Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Why my vote will never veer left

Dear Democrat friends:

Will you please finally admit that your likely Presidential candidate is a socialist?



DAve said...

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

I guess this means she supports the Fair Tax and will be pushing for the abolishment of Social Security.

Anonymous said...

Screw it. I am quitting my job, voting for her, and going to sit back and be given everything. See! You don't need to go to college, kids!!!

jeffmcm said...

Doesn't matter. She's my least favorite of the leading candidates, but she'd still be better than McCain/Romney/Giuliani/whoever.

Doug said...

Oh, Josh, you say "socialist" like it's a bad thing.

And I'm with jeffmcm -- I'm really not all that crazy about Hillary, but I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over pretty much anybody the Republicans are running at this point.

Josh said...

Yeah, other than being completely at odds with every ideal this country was founded on, I guess socialism is OK.

Ron Paul '08.

Josh said...

Like Neal Boortz or not, he does have a point here (and please note he says "conservative" and not "Republican" - those are two different things these days):

Hillary exemplifies the essential difference between a liberal and a conservative. The conservative believes that the individual lives for themselves while the liberal believes that the individual exists to serve society. Conservatives believe that the individual should be free to act freely and independently so long as they don't violate the rights of others; liberals believe that for the individual to act freely and independently IS a violation of the rights of others ... a violation of the basic human rights of the other members of society who somehow have developed an enforceable claim to a portion of the lives of their fellow men.

In short, conservatives, and especially libertarians, believe that the individual owns himself. The liberal believes that the individual belongs to society, an entity to be exploited for something called "the common good." The libertarian believes that the best thing a person can do in this life is to live their own life in responsible and self-sufficient manner so as not to impose a burden on others. The liberal believes that we have a duty to live our lives for the benefit of others or for society. To do anything else is to be "selfish" or "greedy."

You need to read between the lines here. You need to digest what this lady is saying. Hillary Rodham is presenting herself and her philosophy on freedom and individual rights to the entire country. Her "on your own" usage is nothing less than a negative reference to individualism. Her reference to an "we're all in it together" society represents her strongly held belief in collectivism. You're not in this for yourself. You don't matter. You're in this for society. You exist to serve the needs of your fellow men, with government your life's choreographer.

Doug said...

liberals believe that for the individual to act freely and independently IS a violation of the rights of others ...

Nope. I may not be as liberal as Hillary Clinton, but I'm probably the most liberal person you know, and I don't believe that.

I think I speak for a sizable majority of liberals when I say that we do not believe free, independent action is "a violation of the rights of others." As long as you're not hurting anybody else, we're fine with you doing tons of things -- you want to be able to have sex with another consenting adult in peace without somebody looking over your shoulder? Great, so do we. You want to be able to decide for yourself what you read, watch, and listen to? So do we (I guess save for Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman, who's the conservatives' favorite "Democrat" these days, ironically enough). Many of us even think you should be able to smoke pot if you want. We try to keep people from forcing religion down your throat or those of your children.

Sure, we place a greater priority on "the greater good" than conservatives do. But contrary to Boortz's typical frothing exaggeration, we don't believe that priority has to result in the total nullification of the individual, nor do we believe that the individual is something to be "exploited." If anything, I'd say the belief in "exploitable" individuals is held by the radical free-marketeers who want to eliminate any protection that would keep workers from being treated like crap so that the CEOs and stockholders can increase their profit margins, but YMMV on that one, I guess.

Boortz has a point for maybe the first dozen words or so before, in characteristic fashion, goes off the rails with hyperbole and liberal-hatred. Hint: Don't go looking to Neal Boortz for an accurate depiction of what the typical liberal believes. That's like asking an Alabama fan for a character assessment of Phil Fulmer.