"True, but what's instructive is how people "self-identify", which is what this poll is all about. It doesn't attempt to gauge whether or not people are really liberal or conservative based on some universal definition but on how people perceive themselves.
And that's an interesting measure of the culture and the various portrayals of ideologies that people are exposed to and whether or not those memes are working in society.
For example, conservatives are portrayed in the popular culture as cold-hearted, old, white, anti-minority, anti-women, etc., and yet with all that negative stereotyping bombarding the culture, twice as many people self-identify as "conservatives" than as "liberals." I find that fascinating." Dennis
"Like when I threw out "Selfish" as a label... (instead of Conservative) I think that the reality is that most of us know the truth. Most Conservatives are very concerned about fairness and their fellow citizens, maybe more so than the Liberals. It is core to our religious teachings and we are taught its importance from our first day in Sunday school.
We just don't think that government can do welfare effectively or efficiently. And we believe that entitlement rewards and encourages the wrong behaviors and habits, therefore robbing humans of some very important self fulfillment and joy." G2A
"Or your proselytizing is just an attempt to rationalize the lack of empathy for others that you and other conservatives deem unworthy. Judging from the actions of conservative lawmakers and the vast majority of comments I read, I'm inclined to believe the latter. " Jason
"Not sure about all Conservatives, however I did some interesting math. It seems that ~10% of my gross income flows through the tax code to fund the "welfare" bureaucracy and support the needy. Now I could easily rationalize that I meet my religion's tithing recommendation.
Instead I strive to give above and beyond. (about another 6%, working toward 10...) My favorite charities are the United Way, my public school district, my Church, PRISM, Memorial Blood bank, Cancer research, etc. I have no shortage of empathy, I just believe government does "charity" very poorly with some pretty bad side effects." G2A
So what do you think, which of the groups is more empathetic and caring? The Liberal folks who want to have the government forcefully redistribute money from Peter to Paul, while asking little to nothing from Peter. Or those Conservative folks who give while expecting some action from Peter.
In summary, is it better to freely give out fish indefinitely at someone else's/ society's expense. Or is it better to promote fishing as a way of life, while helping those that truly are unable to cast a rod.
16 comments:
Paying for the safety net through taxes is the price to pay for a civilized (safe) society.
Would you prefer more homeless hungry people in our streets?
How many people are going to donate 10% to charity? Does it really matter if a social worker is employed by Hennepin County or Catholic Charities? Do you know of a single country that provides their safety net exclusively through provate charity.
Liberals have a more realistic view of the size of safety net needed and the most realistic efficient way to deliver it.
US Total Welfare Spending continues to grow and yet the Poverty Rate seems pretty stable.
It does not seem that those "realistic efficient" methods are very "effective". Or is the answer the usual, if only we spent more money on fish, we could fix the problem?
Thoughts?
Speaking as a liberal, I have no empathy, and for the most part couldn't care less. The fact is, I do have mine.
--Hiram
"How many people are going to donate 10% to charity?"
Well, if you let people keep the 10% they now give to government to "do charity," probably quite a few. But among those that already do and those who would if government let them, the vast majority of them will be conservatives. It's a fact; look it up.
I will concede, though, that liberals care more. It's far easier to be "compassionate" when you are using Other People's Money to do it. I'm sure liberals find that more "efficient," too, because they don't actually have to talk to the homeless guy while he eats the supper you prepared at the shelter, or entertain the kids while you bring the donated furniture into the transitional house your church lined up for that battered woman.
Impossible to answer, so what's the point.
We should talk about specific policies, instead of threads that encourage pointless philosophizing.
Guest posts always welcome. Just email it to me or post it as a comment and I will move it to the top.
Personally I think the discussion of "perceived intent" matters a great deal. Especially since the Conservatives are typicaly on the receiving end of the "cold, selfish, heartless, non-empathetic, etc" labels.
So, why do you think fewer people self identified as "Liberal"? (ie the kind, empathtetic, caring, generous, etc label)
All this thread will be is recitations of broad stereotypes.
As for why fewer people self-identify as "liberal": my theory would be is that there has been a multi-decade attempt to associate that word with negative connotations. One need only read this blog to see how that goes.
That's why political labels are essentially pointless. Much better to talk about specific policies and their impacts than bickering about labels. People aren't likely to agree on what exactly constitutes "liberal", "conservative" or "moderate", so why chase one's tail about it?
Unless you're just trying to throw a pity party for the poor, aggrieved "conservatives".
Maybe we can meet both desires with a policy example.
Conservatives support "work requirements and time limits" as part of receiving welfare. Whereas Liberals seem to be against these.
For ref, here is a related Fact Checker post.
Fact Checker Work Reqts
Thoughts regarding work reqts and how they apply to this topic?
Perhaps you could provide me an example of liberals opposing work requirements and time limits, because your link explicitly points out that the changes proposed by the Obama Administration keep work requirements and time limits in place (the very ones that were signed into law by a Democratic President).
Maybe... Here are some different perspectives...
The Hill
Heritage Part 1
Heritage Part 2
If the Obama group is so sincere in championing State's rights and flexibility, why mostly do they work to take them away. (ie immigration enforcement, same sex marriage, ACA, common core, etc)
I think the reality is that he wanted to give them the flexibility to work around the Federal law because he disagreed with it. Which seems like a logical response...
The goal of the welfare program is to get people off of it. The changes the Obama administration are allowing states to make are predicated on the states being able to improve their performance towards that goal. If they fail to produce results, they lose the waiver, and they have to go back to the way it was before. This is precisely the sort of experimentation that we should be encouraging states to do, and there are plenty of Republican-governed states that want this flexibility.
(You don't want to go down the state's rights rabbit hole. Conservatives are more than willing to go against states rights when it suits them (abortion, same-sex marriage, medical marijuana, selling health insurance across state lines, on and on and on and on...) as well.)
You started the Obama did it with a pure heart to give State's the Flexibility they want argument. It just seemed unlike him to me.
Remember that many Conservatives including myself think the Federal government should not be in the welfare/medicare business at all. The argument being that the feds just add bureaucracy, and waste funding that the states could be using to care for people.
"You started the Obama did it with a pure heart to give State's the Flexibility they want argument."
This is what I said: Perhaps you could provide me an example of liberals opposing work requirements and time limits, because your link explicitly points out that the changes proposed by the Obama Administration keep work requirements and time limits in place (the very ones that were signed into law by a Democratic President).
It's a lot easier if you argue against what I actually said, instead of adding your editorial comments to them and then attributing them to me.
"Remember that many Conservatives including myself think the Federal government should not be in the welfare/medicare business at all."
Sure. But that doesn't give you the right to distort what actually is being proposed.
"That's why political labels are essentially pointless. Much better to talk about specific policies and their impacts than bickering about labels. " Sean
Sean is correct, in general. Both terms have been so successfully demonized over the last decade of partisan nastiness that a liberal cannot be trusted to tell you what conservatives think, or what policies they would espouse, and vice versa. Nonetheless, the labels are still useful in conversations such as this. If a conservative says that a certain idea is a liberal one, it implies a whole set of arguments against it in just that one word. If proponents of the idea wish to argue against the label then it becomes a conversation where they prove, hopefully with facts and logic, that the word and its associated characterizations do not properly apply.
This thread Is about whether or not the word "caring" is one of the words that should be attached to one or the other, or both, of these labels. I never cared for the term "compassionate conservative," but I believe it to be far more accurate than the kind of "caring" that liberals claim by virtue of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Sean,
I apologize. I read your comment and reread the factchecker link quickly. I must have thought you were agreeing with their argument. I agree, I took us down the state / feds hole.
Jerry,
Now that we are here, why were the Conservatives against giving the States more flexibility? It does seem abnormal for them.
It is you and Sean who are characterizing the Obama administrations actions in this positive light. I have generally found no relationship between what this administration says it wants to do with a policy, what the actual policy is, and what the results really turn out to be.
Post a Comment