« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Good Morning Open Thread

A little Kirkean thought that came up in an email discussion: It’s important we remember the difference between a conservative, who has ideas, and a leftist who has an ideology.

Ideas are flexible. ideology is not.

Thinking men and women with ideas can disagree. Ideologues who disagree must shun and destroy each other.

Open Thread.

COMMENTS

  • HadaAbeche

    If a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he wont buy one
    If a Liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants them banned.

    If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he wont eat meat.
    If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he condemns the eating of meat..

    If a Conservative doesn’t like Big Macs because of fat content, he goes elsewhere.
    If a Liberal doesn’t like Big Macs because of fat content, he wants a law banning trans-fats.

    A Conservative will dig into his pocket to help the poor and needy.
    A Liberal will dig into somebody else’s pocket to help the poor and needy.

    A conservative believes life begins at conception.
    A Liberal belives a fetus is not a human life.

    A Conservative believes in the free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise and minimal regulation.
    A Liberal believes in a market system in which government regulates the economy.

    A Conservative believes in marriage between a man and a woman.
    A Liberal believes marriage should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples.

    A Conservative believes Government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom.
    A Liberal believes religion should not interfere with Government.

  • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

    Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., released a letter Saturday that said instead of complying with the EPA restriction, “BP often carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it.”

    ———————

    Democrats: It’s all the fault of BP, Halliburton, Transocean, Capitalism and of course, BushCheneyHitler. Everything that’s ever happened is their fault.

    BP: Hey, we just want to use some of the only thing that actually works for cleanup.

    Democrats (to each other): Hey wait….. It’s really toxic stuff. Have Obama tell that Coastietoad Allen to look the other way – maybe even say ‘yes we can’ and let ‘em dump tons of it all around, then we’ll blame everybody for doing it.

    Democrats (to Coastietoad Allen): It’s your call, but check with the boss first, he seems to be for it before he’ll be against it.

  • http://politicalfriendsblog.com andyd

    I think there are two main differences:

    Conservatives want people to have the tools to be successful. Often this means working through charites, or one on one with those less fortunate than we are. Liberals don’t want individuals to be successful becuase that would make them “better” than others, AND less dependent on the government.

    Conservatives believe everyone yearns for freedom. We work to get government out of the way. Liberals (and I borrow this from Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom) are willing to give up their own freedom provided everyone else is made to give up theirs.

  • bigredone

    Greed: I want more and more, and I will work to get it.

    Envy: I want it too; I can’t get it because you are doing a better job to get it so I don’t want you to have it either, and I don’t care how it is taken away from you just so you don’t have it either.

    Greed is good. Envy is destructive.

  • petezilla

    This is why compromise to a Liberal means conservatives abandon their principles. It never happens the other way around.

  • The_Rebel

    This far left wacko from our 7th district here in MA thought his fellow Dems would have a great talking point going into the November elections. Well, this talking point, shall we say, just “evaporated”.

  • coldair

    “It?s important we remember the difference between a conservative, who has ideas, and a leftist who has an ideology.”

    But there is also the concept of “values”. Conservatives may have ideas that are flexible; however, they should reflect a set of values that are not so flexible.

    When we look at politicians who would have you believe they are conservative – we must not be fooled by their “flexibility” or “willingness to reach across the aisle” when it amounts to abandonment of conservative values. (Maybe someone can think of someone like this – someone who ran for President from a State beginning with the letter “A”?).

  • Bill S

    And again.

    Then think about who the idealogues are. Hint: there’s more than one right answer.

  • Common_Cents

    Amanpour? Really? I guess libs are suckers for an accent and an international apologist. I hope that show tanks big and fast.

  • lineholder

    and what you get is a situation where a person believes there is one way and one way only (namely their own) to resolve the issues that exist.

    If that ideologues believes in big government, then they see no other way to resolve the issues that exist than through expansion of governmental regulations.

    If that same ideologue has the mindset that amoral and/or immoral behavior is an “acceptable” means to an end that is justifiable, then don’t surprised if they are dishonest and deceitful in their dealings with those under that authority. Just keep in mind that they could easily misuse and/or abuse that authority in the process and it won’t phase them in the least to do so because their own moral standards are so LOW.

    By comparison, someone who has ideas could visualize many ways to approach a situation and numerous options that could provide a means of resolving the issues that exist.

    Someone with both ideas and moral values will be far more open-minded in evaluating the options that may exist, but they aren’t going to chunk moral integrity to the wind at the drop of a hat in the process by violating what it is morally and ethically right to do.

    For the most part, conservatives in general fall into this last group of people.
    And the leftist ideologues hate us for it, too.

  • texasgalt

    the boundaries of the “permanent things” – those virtues (not values) that have stood the test of time.

  • ralatredstate

    The left has plenty of “ideas” – methods of accomplishing their vile objectives.

    Both left and right have “ideas” and “ideologies”. An ideology is a system of values. The values of the left are often hard to identify, since they so easily subordinate values to immediate personal profit and seem to determine their values by polls.

    But there is an honest core of values that leftists believe in, apart from any political advantage that they may hope to gain from their espousal. They believe in:

    1) Equality of conditions or results. This is perhaps most clearly seen in the left’s espousal of criminal rights – what a person currently deserves does not depend on anything in the past: he or she deserves equality, unless vitiated by racism, greed or another form of conservatism. Persons are punishable for what they currently think (as determined by God, ie Government), but not for anything they may have done.

    2) The perfectability of the people, and the right and duty of those who understand what constitutes perfection to bring it about.

    3) Others – mapping the leftist ideology is vital, but has received little attention.

    The ideology of the right is clearer – we believe in individual liberty and accountability. But mapping our value system is no less vital and no less neglected.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    how CNN fired Juan Williams in 2000 for daring to defend Clarence Thomas and denounce Jesse Jackson.

    I also remember how ABC, after David Brinkley retired, stopped letting George Will ask devastating questions of Democrats and relegated him to commentary exclusively.

  • throwback59

    is far more rigid than the average person here. So be it.
    I view the term “open mind” as a perjorative, not a compliment, as in “an open mind lets your brains fall out.”
    I adhere to G.K.Chesterton’s gem “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction.”
    But let me ask you:
    Are we flexible in the idea that human life begins at conception?
    Was Reagan flexible in the idea that communism was evil and the Soviet Union must be destroyed?
    Are Conservatives really flexible with the idea that low taxes and limited goverment are the bedrock of Liberty?
    And yes, when it comes to the Obama Gang, I really do want to (politically) “shun and destroy” them.

  • rbdwiggins

    It’s based entirely upon a series of lies, and exists in a domain where two plus two can never equal four… unless the truth serves to empower the State.

  • usedtobelib

    Can anyone explain to this Californian why it is that polls show Rubio having trouble gaining ground? I just can’t believe that the oil spill alone is responsible for Crist’s rise in the polls. True, I know very little about Fla. politics, but after the flip flops Charlie has pulled time and time again, I thought that independents and people who are basically Reagan democrats would have tossed him overboard by now.
    Charlie’s non-reaction to the question about the AZ ruling this week should be proof enough that this is a guy that will take a stand on nothing until he puts his finger to the wind.
    I’d also think that Floridians, even those who think he’s done a good job as governor, would be skeptical about a man who wants to leave that job for the job of senator, a job much more shielded from the vagaries of governing.

    So, for those with insight into the matter, can you tell me if there is a problem with Rubio personally (personality or ethnicity) or his politics or is it familiarity with Crist that has the polls reading as they do, as close race with Crist in the lead? ( I am excluding that poll yesterday that showed him with a big lead.) Could it be the opposite of what we see in the rest of the country–that voters in Fla. are more comfortable with a known quantity than an unknown?

  • ralatredstate

    I said: “there is an honest core of values that leftists believe in”.

    It is people that are honest or not – not values or “cores of values”.

    So, let’s postulate a genuine, honest communist/leftist/liberal/progressive/socialist. You say there is no such thing? Then why are leftist/etc arguments and positions so popular? There is, in theory, at least, an honest leftist, and a core of values that characterize the leftist.

  • legacyrepublican

    My wife found this incredible video on YouTube this morning that sent chills down my spine.

    It was a remarkably prescient commentary by Alistair Cooke about the future of the USA and his observations still stand as a clear, well articulated, and conservative warning of the choices we need to make everyday and this November about taking back our country before it is lost forever.

    And Alistair Cooke said this in 1973, so find those elitist who think everything on PBS supports them and show them this video.

    Watch it yourself …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RmmhUejouY

  • mbecker908

    Well, for starters they are based on the premise that the individual has no personal responsibility. For anything. It’s the responsibility of the state to care for them. When things go wrong, it’s the responsibility of the non-leftists who oppose continued expansion of the caring state.

    The only way you can use the words “leftist” and “honesty” in the same sentence is if you consider “honesty” and “delusional” to be the same thing.

    And there is no “core” values for the left. Today’s values are based solely on what will provide the greatest mass appeal for their goals.

  • Christine (Trelaina)

    Their positions appeal to people because they speak in language that sounds perfectly reasonable. Why SHOULDN’T everyone be healthy and happy? If they can’t afford care, why, someone should HELP them. We must take CARE of our beautiful Earth, right? Isn’t it a shame to watch people take advantage of others just because they have power….someone should do something.

    It’s worth a little extra money out of your pocket to do all these great things, isn’t it? Just a little…we can afford it and so many others can’t….

    Our positions are harder to accept and follow. People should take responsibility for themselves and their families. People should help each other without government involvement. We should have an ethical standard that guides our lives. These things require thinking, hard work and faith.

  • msctex

    Plug in “Progressive” for “Liberal,” and you’re dead-on correct. I simply can’t help but object to their bastardization and subsequent co-opting of a term which once applied accurately to the Founding Fathers. It is distasteful and absurd that Obama and Jefferson could be ideologically connected in any way.

    We need to call a spade a spade, and abjure all imprecise terminology. We are not now confronted by Democrats, and certainly not by Liberals. We are living through the death throes of an entire ideology — Collectivism — as it both gasps for air and tries to drag down all in its reach. Calling Progressives by their name and thus forcing people to recognize them as what they are will go a long way towards hastening their last experience with power.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    “A conservative believes life begins at conception.”
    “A Liberal belives a fetus is not a human life.”

    “A Conservative believes in marriage between a man and a woman.”
    “A Liberal believes marriage should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples.”

    These cut against the rest of your examples. There are conservatives that are not pro-life; and there are conservatives who support same-sex marriage. The breakdown here should be between the people who desire that the federal government run roughshod over those who disagree with the ‘official’ opinion on such matters, and the people who do not.

  • tacoslayer

    Thank you sir!!

    I think the GOP would be much better served by staying out of the bedroom. Attempting to govern what folks do in the privacy of their own home is not conservative.

  • ceili_dancer

    n/t

  • jonreagan

    Once people begin paying attention, Crist’s negative baggage will begin to weigh on him, and he will fold like the $2 suitcase that he is. He has told so many lies so far in this campaign—beginning with his pledge not to leave the Republican party—that they are too numerous to count. These types of things become a liability once negative advertising kicks in, which will be closer in to election day.

    Obviously, Crist and his minions will throw stuff at Marco Rubio as well, but I think Rubio is far less vulnerable than Charlie Crist. He is honest, forthright, projects well in person and on TV, and gives serious answers to tough issues, e.g., entitlement spending. Ask Charlie Crist about those issues, and you get the stock answer that he’s going to “root out waste, fraud, and abuse”. Rubio may be the strongest candidate we’ve fielded this year anywhere in the country.

    Last year’s crop of Democrat flunkies—Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine—polled well during the summer months, and then folded once people started paying attention. imho, the same dynamic will likely play out this year, as long as we don’t get complacent.

  • tcgeol

    What is the connection between what happens “in the bedroom” and gay marriage? One relates to private matters, the other relates to implicit government and social endorsement. One is personal, the other is no better than any leftist in forcing opinion change.

    I also hadn’t realized that most abortions occur in the bedroom.

  • msctex

    Maybe the problem is the lack — and this is a relatively modern phenomena I would say, as I can remember a time when things were far less tenuous in this regard — the lack of concrete nouns to which modifiers accurately apply.
    If we can level the playing field down to Conservatives vs. Progressives, which is a perfect reflection of what is happening in Washington and across the country, the misnomers can be confronted and set aside in a logical manner. It would be far more difficult to be Lindsey Graham.
    At dinner a few nights ago, a friend who I suppose votes Progressive but who hopefully is in the process of outgrowing such things, expressed confusion as to how I could be simultaneously the most Conservative and Liberal person she knows. And it took me a second, but then I realized much of what she has been conditioned to see as “Liberal” is actually Conservatism applied to human interaction. And I explained that the difference between me and a Modern Liberal/Progressive is that my predilection towards leaving people alone to live their own lives does not reinforce my sense of Virtue. It does not make me feel like I am a “good” person, it makes me feel like a rational person, as I recognize to be left alone, I need to leave others alone. Which is why I qualify as a Conservative who believes what Moe points out above. And the next and obvious acknowledgement for those of us who feel this way, is that I am not religious, and thus have only Reason to which to look in making every decision, as opposed to Faith or the teachings of a Church. In abortion’s case, this leaves me perfectly willing to acknowledge it is wrong, but so is War. The Problem is that some things are worse, chief among them the Power inherent in telling someone else what to do with their body or life. Late-term abortion is an obscenity. Early term is the ending of the life cycle of a group of cells, as yet unaware of their existence.
    That said, a huge leap forward for Conservatives would be to take back the language, and provide accurate terminology for the ideological battle we face. If Rush Limbaugh were to cease using Liberal as a catch-all term for the crazies, and call them what they call themselves amongst themselves — Progressive — it would be a great day.
    And they would hate it with a passion, as the last thing they can afford is the light of day.

  • JSobieski

    The disagreements are really more of magnitude and comprehensiveness than anything else.

    I think the challenge we have against the lefties is that many Americans are in favor of lefty policies . . . just not to the same extent as the lefties.

    Progressive income tax
    Capital gains and dividend taxes
    Welfare programs
    Medicare
    Medicaid
    Social Security

    Opposition to these programs kick in at different levels for different people, but the vast majority of US citizens support them at some level.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    …not to run away from them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/us/politics/01obama.html

  • tacoslayer

    My point is that I believe the GOP harms itself with any declared anti-gay agenda. Politically speaking…I believe an anti-gay platform alienates more than it wins over.

    I’m not saying the GOP needs to break out the rainbow flags and start wearing pink crocs….I’m just saying that I believe this is one social issue the GOP should consciously avoid.

    And to be clear….I have no problem with gay marriage whatsoever.
    I don’t any possible way it can harm the “traditional family”….whatever that is these days. A loving family, regardless of the genders involved, or their respective sexuality, is a loving family. This world needs more of them. Period.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

    where’s that article on the Gulf being a testing ground for water tech?

    Actually, that’s my bent — but I know Soros has invested in 3rd world water tech. The company who supplied the dispersant was also Chicago – based.

    Saw it somewhere.

    Hope it wasn’t an examiner.com article.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

    and take their roots from communism, the ultimate leftist ideology.

    Their success over “ideas” is proven in the corruption that has infiltrated America all these years.

    Their latest attempt is hijacking our language of “values” and trying to turn the words “ideologue,” “radical,” and “extremist” against us.

    What we’re seeing is one loong thing thread from the 1800s.

    The problem with “ideas” in a democratic society is that we have a long tradition of competition, probably b/c of the capitalist market that accompanies democracies. So .. I guess you can blame capitalism, I don’t care.

    I care that we become just as committed.

    I would venture to say, more than we’ve been committed to our broken marriages, our estranged children, our lost friends, our failed jobs, our aged parents .. our new habits, our internet, our cable, our drinking, our porn, our shopping, our gossip, our tech.

    I’m guilty.

    God, family, country, in that order. Balance for the rest. :)

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

    and when I mean competition and ideas in democracy, I mean sometimes we’re too busy arguing about the right angle of attack or the best “ideas” .. and then we end up not choosing any leadership.

    Which can obviously be counter-productive.

    They have committed, ideologiac leadership. We don’t.

    Maybe that’s why we can’t fathom Pelosi being such a kook. I’ve had to stop myself from wondering .. why is she like that? why are they like that? what’s wrong with us?

    It’s ideology. Driven commitment.

    We’re getting it, though. Which is why I say they cannot gain control of the internet.

    Marx NEVER anticipated the internet or mass communication.

    Keep the Internet free from the UN. (from heritage)
    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/29/keep-the-internet-free-of-the-u-n/

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    There’s a time and a place for jeans. This was not one of them.,

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_spy_museum

  • aesthete

    The “leave people alone” bit is really more of a libertarian thing. Conservatives, for good or ill, do see merit in governmental intervention in society for various reasons (perceived moral decline, maintaining of cultural solidarity, community mores, as symbolic statements against a perceived societal wrong, to curb or stop said behavior in society, etc). Not that I terribly mind conservative co-opting of libertarian ideas in the social sphere, of course…

  • gazill

    drove down 5, like I did last year, during the “drought,” when our elected representatives decided that a small fish was more important than the farms in the Central Valley. Driving down last year, we saw the dead and dying land; orchards lined with dead trees that the year before were lush. Also, along the road, we saw the aqueduct, swollen with water. Many of the farmers posted signs thet let us drivers know that each was a “Congress Created Dust Bowl.” Quite a shame. I recall, all of a sudden Paul Rodriguez showing up everywhere (mainly Hannity), denouncing this decision (because it affected his family), though he supported the very party responsible for this (where is he now? hmmm.). Sorry, I digress. Anyway, this year we saw the same areas, some still barren, some with saplings planted (knowing there will be no crop for several years. Still the same signs about Congress, as well as a few regarding Boxer, Pelosi and Costa (I assume he is a local Congressman). I commented to my wife, that I cannot imagine that Washington, Jefferson, Madison and all would ever envision farmers having their water source controlled by a government that could determine whether or not their farms could be irrigated depending on bait fish. How did we fall so far?

    Folks on this site do provide me hope (not the crap promised to the simple a few years ago by a charlatan) that we can regain some lost footing.

  • gazill

    except maybe my mother-in-law…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    That is your fundamental error.

  • aesthete

    One’s acceptance of the right to not be forcibly deprived of life, and the extent to which one is willing to see the fetus as a harborer of that right. The acceptance of a right not to be forcibly deprived of life is fairly straightforward, and most Americans, certainly, buy into it. The fetus’ status as a harborer of such rights is where things get tricky. In complete fairness, there are some rights that children are not seen to have, including the right of self-determination (that right is, ideally, put in the hands of the parents of the child). However, the right to life is not one of these: indeed, children are some of the very few who conservatives and liberals alike would argue have positive rights, including the right to life. It’s why we have things like state-run orphanages, CPS, child endangerment laws, sexual predator laws, broad willful negligence statutes, and the gamut of laws protecting the positive and negative rights of children.

    Thus, the question is, is the fetus the equivalent of a newborn child? Since the mid-1800s, we have known that a fetus is biologically alive, and ultrasounds and other technologies have shown a range of behaviors and biological indicators showing that, around the tail-end of the first trimester, fetuses act and are similar to newborns. Much of the opposition to abortion from the 1800s to the first half of the 1900s was by doctors: the American Medical Association lobbied for restrictions on abortion in the mid-1800s, many women’s groups campaigned to criminalize, and many progressive strains of the time dedicated themselves to eradicating this crime against humanity. It was only later, as the eugenics movement grew in strength and law enforcement between the upper and lower classes reached more parity, that it became a faux pas to support criminalization. Opposition to abortion, thus, is not a cultural stand on the part of some backwater yokels; it is based on the (well-backed) belief that the fetus is the equivalent of a newborn, and should have his rights protected accordingly.

  • msctex

    So it boils down to definitions, which ironically was the subject of the original post. The question is not just when does life begin, as living, reproducing cells are of course alive. The question is what constitutes life. Personally, I have to draw that line at the instant not of awareness, but of any potential for any sort of awareness whatsoever. Where this line is, I have no way of stating categorically. But I do know it involves a brain, as it is with the brain that awareness resides. So once the brain begins to truly develop, I would argue a moral/ethical cessation of the possibility of abortion has been reached.

    We are in the end discussing the difference between a human and a potential human. I believe awareness of any sort, however rudimentary, to be the defining factor. Thus, I believe if a woman does not wish to carry a child for whatever reason, there is a period of time where she can morally and ethically end the pregnancy without committing a wrong. But she’d damn well better be quick about it, and it should haunt her. I can say that because I know it would me, were I in the situation.