What "the Right" doesn't seem to get about "the Left"

And "the Left" doesn't seem to get about "the Right"

from JoeUser Forums

One of the biggest wrongs we can commit against the ideology of another is to sum up their ideology in one or two word sound bites (examples: the right, the left, conservative, liberal, Republican, democrat, libertarian, green). And yet it seems to be a necessary evil to address the group that is the focus of our discussion. With that disclaimer in mind, I'd like to make some observations about what I see as the right's key misunderstanding about the left (knowing that a good number of you won't fall wholly into either category).

You see, for all the disagreements I have with the left (and there are many, as those who incline towards the left will readily verify), There is one generality, one stereotype that fits them almost universally. While the right tends to differ over their reasons for involvement, the left hold their ideology almost entirely for altruistic reasons. You can believe, as I do, that the programs and ideas they suggest are often misguided, but to disagree about their intentions is to do a massive disservice to these individuals, whose intentions are, for the most part, good.

I believe the reason that many in the left have "lost their way" is because they have proceeded into action with fallacious assumptions. The argument often used by the left that proceeding into Iraq with faulty intelligence was wrong is equally true of some of the actions and initiatives undertaken by the left; their emotion stirs them into making faulty decisions at times.

A perfect example of this is the Child Protective Services system, which most of you know I oppose pretty strongly. There exists absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that the foundation of CPS was almost wholly good, altruistic, and honorable, or that the VAST MAJORITY of social workers within CPS have VERY honorable intentions. My concern is that CPS has been coopted by a bureaucracy that's unable to handle it, and that social workers are placed on a quota system that often demands they remove a child even if they perceive better solutions and more realistic solutions for the families they intend to serve. They also are often called to the role of being investigators, despite being inadequately trained in objective investigative techniques. This is one of the many reasons I support privatization.

Because we have become so partisan, we've refused to see what should be seen as the good in "the other side". The left should see that the right is not composed of "greedy, selfish" individuals, but of individuals that believe (at least in theory) that government should be smaller, that more decisions be made at the state and local level, where administrators and officials can better determine what's appropriate for THEIR constituency (one of my favorite sayings is "what works in Texas don't work in Massachussetts"). In essence, the right wants more "bang for the buck". The left, similarly, is not made up completely of "big government, tax and spend liberals", but of individuals who want to see every person born on this planet get a fair shake, have good opportunities, and have a reasonable standard of living. There's actually a good deal of room for compromise between the two.

politics
12,106 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The left, similarly, is not made up completely of "big government, tax and spend liberals", but of individuals who want to see every person born on this planet get a fair shake, have good opportunities, and have a reasonable standard of living.


Are you saying this includes allowing illegal aliens to get the same rights and services as legal ones? I know some liberals do, (Bill Maher immediately comes to mind), but I don't. Let them become legal first.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know some liberals do, (Bill Maher immediately comes to mind), but I don't. Let them become legal first


I'll go further than that, icon. I believe we should have a good guest worker program, and that if the majority of people want to keep government funded social programs, that it should be stipulated that they need to be taxpaying workers within the US for at least three years before they get a dime of benefits (I don't believe we should keep entitlements at all, but if we do, we should change the rules substantially).
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
they need to be taxpaying workers within the US for at least three years before they get a dime of benefits


Do illegals pay taxes?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do illegals pay taxes?

If they are breathing they do.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only reason we're so painfully aware of the Left's altruistic motives is because they're accompanied by a totalitarian attitude towards the rest of us.

Conservatives can be just as altruistic as liberals, but conservatives tend to be personally altruistic. Liberals, on the other hand, insist that their particular brand of altruism is the only correct one, and that their particular application of it is the only correct one, and that people who disagree with them should be dealt with politically, by a totalitarian federal government.

There's no room to disagree with liberals about the root cause of poverty, and no room to disagree with them about how to solve it. If they had their way, the federal government would impose laws on all of us, and force us all to do things the "liberal way", whether we like it or not.

It's not the altruism of good liberals that sets them apart from good conservatives. I know plenty of good conservatives with compassionate, generous hearts, who give their lives with great pleasure to help others. It's the totalitarianism that sets good liberals apart from good conservatives.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not the altruism of good liberals that sets them apart from good conservatives. I know plenty of good conservatives with compassionate, generous hearts, who give their lives with great pleasure to help others. It's the totalitarianism that sets good liberals apart from good conservatives.


I agree, when I was out doing disaster work, I wasn't surrounded by a sea of liberals. Among the volunteers I worked with was pretty much every point on the social, economic, political and religious spectrum. Each had our own reasons for being there, rarely were we there for political reasons...

although we often talked politics and religion. ;~D
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gid, you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. My problem with liberals that I have experience with (I don't want to make generalizations right now) is they have tons of fuzzy warm ideas but expect someone else to make it happen. They paint conservatives as bad guys because they are trying to be realistic.

I don't know many conservatives that wouldn't like everyone to live happily, to have poverty and hunger dissappear. I know a lot of conservatives who try to make things happen only to have liberals sit back and criticize that it isn't enough or they are going about it the wrong way.

I think these personal experiences apply pretty well to what I see going on in a much bigger arena. That is just my experience though.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Mao thought what he was doing was the right thing too.  His intentions were altruistic but his results led to the death in millions.

My biggest problem with "the left" is that their goals may be noble but the impetus of their goals is often raw arrogance -- the believe that the average person is too dumb to know what's best for them and that enlightened people (such as themselves) should be put into positions of power to help people live "correctly".

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mao thought what he was doing was the right thing too. His intentions were altruistic but his results led to the death in millions.


That's a bit much. Mao was hardly an altruist. He did very little because it would benefit the majority. If anything he was a bandit for nepotism and inequality, as reflected in the personal decisions he made which cannot be attributed to simple ignorance. I think you're lionising him a little too much.

My biggest problem with "the left" is that their goals may be noble but the impetus of their goals is often raw arrogance -- the believe that the average person is too dumb to know what's best for them and that enlightened people (such as themselves) should be put into positions of power to help people live "correctly".


In that case what about the religious right? They'd love a nanny state. Other traditionally right-wing groups also frequently call for bans or censorship so that kids aren't subjected to the horror of a nipple or so they don't have to fulfil a traditional role such as parenting or environmental/societal responsibility. Such groups almost always call for someone to protect them from the evils outside; if they call for a nanny, should no one provide one?

If meeting the cries of those who are in need (or at least claim they are) is arrogance, I think I'd rather have arrogant leaders than deaf ones. At least then no one can cry injustice.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The argument often used by the left that proceeding into Iraq with faulty intelligence was wrong is equally true of some of the actions and initiatives undertaken by the left; their emotion stirs them into making faulty decisions at times.
A perfect example of this is the Child Protective Services system, which most of you know I oppose pretty strongly.


is it really fair or accurate to attribute the monster cps has become to 'liberals'? this link Link leads to a timeline of the recent history of cps (from the early 60s to today) which seems to be be fairly consistent with what lil i thought i knew about the subject. i'm guessing you've researched the matter in far greater detail so perhaps i've missed something...cuz it appears as if this todays cps disaster is the unfortunate child of bipartisan, omni-ideology parentage (pun intended and regretted immediately).
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do illegals pay taxes?

If they are breathing they do.


I don't see how this is possible. To pay taxes requires that you either have a SS number or a "green card". Illegals have neither.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't see how this is possible. To pay taxes requires that you either have a SS number or a "green card". Illegals have neither.


They'd pay sales tax, and, depending on how dubious their housing is, possibly property tax as well. Unless of course the US just has income taxes, in which case I guess they don't.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
average person is too dumb to know what's best for them and that enlightened people (such as themselves) should be put into positions of power to help people live "correctly".
The arrogance of philosopher king.

There's actually a good deal of room for compromise between the two. If both sides are willing to dig for the nuances of politics, rather than sandblast the surface.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
whether you provide a real social security number or a bogus one, employers withhold taxes. illegals with fake ss numbers aren't likely to risk claiming a refund tho. then there are those employers who withold taxes they never pass on the irs.

it's possible illegals' witholdings equal or exceed the cost of what limited services they receive. california aint giving illegals much more than emergency health care, incarceration and free rides to the border.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't see how this is possible. To pay taxes requires that you either have a SS number or a "green card". Illegals have neither.

SS numbers are forged (employers have to do withholding), and then there is sales taxes, use taxes, excise taxes, etc.  Everyone pays taxes.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

They'd pay sales tax, and, depending on how dubious their housing is, possibly property tax as well. Unless of course the US just has income taxes, in which case I guess they don't.

For an American, that is very funny!  If you can hold it, it is taxed.  If you can dream about it, it is taxed.  If you enjoy it, it is taxed more!  We got more taxes than Carter has liver pills! The disingenious rants of liberals is when they 'cry' that the top tax rate is only 38%.  On top of that you have state income tax (most states), FICA, Medicaid/Medicare, unemployment, Worker's Comp,  and then all the use, sales, excise, property taxes.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
cuz it appears as if this todays cps disaster is the unfortunate child of bipartisan, omni-ideology parentage


kingbee,

It has become bipartisan, yes, but is another example of how Republicans have betrayed their small government rhetoric and have been manipulated by extreme leftist ideals. The idea that a child is owned by the state did not originate in the smoke filled rooms of Barry Goldwater planning sessions, but rather in the discussions of Lenin, Mao, and Stalin, and every other political notwithstanding, should alarm us by its very presence in American ideology and political thought (and expression in Senator Clinton's now infamous book).
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
.
(and expression in Senator Clinton's now infamous book).

The fact remains that there are far too many cases of child abuse or neglect, and no one individual can rectify it--indeed it takes a village
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
idea that a child is owned by the state did not originate


cps in this country didn't spring full-born from anyone's belief children are owned by the state did it?

wouldn't it be much more accurate to say it owes its existence to the progressive movement's contention society has a duty to protect children?

is yours a problem of concept (it would clearly support your argument bout the road to hell being paved with noble idealism) the mechanism which was intended to accomplish that end--one which has clearly run amok--or both?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact remains that there are far too many cases of child abuse or neglect, and no one individual can rectify it--indeed it takes a village


steven,

Violating the constitution isn't the way to rectify it. Breaking down parents' doors and stealing their children away in the middle of the night without due process isn't the way to rectify it. Anonymous reporting isn't the way to rectify it.

I have proposed very real, very compelling solutions WITH TEETH to identify, address, and deal with abusers. Put simply, CPS' only roles should be as agents for placement when necessary due to a criminal finding of guilt or a criminal investigation into wrongdoing where continual placement with the parent could realistically place the child in jeopardy; and as facilitators for (CRIMINAL) court ordered rehabilitation and treatment and advocates for the child. TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT should head up ALL investigations, with awareness of and respect for the United States Constitution.

I find it compelling that liberals attack Bush for what may be a breach of the constitution as regards NSA wiretaps, but SUPPORT egregious, provable, and repeated breaches of the constitution by CPS' actions, policies and procedures.

wouldn't it be much more accurate to say it owes its existence to the progressive movement's contention society has a duty to protect children?


No, it wouldn't, kingbee. When I see children removed from their homes because their parents had no utilities or because their parents refused medical treatments that were questionable or debatable, when I see parents court ordered not to shout the name of their child because it might emotionally traumatize the child, and refused the right to discipline the children by imposing curfews, groundation, or other non corporal forms of punishment, and even some forms of corporal punishment that could not be classified as abuse by any reasonable, sane individual, then I can only conclude that our policy makers have decided a child is the property of the state. When the right of a parent to be notified if their child has an abortion is called into question, or a parent has to live in mortal fear of a vengeful neighbor calling CPS because they simply don't like that individual, it only reinforces that belief. I encourage you to take a long, hard look at the documented actions of CPS documented by organizations like the National Center for Child Protection Reform (which, by the way, proposes rather leftist leaning reforms).

The laws upon which CPS are based actually originated, ironically enough because of a case of severe abuse and neglect on the part of a FOSTER PARENT in New York City (See "Mary Ellen's Law"; I've written about this earlier). There is no question we need to protect our children from abuse and neglect; but frankly, in most cases of abuse and neglect that CPS spearheads, the abuser goes free because the CPS investigation tainted evidence and therefore made it completely inadmissable in a criminal proceeding. Do you really think that taking a child away because you see a case of suspected abuse and allowing the abuser to walk because of your investigatory methods is the way we should proceed?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact remains that there are far too many cases of child abuse or neglect, and no one individual can rectify it--indeed it takes a village


But that argument smacks of "trading freedom for security". For that is what you are doing by allowing a gestapo like organization to protect the few at the expense of the rights of the many.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
But that argument smacks of "trading freedom for security".


Oh Yeah I know whatcha mean, it's like that Patriot Act thing you guys have down there.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can only conclude that our policy makers have decided a child is the property of the state


hmmmmm. i understand and share your concerns as much as it's possible for someone without children to do so. some time back, i put a lotta work into helping a couple friends extricate themselves from cps' clutches.

i'm perplexed by your response (part of which is quoted above) to my questions in #19. i wasn't asking for an opinion about cps as it exists today (that part seems pretty clear to me). we both know cps didn't originate in the early 60s atta goldwater strategy session any more than it did in mao's mountain strongholds. so lemme rephrase the question: do you really believe 19th century progressives who claimed to be childrens' advocates had any ulterior agenda such as 'state owned' children?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
do you really believe 19th century progressives who claimed to be childrens' advocates had any ulterior agenda such as 'state owned' children?


direct answer: NO! But I also believe these same 19th century progressives would be appalled at what CPS has become.

CPS is, in my opinion, what happens when altruism marries bureaucracy. It was started with wholly noble intentions. But it has been coopted by special interests so heavily that any good it might do is usually outweighed by the bad.