MediaCurves Forums MediaCurves Forums : Discuss Studies Regarding Politics, Entertainment, Culture, and More.
The "Take"
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Myths of the Conservative
A few weeks ago I was in the Adirondacks with some friends trying to enjoy my vacation. We were all college students, sitting around a campfire at night, talking about our majors and school work etc. Someone asked what major I was and I replied Economics. To this, an oh-so-intelligent British Literature major, responded, "Yeah, I used to be an Economics minor, until I realized that all the people in my class were cold-hearted republicans." Around the campfire I heard some others mutter in agreement. It was hard to keep myself from picking up a block of wood and throwing it at them. This is the kind of stereotyping that conservatives are always accused of, but very often they are the ones being attacked. This was by no means the first time I have been called names because I am a republican or because I am an economics major. I usually don't tell people my political affiliation to avoid the looks of pure hatred. I asked Mr. Brit Lit why he felt that way and he really couldn't come up with an explanation
A cold-hearted republican? I deeply resented that statement. I consider myself a kind, compassionate person always willing to help others that are in need. I was co-chair for Relay for Life at my school, an event that raised over $100,000 for cancer survivors and research. I am a huge advocate for animal rights, being a vegetarian for many years, which may come as a surprise to many liberals. I've worked with handicap children, teaching them how to play sports. But because I am an Economics major and because I am still conservative, I am cold-hearted. So, I would like to know, why is it that conservatives are viewed as cold-hearted and selfish? Is it because we don't believe in throwing money at people to cure the ailments of society? No, I do not think raising the minimum wage or giving endless amounts of money to the poor will help them get out of the hole they are in. Instead we should create free programs that help teach basic skills and job placement so they can have a chance to help themselves. Or is it because we are against national health care? National health care would only serve to decrease competition and create a system in which everyone would get the same crappy health care, while only the very rich could keep their current insurance plans and receive the better care. My point is that I am compassionate in nature and want to help people and because of this I am a conservative. I want solutions that actually work and not just ones that sound good.
I appreciate your articulate, personal call to set aside prejudice and name-calling. Your reminder that we should not jump to conclusions about the state of a person's heart based on their political affiliation is important.
At the same time, I do wonder if you have any evidence to justify your claim that,
National health care would only serve to decrease competition and create a system in which everyone would get the same crappy health care, while only the very rich could keep their current insurance plans and receive the better care.
Even if I trust your heart, I'm not sure that I trust your judgment on this one.
The reason that many people consider "the average Republican" to be cold-hearted is because Republicans seem to not care about the realities of problems. Take for example your suggestion that we cannot give money to poor people (which this liberal democrat happens to agree with). You suggest that instead of "giving endless of amounts of money to the poor" (the word "endless" is a total exaggeration - might make some people believe you are making light of the predicament of poor people), we should instead "create free programs that help teach basic skills and job placement so they can have a chance to help themselves." This solution sounds great to me, except that you do not really give this solution your heart and soul, you, and virtually every other Republican I have talked with, throw out an idea like this, and then that is the last we ever hear about it. Perhaps if Republicans actually tried to propose this idea in some public or political forum and make it happen, we would believe that Republicans cared about things like "poor people." For instance, think about how much money a nationwide (or locally targetted programs) like this would cost. Are you really talking about a vocational university? Do you mean to provide people with a generic education or are you talking about training someone for a specific job? Can homeless people get into a program like this? Does this program require that the government create an educational institution or would the government provide grants to existing private/public educational institutions to conduct these job training and placement programs? Did you consider the possibility that most of the people this program would serve have an extremely deficit education? (via our public school system). Many of these people cannot read, or if they can they have a very small written vocabulary. Many of the people who need the training are lacking basic reasoning and problem solving abilities (so how are they going to make sense of a high-paced, and no doubt competitive job placement program)?
Your example about healthcare also demonstrates another place where people accuse Republicans of being "heartless." Just take a moment and consider the implications of having private healthcare. There are millions of people who have mild to severe to terminal conditions. These people are suffering (just think about that, not thinking about money, not thinking about what plan would bring what result, just consider the fact that millions of people are suffering). You may be right that socializing healthcare will lower the overall excellence of our health care system, that does not change the fact that people are suffering right now, and if things stay the way they are going now, more people will continue to suffer. People are going bankrupt because they cannot pay for services that mean the difference between living with pain and death that could be negated by treatment (treatment which these people cannot get in the current system). You are allowed to disagree with how the system should be fixed, that does not make you heartless. Allowing the status quo to continue as it is because Republicans cannot get to a compromise of their principles with Democrats and Independents means that being right is more important than reducing the suffering of human beings. That is heartless.
Also, in terms of minimum wage, you will be called heartless unless you personally have actually had to try raising a family on minimum wage. You are an economics student, why don't you whip out your calculator and just do the math on a family of four trying to survive with both parents holding minimum wage jobs. Once you do some of those calculations think about minimum wage again and let me know what you come up with.
Rate this thread Flag as inappropriate
At the same time, I do wonder if you have any evidence to justify your claim that,
National health care would only serve to decrease competition and create a system in which everyone would get the same crappy health care, while only the very rich could keep their current insurance plans and receive the better care.
Even if I trust your heart, I'm not sure that I trust your judgment on this one.
Your example about healthcare also demonstrates another place where people accuse Republicans of being "heartless." Just take a moment and consider the implications of having private healthcare. There are millions of people who have mild to severe to terminal conditions. These people are suffering (just think about that, not thinking about money, not thinking about what plan would bring what result, just consider the fact that millions of people are suffering). You may be right that socializing healthcare will lower the overall excellence of our health care system, that does not change the fact that people are suffering right now, and if things stay the way they are going now, more people will continue to suffer. People are going bankrupt because they cannot pay for services that mean the difference between living with pain and death that could be negated by treatment (treatment which these people cannot get in the current system). You are allowed to disagree with how the system should be fixed, that does not make you heartless. Allowing the status quo to continue as it is because Republicans cannot get to a compromise of their principles with Democrats and Independents means that being right is more important than reducing the suffering of human beings. That is heartless.
Also, in terms of minimum wage, you will be called heartless unless you personally have actually had to try raising a family on minimum wage. You are an economics student, why don't you whip out your calculator and just do the math on a family of four trying to survive with both parents holding minimum wage jobs. Once you do some of those calculations think about minimum wage again and let me know what you come up with.