Simple view of liberal vs conservative
 

My view of the difference between liberal and conservative was reinforced yesterday. I met a VP outside of Kragen Auto stores who just got a promotion to corporate in DC. We were talking outside about how tough it is for our pensioners now because medical costs eat up their pensions until they are 65 when they are eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. I remarked how I wondered how an old guy working at Kragen will make it. His reply was "Well, they didn't plan very well, did they?”. I sense this attitude primarily among those who have been blessed with good genes. They have made it because they did it and those who didn’t are just lazy, good for nothings. It’s like the idea of the bell curve just doesn’t apply to human achievement. There will always be people who cannot achieve to a level to provide for themselves now or in old age. I believe it is the value we place on them that defines us.

As always, you have presented a very compelling case. Unfortunately, a goodly proportion of responders will not recognize it, and see a much simpler question instead.

well, as sad as it is, it's true. Sounds heartless and cold to say "well, too bad..." So a counterperson working at Kragen, at what (10% above state minimum) who obviously doesn't earn enough to support themselves? Who put 'em there? I guarantee you whoever makes a choice like that isn't a risk taker.

Counterpoint -

Where's the respect that's owed to the risk takers? - the guys who step out of their comfort zone, do different things to make a buck, sacrifice, take no guarantees from others in regards to making their way in life?

In other words, the self reliant? Those who feel that they need not burden their fellow man to pay their obligations in this world? Those who feel they are owed nothing until they provide something?

We all have to start somewhere, some of us just choose not to settle for what is simply handed to us.

rjp

Randy.
Well you reinforce my point. The risk takers are on one side of the bell curve and you think you are there because you made decisions to put your self there and the people on the other end made decisions to put themselves where they are.
Maybe, just maybe, you were on that side of the bell curve in distribution of the "self reliant" genes to start with, and others weren't.
To pretend that the people on the other side of the curve could have made decisions to put themselves on your side allows the "successful" to have the view you illustrate.
Such a view defies all rational explanation, but is vitally important to maintain to support one's ego and self esteem.

Pretend. So, you're saying you really think that it's genetics which predisposes us to "failure"

I see what you're saying but unfortunately I can't agree. The liability to fail is where the difference lies. Although I may make more $$$ than the guy at Kragen, I guarantee you I will leave a much bigger hole in the earth if I fail.

It is a conscious decision, some people simply can't stomach the prospect of failure, so they prefer the comfort of guaranteed, but low income.

Take a look at the waves of immigrants that come to this country - Most of 'em can't even speak the language, but they brave the unknown, possible death and take the risk to make better for themselves. Many of 'em become wealthy and positive contributors to our society within a few years. They didn't settle for the familiar, and won't accept a miserable life from where they came frome. Genetics? Um, that's a bit of a stretch.

Only in this country do we have grown men who feel they have a right to entitlement just for being here. The rest of the world isn't like that. To have an opinion that to fail in life is simply due to genetics and therefore can't be helped or improved (puts it in the same class as skin color!) is simply a cop - out IMHO. It has nothing to do with bragging rights or ego or my self esteem.

rjp

The counter guy at Kragen has a steady, predictable but inglorious life. He is unlikely to know the panic and heartbreak of catastrophic failure or the brutal exhaustion of 16 hour work days. He made choices. Comfortable choices. It's not always pretty, but it's the essential flip-side of freedom. Even without an education, he could have chosen a more financially rewarding course. But for every guy who swings a 16 ounce framing hammer all day because the pay is good, there is a guy behind the counter at Kragens because that is where he wants to be.

True freedom includes the freedom to fail.

Well, that reminds me of my daughter who told all her teachers that she taught herself how to read. Never-mind the hours my wife in particular spent reading and teaching her to read. It really was on her own that she did it.

By definition, immigrants are risk takers.

I don't consider someone a failure if they do the best they can, but you seem to say that unless they do like you then they are.

I made no comment on those who feel an entitlement is theirs. I have a family member who thinks the world owes him everything.
That is not an attitude I promote.

I was postulating that ignoring that the bell curve applying to human personal attributes and achievements defies logic.

Doesn't all of this depend upon whose bell curve it is. Maybe the counter person at Kragen doesn't particularly care.

I equate it to people in the industry who have the acumen to rise upward within a studio, yet would rather not be troubled with the additional responsibility, even as it includes higher pay.

Perhaps the bell curve, as it's defined, is really too pejorative of what everyone should want and expect of themselves.

I think this is the crux of the issue. Some view this as failure. I don't. Society needs all its members doing what they do, but to regard those of lesser ability and achievement as failures is apparently a strong trait among some achievers. And from my viewpoint separates those who say "There by the grace of God go I" from those that don't.

It seems like more of a personal annoyance or attitude adjustment to the wealthy is what's needed.

So the corporate guy pisses on those "below" him. It's really nothing serious. Once again, so is life.

Is this a Liberal cause to teach the mean and wealthy to behave? It's a serious waste of time.

In summary, who cares?


rjp

If you mean take a risk to improve your life, then yes that is what i'm saying. Do something or anything but try to change your life. Where is it that you're guaranteed to be happy or successful in life?

I don't consider or judge anyone a failure, unless they require me to take care of their obligations they've created. If you require my assistance and it's simply due to neglect you'll never hear the end of it from me.

I don't understand why fair and self-reliant can't be one in the same?

rjp

No where.

I agree

I don't think life is fair. We all have abilities and deficits. If we all do the best we can with what we have to start with, we get a distribution of achievements. Some are overachievers, sometimes due to luck. Some do miserably, sometimes by foolish decisions.

My mom sometimes admonished us to use the "brains God gave you". That implies that some didn't get them also.

Heh, well you could say that Stevepaa also embodies the prototypical liberal. He thinks that it is his responsibility to provide for those who can't make it because he thinks they are genetically inferior...:p

You underestimate the benefits of having a grandfather that was a US Senator, a father that was a president, and more eastern establishment money than you or I could imagine in our wildest dreams :)

He was talking about Clinton.

Maybe?! That's one angry Lib...!

So much I think he's inbred. I've seen pitbulls with better demeanors.

Just kidding with ya Rodeo. Sort of ;)

rjp

I checked my genetics and they are fine thank you. Its my foreign and domestic policy I seem to be having trouble with.

Not sure, but I think the problem may be the "liberal media" :)

I assume we're talking about Fiscal liberals and conservatives here. If we discount catastrophic illnesses and being in the wrong place at the wrong time, every person in this country can retire wealthy.

The bell curve is luck of the draw, but has less to do with success than individual effort. In support:

Most successful people got where they are with hard work and good planning. It's a simple matter of spending 10% less that you earn and saving those $$. Only take money out of the fund for a crisis or to buy something that makes $$. Easy as pie, even for the Kragen guy.

If you truly believes that you cannot control your ability to work hard or spend money wisely, you are neither liberal nor conservative, just a bit foolish.

George Bush would have been fired from Kragens four point five years ago. Even bet whether he would have noticed his change of status

Bill Clinton would have been promoted to VP of sales within a month of hire

Cheney would have tourtured the Chairman of the Board and been appointed CEO for life

Sure. You don't believe others are inferior? I believe some are superior to me and some are inferior. How many Einsteins, Mozarts, Montanas, Alis have there been?

You really think we all have the same aptitude, intellect and physical capabilities?

Holy smokes he ADMITS IT!!! Finally a liberal who will admit it. I think I can die now. Thank you Stevepaa. Someone mark this thread...a liberal who admits he has to help the poor and downtrodden because they are genetically inferior...

Re: Simple view of liberal vs conservative
 

So it seems that you are the one who views this Kragen lifer as a failure. I'm completely comfortable with him and his choices. So you think poverty is never a reasonable choice in life? Talk to an Ascetic.

I believe that human beings are thrust into this world with all sorts of advantages and disadvantages relative to each other.

Physical strength, intellectual ability, economic advantage, emotionial stability. And on and on and on. That's news? I don't think so.

How we deal with those less fortunate than the majority defines us a people. Some people are born without the physical ability to support themselves, for example. I think we as a society have an obligation to help those people. Is that news? Is that what you consider "liberal”?

I consider it moral.

I know, let's take all of Bill Gates money and give it to the Kragen autoparts store dude. Then he can retire in luxury. I'm sick of this socialist crap. Life isn't fair. You can't make it fair by screwing the successful to reward the irresponsibile. Europe is trying that, and their economies are on the verge of implosion.

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have .... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sorry for being so insensitive, but excessive redistribution of wealth is immoral...

In a sense you are right. I do believe that many of the "poor and downtrodden" have done probably nearly as well as they could with what each had to start with, and I think it is self evident that there are genetically superior and inferior to all of us in various ways. I view it as both my Christian duty and societal responsibility to help those less fortunate than I.

Rick,
What would be the prototypical conservative reponse to the needs of the genetically inferior?

Re: Re: Simple view of liberal vs conservative
 

No, it was you who considered him a failure, because he could not achieve financial independence in his old age. I don't consider it a failure. I just state as a matter of fact that some people will not achieve that position in life, and I think society should recognize that and provide assistance.

Yes, and excessive extrapolation of a reasonable and moral position can always be expected here. Thank you.

Steve, I agree whole heartedly with just about everything you say. I believe we should help those less fortunate than ourselves. I believe there is a genetic predisposition to "success" or "failure" as our society measures such today.

Sometimes I think our standards for "success" are too narrowly defined as purely financial; there are other ways to be "successful". Maybe the Kragan's guy has been happily married to the same woman his entire life, has loving well-adjusted children, maybe grandchildren. Maybe the rich "successful" guy has been divorced multiple times, his suicidal son is in rehab again, his daughter is a heroin addict turned hooker to support her habit, and his dog just bit him. Who is more "successful"? But I digress...

I think the real difference between liberals and conservatives is twofold. Number one, the nature of the people that need our help. While I believe there truly are people that do, I also understand that there are those who will take it if it's there. For no other reason than they are lazy. Not incapable, just lazy. Liberals don't seem to see these people; they assume everyone will try given the chance. Conservatives know better.

The second area of dissagreement is in who provides the help; who administers the programs. Liberals like big government to take over. It makes it easier for them because then they do not have to make any hard decisions about who gets the help. It gets them off the hook on number one above. Conservatives would prefer local control. They want to see the people that are asking for help. They want to know it is really needed. They want to weed out the lazy scammers they know are out there. They see liberals as, well, too liberal with the handouts. They want the qualifications to be a little tougher to meet. They even want the nature of the help to change; more along the lines of helping folks to help themselves, rather than no-strings-attached handouts.

I think we all want the same thing in the end. We want a society without poverty, without anyone doing without. The difference in opinion is how to achieve that. Conservatives lean towards helping our needy become more self-reliant so they can contribute like the rest of us. Liberals would like to coddle them.

What I wrote was Einesteins. A misspelling. i often do that or capitalization errors.

What I meant is that we all have traits and abilities, some have those traits which allow them to suceed greatly like your Dad. Some have traits that even with a JD lead them to failure. I have both in my family tree.

I agree that each should do as best as they can, but I am not blinded to the fact that some will never achieve self reliance.

It is not unusual for those with success traits to be conservative and think anyone can do the same. That is the jist of most of the posts here.

Re: Re: Re: Simple view of liberal vs conservative
 

But you're the one who wants to fix it! I don't even think it's a problem!

Life isn't fair. Some people are smart, some aren't, some people are born into wealthy families, some arn't, some people are physically attractive, some aren't. Most people realize that life isn't always "fair", and they do the best they can with what they have. These are usually conservatives. Liberals, on the other hand are usually utopian crybabies, who haven't lost their naive views of universial "equity". We can't make life "fair", we can only hope to make it "just". Taking person A's hard-earned wealth and giving it to person B, may be "fair", but it isn't "just", or moral. Welfare for the truly needy is a different matter, and a just and moral society should have a safety net for a select few... which shouldn't extend to guys gainfully employed at Kragens, for example.

Jeff, I am in more in tune with you. I don't want to coddle them. I know our current welfare system has promulgated a generational effect that is detrimental to those in need. I favor more involvement of Churches in the giving of aid. That's why I support my church to the level I do. I support organizations like Habitat for Humanity with my time and money.

As anyone who has given money to relatives or friends knows, some will accept it and put it to good use not expecting anything more and some will be expecting the same next year. It is just human nature. And it will take a lot of parenting to make things better.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple view of liberal vs conservative
 

Yes, I think old people without the means to have needed medications, food or shelter is a problem.

Oh yes, us poor, disadvantaged minorities. So needing of help from the enlightened and morally superior.

Yeah, just like So Cal's family my dad couldn't speak English worth a damn when he got here in 1965. No college educaton, no formal HS education.

My folks were basically retired 19 years later, thanks to hard work and the insistence on doing things alone. Tired of odd jobs and the Post Office -my dad got into real estate and property development and opened his own brokerage and did property development on his own, totally self - employed. Without welfare, begging, or any other public assistance- ever.

Both my parents were brought up poor - even by Fillipino standards. My dad got here with only of the clothes on his back. My mother put herself through Nursing school with odd jobs.

Dad is proud of the fact he did it on his own. He always says the only thing he has to do in life was to "be brown and die". Self reliance is a big thing in my house.

No one will ever give us anything, and that's out of self- respect. That's why I can never be a Liberal.

It's an insult to think we need to be taken care of...

rjp

Agreed. I don't support giving him aid now, I worry when he is 65-70 and may need it.

Never thought you did. Glad that your dad had all the success traits. No where am I presupposing that disadvantaged minorities need help. But you know no one who is really poor and needs assistance? You have never given your time at a soup kitchen?

I thought we were talking about silly social policy and Liberals. This is quickly morphing into the positions that Liberals care about the disadvantaged vs. the Conservatives who dont.

It's not accurate to assume that.

To answer the question, of course. and no I wasn't trying to say you were stating a position like that. However, I still don't agree with the belief that it's a genetic "trait" which is a determining factor to success.

As for helping those who truly need it, of course- it's our responsibility to help, that isn't disputed. The various handicapped, disadvantaged, children, and the elderly are deserving of the assistance. What i'm saying is that the able-bodied thugs, drug addicts, people who kink the system and simply lazy people deserve nothing, nothing at all! especially an excuse!

rjp

Sorry - random replies to older posts...

Its not genetically inferior - its inferior --> and only inasmuch as it applies to earning capacity. I don't think it is genetic - maybe behavioural, but not actually genetic. I dunno - I suppose I separate ambition, hard work and risk taking from smart, but having said that I'm only moderately ambitious, sporadically hardworking, but fortunately quite smart so I earn enough when I do work hard. Am I smart because I have good genes? Or because I had good access to quality education? And good role models?

A lot of people are inferior at making their own and/or other people's lives pleasant. I mean there's a whole philisophical discussion underlying this about what "happy" is anyway. I'm not saying people should deliberately avoid saving for retirement and sponge off the govt, but through a lack of education about the long term consequences of ones actions, there are an awful lot of people who end up in "unworkable" situations wrt retirement.

Depending on where he lives, what his family looks like, and whether he can afford medical and other insurance, saving 10% is quite possibly an unattainable dream.

Just for the record - because being called a utopian crybaby pisses me off - I feel its only fair to point out that libertarians are at least as, if not more, naive. So there!

So what about the corporate welfare for the corporations whose products are being sold at Kragen? You know its happening.

Anyway, who do you see as the select few?

Kristallnacht...