"If =/= liberal @ 25, you lack heart, if you =/= conservative @ 30, you lack brains" = crock of piss

[silveradept]

Okay. Potentially not-nice words to follow, may have occasional bouts of cursing or other bleepable language. Talks about politics, cultural values, other such things. May contain nuts. Flammable. Explosion hazard. Continue at your own discretion.

Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD's opinion column is a long form piece on the idea that only conservative to libertarian values matter, and that only conservatives can raise their children right, and that anyone who is a liberal has either become deluded by something or is weak in some fundamental area, like effort or willingness to work.

I'm getting really tired of this particular viewpoint. I don't believe that liberalism is the end-all and be-all of parenting philosophies, either. Besides, there's lots of agreement between the two viewpoints. Both believe in cooperation, honesty, courtesy, apologizing when injuring, caring for others, and the like.

Where we start having problems with the assumptions are, naturally, when the kids get involved. Marriage is not the only arrangement for raising children with, and with the divorce rate as high as it is, it would probably be better to teach your child that she should protect herself and he should take every available precaution until he is ready for children. I also get the distinct feeling that homosexual couples need not apply, even if marriage for them would be a very stable environment for a child. Then comes the martyr part - "You should teach your kid to sacrifice for their kids, like we sacrificed for you!" "Your children are your own responsibility, and nobody else's, so if anything goes wrong, it's your fault, and they should work hard to correct any of the faults that they have or that you put in them."

Plus, aren't parents worried these days that the generations are becoming increasingly "me"-centric? So how would teaching this hypothetical child that their own individual liberty, and everyone else's individual liberty, is the most important thing fix that? Adding on that anything that tries to restrict this freedom, for whatever reason, is inherently wrong, and you have the makings of someone who will exploit whatever he can, or feel entitled to whatever she can achieve. Perhaps the part about responsibility will kick in, but when they apologize or refrain from doing something impolite, it's usually to the benefit of society or some larger, "less important" entity. How do you resolve that conflict?

And then comes the sneak attack - "How would this hypothetical perfect conservative/libertarian child vote? Certainly not for those big-government liberals, who steal our hardworking dollars and spend it on the undeserving, who foster a dependence on government, rather than letting the impulse to not starve force them into low-wage, no-benefit jobs, and who tell everybody that it's okay to be sexual, and we saw where that went, didn't we? All the abortions, the destruction of our sacred institutions, the diseases, it's all the liberals' fault for saying it's okay to have sex!"

The crucial paragraph of the argument, though, seems to apply to both ideological spectra to me. Have a look for yourselves.

By what line of reasoning will the adult child you have raised convince himself to vote for a candidate whose political culture encourages sexual acting out with its resulting sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, unnecessary abortions and the catastrophic effects of sexual infidelity on marriages, children and families? How eager will your adult child be to vote for a candidate whose political culture rationalizes violence, excuses financial irresponsibility, condones substance abuse, encourages blaming and complaining, insists on political correctness, exploits the victim-villain theme, and authorizes all abortion on demand? By what line of reasoning will your now adult child convince himself that an education or job should be given to someone based on skin color or financial status instead of skills?

You mean, the candidate who insists on abstinence until marriage, encouraging sexual acting out with the resulting disease transmissions, pregnancies, and abortions because the child didn't know about contraceptives? The one that insists that children equate to marriage and that once married, always married, even if there's no love in the marriage, or it's being held together just for the children? The one that aggressively invades other countries, paints foreigners as villains and Americans as victims, tries to redefine terms to meet their agendas, and would gladly make sure that their lives are untroubled by unwanted pregnancies while not giving that option to others? The one that spends billions out of budget on a war, cuts taxes, and borrows to pay for this, all while insisting that it's necessary? The one that purports to be fighting a war on drugs, yet disproportionately locks up small offenders of some substances, turns a blind eye toward a very addictive and not-healthy drug usage, and is okay with dispensing various types of medication to cure all supposed social ills?

Saying that half the country is stupid is a pretty serious charge. Saying half the country is stupid, lazy, incompetent, and unable to handle the burdens of freedom because they favor policies that try to ensure that everyone has a shot at making something of themselves, or shouldn't have to worry about making a decision between starvation and getting a physical, reflects the opinion of the speaker back on the speaker. Even if all of those things were taught to a child, all the way through their teenage years, there is still an eminently reasonable chance that the child will tun out to be in favor of those liberal policies Rossiter decries, hopefully through research and coming to their own conclusion about what will work. Would Dr. Rossiter call his own child stupid, lazy, and incompetent, even after having raised her to be the perfect clone of his ideology? The push-pull of liberalism and conservatism keep the country healthy by preventing it from wholeheartedly going in one direction or the other, even if it wobbles dangerously close at times to one or the other extreme.

So I guess I still don't understand what it is about the prospect of the government providing assistance to people that is so abhorrent to Dr. Rossiter. I'm just really tired of people spouting off that liberal policies make people weak and unwilling to work or will turn the great America into a spineless welfare state. Okay, rant over. Go about your business, citizens.

Comments

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

Wow. That article....wow.

So, wait, do I have no brains because I'm a year and a few months shy of being 30 and still liberal?

I completely don't understand where exactly being liberal also states that you are unwilling to work, support rampant sex, and all the other things the article claimed is "liberal". Yes, we are open to forms of sexual education other than abstinence, but I don't think that also means we think everyone should go out and get laid by whoever the hell they want without birth control! They've taken everything a liberal *might* believe in, and pushed it to the extreme. And hey, not all liberals believe in exactly the same thing. There might actually be an issue or two where someone leans towards the conservative side over the liberal side. Then again, what do I know? I'm a hippie commie.

[silveradept]

Well, there's nothing in the article about the age bit, but it's a joke me da told me once, and the punchline has stuck with me.

I think the point he was trying to make is that everyone with a little liberal leaning, instead of the staunch conservatism/libertarian he has, is a hippie commie and will do their very best to mooch off all of the hard working conservative/libertarians that still understand what makes people say "Fuck yeah!" when they hear "America".

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

Yes, because actually expecting the government to do something like oh, take care of it's citizens is completely the same as mooching off of said government.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

Actually, that's a common saying and doesn't really reflect brains or heart or whatever, it's more of an observation. Conservative policies tend to favor people who are in the prime of their lives and are wealthy. Hence, upper-middle-class white males over 30. So if you're 30 and still liberal, you'll be hurting yourself, hence stupid. This is why older wealthy white males have traditionally been a voting block that leans conservative: they're more practical than ideological. On the other hand, leftist policies tend to favor the underdog, hence it's heartless to not be liberal. The saying just observes that the tipping point between being practical and being ideological usually comes a few years after college graduation. (Usually when the first kids come around and you need to start paying that mortgage.)

[silveradept]

Okay, that makes sense. World could do with a few more successful ideologues, though, just to keep the politics interesting, and to provide viewpoints that might even nudge the practical people into believing some of those ideological liberal things are actually achievable without wrecking the economy or the famed working spirit of the United States.