It used to just make me angry.
I've been through so many arguments. Shall we permit pregnant women to choose whether to have their babies or terminate the pregnancy? Unacceptable; it's a sin to kill a fetus, even when it's a cluster of cells indistinguishable from the cells of a kitten or a salamander. But what about the societal ramifications of bringing an unwanted child into the world? Irrelevant; abortion is still a sin.
Assume I accept this premise: the life of even a cluster of cells is too precious in the eyes of God to destroy. Is it now my obligation as a citizen to ensure that the life of this precious being is free from want, to ensure that the child not yet in being is educated, fed, clothed, and given appropriate medical care so that the child becomes a functioning member of society? No; that is the obligation of the child's parents. Yes, but the child's parents did not want the child in the first place; if given the choice, the mother would certainly have terminated her pregnancy in the first month. Well, if so, then there are many women who want children and would love to adopt. Yes, but they don't want this particular child---the child is not of the same race----and in any case, the tate is so intent of ensuring the welfare of the children that foster care is seen less as less risky than permitting adoption by a parent who is too old or too insufficiently middle class. And so on.
The fundamental lack of logic that lies behind so many of these arguments ought to be very obvious. The arguments don’t hang together because each point supports a different political or religious objective from the preceding one. Killing a fetus is wrong because God said so (not exactly true, but let's just go with it). On the other hand, for society to take an active hand in ensuring that unwanted children get a decent quality of life would be expensive and place a greater burden on the taxpayer and though some conservatives may oppose abortion, they definitely do not want their ‘tax dollars’ to go toward looking after their children. As to the adoption issue, that is desperately complicated. We don’t want children to be adopted by abusive or ill parents, or parents who are too poor to support them or too old to deal with them. The consequences? Many end up in foster care with poor parents who foster children in order to receive the stipend: who are abusive, ill, elderly, neglectful, or just plain don’t care.
I am further irritated by persons who present their views as conservative but Christian under the apparent apprehension that Jesus was all about saving tax dollars and making sure that other people toe the line set by the spiritual authorities. These people, however 'fundamentalist' or 'conservative' they might fancy themselves, have an amazing ability to ignore Christ’s many statements concerning the obligation of the comparatively well off to clothe and feed the poor (even if it means dividing up your own wealth), to be nonjudgmental and forgiving of sin in others (and to leave the judging sinners to God), and to be charitable and loving even to people who might not exactly deserve it. There is a whole ugly undercurrent that has entered the body politic of people feeling sufficiently righteous (despite Christ’s clear injunctions to avoid convicting others of sin and meting out punishment) to decide who is---or is not---worthy of charity, protection, and inclusion in the community. This may be human nature but it is not consistent with the teachings of Christ.
A further aspect of the 'conservative' way of thinking is the refusal, as noted above, between belief in a fact and religious faith. So many of them seem to hold all their so-called ‘truths’ to be self-evident. They treat their beliefs as matters of doctrine, not as mere opinions based on an inevitably incomplete set of facts. Presented with confliction facts, their response is not to believe it. They do not want to know. They let in only those facts that reinforce their beliefs.
Many of them deal with uncomfortable realities such as global warming the same way they do with matters of religious doctrine; by finding an authority figure they trust who will tell them what to believe. They don't need to find out the facts for themselves; they've got Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the gang at Fox to give them the 'fair and balanced facts.' They know it's fair and balanced. And how do they know? The person who gave them the facts told them so, that's how. And once they've received the 'facts,' they don't just believe them, they believe in them.
.And before anyone argues back that there are some liberals who are the same way, I will concede that this is certainly the case---I have met a few extremists on the left who import all their views from Old Hippie Monthly. But I would argue that such cases are comparatively much rarer. One aspect of being liberal in my lifetime has been a sort of grand overriding skepticism that calls everything into question. Even those of us who liked Clinton (grudgingly) for what he achieved thought he was lying about Monica Lewinsky; we just had a different view of what the consequences should be. Basically, we didn't care whether he lied or not----which come to think of it is true of a lot of people on the right nowadays, so I guess the level of outrage depends on the nature of the lie.
One difference between us and them is that even when Clinton was under attack, we didn't try to make the argument that he was personally sacred or that to criticize him was to attack the nation and all it stands for and intrinsically unpatriotic. It wouldn't have occurred to us. We know that the president is the representative of the people and accountable to them. He's not the sacred symbol of the nation, but a citizen among citizens.
When we are confronted with new facts, and have verified for ourselves that they issue from credible sources (always a hoop if you want to persuade a liberal), we change our opinions to fit the facts. Yes, that's right, guys: we don't believe in our own opinions. People like us (including Howard Dean and John Kerry) are accused all the time of waffling and of lacking conviction because we are basically suspicious of 'facts' and tend to want proof (e.g., of the necessity of going to war with Iraq) before we're prepared to get behind it. We may struggle to hold on to our opinions or look for someone to tell us what adjustments we need to make, but at bottom we are as skeptical of anyone else’s authority as our own.
We can't compete with Republican voters because we don't believe in our candidates or even necessarily believe them. We almost always have reservations. We didn’t believe that John Kerry or Howard Dean could get us out of Iraq once we were in; we wanly hoped that they would try. We saw through Michael Moore’s propaganda---some of it egregious----as readily as the Republicans (though it made a change from the propaganda we’d been hearing from the other direction). The whole movement to get liberals to match conservative propagandizing in intensity and quantity is probably doomed. While we enjoy hearing our views trenchantly expressed, and may cheer on someone with the courage to express them, as soon as we go home we start doubting again.
For example, I've almost finished this posting and already I am realizing that I don't quite believe it and that it only reflects my recent experience. In my childhood, the shoe was on the other foot; it was the liberals who were asserting that the ends justified the means and trying to impose their agenda on the rest of the country. So maybe I should go back and change this article so that I make it clear that I am talking about political extremists... <:typical liberal dithering and waffling, trying to be fair>
But no. For now, anyway, it remains true that the liberals I know can tell the difference between a matter of belief and an article of faith. They also know that facts are always incomplete and sometimes ungraspable. They are reluctant to impose their moral values on others in part because they lack certainty as to what those views should be. They also recognize that once you impose a burden on other citizens, it’s in the interest of the community (and might be a moral imperative) for those in power to help those on whom the burden is imposed or from whom the entitlement is withdrawn.
Another thing: we have a hard time getting and staying angry. Our anger tends to remain unvoiced. Unvoiced anger can become toxic. What’s a liberal to do?
In the last few years, a few brave souls have emerged to show us the way. Al Franken and Bill Maher, for example, two comedians, have boldly called out proponents of the so-called ‘conservative agenda.’ Their strategy has been to render some of the worst offenders powerless by portraying their full ludicrousness. It’s a very effective strategy---far more effective than getting angry. If you pick apart what they actually say, or compare what they say to what they actually do, you will often see how hilariously far off their conduct is from their stated objectives for everyone else. Identifying inconsistencies, distortions of the truth, manipulations, and blatant hypocrisy is a service to mankind. It does not require you to slander anyone; you get there by adhering to the strict (and ridiculous truth).
Seriously: Ann Coulter? Bill O'Reilly? Pat Robertson? Rush Limbaugh? Have you actually thought about some of the things they say? Have you tried to follow their logic? Have you reflected on their 'facts'? The list goes on and on, and I am not going to name all of the obvious names; you know---and I have to think some of them know; some of them must be doing it intentionally---who they are..
The best defense against blowhards and posturing jerks is a well-honed gift for ridicule. You don't have to be witty, you just have to be persistent. All together now: "Point. Laugh. Rinse. Repeat."
RELATED POSTINGS
I Know You Are, but What Am I?
Suffering Fools Gladly: The Consolation of Mockery
I Don’t Like You Either [scroll down]
DRAWN BY MR. TENNIEL; PAINTED BY DAMOZEL
