Tag Archives: conservatives

Those Terrible, Uncaring Conservatives . . .

7 Jan

David Limbaugh, in his recent column titled “The Left’s Latest Mantra:  Income Inequality”, besides addressing the left’s unjustified claims to the high ground on income inequality, has this to say about the liberal world view in general.  I thought it was well stated.  The whole column can be read at

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-limbaugh/the-lefts-latest-mantra-income-inequality.html

Excerpt:  [Emphasis is mine]

Whether or not liberals are able to process the reality that their programs have failed, they will not abandon them, because class warfare and government dependency programs are their ticket to power. CNN’s Candy Crowley unwittingly admitted as much when she asked Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker why any unemployed American or minimum wage worker would become a Republican.

It’s not that conservatives don’t care about the poor. It’s that we do care about the poor — and everyone else. We believe that our free market solutions generate economic growth, stimulate upward mobility and improve the economic lives of far more people, including the poor and middle class, than any other system. History vindicates us.

The left will always win the “look at how much I care about you” contest. But it loses in the “actually caring” department because at some point, people have to be presumed to have intended the damaging results their policies have consistently caused.

[End of excerpt]

Advertisements

How Romney Can Win

10 Jul

I believe I found this column by Luigi Zingales on the City Journal site.  A thought provoking look at what could be Romney’s best bet for beating Obama.  Dr. Zingales is a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

 Excerpts from this column:  [Bolding is mine]

 How Romney Can Win

 [The GOP candidate should stand for free markets—and align himself with the vast majority of Americans.]

A recent New York Times op-ed by Bill Scher, “How Liberals Win,” must be commended for its honesty. Scher presents a compelling historical narrative of how Democrats are happy to ally themselves with big business in a Faustian pact to foster anti-market policies. From Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act, which promoted the cartelization of industry, to President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which bought off big pharmaceutical companies by suppressing free trade in the drug market, Scher describes how Democrats have promoted crony capitalism to foster their liberal agenda. They are pro-business—at least certain businesses—but fundamentally anti-market.

This is exactly the opposite of what most Americans want. According to a survey conducted as part of the Financial Trust Index, which I codirect, only 19 percent of Americans reject the free-market system. But 51 percent are suspicious of the excessive power of big business. In other words, they are pro-market, but not necessarily pro-business, especially when business is large and politically powerful.

In fact, by inverting Scher’s argument, one can see that a pro-market, but not pro-big-business, platform would be a winner for Republicans. From Tea Party supporters to Republican-leaning independents, a vast majority of potential Republican voters already hold these positions. The party establishment lags behind, partly for ideological reasons and partly for financial ones.

Ideologically, the Republican establishment doesn’t appreciate the difference between being pro-market and being pro-business. .  .  .  

Romney might be precisely the right person to lead the effort.

First, only someone very confident of his pro-market credentials can take the risk involved in challenging the power of big business. .  .  .  Second, Romney’s experience at Bain Capital makes him potentially more attuned to the market’s needs than to the interests of large corporations. .  .  .  .  Third, his wealth puts him beyond the need to cater to big corporations for a future job or donations to his presidential library.

 For all of these reasons, Romney is eminently qualified to make the pro-market case. .  .  .   Pledging a better future for America by defending the American free-market system against a Southern European–style crony capitalism is the perfect way to do it. It’s time for Romney to pick up this flag.

[End of excerpt]

Any thoughts?

Open-Mindedness — the Domain of the Liberal?

31 May

I read the article about Walter Cronkite in Newsweek last week, and this week I read the response from his son (or grandson?) in the “Letters”.  The point that the “son” made that really caught my attention was this:

“Admitting to a liberal philosophy (which he [Walter] defined as something akin to open-mindedness) . . . .  His liberal radio editorials were evidence of openness, no?”

I know you’re going to say I read too much into this, but I was led to wonder if the reason why liberals seem to look down on conservatives is that liberals feel the liberal viewpoint is the open-minded viewpoint, while conservatives are not open-minded.  Might this explain, for example why those darn Republicans in Congress won’t come around to the “obviously” correct way of thinking with regard to debt ceilings, balanced budgets, oil production, taxation, etc.?  The Reps just aren’t open-minded?

If so, this is certainly a great conceit on the part of Democrats.

To sort of skewer a well-known saying, we conservatives are plenty open-minded, we just haven’t become so open-minded that our brains have fallen out.

Your thoughts?

Gallup Poll on Abortion — I Was Surprised

24 May

As vitriolic as the argument gets when abortion rights becomes the topic, you would think that the dominant feeling in America is that “Pro-Choice” is clearly the leading ideology, and that “Pro-Life” is a position held only by a small minority of neanderthals.  So check this out.

Latest Gallup poll on the topic shows that 50% declare themselves as “Pro-Life”, as against 41% who declare for “Pro-Choice”.  [Margin of error is + or – 4 points.]

Frankly, I am one of those who, from listening to, and reading, the media, thought that “Pro-Lifers” were just that far-right-wing Tea Party bunch.  But I guess not.

We would expect a strong majority of Republicans to be “Pro-Life”, and a strong majority of Democrats to be “Pro-Choice”.  And they are.  But the Independents break for “Pro-Life” over “Pro-Choice” by 47% to 41%.

Moreover, abortion is still considered to be a moral issue.  Over half of polled Americans (51%) consider abortion to be morally wrong, whereas “only” 38% declare abortion morally acceptable.  Oddly, I believe this indicates that even some who are “Pro-Choice” feel that abortion is morally wrong?

Nevertheless, most Americans (52%) feel that abortion “should be legal under some circumstances”.  Interestingly, only 20% feel that abortion “should be legal under all circumstances”.  So about half of the “Pro-Choicers” out there feel that there should be constraints.  This may be in synch with there being “Pro-Choicers” who, nonetheless, feel that abortion is morally wrong.

Your views?

Liberals and Conservatives Compared

23 Apr

Just a few things I’ve run across that someone might want to comment on.

1.  In spite of the attempt to characterize Republicans as representing the rich, and Democrats as representing the middle class and the poor, surveys reveal that those who self-identify as liberal have higher incomes, on average, than those who self-identify as conservatives.  And, besides, there seems to be a prepnderance of rich liberals in Hollywood and the mainstream media.  Sort of puts the lie to what Dems/Libs would have us believe.

2.  Conservatives actually give MUCH more to charity (persentage-wise) than do liberals.  Perhaps this is tied to the conservatives’ belief that we should be accountable as individuals for broader good works, whereas liberals may tend to believe that government should take care of such things?

3.  Latest Gallup poll shows about 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 35% as moderate, and only 20% as liberal.  Shouldn’t this alone warn Obama away from making end runs around Congress to implement what is effectively a liberal, or “liberal-light” agenda?

More to come . . . .