A Tale of Two Idiotic Ideologies
Indulge me if you will. Normally, I relish the nuance in arguments—the fine, often times obscure details that can and do determine what is actually correct.
It is, after all, nuance that typically exposes the deleteriously real or expected outcomes of feel-good positions. Modern liberal economic orthodoxy, for example, is littered with the calamitous consequences of populist policy.
So, as much as I normally genuflect at the altar of gradation, allow me to abandon it completely in favor of a couple sweeping generalizations. Some of you may want to argue the minutia. That's okay. There is a lot of it to consider. But, my primary point for the purpose of this blog entry lies in the general.
Imagine a United States dominated by economic liberals and social conservatives. Are there two other groups more out of touch with reality?
Regular readers of this blog are more than aware of my thoughts on liberal economic ideology. Never have so many been so categorically and provably wrong on so consistent a basis. More elegantly stated by Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
That brings us to social conservatives, who are, in many respects, even worse...probably because I hold conservatives in general to a higher standard, and expect them to be practical and factual.
The absolute worst of social conservatism has been on full display this past week, first with New York gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino, and most recently with Colorado senate hopeful, Ken Buck. Ignorance and intolerance are so very, very unpleasant.
On Meet the Press Buck said, when queried as to whether or not homosexuality is determined at birth or learned, "I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically, you have a choice." Seriously?
In 2010 do we really need to care about someone's sexual orientation (let alone race or religion)? Is it posing a genuine, rather than imagined threat? If social conservatives are truly about family values, why not simply define the parameters a bit more broadly? Aren't we generally better off as a society when people are in loving, supportive relationships? I don't know about the rest of you heterosexuals, but I haven't lost my innate attraction to the opposite sex because of exposure to gays. I suspect you won't either. Trust me.
The country has rarely needed an injection of economic conservatism more than it does right now. What a shame it will be for all, but particularly the lower and middle classes, if fewer economic conservatives are elected on November 2nd due to the arcane beliefs of a backward minority.
Let's keep liberals out of the board room and conservatives out of the bedroom.
It is, after all, nuance that typically exposes the deleteriously real or expected outcomes of feel-good positions. Modern liberal economic orthodoxy, for example, is littered with the calamitous consequences of populist policy.
So, as much as I normally genuflect at the altar of gradation, allow me to abandon it completely in favor of a couple sweeping generalizations. Some of you may want to argue the minutia. That's okay. There is a lot of it to consider. But, my primary point for the purpose of this blog entry lies in the general.
Imagine a United States dominated by economic liberals and social conservatives. Are there two other groups more out of touch with reality?
Regular readers of this blog are more than aware of my thoughts on liberal economic ideology. Never have so many been so categorically and provably wrong on so consistent a basis. More elegantly stated by Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
That brings us to social conservatives, who are, in many respects, even worse...probably because I hold conservatives in general to a higher standard, and expect them to be practical and factual.
The absolute worst of social conservatism has been on full display this past week, first with New York gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino, and most recently with Colorado senate hopeful, Ken Buck. Ignorance and intolerance are so very, very unpleasant.
On Meet the Press Buck said, when queried as to whether or not homosexuality is determined at birth or learned, "I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically, you have a choice." Seriously?
In 2010 do we really need to care about someone's sexual orientation (let alone race or religion)? Is it posing a genuine, rather than imagined threat? If social conservatives are truly about family values, why not simply define the parameters a bit more broadly? Aren't we generally better off as a society when people are in loving, supportive relationships? I don't know about the rest of you heterosexuals, but I haven't lost my innate attraction to the opposite sex because of exposure to gays. I suspect you won't either. Trust me.
The country has rarely needed an injection of economic conservatism more than it does right now. What a shame it will be for all, but particularly the lower and middle classes, if fewer economic conservatives are elected on November 2nd due to the arcane beliefs of a backward minority.
Let's keep liberals out of the board room and conservatives out of the bedroom.
hmmm, generally, I can agree with you on that!!
Reply to this
Sorry to disappoint you.
Reply to this
Interesting, I myself am confused about this "dont ask, dont tell" business. Who cares? Let them do their job; if they are distracted then fire or reprimand them. We don't have this procedure for other lines of work. The whole social rules in politics confuses me.
Reply to this
Well said Chuck, I enjoyed that!
Reply to this
Chuck,I find it hard to believe that you seem to have been hoodwinked by the liberal take of the Meet The Depress interview with Ken Buck. Although I am not real familiar with Mr Bucks position on gay rights I do not believe him to be the homophobe that the left would like to characterize him as. Within his clumsy statement he said "I'm not a biologist".I believe what he was trying to point out in response to a "gotcha" question is the fact that he is neither a genetic researcher or a psychologist and that their is evidence of a "gay gene" as well as evidence of a gene the predisposes one to an addiction to alcohol.Also he believes that for some homosexuality can be a non-genetic related lifestyle choice.Either way I don't see this as a issue to be considered in a senatorial race.The federal court system seems to have control over such matters,9th circuit overturning a California election result.Frankly the issue of gay marriage does not matter to me. What does matter is a federal court can overturn the result of a open state election even though the other 49 states seem to address the same issue on a state level without federal interjection. Add that to the list of why liberals should stay out of the judicial appointment arena. With all that said,for me economic issues have always been of primary importance with social issues being considered but secondary in my voting decisions. With reference to your closing line of this blog,I would just add this little factoid and opinion.The U.S.Constitution is about 4000 words to date this year 60,000 pages of regulations have been entered into the national register many of them aimed at stifling industry and free enterprise as well as confiscation of personal liberty.I would submit to you that liberals and conservatives alike should stay the hell out of the boardroom, bedroom and hospital room then govern with economic conservative principles within the 4000 words that the original document allows.
Reply to this
Not hoodwinked, duped, fooled., or even bamboozled...and not calling him a homophobe either. One doesn't have to understand biology or genetics to see what common sense exposes much more clearly. The vast, vast majority of homosexuals are simply predisposed to be attracted to the same sex--just like you and I are wired to like the opposite sex. Is there some small fraction that make a lifestyle decision to pair up with someone of the same sex? Sure. But, as long as people have an innate attraction to the opposite sex, I just don't see society being threatened with extinction or moral decay by the relatively small fraction of people who prefer the same sex. Perhaps I'm a simpleton, but it's just not that complicated to me. If two people want to love and support one another, that lessens the burden on the state and is positive for society. We've got much bigger fish to fry as a nation than to worry about a sexual and/or loving relationship between two consenting adults.
Reply to this