Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

h1

Philosophy of Life, Not a Philosophy of Government

March 18, 2008

What does it mean to be a conservative? American conservatism is different from conservatism in the classical sense. It is uniquely American. Conservatives are actually more classical liberals. Classical Liberalism is a belief in liberty. According to Dinesh D’Souza, “The American founders, for example, were committed to three types of freedom: economic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of speech and religion. In their classical liberal view, freedom meant limiting the power of government, thus increasing the scope for individual and private action.” This is not to say that today’s liberals do not believe in these freedoms (although I would argue that liberals don’t really believe in free speech. If they did, they wouldn’t constantly complain that conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to express their views). The liberals today follow this new philosophy of digging deep within yourself to find out who you really are. Their morals are based on being “true to yourself.”

Conservatives believe in these freedoms, but have added a different element. Dinesh D’Souza says that the added element is “a concern with social and civic virtue.” He says that “the conservative virtues are many: civility, patriotism, national unity, a sense of local community, an attachment to family, and a belief in merit, in just desserts, and in personal responsibility for one’s actions […] What unifies the vast majority of conservatives is the belief that there are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life.” On the other hand, modern liberals have the different kinds of virtues that they feel are important and determine a good life: “Equality, compassion, pluralism, diversity, social justice, peace, autonomy, and tolerance.”

Now, regarding the virtue of equality: It’s not that conservatives don’t believe in equality, it’s that conservatives believe in a different kind of equality. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity, success by merit, and equality of rights. Liberals believe in the equal outcome; that some are not as capable to succeed as others and they are more than willing to take from people who earn more to give to people what haven’t. Conservatives speak of the same type of freedoms, but mean different things. “Conservatives emphasize economic growth, while liberals emphasize economic redistribution. Conservatives like to proclaim their love of country, while liberals like to proclaim their love of humanity. Conservatives insist that force is required to maintain world order, while liberals prefer the pursuit of peace through negotiation and dialog. Conservatives are eager to preserve moral standards, liberals cherish personal autonomy.”

Conservatism to me is a philosophy of life, not a government position. I believe that conservatives understand that there are two types of forces in the world: good and evil, while Liberals believe that human nature is in root good. They believe war is a result of blunders and misunderstandings, and poverty and failure are a result of societal placement.

I am a conservative because I believe that conservatives understand that people are flawed and there is evil in the world. Ultimately, I believe that conservatives and liberals both want to achieve the same thing: a good and prosperous society, but I believe that liberals go about achieving a good society the wrong way (by redistribution), while conservatives want to achieve it the right way (by merit).

If you had to label me with a governmental position, it would be a sort of libertarian. But even then that would be difficult to explain entirely, because libertarians are economic conservatives without the moral standards. I would be more of a conservative libertarian: because I have a conservative world view while having a sort of libertarian economic position.

The quotes used in this post are from Dinesh D’Souza’s Letters to a Young Conservative. I used D’Souza’s words often, because he expresses his points so well, that it would be a disservice to him to try and paraphrase them.

Advertisements
h1

Officially Apathetic

March 8, 2008

It’s late…I’m tired…I’m Annoyed…I don’t know what to do.

The Republican party and all of its “(R) before (C)” members have abandoned me and my fellow conservatives. While the country moves further and further left, I become more and more aggravated. Regardless, here are a few last words on what I think about the candidates before I sleep:

Mitt Romney – You’re a businessman who knows what is and isn’t a bad investment. While it may be a bad investment financially to continue, I say stay in the race just to stand up for what’s right.

Mike Huckabee – You’re a hypocrite and I have no respect for you and your ridiculous claims of conservatism. Crawl back into the hole that you came from along with the uneducated “(R) before (C)” people who support you.

Ron Paul – While you stand up for everything I agree on domestically, you’re an idiot for ever thinking that the US can just “stay out of the way” and therefore I could never vote for you.

And finally…John McCain – You’ve made my party the party of moderates…I hope you’re proud…I’m ashamed.

May conservatism be with you all

David Cooper (C)

h1

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or Pro-Progress?

December 22, 2007

Abortion is an issue that every American political candidate is asked about at one point or another. I don’t understand this, because abortion is such a minor issue in a post-9/11 world where there are so many other, more important, issues.

Often times Liberals blame Conservatives for being pro-life along with pro-death penalty which would, by definition, contradict the stance of “pro-life.” But you have to think of pro-life, not in literal terms, but in reasonable terms. Let’s look at an example. How can you be pro-life and support the death penalty? Let’s break it down: if an unborn fetus has no choice whether he will be born or not, then the mother must make a decision. Generally, except in the case of the mother’s health, incest or, arguably, rape, the mother should choose to have the baby. Because the fetus, a living organism that would become a human being, has NO say whether he can live or not, makes it murder to kill him. Now lets look at the death penalty. The person to be put to death has lived life. By choice, that person has committed crimes (usually murder) to put himself in that situation. A jury of citizens was presented evidence that proved the crimes of this person and he was seen so evil that he had been sentenced to death to prevent any other murders that would likely happen were he not dead. How are these instances the same? A fetus has NO choice whether to live or not, whereas the person sentenced to death willingly committed crimes against the law and knowing that there is a death penalty. He chose to commit the crimes that would lead him to the position of death. To me, they are two totally different things.

Moving on. When it comes to abortion there is a stalemate. Many people in this country feel that abortion should be outlawed, while many others believe that it should be the mother’s choice. To quote Dinesh D’Souza, whom I’ve quoted before, “hard-liners are fools. Because they want to outlaw ALL abortions, they refuse to settle for stopping SOME abortions; the consequence is that they end up preventing NO abortions.” (Letters to a Young Conservative p.192) This, to me, makes a lot of sense. Why prefer a stalemate over progress? One presidential candidate who stands for this (whom I disagree with on almost ALL issues) is Rudy Giuliani. Unfortunately for him, he hasn’t figured out how to say this correctly and only gives the impression that he is a Liberal pro-choice Republican, which is certainly not true. But the question is why not work hard preventing SOME abortions by encouraging adoption and what not, then push legislation to ban it when abortion is close to nil? Being hard-headed only causes a stalemate and no progress. Not to mention, if you tell people what they can and cannot do, they only want to do the opposite of what they’re told; it’s human nature.

Does this mean that I support abortion? No. Does this make me pro-choice? Absolutely not. I believe that abortion is the wrong thing for a soon-to-be-mother to do. I believe that it is immoral and we should do everything we can to prevent it, but me hard-lining against abortion gets nothing done. We should hard-line for encouraging adoption over abortion, which would make remarkable progress and make another family, that can’t have children, happy.

Some people will say, “Abortion is the number one issue for many religious people, and these people would never vote for a person who thinks that way (about abortion).” My answer: Christians who make abortion the number one issue which determines who they will vote for are idiots. If a candidate came up to me and said, “I will do everything I can to win the war on terror. I will close the border. I will have a tax reform. I will cut government programs. I will encourage Charter schools for competition. I will encourage individual health policies over universal health care. blah blah blah.” then said, “I will NOT try to make a federal ban on abortion (because it can’t be done), but rather try to reduce the amount of abortions that occur.” These hard-line Christians would be fools to overlook that!

I am a Christian. I am a Conservative. I am pro-life for progress. I guess that make me Pro-Progress.

h1

College professors: the new Gnostics…

December 17, 2007

First, let’s define who Gnostics are, or were. Gnostics were a religious sect during early rise of Christianity, who claimed to have a secret knowledge about Jesus. They didn’t consider themselves anything other than Christians, but were looked down upon by the orthodox.

You may have heard of these people and their writings. These are the folks who created the Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel, and Gospel of Peter. These controversial texts contained themes that argued Judas as the hero for betraying Jesus and fulfilling prophesy, showed outrageous accounts of Jesus’ supposed conniving childhood, and random quotes that were said to be from Jesus in Thomas (similar to the Quran’s contents of Muhammad’s sayings).

The Gnostics believed that Jesus gave special knowledge to the disciples and left limited knowledge to the people by using parables. Well, we seemed to have figured out what the parables mean, but I guess that isn’t the “secret knowledge.” But I digress…Gnostics also felt that it didn’t matter what a person did to his body, because it was all about finding his “inner-self.” Consequently, there were Christian martyrs like St. Perpetua, dying for their faith, while Gnostics would sacrifice bulls to Roman gods one minute and go seeking their inner-self through “Christian” beliefs the next.

Obviously Orthodox prevailed and Gnosticism failed (if it didn’t and everyone became Gnostic, would it still be “secret knowledge,” which is the very foundation of Gnosticism to begin with?). Christianity may have been through a lot of problems, but today it’s certainly not the problem in the world. If anything, it helps keep the world a somewhat moral society. Now, I know you don’t have to be a Christian to be a moral person, but religion (Christianity included) certainly contributes to the morality that we see and retain today.

Now to my point: College professors are the new Gnostics. Ironically they call themselves agnostic (which means they have no knowledge and are seeking to figure out religious beliefs), but we all know what they really are – Liberals. These Liberals who call themselves agnostic, believe they contain a secret knowledge about humanity and politics that the rest of society doesn’t know because they’re too stupid. Granted, not all Liberals are secular, but in general they believe religion causes problems; especially for secular driven Liberal agendas. Although society is more secular than ever, Liberal college professors claim to stand up for some great cause for humanity against “right-wing-religious-fanatics.” The worst thing about it is that these Liberals are pretending to “teach” students; attempting to achieve liberalism and secularism worldwide. Luckily, there are some people who see through this, but there needs to be more legitimate instructors.

These professors just think they’re smarter than everyone else, but don’t let these Gnostic professors fool you. There are intelligent college graduates in the world that are Conservative. The thing is they pursue other endeavors like becoming businessmen or medical doctors or scientists. Perhaps I’ll be the exception. I want to be the teacher that teaches history and government from a legitimate angle, but if I have to be a right-wing fanatic in order to level-out the liberal education that students receive, then so be it.

David Cooper (C)