Liberal Vs. Conservative--What's In A Label?

Recently during one of my sleepless nights, I found myself doing what so many other Americans doing—flipping through television channels. I stopped when I came across political pundit Lawrence O’ Donnell’s show, “The Last Word.” on MSNBC.
Now I know what some of you might be thinking: Liberal nonsense from a left-leaning propaganda cable channel. Now, if you decide to stick around for the rest of this piece, such thinking is exactly my point; political labeling. “Liberal.” “Conservative.” Depending on which particular ideology you embrace, the other will invariably draw the ire of those who believe that their particular beliefs are what’s good for America. However, in recent decades, the word “liberal” has been so successfully painted and maligned with such negative connotations by conservatives that even liberal themselves will avoid claiming the label—unlike conservatives who will not only proudly brag about being “severely conservative,” but will even argue amongst themselves who’s the most conservative adherent to their ideology’s principles.  This is the point that O’Donnell was making on his piece…how labeling can be so effective in politics that our very thinking orbits their manipulated meanings, and equates their “truths” on a level with the very laws of physics themselves.

(See:  Talking Points Memo.com for the story behind the image).

I took the liberty of uploading O’Donnell’s piece, whereby he so eloquently articulated this dynamic of our polarized thinking in modern America. Please take a moment to view the monologue in order to get the gist of the point--that labeling can and has been so effective in modern American politics that our very thinking orbits their manipulated meanings, and equates their “truths” on a level with the very laws of physics themselves. We tend to take the tenets of liberal and conservative doctrine to the point where to argue against any leftist or right-wing-leaning point is tantamount to religious heresy worthy of an automatic rebuke (one usually based on blind adherence rather than a critical analysis of the issues).
I took the liberty of uploading O’Donnell’s piece, whereby he so eloquently articulated this dynamic of our polarized thinking in modern America. Please take a moment to view the monologue in order to get the gist of the point.

For those of you who missed it, the point is not that one is bad while the other is good. It’s that we here in America are often too quick to believe of associate with one party, ideology, or level of thinking simply because we identify with the labels that [supposedly] represents them. The inherent problem with this practice is that it make up highly unlikely to question any wrong decisions and/or policies based solely on labels rather than their intent or effectiveness is eliminating a problem. What’s more, it prevents us from engaging in actual critical thinking about social and/or political policies based on—you guessed it—the labels we attach to them.
With respect to the consequences of political labeling, I will leave it to funnyman Chris Rock’s observational humor to punctuate the point (below) in 60-seconds pure reason (Warning: Contains a liberal use of profanity).

Read More

Let's Think (Instead Of Talk) About Gay Marriage...

I’m no fool. I realize that given what seems to be a widespread pro-gay sentiment in America that dissenters of gay marriage (in particular) and gay rights (in general) are going to be looked down upon in pretty much the same way that gay people were once looked down upon. But either way, it’s simply a sign of our divisive times that those who cannot—for whatever convictions they hold dear—allow themselves to be swept up in the tide of popular opinion are going to be berated and looked down on. I suppose long-time readers of my blog can (and probably will) accuse me of doing the same thing. However, my personal dissent with those who don’t agree is based on logic and reason alone…rationales I find so much superior and reliable than those who based their opinions on weaker and less reliable notions of feelings, passions, and personal beliefs alone.
But given all of the recent conversations regarding gay rights—the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases on various aspects of the issue, Erving “Magic” Johnson’s son going public with his homosexuality, and apparent changing public attitudes about gay marriage as a right—I thought I’d take a brief moment to interject some logic and reason (rather than the usual passion-driven, emotional, religious, or ideological rhetoric) into the topic. In approaching this issue, I was kind of motivated to discuss it by the 180-degree about face that Republican Ohio Congressman Rob Portman did earlier this year on his own stance regarding gay marriage. Portman, as you may or may not know last month endorsed the idea of gay marriage after years of being against it. He was, in turn motivated by his own gay son’s “coming out” to his conservative Congressman father and mother two years previously.
Not being a parent, it might seem on the surface somewhat difficult for me to place myself in the shoes of Portman, who was obviously torn between support for his son’s happiness and his own moral and political party’s convictions. In fact, I’ve witnessed the same phenomenon of torn loyalties between family and beliefs about homosexuality take place in my own personal life. Back in college, I had an older female friend with whom I shared a lot of time with. We laughed, joked, and helped each other out while we were in school. Part of the time we spent together was done so making light of the gay students on campus. We got a lot of chuckles out of the jokes…up until her own then 18-year-old son came out to her that he was gay. She was devastated for a short time, crying as she confided that she feared his being persecuted for being “different.” Eventually, she came around to accepting him for who he was, and got some community-group support for the both of them. My eventual maturity halted my making fun of gay people in such old-school thinking. But it was one of those experiences that made me see that things are often not as black-and-white as we would like to think. However, I find that such considerations for the shades-of-gray that surround many social issues like gay marriage are usually the concerns of those who’s thinking and perceptions are tainted by other considerations outside of reason and/or rational thinking.
For someone like myself, personal convictions, understandings, and experiences trump even family…and I couldn’t see myself going against them, even to support what makes my loved ones “happy.” To me, the issue of someone being against and then for gay marriage simply because they realize they have a gay relative is somewhat analogous to my own siblings doing something that I understood to be wrong and/or against my own convictions—I may love them, but I wouldn’t be supportive of what they were doing. And I simply have no respect for anyone—on the Left or the Right—who cannot stand on their personal beliefs and/or convictions come hell-or-high water. This brings me to my personal observations about the notion of gay marriage.
Many supporters of gay marriage opine that it is a “Constitutional right.” Logically-speaking, this is totally inaccurate. Marriage—gay or straight—is not a Constitutional “right.” Aside from the fact that the concept of marriage is neither implicit nor explicitly embedded language of the Constitution (unless you count “the pursuit of happiness” as being part and parcel of that such a “right,” in which case you’d have to consider the myriad of other unorthodox practices we have that make us “happy”), there is simply no “right” to be married in this country. In fact, there is no right—Constitutional or natural—that that we should even find a partner, find love, or even be loved…it is an expectation, not a “right.” It’s an indulgence in self-righteousness and self-deception to elevate personal expectations or desires to the level of “Constitutional Rights.”
In addition to the rhetorical argument, there is the purely logical argument against gay marriage. Simply stated, there is no way that anyone with a grain of intellectual reasoning could think that the Framers of the Constitution could have conceived that 2 adults of the same sex would want to freely engage in sexual relations (sodomy laws were still on the books during this period, which was what laws against homosexuality were codified under), yet alone want to marry each other (See: "Homosexuals And the Death Penalty In Colonial America"). The social and religious taboos of that period were so strong that the act of homosexuality was punishable by death. Even yes, the Founding Fathers had a great deal of foresight, but they were not seers. The inclusion of same-sex unions into the partnership of marriage was a level of thinking beyond even their ability to anticipate and legislate. Another reason why it stretches credibility to call gay marriage a “Constitutional right.”
Lastly, let’s look at where the growing support for gay marriage seems to be coming from. According to most recent polls, the overwhelming majority of support for gay marriage tends to come from those younger than 30 (See: “Young People, Flip-Floppers Fuel Surge For Gay Marriage”). But let’s not forget who these young people are; most of them are born to a generation of Americans who were born mostly to single parents. As a matter of reason, most of them have no frame of reference for the predominance of (the importance) of the heterosexual, two parent household dynamic. To them, any family regime outside of that particular traditional dynamic would not be considered a static, sacrosanct institution, and would likely impact their thinking insofar as their attitudes toward the notion of two people of the same sex being legally recognized as a marriage. This would explain partially why the support for gay marriage tends to fall off in older adults…those who were more likely to grow up under the heterosexual two-parent dynamic.

My overall point is that whenever we apply reason, rational thinking, and conviction of such thinking to a particular issue, the outcomes tend to either change based on the soundness of the challenging idea, or remain fixed despite popular attitudes. The practical application of this is that if one of my own siblings were gay, I would have the testicular fortitude to stand my ground based on my understanding of the issues as well as my personal experiences as it relates to that understanding…not bail on my convictions and my understanding of sound reasoning just because someone I know and love manifest the opposing view. Gay marriage, like most other social and economic issues should be approached based on the use of our heads and our higher reasoning, not base feelings and emotions for the simple fact that emotions can and do often impair both our critical reasoning skills and our ability to reach constructive addressing of the issues.  The fact that we have people in our lives who engage in practices that don't mesh with our individual convictions shouldn't be an influence...if you have a belief, stand firm on it...and don't be afraid what others think, or what  the masses believe.

See also: "What's Wrong With Gay Marriage And The Traditional Family" and "The Death Of The American Marriage!"

Read More

Opinion -- If I Were Conservative, Would I Be Right?

As I write and blog about important political and social issues, I suppose that it’s a matter of general principle that people will invariably rant and rage against whatever conclusions I arrive at (and yes, I know that sentence ends with a preposition). Despite the fact that my observations are based on—arguably so by some of you—what I consider reason (sans the passions, emotions, and political ideological dogma), there are those who still insist on making judgments based on their efforts to try to fit their perceptions of reality into rubrics which adhere to conservative ideology rather than what reality says about itself. Granted I have been accused by both liberals of not understanding the nature of a particular issue, and by conservatives of being a liberal in sheep’s clothing, I find conservative individuals’ lack of tolerance for any assessment of a particular social, economic, or political issue which isn’t routinely espoused by right-of-center ideologues to be particularly disturbing. While liberals can be as every bit as acerbic as conservatives when it comes to defending their beliefs, conservatives tend to resort more to vitriol and ad hominem attacks on given issues.
I cite as an example an instance where on another well-known site’s political section, one conservative commentator attacked my blog as “more liberal crap” simply because he took note of the last posting, which supports the idea of universally affordable health care/access in America. Obviously without even reading the article, the poster predictably went into reactionary mode and attacked the idea of universally affordable health care by stating his own esoteric “understanding” of how market realities in America should be (because of the conservative assertion that the idea of universal access to health care is a “socialist” concept, and an anathema the notion that Free Market-driven competition between providers is more than enough to provide universal access). My own support for this idea is not only borne out of personal experience, but the factual reality that the numbers simply support that the economic strain of the current system, which shortfalls some 30-50 million Americans without affordable health insurance, is not sustainable for the nation economically.
If the commenter had been more in control of their faculties, they would have been able to withhold such stinging criticisms of my post/blog until they had actually taken the time to read…and respond with informed persuasion rather than inflamed passions. If they had been more in control, they would have taken note that, for equally pragmatic reasons, I have assailed the policies of abortion (along with the capital punishment—murder is simply wrong), gun control (people have an inherent right to defend themselves and others—and no, that doesn’t include lunatics killing to “protect the rights of the unborn”), government interference in a parent’s right to use corporal punishment on unruly children, and unnecessary government spending (which I will address more in an upcoming posting). As an African-American, I find this notion of having one “liberal” idea making one a “Liberal” to be analogous to the traditional (and somewhat outdated racist) belief that having one drop of black blood makes one black; one idea does not what a Liberal (or Conservative) make. Both notions reflect a lack of tolerance for one doesn’t agree with.
I’m sure that blind adherents (as opposed to those who are open but adherent) to conservative beliefs will respond to this by claiming that “liberal ideas simply don’t work.” The truth of the matter is that both liberal and conservative policies and ideas have a mixed track record for being effective in remedying the nation’s social and economic ills. Fiscal restraint and controlled budget spending has been proven effective when it comes to economic policies; trickledown economics has not so. Cutting taxes (along with a commensurate level of spending cuts) is good for individuals and families and has tangible benefits; cutting taxes for those who already have the ability to shelter their abundant assets from taxes in order to spur the economy is only beneficial from an ideologically abstract perspective. And one can only imagine how much individual economic chaos was averted by opposition to former president George W. Bush's proposal privatize the Social Security and tie it to stock market.
What most conservatives don't see is that rabidly attacking someone who's ideological beliefs are to the left of Pat Buchanan doesn't help their own cause; they seem as every bit as "elitist" as they claim leftist ideologues are. And just as there is a tolerance for varying degrees of conservatism among conservatives themselves, the same level of tolerance should be extended to those outside and beyond that particular ideological block. Blinding one's self to another ideological perspective based simply on the fact that it goes against one's core beliefs is not an example of how beliefs and ideas are exchanged. Its how possible policy remedies are avoided on the strength of opposing stubbornness. Having an allegiance ideology rather than reality itself reveals more about an individual and their political affiliations than how "enlightened" they would like to think others to think they are.

Read More