So What's a Liberal? Or a Conservative?
Published January 14, 2006
Life was easier when we liberals were called long-haired, pinko, tree-hugging, anti-American, pro-crime, scum-sucking bottom dwellers. At least then we knew what our positions were supposed to be, although I, for one, have to confess that, even in my hippie days in the '60s, I don't remember hugging a tree — although there's lots from those days I don't remember ... but I digress.
Life was also easier when conservatives were called bigoted, racist, money-grubbing, land-raping, exploiters of the masses, capitalist swine-swilling pigs.
Liberals were slim and cool. Conservative were fat and sweaty.
Of course, conservatives thought liberals were emaciated and dirty and conservatives were respectful and well dressed...but what did they know?
I'll tell you, life is confusing. For example, why do conservatives get so worked up over the ACLU, whose sole purpose is to conserve our basic civil liberties as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Conservatives should be pouring billions into its coffers to protect the American way, while liberals should hate the ACLU for not bending the rules to fit our preconceived notions of right and wrong.
And tell me it's not weird that liberals support science when most of us couldn't tell the difference between a quark and a quack, while conservatives hate science for being anti-Christian when science (not specific scientists) says nothing at all about creation or God?
Conservatives preach the sanctity of human life while sitting on their hands when innocent people are executed. Liberals march around prisons to protest executions of known killers like the homeless around a soup kitchen while thinking nothing's wrong with abortion.
It is true that people can't seem to get through life without labeling things, but the two labels that have lost all meaning these days are liberal and conservative. One reason, perhaps, is that the policies of both groups have proven to be disastrous. Sure, conservatives venerate Ronald "Crazy Credit Card Carnivore" Reagan, but given the massive budget deficits created under his 8 years, it's hard to understand why. Supply side economics? Contract with America? Remember those? Great ideas ... if you're not the victim of them.
- So What's a Liberal? Or a Conservative?
- Published: January 14, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Mark Schannon
- Mark Schannon's BC Writer page
- Mark Schannon's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
wow..way heavy shit, Mark me boyo...too much blood in yer whisky stream?
but i digress...
as usual, the lazer focus of your Insight nails the nut of the problem...how's that fer mixxing Metaphors?
stay on topic, ya wacky gonzo...
ok...much of what is spoken about in the Post stems from each of the political "gangs" utilizing propaganda and marketing techniques to swell their ranks with as many sheeple as possible
their artificially induced false binary ilLogic of mutually exclusive "positions" are designed to manufacture an either/or, Us versus Them dynamic so as many people can be conned into not Thinking about individual Issues or long term effects but will instead follow the knee jerk Reactions of their "gang" leaders design
did i just type all of that?
Excelsior!
Camper--nah, you can't be a neocon if you realize that ideology can be a filter through which truth gets twisted into little bits of cattle droppings. And you wouldn't be answering if you were a burn out. Sorry...we'll work on what you are off line at the normal rate of $500/hour.
Gonzo, laddie, an' I'll t'ank yer fer not accusin' me of not havin' enough o' t'Irish in me veins, if t'at's alright wit' thee.
Through your unusually tangled and twisted syntax (more so than is the norm, I must say) comes, as always, a shining truth: There will always be massive fucking herds of sheeple (brilliant, that!) who find solace in a simplistic version of the world from which they can cast stones across the river at the sheeple on the other side equally blinded by their simple-mindedness.
In Jamesons Veritas
I gave up on the conservative/liberal divide in 1964 when I realized that Goldwater, whose ideas I was supposed to loathe, was an honest man shooting straight and telling the truth while Johnson, whom I was supposed to admire, was a thief. His lawyer confessed on his (own) deathbed to having set up the Kennedy assassination. So Johnson was a murderer too.
It was lonely being a synidicalist socialist wandering amongst all the sheeple (Gonzo's not ht only guy who likes that word) in America.
It's even lonelier being a religious syndicalist socialist amongst the sheeple here. If the folks around here know what I'm describing, they want to know why I'm describing a paradox!
Nobody has bothered me yet...
Ruvy, ain't no paradox, unless you're using the word syndicalist to mean anarchist, which is one of the definitions. But...the ultimate end of socialism/communism is classical anarchy, one step of which (according to Marx et al.) is a labor takeover of government and corporations...the other definition of syndicalism.
As for the religious part, although religion's been called the opiate of the masses, that's just one opinion. There's nothing inherently paradoxical about religion and socialism or syndicalism. Odd, perhaps(LOL) but not paradoxical.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong.
By the way, I agree with you about Goldwater & Johnson, although for all his incredible, disgusting, vile, unethical...oh well, you get the point, he did get some important legislation passed. The Civil Rights act would never have passed without him. However, I don't buy he set up JFK's assassination. Source please?
In Jamesons Veritas
Nice post, Shannon. Gallows humor...
You might enjoy Shark's take from last year.
~at least we still have our sense of humor...
More shameless plugs:
..wherein I both analyse, surrender, and succumb to the Us vs Them mentality in a piece mourning the death of democrats called "Beating a Dead Donkey: The Relentless Right
Mark wrote,
"However, I don't buy he set up JFK's assassination. Source please?"
Gotta check with a friend for the name and look the data up.. I didn't buy it at first either.
Great post Mark, as are the comments that follow, up to this point at any rate.
Cheers!
What was the title of that old Onion article, again? "Stereotypes are a real time saver?"
Shark, thanks & I loved your post from last year. Know how you feel...but right now the conservatives are as messed up as we liberals have been for years. Neener, neener, neener. Let them see how it feels for a while.
Bennett--thanks...I only allow nice comments on anything I post...unless some moron says something really stupid and I have to filet him with my Gonzo scalpel.
And Matthew--great quote. I'm going to steal that one!
In Jamesons Veritas
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/42289)
Maybe my activities of the sixties prevent me from commenting, or caring. You do, however, raise an interesting point.
Maybe ideologies aren't important. The forest does have a tendency to hide the trees.
Does that make me a neocon or just a burn out?