage then maybe institute total price control. All business should then be regulated on how much they can charge for a service or good. This is equally unprotective. There are no easy answers to any problem, representative governments generally are not easy, fair, and speedy in resolution. Neither party is right on this issue, neither is looking out for business or public welfare; they are both interested in keeping the status que. There is also no party in contention at the third party level; some are scarey (socialist) and some are not organized.

What price controls will guarantee, besides massive shortages, is loss of many jobs. If businesses can't set their own prices, they'll have to cut costs to keep business profitable.

on Sep 26, 2004
cactoblasta: I love what you just wrote. I gave you an insightful for that.


Thanks Tex!

Saying that because a conservative might believe the death of an individual to save a villiage is necessary doesn't mean that the conservative doesn't believe that that individual's life is important.Every death is a loss. Each person that dies is important. But remember too, that each life is important. That each person that lives is a new hope.


True. I wasn't trying to say that conservatives are immoral or don't consider the moral side-effects of action, just that some?/many? liberals would think about it differently, eg noone's left behind or in the same way as the parable of the good shepherd. I think in many circumstances the conservative way of thinking (which seems to place survival and efficiency as paramount) is essential in order to succeed.
on Sep 26, 2004
I am glad you look at things as they are. That is the only way to get to where you need or want to go. If you are interested in looking at the Bush policies, read a new book "Four More For George W? The book in on the Web or at 888-280-7715. It is a quick read with no BS. It covers ten major policy areas.
on Sep 26, 2004
Col Gene seems to be on a promotional campaign here at JU...
on Sep 26, 2004
You'll have the liberals who have excessive free time trying to nit-pick my examples with exceptions to a generalization as if that somehow disproves the generalization ("Hey Bush is trying to send AIDS help to Africa too!") but none of that changes the bottom line: That the people who run the companies, who actually create the "stuff" we use, are almost always conservative in nature because to accomplish things in the real world means dealing with the world as it actually is rather than as we wish it was.


OK: I'll avoid nailing some of your examples to the wall (which would actually be quite easy to do).

So, then, I'll suggest a broad generalization to match yours: Maybe these people simply hold this position because they want to keep more of the money they make. It could be an underdeveloped sense of civic responsibility - possibly a character flaw. Perhaps it has litte to do with "how the 'real' world runs", and more to do with being more concerned with oneself than the average person.

Just a thought ....

JW
on Sep 26, 2004

Reply #22 By: BakerStreet - 9/26/2004 7:12:53 AM
Col Gene seems to be on a promotional campaign here at JU...


You seem to be right and I do wish he'd rachet it back just a little.
on Sep 26, 2004
Realistically, although I admit that it is pleasant to wallow about in this conservative support group, I think that "the real world" happens to include the liberals. I'm not a liberal myself, but I pretty strongly believe that they constitute a significant demography, and to dismiss them as foolish is fundamentally wrong. The United States is not utilitarian, and what is "best" for anybody is hardly an issue. The job of the government is, essentially, to aid the people to their destruction.

I say this because society follows the laws of entropy. At heart, most people wish to be happy. Happiness, most people are convinced, would be most easily attained by large amounts of wealth and prosperity coming to them with relatively little work. (Still wonder why hollywood is so liberal?) Of course, that's obviously not enough, since the suicide rate among hollywood stars is significantly over three times the second highest sucidide demography (teenage males). Add that to the hordes of two-week weddings and it's plain to see that wealth is only a biproduct of the things that bring happiness. Like working hard for decades and finally having all that energy pay off. Like loving faithfully for years until a carefully-nurtured friendship turns into a marriage that will last a lifetime. Like... writing an article and having people think it's good.

That got off-topic. The point was that at a good half of people these days are pulling strongly for the destruction of our country, and I honestly see no way around it. Until our economy has fell, conservatives will continue to find success (see Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for a good example), but it will be harder and harder until the liberal are screaming in triumph that they were right all along.

And then, they will pick up their lawn chairs that they bought with welfare money and wish that they still had the right to sell their mobile homes.

Dan
on Sep 26, 2004
Yes, and whereas abortion isn't beautiful, sending young men and women to a foreign country to die for personal, unfounded, and vague grievances is beautiful. Especially for economic gain. Now THAT is doing something! That's really taking action. Want to make some money? How 'bout a pre-emptive strike? They're all the rage!
on Sep 26, 2004
"Yes, and whereas abortion isn't beautiful, sending young men and women to a foreign country to die for personal, unfounded, and vague grievances is beautiful. Especially for economic gain. Now THAT is doing something! That's really taking action. Want to make some money? How 'bout a pre-emptive strike? They're all the rage!"


Nightcity: 2004, or Tokyo Rose: 1944?

Same thing, I guess...
on Sep 26, 2004
Works of beauty like abortion on demand, hmm? How very "moral" of you. Oh wait, liberals believe everyone has their own morality, which is why you can see the destruction of an individual who just hasnt even had a chance to be born yet as a moral stance.

An 8 month old baby's continued existance has no value unless it travels completely outside of the vagina before a "doctor" jams scissors into the back of its skull to scramble its brains? (Thats what partial-birth abortion is, if you didnt know.)

Things of beauty like a crucifix in a jar of piss, paid for with tax dollars? Gay parades featuring bestiality and pedophilia? Slavering celebrity worship? Welfare mothers? The slow disappearance of religious freedom in this country, unless you happen to be something OTHER than Christian? Teaching 4th graders about condoms when we cant teach them to read? Yeah, beautiful stuff, that.

Arghgh...here i go again...(slaps self)

Lets just say that i see little beauty in many things that liberals "stand for"....and some of the ugliest comments ive seen on JU come from these people who you claim to care more about living moral lives (where we all define our own morals) and creating things of beauty.

Hate isnt beautiful, and all you have to do is look at the comments of people like jesusstayscrunchy or the faces of most of those protesters at the RNC to see it, raw, ugly, and foaming at the mouth.


Touche, little whip. But mid-birth abortion to save the mother is a fairly utilitarian view rather than a "liberal" one. That the majority of American liberals support it is a surprise to me, if indeed support for it could be called a mainstream liberal belief.

Slavering celebrity worship is not a symptom of the liberal but merely a side-effect of modern techniques of political control, where the bread and circuses of ancient Rome are remade in the latest Hollywood epic and the latest sex scandal. It's as common in conservative countries as it is in liberal ones. And I agree with you about the direction modern art is taking. There's far too many works being made these days with our money that cannot rightly answer the question, "sure it's weird, but is it art?"

But I would have attributed American religious intolerance movements to the activities of the Christian right - if they are liberals according to US politics then the label's been even more corrupted than I thought.

And sure, there are some ugly, ugly people who claim to be liberals. But it's just as easy to find right-wingers who are just as bad. What about DoctorCreature or st1art? I'd rather ignore the crazies on both sides than believe that they are indicative of the beliefs of the many rather than their own nut-job few.
on Sep 26, 2004
Some people seem incapable of discerning conservatism in personal behavior from conservatism's political backings.

Conservatives, by and large, are the ones who start companies, employ people, and build new things. It's not even a remotely close thing either.

The political agenda that conservatives and liberals choose to support is immaterial to this discussion.
on Sep 26, 2004
"Some people seem incapable of discerning conservatism in personal behavior from conservatism's political backings."


And some attention mongering-people take it to an extreme; Conservatives Must Die

Apparently we're all fascists...

on Sep 26, 2004
Outside entertainment and academia, you won't find that many wealthy successful liberals.So why is that? I think it's because conservatives deal with the world as it is rather than how they wish it was.


Maybe it's because liberals aren't interested in creating wealth. Maybe they are more interested in spending their time making the world a better place to live.
on Sep 26, 2004
"Maybe it's because liberals aren't interested in creating wealth. Maybe they are more interested in spending their time making the world a better place to live."


I'd have to agree with that to a point. I think, though it is a bitter pill to swallow, that only the rarest person that hasn't been self-motivated ever ends up really effecting the heath and happiness of their culture. Most of the ultra-liberal people I have known have all had really, really good intentions, but pretty much spent all their time talking to each other and being self-indulgent. Maybe that is why they tend to hate people who actually do have power...

Granted, you can't overlook the help that folks who volunteer, lobby, etc., get done. In the end, though, it seems to be the capitalists that have the most clout to get things done. Influence is a commodity, and the most selfless generally have the least.

5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last