Monday, October 11, 2004
Being Liberal Doesn’t Mean Having To Say You’re Sorry -- For Voting For Bush
…A brief, well written case is made for the reelection of George Bush from a liberal standpoint. "The Liberal Case for Bush," of course, assumes a liberal point of view – not a Leftist one (an issue in semantics that I had touched on in a prior posting).
**************************************************************
“WE” ISN’T ME
Michael Moore has written that Bush and company are “a bunch of conniving, lying, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control” (emphesis mine). Such perspectives in political philosophy have been uttered before in history and the result of “we" being in "control” was not a pretty picture. None the less, with this statement, Moore has captured the Left’s fantasy perspective in a nutshell.
Who exactly are “We?” At least Moore didn’t say, “The People,” the more classic generalization heard from those who think their abstract political fantasies represent real world circumstances. Are “We” farmers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, women, men, blacks, Hungarians, rich, poor, giants, or trolls?
To every Leftist, the assumed values and interests of “we” is always, in fact, the values and interests of them (the ones attempting to speak for everyone else). Amazingly, “The People” and “We” are always assumed to be Left wing in their stance and some conjured non-People are the un-We. Is it that hard to fathom that society, in reality, consists of a variety of conflicting interests and that one is no less a member of “The People” merely because they oppose tax increases or favor a strong defense policy. While Leftists fantasize their cooperative “community” in passive “consensus” (compliance), they fail to recognize that, in America, the guiding principal was intended to be Self-government under a limited and decentralized state.
Fears of an ominous “them” controlling government would be abated if government itself did not have so much power in the first place. How much power can any group wield with no energy source? Any faction that seeks to “control” the government does so merely because the government has – confiscated -- wealth, power, and the means of legally sanctioned force at its disposal. The Left is, in truth, more concerned about wealth than power per se. Other people’s wealth shouldn’t be an issue at all but it’s the Left’s prime obsession.
I personally don’t care that Bill Gates is a billionaire. In fact, I think the repercussions of his wealth to the economy as a whole are ultimately quite positive.
I don’t care that businesspersons want to play golf or doctors want to vacation in Spain. I don’t care that George Bush takes a tough stand on dictators (in fact, I’m glad he does) and I don’t care that Michael Moore chooses to dress like a slob… I just wish that he (and Leftists like him) would simply state their case, place their vote, and stop assuming that their phony use of “We” somehow applied to Me and everyone else.
**************************************************************
“WE” ISN’T ME
Michael Moore has written that Bush and company are “a bunch of conniving, lying, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control” (emphesis mine). Such perspectives in political philosophy have been uttered before in history and the result of “we" being in "control” was not a pretty picture. None the less, with this statement, Moore has captured the Left’s fantasy perspective in a nutshell.
Who exactly are “We?” At least Moore didn’t say, “The People,” the more classic generalization heard from those who think their abstract political fantasies represent real world circumstances. Are “We” farmers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, women, men, blacks, Hungarians, rich, poor, giants, or trolls?
To every Leftist, the assumed values and interests of “we” is always, in fact, the values and interests of them (the ones attempting to speak for everyone else). Amazingly, “The People” and “We” are always assumed to be Left wing in their stance and some conjured non-People are the un-We. Is it that hard to fathom that society, in reality, consists of a variety of conflicting interests and that one is no less a member of “The People” merely because they oppose tax increases or favor a strong defense policy. While Leftists fantasize their cooperative “community” in passive “consensus” (compliance), they fail to recognize that, in America, the guiding principal was intended to be Self-government under a limited and decentralized state.
Fears of an ominous “them” controlling government would be abated if government itself did not have so much power in the first place. How much power can any group wield with no energy source? Any faction that seeks to “control” the government does so merely because the government has – confiscated -- wealth, power, and the means of legally sanctioned force at its disposal. The Left is, in truth, more concerned about wealth than power per se. Other people’s wealth shouldn’t be an issue at all but it’s the Left’s prime obsession.
I personally don’t care that Bill Gates is a billionaire. In fact, I think the repercussions of his wealth to the economy as a whole are ultimately quite positive.
I don’t care that businesspersons want to play golf or doctors want to vacation in Spain. I don’t care that George Bush takes a tough stand on dictators (in fact, I’m glad he does) and I don’t care that Michael Moore chooses to dress like a slob… I just wish that he (and Leftists like him) would simply state their case, place their vote, and stop assuming that their phony use of “We” somehow applied to Me and everyone else.
