Beware of the Goodists
We have said it before but we will say it again....most of the time Liberals operate from FEELINGS and EMOTIONS, while conservatives have a tendency to operate from MATH and LOGIC.
It's a simple fact that planet earth runs on MATH and LOGIC.
FEELINGS and EMOTIONS are good to know when dealing with your wife...but even then a married couple still has to balance their checkbook...regardless of how bad it makes your wife feel to talk about money.
Remember who the three BLUEST states in the union are? Correct...CA, IL and NY.
Remember who the three most bankrupt states in the union are? Correct....CA, IL and NY.
Can you see the connection?
"Wouldn't it be NICE if we gave all the poor people free houses, free food and free college educations? "Why yes," says their BLUE friend, "That would be NICE! Let's do it! Then we can all FEEL GOOD about ourselves by stopping homelessness, hunger and ignorance all at the same time!!"
If a conservative would dare interrupt them to ask how that program would be paid for (MATH) and for proof of why this would work (LOGIC)....the blue folks would have a fit!
"Is that all you conservatives think about is money?! Have a little heart you greedy-corporate-bast--ds!"
I saw this article from Jewish World Review and it helps to reinforce the ideas about why BLUE people simply can't run things for very long. It always ends in chaos, bankruptcy and war.
3) Beware the Goodists |
By
Jonathan Rosenblum
Why
the politics as morality tale narrative blinds one to reality
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
|
One
of the working papers for the recent Jewish People Policy international
conference, entitled "Jewish Identity and Identification: New Patterns,
Meanings, and Network's," posed the question whether the Jewish community's
altered material and political circumstance "entail a long-term shift from
identification with the have-nots to identification with the haves." (A full
session of the two-day Jewish identity track focused on whether political
liberalism still serves as a source of Jewish identification.)
The
authors of that particular paper happen to be very bright people; one is an
internationally recognized legal theorist. But their implicit characterization
of the divide between political liberalism and conservatism as one between good
people who care about those less fortunate than themselves and bad people who
don't strikes me as highly tendentious.
Why
not characterize the liberal-conservative divide — admittedly no less
tendentiously — as a debate over whether poor people are better served by
government hand-outs that foster a culture of dependence (liberal) or by paying
jobs that provide the skills and work ethic to escape poverty (conservative)? Or
as a debate over whether it is more virtuous to give other people's money
through income redistribution to the have-nots (liberal) or to give one's own
money through private charity (conservative)?
The
tendency of many contemporary liberals to view politics in terms of a Manichean
struggle between good people and bad ones begets many pernicious consequences.
Too frequently the goal of liberal politics becomes affirmation of one's
essential goodness; it is a form of self-soothing. (Because conservatives
emphasize the private realm over the public, they are less likely — though
hardly immune — to equating politics with morality.)
The
late firebrand Oriana Fallaci coined the term "Goodists" for those who employ
politics as a means of self-congratulation. Goodists, writes Bret Stephens, put
a higher premium on their moral intentions than the efficacy of their actions .
. . . Above all, the Goodists are people who like to be seen to be good."
Goodism
goes a long way to explaining contemporary liberal attitudes to Israel,
especially among those who booed the mention of Jerusalem at the Democratic
Convention. Once the Palestinians are identified as the "have-nots" and the
Israelis as the "haves," the case is closed as far as Goodists are concerned.
Nothing else matters.
The
Jewish people's historical connection to the Land, the condition of the Holy
Land prior to the Second Aliyah, the history of the conflict and the consistent
Arab refusal to accept a sovereign state ruled by Jews in any boundaries — are
all beside the point. For again, what is at stake is not finding a practical
settlement between Israel and the Palestinans. It is the use of the Palestinians
to enable those who advocate on their behalf a means to establish their goodness
at no cost or risk to themselves.
THE
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES of viewing politics as a morality play, a struggle between
good and bad people, are many. For one thing, it makes the search for pragmatic,
non-partisan solutions to problems almost impossible. As an example, every one
acknowledges that the United States social security system, predicated on
actuarial assumptions of the 1930s, when few workers lived much past 65, is no
longer viable. In 1960, there were 5 workers for every beneficiary; today, the
ratio is 2:1.
Paul
Ryan proposed one plan for revamping social security on a fiscally sustainable
basis. No doubt various experts would have much to argue against aspects of the
plan. But once it becomes political, the plan can no longer serve as a starting
point for discussion and further tinkering. Rather the author must be portrayed
as seeking to push grandma off the cliff in a wheelchair. And so will it be with
every such proposal, leaving the present unsustainable system in place.
The
greater the extent to which political opinions are perceived as a choice between
good and evil, the less finicky will the forces of "good" be about means,
including the suppression of "bad" opposing opinions. A recent study of 800
social and personality psychologists by Yoel Inbar and Joris Lanners of Tilburg
University showed that psychologists holding conservative views are prudent to
hide those views. The willingness to discriminate in academic hiring or
publication of academic papers correlated directly to liberal views — the more
liberal the more willing to discriminate against colleagues.
That
tendency goes a long way towards explaining how university campuses have become
the near exclusive province of one side of the political spectrum. In a
pre-election survey of Princeton University faculty and staff, those
contributing to Obama outnumbered those contributing to Romney 155 to 2 (a
visiting engineering professor and a janitor.)
THE
POLITICS AS MORALITY TALE narrative blinds one to reality. Under thirty-year-old
voters in the recent U.S. presidential election, preferred President Obama
almost two-to-one. Yet the economic stagnation of the past four years has hit
this cohort hardest, and the trillion dollar per year budgets of the first Obama
term render their chances of retirement with cushy government entitlements nil.
"Generation screwed" Newsweek calls them.
Unemployment
among 18-to-29 year-olds is 12.7% — 16.7% if one counts those who have given up
looking for jobs. A full quarter of 18-to-34 year olds have moved back to living
with their parents to save money. In another survey, only 40% of college
graduates say that they are performing work requiring a college degree. As
Obamacare's penalties on employers who do not provide insurance for full-time
workers take effect, many of those who currently have jobs will find themselves
being transferred to part-time positions. It's already happening.
The
youngest cohort of voters is doubly squeezed. Their present prospects stink, and
the current generous senior entitlements — Social Security, Medicaid, and
Medicare — will not await them at the other end. The U.S. will be bankrupt long
before then. (Israeli social justice protestors take note.)
Nor
are the reasons for the current economic stagnation hard to discern. The
so-called "blue model" — high taxation, heavy regulation of business and labor
markets, generous pensions for government workers — is everywhere defunct. The
economic stagnation of the last four years in America has long characterized
every "euro" country, except thrifty, hardworking Germany. Greece is but the
worst basket case. The unemployment rate in Spain among youth 16-to-24 is now
over 50%.
The
three largest "blue states" in America — California, Illinois, and New York —
which form the base of Democratic political support, are also in the worst
fiscal shape. Chief Executive's annual ranking of the best and worst states to
do business, the three deep-blue states nailed down the three worst rankings.
Politicians in California and New York have saddled taxpayers with over $300
billion in debt. Per capita citizen debt in Illinois, President Obama's home
state, is $9,624, topped only by New York's $13,840. Illinois has issued $58
billion in bonds to cover pension fund obligations. Still retired public workers
will not collect: the estimated pension plan shortfall, even after that huge
borrowing, is $85 billion.
President
Obama is the great champion of "blue" governance. He once said that he prefers
higher taxes on the wealthy as "more fair," even if it harms the economy. He has
offered not a single proposal for deficit reduction other than higher taxes on
those earning over $250,000. His proposed tax increases would barely make a dent
in deficits, but by hitting small business owners hard, will again cost jobs. He
has not passed a budget in three years, while wracking up annual deficits in
excess of a trillion dollars. The last two budgets were unanimously rejected by
the Democrat-controlled Senate.
FINALLY,
THE USE OF POLITICS as a proof of one's goodness stunts character development
and provides bad models. American voters concluded that President Obama cares
more about the average Joe. I wonder. Even in the most admiring biographies of
the President — he's brilliant, he's cool, he's handsome, he's unflappable — I
have yet to read of one instance of his extending himself for another human
being.
Such
stories about Romney are legion — not just giving away $4 million in annual
charitable contributions, but physically helping neighbors do home repairs and
the like. He shut down evil Bain Capital for a week so that the whole staff
could search for colleague's missing daughter. (She was found, just in time,
through their efforts.) And the largest slice of his time since the election has
been spent working data bases to help find jobs for 400 campaign workers.
As
George Will once observed, values are cheap: anyone can proclaim hundreds of
values. Virtue is much harder to attain. The acquisition of virtues requires
hard work and self-denial. It cannot be achieved by pulling a voting lever or
putting a Free Palestine bumper sticker on the car.
JWR
contributor Jonathan Rosenblum is founder of the Jerusalem-based Jewish Media
Resources. A respected commentator on Israeli politics, society, culture and the
Israeli legal system, who speaks frequently on these topics in the United
States, Europe, and Israel, his articles appear regularly in numerous Jewish
periodicals in the United States and Israel. Rosenblum is also the author of
seven biographies of major modern Jewish figures. He is a graduate of the
University of Chicago and Yale Law School.
|