from Karl K. (the first)
This hits pretty close to home.................have a great day
Subject: Father and Daughter - A Conservative vs. Liberal Debate
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favour of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, “That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the conservative side of the fence.”
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between conservative and liberal or progressive or neocon I'm all ears.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."
Karl, you made my day, THIS IS GREAT!
ReplyDeleteUncle Eric ich mach mir ein bißchen sorgen, you are all alone amongst us conservatives, are there no "liberals" in the family that would like to join this debate?
Yes it does feel rather lonely at times, although I am convinced the lot of you are not as conservative as you seem to think you are. I don't know what you are, but in a lot of REALLY IMPORTANT areas you are in some cases delightfully un-conservative, and in other areas dangerously un-conservative.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I am totally convinced that the invitation for us to enter into the conservative or liberal camp is not helping us make better choices. It helps certain politicians and media types make a good living, but it does not make us better people or societies better.
Specifically, historically, had it been up to the conservatives, Galileo and Copernicus would have rotted in jail, and we would still be believing in a flat earth. There would be no Mennonites; they would have all been killed by the conservative Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists. We would still have slavery. There would be no women's votes. We would still believe in the divine right of kings. Did the liberals bring about these changes? I don't know, but we can be certain the conservatives did not!
There was a time, not so long ago, when conservatives were the financially prudent, the ones who believed in full cost accounting. Today it is the conservatives who are consistently pushing that private industry should be less regulated -- why? So they can pass the social and environmental cost of what they are doing onto the environment -- a euphemism for passing the cost on to our children and grandchildren.
There is a heck of a lot we don't know about how human activity will affect our environment on the long run. Certainly, never in the history of this planet have humans been capable of having such an impact on the planetary environment. A true conservative, it seems to me, would say, in light of what we don't know, we should be careful, and a spendthrift liberal would say, heck, why worry about tomorrow, when we can have so much fun today.
I am curious by your comments that Menno Simons, or those that freed the slaves, etc. where likely liberal, and most certainly not conservative. The main issues that bind liberals today, pro-union, pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, more entitelments, more regulations on corporations. Do you think this sounds like Abraham Lincoln (freed the slaves)or Galileio or the others to you? Clearly in the case of Abe Lincoln (and perhaps most of the others on your lilst) he would have scored 0% on being liberal as defined today, although perhaps 80% as a conservative. So i am unclear as to your commentary.
ReplyDeleteI think implied in your statement, is that as a society we constantly go through technology and moral progress, and that "liberals" drive this moral progress is that accurately stating your view? I do believe most modern day liberals believe that.
With respect to change, to be conservative means to resist change, to be liberal means to be pro-change. Looking at history, the changes I have listed are changes that conservatives resisted (surely you are not suggesting that the liberals of that day were the ones who resisted change), but as we look back, we agree they were good changes. There have been other changes brought in by liberals, that weren't so good. Ones that quickly comes to mind in Canada have to do with agreements made with Aboriginal people, whether these were treaties or residential school systems. I'm not sure where the conservatives were with respect to these agreements, but they certainly represented change, so I would say they were brought on by liberals. I'm sure there are better examples.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that I believe there is nothing inherently good about either position, conservative or liberal, and we do well to look at each issue on its own merits.
As to the question of what binds liberals together these days, it is my perception that for a reason I don't understand, the American far right spends a great deal of time trying to describe what it means to be liberal. Personally , I don't find that question interesting.
With respect to investment and the use of resources, conservative has a different meaning. In that context, I believe conservative means to be cautious and not extravagant. A conservative approach would certainly require full cost accounting. Help me reconcile a conservative approach to the use of limited resources with the attitude toward these resources by today's American right.
Same thing with respect to global warming or climate change. We have previously agreed to disagree on this one, however I do contend that with respect to this one, I'm the conservative and you are the liberal, the spend thrift.
I believe your premise is faulty, to be modern day conservative does not inherently mean resisting change. Certainly in many cases it does, but in many it doesn't. Think about conservative desires to fundamentally restructure social security which was rejected by liberals in 2005. Or imagine conservative desire to end legalizing abortion, that is change. Anyway, I want to reiterate that certainly the examples of Menno Simons or Abraham Lincoln being more liberal than conservative by today's definition is very distorted.
ReplyDeleteBut to your example on conservative attitudes of conserving resources, the difference between liberal and conservatives is not in whether we conserve or not, its that liberals want strong government control, while conservatives do not. I think we went through this a year ago, conservatives believe private property and an environment fostering technological innovation are the best for prudent stewardship of natural resources, while liberals want government regulation and control. In people's personal lives, I believe conservatives have the better record at being environmentally friendly than liberals. Think about the rallies in Washington the past month. The conservative rally by Glenn Beck of 500,000 people was reported to be trash-free, while the liberal rally held last week (with only about a fifth of the people) was concluded with trash everywhere. Sure this is just a small anecdote (of which there are many mind you such as the Obama Innaguration which left Washington in a sea of trash) but it bolsters the case that conservatives are not less responsible environmentally.
I do agree that liberals are more against oil drilling, and stronger advocates of alternative energy. I do believe most conservatives believe the market will soon and quickly economically dictate sustainable economics of alternative energy (given the declining cost curve of solar and wind in particular) while liberals want to accelerate it - in my view unnecessarily - before the economics are there.
But you have just made my point. The American Right may stand for something, but I fail to see how redefining conservative and liberal to suit the American Right's biases helps anyone.
ReplyDeleteIt would help me to know what, other than cleaning up trash, Glenn Beck and co are advocating that encourage real, life changing conservation?
I also fail to see how the American Right's obsessive need to lump liberals into some category is helpful. For example, we all know that David Suzuki is concerned about how we relate to our environment. We all know that Noam Chomsky is concerned how American Imperialism is affecting the rest of the world. I, at least, have no idea where either of these men stands with respect to "pro-union, pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, more entitelments, more regulations on corporations".
Yes I agree that the labels aren’t helping so I tried the last few posts to just focus on the issues.
ReplyDeleteI think our discussion where we started out on this blog on “capitalism” and “socialism” was easier to define than “conservative” and “liberal”. It all depends in what context the word is used and where the starting point is, it’s too subjective and carries with it a lot of emotion. For we each have our own Vorurteile, um, prejudices.
From your response I am beginning to understand how deep rooted your fear or anger of the word “conservative” is, probably as strong as my feelings toward communism.
By your belief that Conservatism “certainly did not” bring about any of these changes in your history examples, I interpret that you associate “conservative” with power, injustice, inflexibility, evil, and anything done under “liberalism” is seen as progress, justice, righteousness, a people’s movement and most certainly a good thing for humanity.
I am a strong believer in viewing history to understand where we come from, who we are and where we are going. I believe most and that includes I know too little history. Karl’s father and daughter story also emphasized that what is taught in schools is very biased, thus we need to read and investigate ourselves.
I just cannot take the time and energy to address everything, so as far as slavery goes I ask you to open your mind to learn history told perhaps in a different way than what we are used to.
If you can bring yourself to, I know it is asking a lot, to watch these segments on Glenn Beck on slavery and the civil rights movement. Really I highly recommend it. I know it took me awhile to, to get used to his style and approach. Lori are you rolling your eyes?
I picked out sections which I thought might be of most interest so that you who cannot stand Glenn Beck will not be tortured. Even if you don’t agree with him it does give you something to think about and as he always says, don’t believe him, find out for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG20VfppVtE&feature=related
I recommend this part 3 and then the following part 4.
and on this one, I recommend part 2 and 3 that follows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GhwdllRKD8&feature=related
and 4 if you just can't get enough.
I am working on addressing the Mennonite issue for this has been on my mind a long, long time, and U. Eric just opened that door, but I am sorry it takes me days, to get a few simple paragraphs together.
Thanks for the post Caroline. I just finished watching part 3. I honestly did not know Glenn Beck could be so generous towards the Democrats, and that he was capable of speaking for a whole 10 minutes without even once blaming "the liberals" for all the evils we are experiencing. My opinion of Glenn Beck just went up quite a few notches.
ReplyDeleteI do not consider that I have a deep rooted fear or anger about conservatism. I think there are significant good conservative positions (particularly on resource depletion, climate change and financial policy). But I do take issue with people who think the conservative position is always best, and who equate the current American Right (or Stephen Harper) with conservatism.
I also do not see “liberalism” as necessarily 'progress, justice, righteousness, a people’s movement and most certainly a good thing for humanity'. I am merely saying that in the cases sited it was a good thing.
I take no issue with Glenn Beck when he says that democrats were responsible for maintaining slavery, or whatever it was he said. If I were a student of the anti-slavery movement, I might disagree with him. I don't know.
Specifically to slavery, my concern is not so much even with political conservatism as it is with a certain strain of Christian fundamentalism that used the bible to defend slavery. But that could be another topic altogether.
Bonus points to you, for giving Beck a chance. I especially enjoyed watching his series on civil rights, the black founding fathers, and the faith, hope and charity segments. I think you would like some of those too. He btw also criticized (es) George Bush. ¬
ReplyDeleteI fully understand what you mean about “take issue with people who think the conservative view is always the best”. One wants to run or scream.
I all too often experience those high and mighty one sided liberals, they drive me crazy, so I escape to Beck. He helps me cope, honest.
I think having to put up with the extremes around us has formed both our political views, at least I can say it has more strengthened mine but more on my political confessions another time.
Oh btw I can't stand Ann Coulter either, I find her annoying and rude, though the media does take her a little too literally. David Suzuki, no comment. Could never take him seriously, even as a child. Let's just say I try to avoid both.
I can’t wait till Sun media in Canada gets started. It is hilarious the differences between how Ignatieff and Harper are portrayed by the tv media.
Most liberals think the Democrats fought for civil rights and Republicans are racists. If you were a student of anti-slavery you could not disagree with him on the point the Democrats were responsible for maintaining slavery.
The Republican party was formed for the purpose to restrict the expansion of slavery. Laws that prevented blacks from voting were implemented by Democrats.
Looking at more current history. Did anyone see the segments on 1900’s?
Do you think the average student knows that segregation was brought back for the first time since 1863, in 1913 by the Democrats under Woodrow Wilson? I didn’t.
Ok you can blame Wilson’s admin. but here you can’t.
As President of Princeton he discouraged blacks from applying for admission.
As chair of the League of Nations he vetoed the racial equality clause in the League of Nations, which had been voted in 11 to 17, this caused racial riots in America and insulted the Japanese.
Who do you think appointed five non-segregationist justices to the Supreme Court? Eisenhower
Which President do you think said these words?
“I believe as long as we allow conditions to exist to make for second class citizens, we are making of ourselves less than first class citizens”
(Eisenhower, remarks at the United Negro College Fund luncheon May 19, 1953)
Do you think a “liberal” knows that it was Eisenhower who first tried to put through the civil rights act in 1957, that the Democrats tried to stop it and then watered it down so badly it was beyond recognition, thus needed to be addressed again in later years.
The point I am trying to make is that Wilson is praised as being some human rights champion and Eisenhower is considered a man who didn’t really care about civil rights.
I am not a fan of either President, Eisenhower and Wilson made many crucial mistakes that had historic consequences. My purpose of these two examples is to show that there is an obvious liberal bias to who fought for the civil rights movement.
But I, at least, knew that it was Eisenhower who first warned about the military-industrial complex -- today one of the greatest causes of evil in the world. However most of the tidbits of history you reveal above were new to me. So thanks.
ReplyDeleteSo we agree that throughout the fight to end slavery, and later racial segregation the values and policies that brought about this change did not consistently come from the same party. Indeed the Republican party may have done more to bring about greater racial equality than the Democratic party.
Ironically, today we have a President in the US who campaigned on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ending torture, and a whole bunch of other human rights platforms, yet his policies have resulted in more civilian deaths in Afghanistan than Bush's, and he has done nothing to end torture.
Today there are many people Caroline and Karl would label as 'Liberal' who are just as critical of Obama as the media on the right.http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/09/war-crimes-interview-obama. Note that "The New Statesman" considers itself a left leaning newspaper. My point has been and continues to be that partisan politics may (who knows) be necessary to run a country, but it does not help me make good choices or promote good policies.
What I find refreshing about this conversation is that we agree that slavery and racial inequality is bad. We then proceed from that to what does one do about it. And it is important to me that government did have a role! The answer has not been to get government out of the way!
Surely the same approach has merit in discussing and dealing with the issues of today.