The political right seems so uninterested in the welfare of others. The argument is always made that "the government has never done anything right," so government programs aught to be resisted, but often I sense a feeling of contempt for the very idea of aiding others who really aught to have to fend for themselves. Is this true about conservatives? If it is, than why? Why do liberals have the appearance of caring more about other people? Why is it the far-left wing who is so obsessed with bringing to light the injustices of american foreign policy (like training death squads in guatamala or what have you) while the far-right wing is concerned most of all with eliminating social programs and owning guns?
Can any conservative explain this to me, because I honestly doubt that conservatives are less moral people in general than liberals. Perhaps it is just hard for me to comprehend because i know many conservatives i consider moral...yet, its true that they seem obsessed with the bottom line and avoiding "handouts" through wealth redisribution. Many seem to feel they are helping the world more by preaching various religions than they would be by donating time or money to lift people out of poverty. Many -my boss comes to mind- who are ex-liberals tell me I'll grow out of my idealism, and that, basically, the world is what it is and you just cant do anything to change the injustice. It's sort of this "There will always be rich and poor, so you might as well be rich," attitude.
I am often reminded of this extremely kind man I really only had conversation with once- an editor for the St. Petersburg times in Florida who lived in the neighborhood of one of my friends and who was hosting a new years party 12 months ago. He said something to the effect of, "Well, I care about money. But conservatives, they really Care about money."He said this without sounding morally superior, to me; rather he just sounded like he was making a statement about two different world perspectives. Is this really true? I see a lot of evidence of it.
this has been a rant.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 24
I like to keep what I make and do as I see fit with my money -- I don't need the government to give it away to someone else. I have loved ones that I do help, and I do give to charities. It's my money, my choice, and I don't need candidates like Hillary and Edwards aiming their tax hikes at me. And they make these constant calls against 'corporate greed' and think they can tax corporations and give it away to the poor. The fact is, any expenses passed on to business always show up in the price consumers pay (regardless of what class income you are in).
Lastly, polls have shown over and over that conservative individuals are more generous in giving to those in need.
dead serious
@ don:
"We are the most successful country in the history of mankind in terms of our prosperity."
and if this is your goal, than i would imagine you would be happy about it, but Im concerned about people who aren't prospering, inside this country or out. I see a pattern of liberals being more interested in the wellbeing of people who are outside of loved ones and religious groups, and i dont see the same in conservatives.
what do you mean by big picture? do you mean that in the end everyone will be taken care of? do you mean that although we don't do what we could to eliminate suffering in the world, we are actually doing the best thing for the largest amount of people? do you mean we are doing the best thing for the most important group of people?
i think this is interesting and would like to read some of these. do you know where any are?
Conservatives more generous than liberals, public policy expert finds
Why are conservatives more generous to poor?
And the liberal solution is to punish that which drives prosperity... big and small business alike. Not very smart plan. Please tell me how taxing businesses more helps the poor? Understand they pass the cost on to consumers and let people go in efforts to shore up the bottom line. Your turn....
"So in this season of giving, Christmas -- a word some liberals don't like to say -- it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portray conservatives as mean, cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multimillionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The vice president gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little."
so you are saying that there will always be rich and poor and you might as well be rich...right? your plan is to let the poor be poor, correct? my post and my first response to you mentioned concern for people are not doing as well; i didnt mention unveiling a big plan to make everything better. Im not sure if i gave that impression.
when i read your paragraph i think it sounds like you are saying that there is no way to fix the problem, so screw the poor people. I think that shows less a concern about others than i personally feel, which is the reason i wrote the piece. I think that is a similar attitude to those i see represented by many conservatives. Instead of looking at the issue of the division between rich and poor and saying, "i feel concern for the poor and want to do something about it" they explain that it has to be that way, so you might as well let it be.
But, the findings are that aside from religious donations, conservatives give on average 88$ more per year to charity regardless of income level. of course conservatives give a lot more than that to their various churches...which i personally think is like anticharity since it fosters dogmatic religious systems and results in suppression of real moral issues like stem cell research. anyway, i am intending to look for more information on this because most conservatives i meet have an attitude of "there will be rich and poor so i'll be rich," while most liberals i meet have an attitude of "I want to do something to change that."
And Don S' favorite breck girl Edwards made somewhere around $50 million in botched birth lawsuits and the like (obvoisly he hand picks his clients seeking the biggest awards). I wonder how much his clients got after legal fees, taxes, medical bills, etc. He just built a 28,000 square ft house and has the balls to talk about two America's. Go talk to Edwards neighbor and see what he thinks about the Edwards.
Anyways, nothing Clark says can be backed up... it's his opinion that he formed based on his own lousy life - he needs a scapegoat for his miserable failures.
The "Right" are called "conservative" not so much as a "political" identification but as a "character trait" ... as a conservative character they have a "tunnel vision" (narrow minded) around selfishness where they accept only "like thinkers" into "their" group ... deeming all "others" as their "enemy", especially those they like to call Liberal from a political perspective. That, most often based upon what a "leader" (Right-wing pundit) has informed them of as the way to think as well as who their "enemies" are ...
As far as the political scene goes, there are but two groups in power, where each has been purchased (bought out with $$$) by the ultra wealthy corporate types behind the scenes who actually are pretty much controlling this world of ours. They use those political "titles" (Republican/Democrat) to "divide" the populace in order to best control us ... keeping us conflicting with each other so as to better control us all as we look only as far as our politicians for actions, never above them where the Real Power resides.
So as could be expected, the side of the most wealth ($$$) is that of the Right that identifies (often just wishful thinking) with the most money and materialism in general. These folks defend as apologists for their wealthy leaders they wish to emulate someday, their peer heroes, their "kind" of people. Those they see as most ambitious and clever, those that excel in the world of business "competition", those Alpha Males that are the "head of the pack" in a dog eat dog world of malevolent dangers from the slothful and outright "evil" (always the "other" guy), those that they FEAR would demand something from them in "fairness" to the people that have been defeated by their "system", those that are just "losers" to them.
And this thinking has come down from the religions of the world that deal in "duality" where the extreme of the "good side" is the most "perfect" as OPPOSED to the "other/bad" side ... "their" God on "their" side and the Devil on the "other" side. (Actually to them God and Spirit are still up there in heaven somewhere) ... a very "contentious" way of dealing with the world where it is only natural that the "big fish" (the wealthy) survive best at the expense of the "little fish" (the impoverished) ... because they all live in a world of "winners" versus "losers" ... (+/-).
The Liberals on the "other" hand are just that, Liberal, as in easy going and compassionate along with having a desire for peaceful cooperation rather than conflict. Liberals prefer that all peoples be treated fair because they know all peoples to be "related" ... which all are via the Spirit "=" that interconnects all, both the "so-called" good (+) as well as the "so-called" bad (-) ... (+=-).
If the "Right" gives more (which is doubtful), it is for two reasons, one being that they have so much more to give due to their excessive wealth (which they get ample tax breaks for giving away) and due to their GUILT about it all (rightly deserved).
But the real truth of the matter is that from the "people" upward, including most politicians, the "leaders" are all after the very same things, wealth $$$ and what it can buy them. Neither side REALLY cares for the people "under" them, only for themselves and their "relationships" in that upward direction.
We the people have been "divided and conquered" long ago and the "game" goes on thoroughly "rigged" to their advantage always ... as we go about believing that they actually represent us and care about us for something other than votes. Then as it exists, and as we are always told, elections are determined by us the people and if things do not go right for us, it has to be our fault for voting the way we do ... we are all brainwashed to play by the rules of the "system" ... and who do you think makes up those rules and to who's benefit are they written ... ???
So all of the "smack talk" done by the Don H's of the world is just a part of the overall design and intentions of those pulling the strings of their little puppets ...
In the greater picture there is LOVE on one end of the scale and FEAR on the other end ... this being a dualistic scale of (+/-) ... those that have the most fear call themselves the most loving and lie in doing so, both to themselves and especially to others. Those with most love are just more humble in being liberal and peaceful. It is the Spirit of God that is actually attempting to bring us each and all back together in some more central balance point of cooperation between equals but opposites.
IMnsHO. Spirit Calls ... on us to love one-another peacefully.
"The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney's books. That left about $1.9 million in income on which the Cheney's owed $529,636 in taxes."
In short, Cheney exercises options, made a little over 8 million, then gave away nearly 7 million. Clearly, he is a generous man. If you can still argue against that, then you're an idiot.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/15/02358.shtml
"The Cheneys' charitable generosity stands in marked contrast to that of their predecessors, whose sometimes stingy donations became a national embarrassment.
In 1997 for instance, Al and Tipper Gore contributed just $353 to charity, a sum that raised eyebrows even in friendly media circles."
Clearly, liberals talk out of their ass.
How does the current administration compare with the previous one? In 1999, the Clintons gave away a solid 9.4% of their income, while the Gores gave 5.1%. Two years earlier, however, the former vice president's giving had earned some special attention. In 1997, the Gores only gave away $353 of their income of $197,729, or 0.18%. Mr. Gore's spokesman deflected criticism by pointing out that, "To truly judge a person's commitment to helping others, you need to consider what they have done with their lives and how they have spent their time -- and by that standard the Gores are extraordinarily
Anyways, Clark, use Google... this stuff is available from many sources. Their tax returns are made public, and the sources reporting are credible.
I have no problem with his wealth. But Edwards says one thing and does another. If he really cared about the poor as he claims, he would have built a smaller house and donated the rest to help the less fortunate.
"It would appear that somebody is engaging in projectionism."
It is you and other liberals who contstantly project on conservatives -- and almost always falsely. Just look at Jerry Kays extensive rant a few posts above. A typical know-nothing lib.
Free Market? Since when is that the case as long as the Privately owned Federal Reserve Bank artificially manipulates the interest rate to balance the saving/investment see-saw? Savings & Loans go under so the taxpayers bail them out . . . John Q. Citizen goes under and it's "Reach for the Bootstraps, boy!" . . . because the Government is behind you!
True conservatives did want less government and less spending . . . but we have a bastardized version with the unholy alliance of religious right wing-nuts and Neo-CONs who have hijacked the GOP . . . and effectively killed it for decades.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~