Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Your ideology is not superior
Published on November 19, 2004 By Draginol In Republican

I'm a conservative. I make no bones about it. I have plenty of liberal friends. Most of my "good" political discussions are with my friends who are liberal. I have a friend in New York who I talk to a few times a week and I respect his opinions immensely. He's also very liberal.

There is a basic problem in our country right now, however. I look at the positions my liberal friends take, listen to them, and ultimately decide I don't agree with them. But I respect their right to an opinion.  But all too often, liberals do not have that same respect for conservatives and their opinions. Supporting Bush's policies is not a sign of ignorance, greed, selfishness, or warmongering. In my case, I support Bush's policies because of careful consideration.

I do not agree with Bush on every issue. The deficit being a real issue for me. But overall, I consider him to be on the right side of many issues. I don't expect liberals to agree with me. But I do expect them to show some basic respect for my right to my opinion and not to assume that my opinions are inferior to theirs.

Some of my friends have tried to argue that "Well, both sides have their share of kooks that don't have any respect for the other side." Sure. Both sides have their kooks. But I am not going to accept that there's something even remotely approaching a balance.  The American left's most vocal advocates right now are much more militant than any other group. They have been for the past 4 years. They're hateful, nasty, and intolerant of other points of view.

Look at this website for instance: http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/3/ 

There's 500 pages of pretentious left wingers "apologizing" to the world that we elected Bush.  How arrogant.  There's the whole "Jesus Land" map floating around the net - implying that Kerry lost only because conservatives are a bunch of religious zealots. More arrogance.

Some would argue that since the liberals are the minority right now, that it makes sense for them to be more militant and vocal.  But you'd be hard pressed, even during the Clinton administration, to find evidence vast amounts of hateful, condescending arrogance from the right.

I never assume people who voted for Kerry were "stupid" or "moronic" or "selfish".  I simply feel that they supported Kerry because he was closer in line to their positions on a host of issues.

I think that liberals, by nature, are more arrogant than conservatives. And I'll tell you why: Because through their actions over the past few decades, liberals have demonstrated that they do not trust the democratic process.

Why do I say that? Two reasons:

First - they repeatedly have shown that they think elections are rigged and that's the only reason why they "lose". It's a good thing Kerry did lose Ohio. You know why? Because the monkey business in Wisconsin on election day would have been a bigger deal.  You see, Bush only lost Wisconsin by 11,000 votes. If Bush had won Wisconsin, Ohio wouldn't have mattered. But here's the thing, Democrats slashed all the tires on the Bush campaign's vehicles on election day.  In fact, the Republican HQs in Wisconsin were subject to repeated quasi-terrorist attacks during the final days.  You think that might have affected the Bush "get out the vote" efforts? You bet they did. In a major metro area, get out the vote drives, on election eve and election day generate tens of thousands of votes.  While Kerry supporters try to argue that Ohio was "Barely" for Bush (Bush won by 140,000 votes), the difference in Wisconsin really hits home. If you want to talk about dirty tricks, it was the Democrats who played the dirtiest.  Go ahead and Google it, try to find cases of Democratic operatives being attacked or kept from running their HQs in various states. They are few and far between. 

Here in Livonia Michigan, the big old giant Kerry signs shown proudly on Farmington Rd all the way up to election.  The big Bush signs? About a week before election someone painted "Nazi" on the Bush signs (which caused them to be taken down).  Sure, it's an "isolated" incident but it all adds up.

Second - The other reason I think it's clear that liberals don't trust the electorate has to do with their tactics.  Liberals use the courts to get their way rather than trying to get their way through the democratic process.  I've talked to liberals on-line, in email, and in person over the years and the same thing comes up "You can't count on the average person to do the right thing, that's why you need judges."  No. That's bullshit.  I happen to trust the average person to "do the right thing".

If the people of Hicksville USA want to allow a moment of silence in their classroom, that's fine with me.  If they want to put up a 10 commandments plaque in their class room, that's fine too. Only if something violates the constitution in a way that's unbeatable should judges get in.  The constitution, if you read the whole thing, is pretty clear on the matter - if it's not obviously covered by the constitution, it's left to the people to decide.  In fact, so insistent on that point were the founders that they added the 10th amendment lest there be any confusion. If it's not spelled out in the constitution, then the people have the right to make the law on a local level.

As an agnostic, I don't care about religion. But I do know that having a plaque showing the 10 commandments is not the same as establishing a state religion. At Christmas I put up a Christmas tree. Does that make me a pagan? I also put up a Nativity scene. Oh gosh, I'm so conflicted.

But liberals have shown that they don't trust the will of the people. They use the courts.  You want gay marriage? Fine. Make your case to the people. Don't go judge shopping.

But they don't make their case to the people because liberals, far more so than conservatives, have little (ahem) faith in the wisdom of the common man. Hence, when someone like George W. Bush gets elected, it doesn't occur to most of them that perhaps their views are out of touch with the mainstream. No, they instead argue that the people were somehow tricked. Or that they're just plain "stupid" or that they need to be "enlightened".

Many conservatives, such as myself, are outraged when our views are trivialized like that.  We look at the lives we lead, the accomplishments we've made, the contributions we provide to society and can't help but wonder where the liberal arrogance comes from.  For instance, red counties on average have a much lower crime rate than blue counties. Even counties that have similar populations. Why is that? Republicans tend to make more money. That's not a surprise. But are they Republicans because they're wealthy or are they wealthy because their life philosophy is more conducive to financial success? I believe it's the latter. Who gives more to charity? Which kind of people grow most of the food? Which kind of people create most of the jobs? Which kind of people are the ones to volunteer first to defend their country? Which ones are more likely to stay married? Which ones are more likely to have children in wedlock?

In other words, conservatives have plenty of room to be snobby - if they chose. But there seems to be a greater level of. well decency with the right.  If you're liberal and reading this you're probably outraged at that claim. But I can't conclude anything else. Even the right wing kooks I see on-line rarely get into venomous name calling nearly as easy as left wingers do.  The left still talks about McCarthyism as if it was yesterday. But I probably get called a "Nazi" once a week by some left winger.  I'm sorry but if you think my political beliefs are somehow extreme, you need to re-evaluate your positions. My positions on most issues are, at most, slightly right of center by any sort of objective measurement.

If the American left wants to have any influence in society, they need to get over themselves. They need to recognize that there are other view points that are equally valid to theirs. They need to recognize that diversity isn't just about skin pigment. They need to recognize that tolerance isn't just a catch-phrase. 


Comments (Page 6)
on Nov 27, 2004
I have a question I would love answered by a conservitive. Simply put what is a conservitive? Just curious to see the other other side of the "wall". I think that most of you are looking at this too one sided. Most of the items listed above simply put are laying blame on one half or the other. Personal I say blame the politicians, to me their attitudes are all the same.
on Nov 27, 2004
I have a question I would love answered by a conservitive. Simply put what is a conservitive? Just curious to see the other other side of the "wall". I think that most of you are looking at this too one sided. Most of the items listed above simply put are laying blame on one half or the other. Personal I say blame the politicians, to me their attitudes are all the same.


See the following:

http://drguy.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=36223
on Nov 27, 2004
Dr. Guy:

I gave you an insightful for your "What is a conservative?" article. Well put.
on Dec 24, 2004
Republicans presume God's wishes as values of priority; Dems think in terms of human values.   
on Dec 24, 2004
I agree with the basic thrust of what has been written. I too find American liberals much too ideological and in the guise of post colonial theory this brand of Arrogance is now crowding out civilised "discourse". Having said that we must be in a position to distinguish between a conservative domestic agenda and a conservative restructuring of the world. Under George Bush II the US has entered a fundamentaly radical phase in her attitude towards the world. Conservatives especially American ones have been traditionally isolationist. How does this square with being conservative.
on Dec 24, 2004
Republicans presume God's wishes as values of priority; Dems think in terms of human values


This is very true......I've noticed on here that the atheists all seem to lean to the Left.
Conservatives are willing to concede that there may be something or someone greater than ourselves. Liberals don't seem to think there is anyone greater than themselves.
on Dec 24, 2004
I agree with the basic thrust of what is written in this blog. I too find the arrogance of the liberals too much at times and in the name of post colonial theory this brand of intellectual arrogance is being exported to the whole world. Having said that we must face a fundamental problem. The American conservative has historically been an isolationist. How does the radical interventionist and militarily aggressive foreign policy square up with a conservative political philosophy.
on Dec 24, 2004
I agree with the basic thrust of what is written in this blog. I too find the arrogance of the liberals too much at times and in the name of post colonial theory this brand of intellectual arrogance is being exported to the whole world. Having said that we must face a fundamental problem. The American conservative has historically been an isolationist. How does the radical interventionist and militarily aggressive foreign policy square up with a conservative political philosophy.
on Dec 24, 2004
The American conservative has historically been an isolationist. How does the radical interventionist and militarily aggressive foreign policy square up with a conservative political philosophy


Things change; philosophies change. Events that occur often demand these changes.
I'm admittedly not a very deep thinker. I know what I know and see what I see.
It was a conservative Republican sitting in the seat of power when the planes hit the towers. Could he just sit there and do nothing, keeping us out of the whole thing, hoping it would go away and and letting them get away with it? No. he had to act aggressively, and thank God for him.
Same when Reagan was in power; events in the world affecting American interests required him to act.
Also, the advance of technology (one of the changes I referred to) has substantially reduced the ability of the oceans to protect us from foreign attack, as they had for ao long. Attitudes had to change accordingly.
Am I right in my assumptions here? Who knows. Wait for Draginol to answer your questions. He's smarter than I am.
on Dec 24, 2004
If Kerry won the election, would these so sorry kooks have opened a website congratulating the foreign countries that have opposed Bush; causing a greater loss of American lives in the world by refusing to help.


That is such a load of huey. The views of other countries towards the war in Iraq does not get our soldiers killed. The lack of plan to win the peace gets our soldiers killed which turns those other countries against us. Kerry did not praise other nations for turning the coalition down. He stated that he would run a war that was winnable and convince other nations to come to the table. Bush also stated that there would be more countries coming to Iraq, but that's about as hollow as the claim that Poles helped during the combat phase.
on Dec 24, 2004

Reply #85 By: whoman69 - 12/24/2004 9:46:55 AM
Kerry did not praise other nations for turning the coalition down. He stated that he would run a war that was winnable and convince other nations to come to the table.


Actually *this* is the load of hooey. We've been through this before and proof was offered on this very subject. Kerry was told *no way* was he getting any more help from Europe.
on Dec 24, 2004
Bush also stated that there would be more countries coming to Iraq, but that's about as hollow as the claim that Poles helped during the combat phase.


So your telling us that the EU newspapers that say Poland did help are full of ca-ca?

Link

on Dec 24, 2004
So your telling us that the EU newspapers that say Poland did help are full of ca-ca?


That help came in the form of sending troops after the the combat phase was over. Nowhere in your article does it say they did, so no I do not say they are full of ca-ca.
on Dec 24, 2004
We've been through this before and proof was offered on this very subject. Kerry was told *no way* was he getting any more help from Europe.


You offer no proof, you simply toe the Republican line. I will not accept such a diplomatically challenged individual such as George W. Bush and those in the administration by saying that no further cooperation could be had from other nations. It doesn't have to be from Europe either. Saudi Arabia contributed very strongly to the first Gulf War but has almost no part in this action, nor does any arabic country.
on Dec 24, 2004
You seem to forget this is *draginols* site, not yours. He can pretty much say anything however and whenever he wants. If you don't like that then don't read his posts. Simple as that.


That's a load of crap. So the moderators don't have to follow their own terms of use? Sounds very Republican to me. Set up rules and then only enforce those rules when it does not involve one of their own. I suggest Moderator Draginol go and read his own terms of use again.
Meta
Views
» 4590
Comments
» 101
Category
Sponsored Links