Monday, September 8, 2008

Thorazine for the Liberal Mind

As a very amateur writer I love to find well written blogs. I appreciate writing as an art form, and as such enjoy finding writers who are talented at expressing themselves; a talent I very much envy. I study their writing to see if I can glean anything from their style and presentation. I recently stumbled across THIS BLOG by Kenny Kemp, and discovered that though the articles were long, they were informative and well enough written to hold my attention. In fact, I ended up reading every one of his post. With his permission I have copied and pasted his latest post below. Enjoy.





Proposal: Thorazine for the Liberal Mind

I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT HAPPENS. I don't know why it happens. I only know that it happens, but only to about half of the people. The other half seem immune from the disease. But those who are afflicted, who have apparently forgotten everything they were taught as children (and have even taught their own children), now see the world in a way that is, simply . . . crazy.

I'm talking about, of course, the shift from conservative to liberal. Make no mistake, we all start out conservative. As children, we hoard memories and marbles with equal zeal. We count the peas left on the plate that we must eat before Mom will let us up from the table. We count the minutes until our favorite TV program comes on. We count the pennies, nickels, and dimes in our piggy banks. We keep track of who cuts in front of us in line. We mow the lawn so we can borrow the car Friday night. We work for good grades so we can get into college. We do our best to romance the object of our affection. And when we have children, we teach them the same.

What I've just described is a conservative, someone who conserves time, money, relationships, grades, careers, homes, families, forests, nations, and the planet. A conservative simply applies time-honored principles to his own life. Most people never stray from these principles. They balance their checkbook, knowing that if they don't, they will not be able to buy the things they want and need.

What's amazing is that about half the population, while scrupulously balancing their own checkbooks, believes that government shouldn't have to balance theirs. They insure their own car, but aren't sure if others should be required to do so. They bring an I.D. with them to vote, but think it's racist to require others to do so. They conserve water by running the sprinklers at night; mow the grass to conserve its health; trim the tree branches to conserve the neighbor's roof. In short, they are conservatives . . . when it comes to their own yard.

Yet half of them vote liberal in elections. How can this be, when their own success results directly from conservative principles? If I balance my checkbook, why would I vote for someone who won't balance the federal budget? If I teach my children that they get their allowance after they've done their chores, why would I give money to a panhandler? If I lock my doors at night, why would I vote for anyone who would oppose a border fence? If I'm faithful to my spouse, why would I think anyone who is not faithful to theirs is honest?

In short, everything that works in the private sphere works in the public one. If we go to the gym, eat a good diet, and get enough sleep, we will generally be healthy. Sometimes bad things happen, but a conservative knows that the smoker dying of lung cancer is less worthy of his compassion (and limited resources) than someone born with cerebral palsy. A conservative (and a successful liberal) knows that you pay the mortgage first, put food in the fridge, and if there's money left over, maybe we'll have cable TV.

But liberals are nutty. They disconnect their own experience from the world they live in. While they balance their own checkbook, it's OK to let government spending spin out of control if it's for a "good" cause. Yet they don't give their mortgage money to panhandlers. Instead, they give a dollar and pretend they are both helping the beggar and being generous. They are Scrooges when it comes to their own kids' allowance because they know that teaching a child the value of money is one of the most important things they can do to insure that child's success later in life.

Conservative principles work on the macro level as well. We step in when bullies are beating up a defenseless child, but we also teach that child to defend himself in the future. The U.S. protected the defenseless a generation ago and we rebuilt the economies of our former enemies so that today they are our allies. This decade, we freed 40 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, freeing them from bullies and are now teaching them how to live as free people. They will learn to balance budgets, govern themselves without corruption, and have peaceful relations with their neighbors. If we are successful, they will, like many of the former Soviet Union satellites, have conservative governments.

So why would anyone believe that the bedrock principles that made their own life successful (thrift, hard work, honesty, and fidelity) be any less indispensable to the success of any other person or country?

There is only one answer: Such a demented person thinks you are stupid and need their help. This is the unspoken, core truth of the looney left. And yet it was conservative principles that placed them in a position to "help" you. Why are they, notwithstanding their "superior" intellect, unable to recall their own conservative roots? Because they are no longer balancing their own checkbook. The checks they are writing, the ones with all the zeros, come from your checkbook.

It's human nature, I guess. Studies have shown that people use much more TP in public restrooms than they do at home. Someone else is paying for the TP, right? At home, we turn off the lights because we're paying for the electricity. But when people get into government, conservative principles often go out the window. Conservatives are not immune. They hear the siren song of "helping" the "helpless" and start throwing good money after bad, but their own moniker eventually reminds them of their folly. Liberals, on the other hand, not only think they are smarter than you, they also believe their compassion trumps your right to manage your own checkbook.

The result is a nation with a bloated, unbalanced budget, out-of-control spending, broken fences with our neighbors, and a populus, nearly half of which apparently doesn't know the difference between giving a child an allowance for helping around the house and tossing a quarter to a bum.

The drafters of the Constitution envisioned "citizen legislators" and a system of checks and balances (an apt economic metaphor) to constrain each branch of government to stay within reasonable bounds. Each branch naturally wants to extend its power. Adherents to the philosophy of a "living" Constitution currently hold sway in the judicial arena, often overriding legislation they deem to be insufficiently progressive. The legislature is too timid to make hard decisions (Roe v. Wade is one classic example of the judiciary stepping in when the legislative branch refused to act), and the President winds up doing the legislature's job via executive orders. And the fourth branch of government--you and me--seems more interested in American Idol than America, so we fail to hold any branch responsible. It's like we left an 8 year-old in charge of the baby while we went out to a movie. In a conservative world, such dereliction of parental duties would result in dire consequences.

Why we do not demand proportional punishment for those who ignore timeless conservative principles in the public square is beyond me. The liberals must be, simply . . . crazy.
May I suggest a Thorazine drip?

12 comments:

Mary Lee said...

Thanks for posting the guy's post. Really good reading!

Penless Thoughts said...

Great read.
Susan

Kristi said...

What do "they" say... if you're under 30 and not liberal, you have no heart -- if you're over 30 and not conservative, you have no brain...

I guess I must never have had a heart.

Nikki said...

I love finding new great blogs too! This is a great find and a great read...the evolution of liberalism should be studied in schools...then maybe we can stop the spreading of it! :)N

Kirk said...

Just because someone is articulate doesn't mean they're correct. Kemp's essay is well-written from a technical standpoint, sure, but is chock-full of glaring generalizations, misrepresentations, and fallacious assumptions. To wit:

"...half the population, while scrupulously balancing their own checkbooks, believes that government shouldn't have to balance theirs... If I balance my checkbook, why would I vote for someone who won't balance the federal budget?"

Since when is this failure a liberal trait? If we have a look at U.S. federal revenue vs. spending since LBJ, we see quite clearly that democrats invariably show less spending than revenue, while the precise opposite can be said for republicans. So... who is it that fails to balance the federal checkbook again?

"They bring an I.D. with them to vote, but think it's racist to require others to do so."

Ha! Talk about denial! Kemp would have you believe what he wrote was the long and short of it, but in reality, the problem people had with the bill in Georgia was that a huge number of people without ID who are legally allowed to vote could find themselves disenfranchised by default. Moreover, minorities weren't the only groups concerned; young adults and the elderly would also be unfairly restricted. Kemp conveniently fails to mention that.

"If I'm faithful to my spouse, why would I think anyone who is not faithful to theirs is honest?"

How very droll. It's rather well known republicans have the adultery/sexual misconduct market cornered. Republican politicos (ex. Bob Livingston, Jeff Miller, and Sue Myrick) as well as right-wing "moral leaders" (Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Randall Terry) committed adultery as well. Why didn't Kemp mention them? And considering the plight of closet homosexuals like Mark Foley and Larry Craig, I suppose it's no surprise Kemp stopped at adultery.

"This decade, we freed 40 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, freeing them from bullies and are now teaching them how to live as free people..."

...while simultaneously running up the largest federal deficit in U.S. history! Honestly, does this guy even read his own contradictory claptrap? More importantly, do others reading this post also fail to see these glaring errors?

"Such a demented person thinks you are stupid and need their help. This is the unspoken, core truth of the looney left."

This is actually an obtuse, editorial speculation with no basis in reality. As a liberal thinker, I feel it incumbent upon me to help those in need, however I am able. I do not habitually assume the needy are stupid (or laziness, for that matter); such prejudicial assumptions are a decidedly republican methodology. How better to justify their greed than to roundly convince themselves the underprivileged are simply undeserving?

"Studies have shown that people use much more TP in public restrooms than they do at home."

It's an interesting bit of unverified info, but lacks any qualitative value regarding Kemp's main premise since we have no measure of how many participants in these supposed studies were liberal and how many were conservative. But this typical right-wing tactic -- known as Hasty Generalization in debate -- is nevertheless quite effective in persuading the naive reader. Do be careful.

"The result is a nation with a bloated, unbalanced budget..."

...brought about by eight years of Neo-Con government that turned a record surplus into a record deficit...

"out-of-control spending..."

...on an unwinnable war and giant tax cuts for people who don't need them...

"...broken fences with our neighbors..."

...which is directly resultant of George W Bush's cowboy mentality, his immense failings at diplomacy, and his unjustified attack on a country that had none of the WMDs he claimed they had.

"...the difference between giving a child an allowance for helping around the house and tossing a quarter to a bum..."

Yeah, because anyone who is homeless is simply lazy and stupid and undeserving of aid. No one is ever victimized for being mentally ill or persecuted for having the IQ of a St. Bernard. The world is totally fair and anyone who suffers deserves it, right? Anyone who believes that is as heartless as they are half-witted.

"And the fourth branch of government--you and me--seems more interested in American Idol than America, so we fail to hold any branch responsible."

That's the only reasonable thing Kemp wrote in the entire essay.

Dan said...

All the people mentioned by you and Kemp, both conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, rich and poor, you, Kemp, and I are condemned before a Holy and Righteous God. We have but one hope which is found in the one who took that condemnation for us if we would only believe.

Other than that, please read up on the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, re-read this article, then try again. Oh, and as a favor to your blogging fellows, pick one, perhaps two points. Generally, I don't think most people (and I know I don't) have the time nor the desire to debate you on such a long list of critiques all at once; that is if you're open to debate. If you just want to vent, please find another blog.

May the God of Hope fill you with all joy and peace during this Christmas season.

Kirk said...

I apologize. I didn’t realize a dissenting opinion here would be met with such obdurate dismissal.

“…please read up on the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, re-read this article, then try again.”

I’ll spare you a reiteration. I’m smart enough to know a disingenuous cop-out when I hear one. The fact you feebly used your invocation of ad hominem as justification for refusing to intelligently respond to the wealth of other very valid points I made speaks volumes.

And in case you didn’t know it, Thorazine is an anti-psychotic drug. The title of the post, then, implies liberals are psycho. So I guess you’re actually fine with ad hominem arguments so long as it’s your side making them. Hmm?

“...pick one, perhaps two points. Generally, I don't think most people (and I know I don't) have the time...”

Aren't you the same guy who wrote: “though the articles were long, they were informative and well enough written to hold my attention” at the top of this page? Huh. So it’s just that you don’t have time to listen to a side other than your own. I’m seeing a pattern here.

And you’re wrong about “most people”. I continually attract and welcome all sorts of contrary opinions at my blog and the discussions are often long and thought-provoking. I never feel the need to simply blow off people who have taken the time to share their opposing views. Don’t believe me?

“…nor the desire to debate you on such a long list of critiques all at once; that is if you're open to debate.”

At what point have I indicated I wasn’t open to debate? You know, Dan, passive-aggressive jabs like that are also considered ad hominem. It’s quite clear you’re the one avoiding the discussion. After all, you supplied the essay with so many points to critique.

“If you just want to vent, please find another blog.”

I have my own blog at which to vent. I was simply trying to set the record straight on Kemp’s numerous glaring inconsistencies and untruths. I even supported my assertions with linked evidence, but it’s clearly easier to assume I’m a loudmouthed bully than it is to defend Kemp’s opinions just because they ring true to you. If you had the strength of your convictions, you’d have met me with discerning discourse rather than indignation and sanctimonious platitudes.

For what it’s worth, I stumbled across your blog while researching certain side-effects of Thorazine for an article I’m writing. I was insulted by the implication that I need such a medication simply because I’m liberal in my beliefs but felt it only fair to read the whole post before passing judgment.

In other words, I was drawn to your “Christian” blog solely due to its public display of hateful and slanderous invective. Does that give you a sense of spiritual pride?

I won’t darken your proverbial door again. Take care.

Dan said...

Kirk, why on earth are you so angry? Your people have won the election. You own the congress and the White House, and the Supreme Court I'm sure is within your reach. You have the media, the education system, and the government. These should be joyous times for you.

Anyway, I hope to, for my own education, and in the extremely unlikly event you or someone else stops by, to eventually respond to your points when I have the time. Not that I think it'l have an impact on your thinking, never-the-less as I stated in "about this blog", I am here and doing this for the purpose of sharpening my writing and thinking skills.

BTW interesting blog, I didn't know you had one.

Kirk said...

“Kirk, why on earth are you so angry?”

Oh, I’m not angry over this. Annoyed and frustrated maybe, but not so much that I’ll lose any sleep or go kick my dog or anything. If you sensed hostility, it’s probably more a combination of my extreme hyperactivity and passionate personality. That’s not to say I never pour buckets of freebase anger on anyone; it just takes a lot more to get me enraged than a conservative rant on someone’s blog.

My party controlling Congress and the White House has really nothing to do with defending my beliefs against ignorant, flippant attacks, though. When I saw “Thorazine for the Liberal Mind,” I was bugged; when I read Kemp’s flagrantly slanted diatribe, I felt the need to rebut. Kemp claiming liberals are the ones destroying the federal budget particularly galled me. So I spoke up.

I personally never expect to change anyone’s mind; I only wish to enlighten others to views maybe they hadn’t considered (or even refuse to consider) so that there is more understanding in the world.

As a side note, I honestly have no idea how anyone could see Jesus Christ as anything but the world’s most active liberal. I mean, only a true liberal would simply hand his tunic to a man who just stole his cloak, as Jesus taught (Matthew 5:40 and Luke 6:29). And can you even imagine a republican selling everything he has, giving all the money to the poor, and living an ascetic life (Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21 and Luke 18:22)? Retributive wars and torture sessions seem antithetical to the “love your neighbor as yourself” idea, and don’t even get me started on the whole “love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” thing.

I wish you well in developing your writing style and look forward to any detailed reply you might compose in the future. Peace.

Dan said...

So you do have a kinder gentler side. I’m glad you came back by. I’ll be commenting here hopefully this week if time permits.

Kenny Kemp said...

I don't mean to interrupt the spirited debate, but I've been asked to respond to Kirk's initial critique of my blog:

I find it fascinating that Kirk went reflexively to the Democrat/Republican dichotomy as a misdirect to find fault, not with my points, but with Republicans.

But Kirk: re-read my blog. I never used the term "Democrat" or "Republican." I spoke of conservative and liberal principles. I know many liberal Republicans and many more conservative Democrats. There is ample hypocrisy in both camps. I have no doubt Kirk balances his checkbook. To point out that congressional Republicans have failed to balance the nation's checkbook is to willfully miss my point, which applies to everyone, not just those with a "D" after their name.

When we catch a child in an untruth and they say, "But everyone lies!" no decent parent accepts that as an excuse. Neither should any decent electorate.

This is why the recent election is reminiscent of 1976. For the next four years we will watch as a liberal congress and president get exactly what they want. And who knows? Perhaps 2012 will be a replay of 1980, and that, in my opinion, will be good for the country and the world as well.

Kenny Kemp

Kirk said...

Kenny, you crack me up. You write a flame piece describing liberals as crazy, nutty, demented, looney, and in need of Thorazine but then when challenged, all you have to offer is this soggy noodle of a reply? What happened to all that contentious, inflammatory chutzpah you had when composing this 1200-word stool sample?

I find it fascinating that Kirk went reflexively to the Democrat/Republican dichotomy as a misdirect to find fault, not with my points, but with Republicans…

I find it fascinating that you would so readily fall back on semantics than support your positions. My use of the D/R labels was more imprudent than reflexive, but if I had stuck to your preferred terminology, would you have replied any more intelligently? Or would you have simply had to search harder for an adequate evasion?

Blowing off my citation of Republican vs. Democrat spending is one thing, but thinking you can just sort of slip everything else in under that same dodge isn’t going to fly. Here’s a list of those points you so conveniently missed:

1. I called you on your flagrantly misinformative take on the Georgia voter ID issue.
2. I directly challenged your take on the usefulness/cost-effectiveness of the Iraq war.
3. I shined a light (multiple times) on your blatant use of fallacies to verify your claims.
4. I cited statistics refuting your implication only liberals cheat on their wives.
5. I pointed out where you directly contradict yourself.

To point out that congressional Republicans have failed to balance the nation's checkbook is to willfully miss my point, which applies to everyone, not just those with a “D” after their name.

Nice try. If your goal had truly been to censure liberal Republicans as well as Democrats, you would have used the appropriate language and wouldn’t have spoken of the “Left” in such a roundly rhetorical way. It’s intellectually dishonest to claim you weren’t using “looney Left” as a synonym for “Democrat” and you know it. You can't have it both ways.

Let me ask you this: did you vote for George W. Bush the second time around? I suspect you did. And if you did, how does that jive with your stance in this essay, considering his first term was a true conservative’s nightmare?

Anyway, I’ve wasted too much time on this. You can continue antagonistically misrepresenting the liberal mindset while carefully avoiding specific party names so as to allow yourself an easy escape route from any real discussion, but until you can actually back up your claims instead of making petty excuses, you’ll continue to be just another loudmouth with a thesaurus and an internet connection.