Hoped For Change in America
Those who understand that America is still the country that offers the most hope to the rest of the world, and who also reason things out, find it hard to understand why some Americans:
1.refuse to look at the evidence of global Islamic terrorism, its danger to westerners and the success of the American military in combatting it,
2.refuse to look at the evidence that global warming is a naturally reoccurring phenomenon and is more beneficial to humanity than is global cooling,
3.refuse to look at the evidence that the part of Darwin's theory that evolution brings about new species may be wrong,
4.refuse to see that encouraging investment and job creation is much more effective in helping people than giving them money,
5.refuse to connect $3.25 gasoline with the abandonment of domestic drilling and the ban on nuclear plants; because of them we will be paying $5-10 shortly and incurring deadly shortages,
6.refuse to see the effect on America's children of an 'anything goes' society; it's not their problem.
Cross-posted from Rightbias.com:
"Shelby Steele, in his 2006 book, 'White Guilt', made the case that every generation coming of age goes through a period of adolescent rebellion. Challenging the powers that be is an important rite of passage and a valuable life lesson. Unfortunately, the '60's baby boomer' generation that is currently in charge of most of our institutions, staged their adolescent rebellion at the one time in history they had a chance of winning the battle against the 'establishment.'
In the 60's, America had just acknowledged and apologized for the sin of slavery. As Steele explains, "After America admitted to what was worst about itself, there was not enough authority left to support what was best." As a result, the baby boom generation is the first generation to win this adolescent rebellion against its elders. Their "rite of passage to maturity was cut short and they were falsely inflated instead of humbled." Sound familiar?
Couple America's loss of moral authority with the escalation of the Vietnam War and voila, you have broadbased confirmation of America's inherent evil and oppressiveness. This is the worldview that has now become reality to most Liberals, and through them, to much of the rest of the world. Thank-you, baby boomers.
Having toppled the 'establishment,' liberals set out to restore America's moral authority. To impose, unchallenged, their vision of what America could and should be, unhampered by tradition, lessons of the past or any sense of humility. In short, liberals set out to redefine reality, with a focus on 'social justice'.
Only one problem. Instead of establishing an earthly utopia, every solution they imposed on America has failed. From the war on poverty to 'whole language' to abolishing war to establishing equality of outcome to affirmative action. All the theories that looked so fine on paper just didn't seem to work in the real world. Their Rousseauian strategy of emphasis on passion instead of reason just didn't cut the mustard. No wonder they're so angry.
Whitaker Chambers once said that the most important choice a man would ever make would be the choice between man and God.
Having chosen man over God, liberals, secular progressives if you will, naturally believe that any catastrophe, like Katrina, global warming, racism, etc., is man's fault. Based on trendy liberal reasoning, only those with power can oppress. Thus the blame for all the world's ills is placed right at the feet of America, the world's only super power. It's all our fault. Looked at through the eyes of a liberal, it makes a perverted kind of sense and offers one explanation for the unreasoning hatred many liberals have for America.
It stands to reason if man is responsible for all these problems, then man should be able to solve them. The inability of secular progressives to solve all the world's problems is a direct challenge to their core beliefs. To acknowledge their inability to achieve utopia on earth would invalidate a lifetime of passionately held beliefs. Hence the desperate effort to place blame on someone human. Someone other than themselves.
Enter George Bush. The greatest threat of all to the worldview of secular progressives.
No wonder they hate him. He exemplifies personal responsibility over moral relativism. He bases his opinions on reason, not emotion. He is a man of God and stands for all the traditional values the SP's have worked so hard to replace. His rejection of the Kyoto Treaty was a direct affront to the secular progressive's new religion of environmentalism. The mere mention of George Bush in liberal circles is akin to pushing a puppy's nose in his own mess.
By focusing on Bush hatred, liberals succeed in shifting the focus from their own failed policies. Much the same way third world dictators do. (Having a common enemy is a very powerful unifying factor.) By concentrating on all the real and imagined failings of Bush and America, the liberals can stay in their cocoon, safe from examination and analysis. This is called cognitive dissonance and is a cherished staple of secular progressives in their quest to redefine reality. Reality is what they say it is. End of debate. Sound familiar?
In our soundbite world, it's only natural to want easy answers to complex questions. Understanding the phenomenon of anti-Americanism and Bush hatred doesn't lend itself to an easy answer. But it is a subject that needs to be addressed and understood before America is conquered from within."
Labels: Liberals and Conservatives
posted by RussWilcox @ 4:46 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
1. I don't refuse to look at any evidence, but I do expect our government to react to the evidence present. Falsifying evidence in order to attack Iraq was wrong.
2. A preponderance of atmospheric scientists believe that human activity increased global warming. Your ideology may tell you something different, but until you produce scientific credentials providing some evidence that yours is more than a layman's opinion, I prefer to believe the scientists.
3. There has been no peer reviewed evidence presented that contradicts Darwin's theory. Faith based postulates don't count.
4. Investment and job creation, yes, but much of the current corporate welfare is lining the pockets of the people who run the corporations receiving the welfare.
5. As Hubbard predicted it would, U.S. crude production peaked in the 1970's. Increased drilling isn't going to help us much. We need to convert our transportation system to electrically propelled vehicles getting their energy from nuclear plants.
6. This is not an "anything goes" society, but it has become a society where many of us resist the religiously based imposition of rules we disagree with. We need more freedom not less.
This comment is a perfect example of the arrogance of liberals, and it is a waste of time even to engage them in discussion. They have decided, regardless of the evidence, and that's that. Just on one point, there cetainly are peer reviewed articles on ID:
On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.
In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa. Discovery.org
The sixties now having been forty years ago, can conservatives move on from there yet? Will our country ever get over the conservatives not being able to get over the sixties?
The only thing about the sixties was this: the generation was different than the generation before it due only to the fact that it was the first one fully raised with television in the environment.
I'm the epitome of a secular progressive, and I must correct you on an important point: I don't choose man over God. Since I perceive that there is no God in existence, He is a fictional character, so that isn't a choice I could make. Man, at least, is real.
Now to go down the list:
"1.refuse to look at the evidence of global Islamic terrorism . . ."
Surely you're not suggesting that liberals deny this, nor that "evidence" is less than conclusive. As for our military success, our military is built for defeating countries. It has a great success rolling over Afghanistan and Iraq. Combating terrorism is a different story.
2) Global warming: It isn't bad for human beings as long as 1) we're ready, and 2) it doesn't stop.
3) To be taken seriously from a scientific stand, "intelligent design" theory has to publish its fieldwork and has to make predictions. The article you cite is a peer critique-- not a comparative field study. If a super or supreme being created things, then you have to make a prediction based upon it and look for evidence in that field work. Einstein didn't upend physics by going to the public, he did it by having a degree in physics and by publishing papers.
The critique essay from Meyer tells us what fails, not what works, and this is the flaw in almost all "intelligent design" scenarios.
I really don't mind if people are skeptical about evolution, but they should be mindful that intelligent design explains-- nothing.
4) I thought the government was helpless to do anything to help the economy, at least according to conservatives, but yet big brother is supposed to "encourage investment" and "job creation." Unfortunately, when I read that, I think most of how the government "encouraged investment" and "job creation" in Enron.
5) The US doesn't have the oil reserves need for its economy: no ifs, ands or buts. As for nuclear power, we're not going to be driving our cars with it. It's much more welcomed now, but I really think you have to solve the waste trouble.
6) Just like the false dichotomy between choosing God or choosing man, you make a false, and rather panicked assertion that this is an "anything goes" society. Characterizing it this way does contradict that "political correctness" and litigiousness conservatives also complain about.
Afraid of freedom maybe? I'd say our problems are several: foremost a poor education system. Not only doesn't it teach, it doesn't even convince children why some things are important.
You're way off base about Bush: I don't like him because of incompetence, mendacity, cronyism, disrespect for the Constitution, and so on. Due to that "moral compass" he purportedly has, it means these will never change.
On #2 I meant to say 2) if it stops eventually.
A.Isn't it interesting that when I answer the lie about there being no peer-reviewed articles about ID, it turns out that peer-review doesn't mean peer-review?
B. I don't appreciate you using my blog to throw out unsubstantiated insults of President Bush. It says more about you than anything else.
C. It's not the 60's conservatives can't get over, it's the idea that people who hate this country seek to run her. We will work very hard to prevent this.
A) You have misunderstood my meaning. I have read his paper, BTW, he did publish in a peer reviewed journal, but in fact what he published was his peer review of others' work, not a submission of his work. It was a legitimate criticism.
The digest of what he said, BTW, was that current evolutionary theory with random mutations and selection being the sole sources of innovation, could not explain novel evolution of species. The main problem is, all it implies is that the source has not yet been observed. "The hand of God" has also not been observed in these cases. In no way does the lack of evidence imply the "hand of God," at least any more than physics before Einstein did.
Maybe you'd be less touchy on this point if you had more examples.
B) If you don't want discussion I will leave directly, but not before I add that my only purpose was to swiftly inform you that you were incorrect on why I believed Bush a bad president. What I gave you was a digest, a headline, just to give you an impression. Since further elaboration doesn't interest you and you are already satisfied with your explanation, there's not point in further discussion.
C) A good argument can be made that those who actually hate America cannot be the ones who vote, and if a few of them do they can't be persuaded to vote in high enough numbers to make any difference.
Now, even if that isn't true, and some people feel anything that could be called hatred for America, how likely is it that they wish to make America into something worse? I mean, there are historical examples, such as the Young Turks in the Ottoman Empire, or the Kuomintang in China. Both were very unhappy with their traditional country, they wanted in fact, to get rid of it and replace it with something better. In the case of the Young Turks, they definitely did make something better.
Nobody who wants to change things, for better OR worse, can possibly be described as happy with their current country. Usually the more unhappy, the more passionate they are.
However, hatred is always more better expressed by expatriating, as East Germans did prior to the Wall coming down.
Unwelcomed, I will now take my exit from your blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home