I touched on this already, but the point is so important it believes further clarification. Although it may seem otherwise, I do not try to stereotype too often here at Thoughts and Ideas. Sure, they are easy, and to an extent true, but for the most part it's a subersive way of condemning an--often ambiguous--group different from oneself. Thus I apologize if my metaphorical axe comes down to harshly on someone for whom indictment is unwarranted.
Liberals have a different standard of morality than conservatives do. Although many of my fellow conservative Christians were quick to point fingers at Dean for claiming that the party many of us belong to is--and I'm paraphrasing--primarily "white Christians", there is a rather large grain of truth in the matter. The republican party is home to many Christians.
There are quite a few reasons for this. The most fundamental difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is the value placed on human life. From abortion to stem cells to Schiavo and excluding a slightly hypocritical stance by some republicans on the death penalty, the right is more likely to go to bat if life is on the line.
Now I am not implying that liberals like to kill babies as some say--Ann Coulter comes to mind. I am saying that the left does not, by and large prescribe to Judeo-Christian values. This is fine, except that the left often allows the right to be judged by a different standard than they would judge themselved by.
This is becoming abundantly clear in the Rove case. The whole thing is far from over, and in all honesty I am not sure which side is lying. The right claims that because Plume was not covert at the time and therefore Rove should get off scott free. The left is going into high alert seeing a way to sink the Bush ship. In fact, I think many of the liberals wouldn't have a problem with locking up Bush for complacency. The truth is lost somewhere in this mess, and hopefully it will surface at some point.
The issue though, is not whether Rove is legally guilty. For to the left, he is morally culpable even if he has violated no law. This is as reprehensible as it is childish. Liberals are changing the rules of the game. Many liberals do not have a coherent moral code, except a personal one. It is certainly possible to think that the Judeo-Christian ideal is bunk, but the left has offered no replacement in its stead. Relativism is the order of the day, but it's a particularily fetid relativism. It is a moral standard in which there is no standard at all--for that is what relativism purports--except for those who see relativism as farcical.
Democrats do not stand to any particular moral code. Often, they obey the law, but that is about all. Now surely there are many moral liberals, but it considered a sort of icing on the cake. There is nothing that would forcibly compel liberals to behave in a way that is above and beyond the law. This lack of incenticve does not prevent them from calling republicans out when they fall short of their own high moral standard.
When one flips this all around, it immediately becomes obvious how absurd it is. No one would tell someone who does not believe in absolute moral truth to adhere to a personal view on morality. Yet, the democrats are calling Rove out on his lack of morality. If he is found guilty of the law, Bush has promised to fire him, but that will not placate the vehemence the liberals in this country have for Rove. They want Bush to fire Rove for violating an unwritten moral code.
This is blatantly unfair. If Rove is a moral man, he will do the right thing. If he is not and he is violation of no law, God's judgment may be on him, but man't judgment has rendered him innocent.
This is also a telling point into the relativist's mind. As a purely political move it makes sense that the dems would try to call Rove on that, but the passionate rhetoric leads me to believe that there is more than meets the eye. There is a disgust among some who feel that Rove has behaved immorally and are angered that the law may not punish him. They appeal to a higher standard of morality because they realize the ineffectiveness of human law. Rove has done something wrong, and he must be punished. Yet if the law says he is innocent, the law is not the final arbiter of moral goodness and there must be a standard, a more lofty one, from which we all derive our moral laws.
That law is the Judeo-Christian code which has served humanity quite well throughout these years. Conservatives and liberals alike would be wise to follow such a wholesome--and true--set of values. This world just might be a better place and we may just have less finger pointing and more justice.
I'd be surprised if the republican party started to espouse these values in a real way. I would be even more surprised if the democratic party did so. In truth, I'd be surprised if I ever followed them as well as I should. Therein lies the rub. The right standard is to a large degree impossible. Count on relativists of both liberal and conservative persuasions to remind those humans who dare to try just how imperfect they are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Culture of life, what a fraud. I suppose you've heard the old joke that 'Conservatives believe life egins at conception and ends at birth'? It may be a cliche, but it's still largely true. While Republicans have fallen over themselves to secure the well-being of clumps of unconcious, cells, they show precious little concern for babies who have actually been born, much less grown past infancy.
Why do you think we don't have health care for everyone in the US? Why do you think so many of the food and legal drugs people take are so dangerous? Why do 1 out of 5 American children live in poverty? There are a million other examples to show that Republicans' concern over 'life' is at best hypocritical and at worst pure fakery.
I also hate it when conservative Christians bring up 'Judeo-Christian values'. Stop trying to drag us down with you!
I could have expected this cliche response. The problem lies with your inability to believe that an unwillingness to let the government do something about a problem means one is apathetic to a problem.
Healthcare and welfare as run by the government are as unconstitutional as they are ineffective. I am unaware of the clause that gives Uncle Sam the right to take from Peter whose only crime is having a job to pay for Paul whose only virtue is that he has no job.
Now you would no doubt make an appeal to Christian charity and I wouldn't be honest if I admited that Chrisitians have a duty to love our neighbors. The federal government is not the vehicle for this "charity".
I propose that instead of squandering untold billions on things like social security, welfare, healthcare--coming soon dear Loyal, don't fret--medicare, etc., taxpayers take the money that would have been spent and instead give it to a private charity.
This is a good idea for two reasons. First, taking the problem out of the cold hand of government and into the hands smaller organizations will allow the actual problem to be addressed. Someone can talk to these welfare mothers who seem unable to grasp the link between promiscuity and pregnancy.
Secondly, private organizations don't waste all of their money on overhead like the feds do. If a business behaved like the government does it would cease to exist at all. To say that the government is inefficient insults poorly run businessed everywhere.
The constitutionality of the proposal is slightly suspect, but I can see the court coming down as it did in Cleveland school vouchers case. The ACLU would try to shut this down, but it's a moot point anyway because my idea isn't going anywhere.
Liberals are too dependent on those who live on the system to let it collapse. They also like to let it be known that taking money from the working class to give it to the non-working class is the epitome of compassion, when it is nothing more than kindly robbery.
Conservatives are dependent on the rage of their constituents. It would be interesting what Rush and company would complain about if we didn't squander money on welfare and actually tried to alleviate poverty through private charity.
In short, it won't be tried because it actually might work and the government is not involved. Yet it is precisely because the government is not involved that it just may work.
For the record, I only brought up "Judeo Christian values" because of the hypocrisy of Schumer and company on the hill. You should call Mr. Schumer and tell him to quit setting me off and you won't have to hear more about it from me.
Very interesting; both your own opinions as well as the discussion in your comment section. I'm not so sure anybody in Washington's really "thinking" at all on the Karl Rove deal. I think they're all just pointing fingers and playing games when we have some pretty serious stuff going on that need pretty serious, and immediate attention. As an "average Joe", I'm appalled that they can't find something PRODUCTIVE to do on Capitol Hill.
When you imaging all the money we've been spending on paychecks for these clowns (on both sides) for the last few weeks, and what we've gotten in return ("Karl Rove; Karl Rove; and Karl Rove"), I feel totally SCREWED and I want my frigging money back!
If only we could get our money back each time we feel the government didn't do its job... oh wait, then the government wouldn't have any money at all or a job to do. Which is fine by me actually.
I thought that 60 years of European social democracy had ended the ridiculous claims of universal health care, unemployment benefits, trade union rights etc. being 'ineffective' against poverty. If free markets and a lack of government involvement were necessary to raising health standards and reducing poverty and homelessness, then the US would be the leader in all those things within the industrialized world. It's not; it's dead last.
Charity may be 'effecient', but I'm concerned with effectiveness, not efficiency. Private charities may serve some good, but they are ultimately dependent upon the generosity of their donors, and in a free-market system, what purpose does charity serve to anyone if it isn't benefitting them personally? So, these charities have no security in their funding and no long-term direction in their plans. At best, they may dash in and save a few people while the majority are left to languish.
You forget that capitalism and Christianity are directly opposed to each other, and if one takes over, the other has to fade away.
High and dry: I don't know where you're getting your information, but it doesn't answer the fact that in the US 45 million people have indefinite waits for surgery and no chance at emergency procedures at all. Besides, anada still has private health care for those who want it.
Are you claiming that Christain charities are responsible for the existence of every family in the United States? And are you saying, too, that those families who have lost a parent for whatever reason should simply sink into poverty and shame for their own lack of respect for tradiitonal marriage? Also, are you suggesting that for families whose parents are unable to find work, they ought to be simply tossed out on the street? You have to think about what you write or say, high & dry, because most conservatives don't.
I know perfectly well what Jewish religious values are, thank you, and they include doubt, scientific inquiry, and socialism.
"I thought that 60 years of European social democracy had ended the ridiculous claims of universal health care, unemployment benefits, trade union rights etc. being 'ineffective' against poverty. If free markets and a lack of government involvement were necessary to raising health standards and reducing poverty and homelessness, then the US would be the leader in all those things within the industrialized world. It's not; it's dead last."
You presume several things here, some of which are quite incorrect. First, socialism is working well enough in Europe that is true, but it will not last. I've harped on this before, but without children, a progressive government will collapse. When the government steps in to provide a social safety net, the incentive to have children is removed.
Within fifty years, the economies of Europe will collapse completely--even now they show signs of stagnation. Without radical social change, that is, a revival of faith in the importance of children, or massive immigration, the grand socialist experiment will prove to be an abysmal failure.
The other thing you wrongly assume, is that America is some sort of bastion of the free market. It is nothing of the sort. Laissez-faire capitalism is clung to by a scant few libertarians--myself included--while meanwhile the government interferes with business constantly. Whether by intense regulation and price control or by misguided subsidies, the government of this fair land has shown that she has lost her faith in capitalism. How easy then to say, see, it does not work, when in all fairness, it has not been tried in a good while.
"Charity may be 'effecient', but I'm concerned with effectiveness, not efficiency. Private charities may serve some good, but they are ultimately dependent upon the generosity of their donors, and in a free-market system, what purpose does charity serve to anyone if it isn't benefitting them personally? So, these charities have no security in their funding and no long-term direction in their plans. At best, they may dash in and save a few people while the majority are left to languish."
You are right when you say that effectiveness is more important than efficiency, although the two seem tied to me. However, nowhere do I see you defending what seems to be a failed policy on behalf of our politicians in regards to the attempted eradication of poverty, nor do you claim charities could not be effective if given the capital to exact change.
My original proposal was to take the money out of the hands of the feds and into the hands of the people running the charties. This will not only be more efficient, but it will be more effective.
"You forget that capitalism and Christianity are directly opposed to each other, and if one takes over, the other has to fade away."
That is an interesting comment, and one that seems to be quite false. Pope Leo XIII condemned socialism in his encyclical Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor). Though he doesn't come across as rabidly pro-capitalistic, he does not condemn the whole system. He makes a call to a justice within the capitalistic system.
While it is true he speaks for Catholics, his message is decidedly Christian. He writes of socialism, "Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wageearner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life." Now if socialism is not the answer and capitalism is equally incombatible with Christianity, what system must we use? It seems either you or Leo is wrong Loyal, and my money does not rest with you.
Post a Comment