Like many conservatives, Deneen sees liberalism not simply as a theory about how to conduct politics, but as an all-encompassing ideology, like fascism and communism, that extends to philosophy, society and the economy. If liberalism is the cause of all our troubles, then the answer, according to Deneen, is to get rid of it altogether. Instead of individualism, Deneen says the future lies with radically decentralised, local communities where the true meaning of culture might be found again.
The call for such a return is anti-democratic, and doubly so.
First, Deneen believes political decisions should not emanate from within the community itself — the democratic ideal of self-government — but from an outside source, namely God and a Catholic God at that. Second, Deneen believes the Catholic community has a privileged access to the truth that the rest of the political community — which has already made up its mind on gay marriage and premarital sex — does not. From this perspective, the national community is wrong, and democracy is mistaken.
A secular Strict Father can make the empirical observation that we live in a harsh and dangerous world, while the religious Strict Father piles on with the gratuitous belief that it got that way because of the biblical Fall of Adam and Eve. Yet you don't have to accept Jewish creation myths to agree with the secular Strict Father's assessment of our situation in life, when you can make your own observations of the world in the here and now. It also strikes me that SFM exists as the background or fallback state of the human condition when society breaks down and survival becomes problematic.
Liberal and feminist social constructs exist as luxuries we can afford, at least for awhile, during good times; but they don't work and have to go away when the barbarian hordes show up at the gates of the city. Then the Strict Fathers have to take charge to try to preserve the tribe's very existence. This is obviously a liberally biased opinion piece. I must say I couldn't read the whole thing because it is a nonsense. People not necessarily just conservatives want guns to protect against the government not criminals.
Read the 2nd amendment. You really made me laugh. There is not one original thought or intrinsically useful statement contained in your bi-partisan biased generalizations. I think you should have skipped class and spent your education funds hanging out with real people and living life instead of plagiarizing the same old partisan belief system spewed in our "halls of knowledge". If you did you would have run into more than a few bleeding heart conservatives helping the poor and hard hearted gun toting liberals who'd do anything NOT to p[ay taxes.
Butyou went to class. So, pull your head up, open your mind and see life for what it is, not what you want it to be. Even the ancient Chinese knew enough to record that success requires a person and society to hold onto and be true to the center; not the left or the right. But hey, you're educated, why bother learning what has been indicated throughout human history, after all, it's only common sensesomething in short supply. This is the most ridiculous and unsubstantiated article I have read in a long time.
It uses broad generalizations. It is overly simplistic and something a teen might write one hour before the assignment is due. OMG this is such a refreshing and original perspective! What astute observations about the differences in liberals and conservatives. Yes, the conservatives must be restrained. They insist on clinging to their guns and bibles and that simply will not do!
Whatever will we do if they continue to insist on such archaic notions as individual freedom, religious freedom, and first amendment rights to free speech. Truthfully, I don't know what the author is smoking but he is certainly feeling no pain.
The Price of Right: How the Conservative Agenda Has Failed America (and Always Will) Sep 28, by Alicia Morgan · Kindle Edition. $$ Available. The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing [Greg Anrig Jr.] on domaine-solitude.com Why conservatism equals terrible government-and always will Ending the point by point how and why the conservative agenda produces terrible government. Would you like to tell us about a lower price?.
I think you should find out what conservatives actually believe before you write an article telling us why they believe it. Have you correlated the incidence of mud rooms with rural locations where more Republicans tend to reside? I lived in rural Washington state and I was glad to have a mud room for myself and my dogs. I now live in urban, liberal Seattle and half of the homes I enter request that one remove their shoes. What does this tell us about the "liberal" and "dirt"?
I am a liberal and I don't think any cause is advanced by having such dreck masquerading as "science". Sorry, but you reveal your liberal bias with comments like "They are pro-family because being surrounded by close relatives is the best defense against threats that surround them. Don't worry, though - in general, I agree with the case you make about the paranoia of Republicans.
Sorry to see you did not confront the enabling mentality of the Democrats. I'm curious to know what you think of the psychology of Libertarians. While I concede that stereotyping the millions of individuals in each of the two major parties is a gross exercise, there do seem to be recurring behaviors in the politicians representing each party.
Personally, I find both unacceptable and I'm baffled that we continue to settle for self-serving, party-first, powergrabbers whose principal interest is how to get re-elected.
I would think we'd recognize by now that these characteristics are the opposite of what we'd really like in politicians - selfless, people-first servantleaders whose principal interest is how to serve effectively and leave office quickly. I do not own a gun. But believe that others have the right to do so.
They do NOT have the right to use that gun to force others to do their will without a thoughtful relation to the situation. I know MANY liberals who are religious How does that play into anything. Yes Conservatives are more likely to talk about their religion it seems but that almost feel more like learned behavior on the part of Liberal minded people who are religious than anything else, you cannot espouse your belief for fear of being 'closed minded' Which is ironic because you speak of fear and protection often in your article.
Really okay, the funny thing about this is how many cases can you see a Conservative actually beating up an immigrant? A better question is what is the socio-economic realities of immigration without assimilation and how does that change a culture bias moving forward?
The funny thing about how you say it is fear rather than realization of cultural change that MUST take place if assimilation is not taken. This is not to say that Cultural change is either good or bad but if you do not fight to preserve your own heritage then what good is it in the first place? For instance if you want to destroy the Native American culture it is pretty simply done by diluting it over time. Honestly the way you respond it sound like it is out of fear when in reality it is a profound understanding of cause and effect that cause these actions Okay, I lived in Italy for a while.
What is the difference between the Mob and a Government Entity? I will tell you this, The Mob is nicer to deal with.
Someone who claims not to have a healthy fear of the Military or the Federal Government and at times the State Government does not have a very good understanding of history or the power that Laws and Governance takes on over time. The larger the amount of authority and laws the easier it is to justify persecution.
Again what kind of tripe have you cooked up here? You mean Pro a Family Unit? Okay, the way a society works is typically as follows.
Family, friends, community, government. If you remove Family from the equation then you have a larger unit to start with in order to create identity. This belittles the support system and frame work on which people can learn, grow, and move up into an understanding into the rest of society. Poverty is most often the result of a destroyed or broken family structure.
So yeah Conservatives would rather people have a happy and whole home. But hey we also understand that this has challenges as well. So for instance a Farmer has a terrible farmer and his farm burns to the ground. Republicans and Conservatives HATE that there are cut offs in assistance once you reach a certain dollar amount. It should be a sliding scale so as you become more successful in money the government still rewards you for every dollar more you make.
Government subsistence programs currently are designed to encourage substance living and dependence. So yes I hate a program in which the system penalizes someone for taking the next step towards self reliance and encourages use of assistance rather then encouraging planning and thoughtful approaches to growth.
I mean imagine if we subsidized peoples grades in school, Viola everyone can have a PhD without effort, that makes everyone equal then right? Yes, I admire people who take initiative. That attempt to create and develop. I admire someone more who without imagination, without a mommy or daddy to pay for them, lays it all on the line and is willing to accept what the world gives them and then work hard to transform it.
Someone who recognizes where they currently are and tries to take the next step. Obviously this author is a liberal. Everywhere I go people are being propagated by left-winged ideologies. That is quite a spotlight on your fallacy. All Americans, other than Native Americans, are immigrants. But, you writing as if whites are not immigrants. I totally agree with this article. It's my experience that conservatives are angry. They are angry about everything.
Yes, I consider myself liberal. I thought the liberal description pretty much fits. I'm religious, but even in that I am not like many other religious people. I Tend to focus on grace, love, and forgiveness. Christian people I know who consider themselves conservative tend to focus on sin, hell, and punishment. I believe that this is a very accurate view of a liberal and why "their" view makes them a better person.
I call it the morally superior theory of liberals. I even wrote a children's book on race. But when I talk to liberals and disagree with the current liberal stances on race they always seem surprised. They say 'but you worked with minorities I'm surprised you think that way'. It usually takes just a few minutes for me to explain what I have seen that works for helping the poor and minorities. However I disagree that people are hardwired with these views. Nothing is more nurture than nature than partisan politics, IMO. Any alcohol is bad, yet the groups that drink heavily stay healthy and happy.
Darwinian competition makes workers more productive in developed countries. Serious commerce arrived late in history but changed our lives a lot. Back Find a Therapist.
What Is the Best Way to Propose? What's the Solution for a Coddled American Mind? The conservative world view Conservatives see the world as a challenging place in which there is always someone else who is ready to steal your lunch. Conservatives are pro-gun because they want to be able to defend themselves against criminal threats of any type.
They are mostly religious because religious rituals foster feelings of safety in a dangerous world such that the most dangerous countries in the world are also the most religious 1. They tend to be more hostile to immigrants, foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities and to view them as more of a threat. They fear attacks by other nations and therefore support a strong military and a bellicose foreign policy on the theory that a good attack is the best defense. They are pro-family because being surrounded by close relatives is the best defense against threats that surround them.
They oppose welfare for the poor because this encourages dependence so that the failures of a society are parasites on the successes thereby inverting the proper incentive structure. They admire wealth because successful people are seen as having worked hard in pursuing a moral obligation to provide for themselves and their families in a difficult and uncertain world. The liberal world view The liberal world view is mostly the opposite.
Liberals feel that protection of citizens against crime is better left to police and that armed citizens are a threat to those around them. They are less religious than conservatives because they perceive the world around them as less threatening. Moreover, they rely more on science, and education , as a means to solve problems.
Liberals are more welcoming to immigrants. They favor negotiation and consensus-building over warfare in foreign policy and do not believe in excessive military buildups that drain social spending. Liberals are happy to pay their taxes if they believe that the money is being used to improve the quality of life of others whether they are poor or rich.
Liberals are less interested in family ties as a protective bubble. They support welfare programs for the poor because these may reduce child poverty, as well as reducing crime and social problems. Liberals are suspicious of wealth feeling that much of it is inherited or obtained through sharp business practices or outright corruption. Blog post accessed at: San Francisco Chronicle, accessed at: Be sure to read the following responses to this post by our bloggers: Partisan "Science" is a reply by Loretta G.
Well I expect the wrath of the right will descend upon you for your views. Do you think some of us are born liberal.
I would love more posts from you on this topic Thanks!! As I have seen in my lifetime, We are largely products of our environment. Submitted by Paula Marshall on September 3, - 2: Talk about therapist bias Submitted by Julia on September 18, - Submitted by Dylan Bundy on July 27, - 9: Julia, you're right on the money. Bias is ridiculous on this fake psychology website.
I'm surprised you think that way'. What Is the Best Way to Propose? The Myth of Culture: Oh no, liberals would do anything to have the "rich" pay more taxes for the good of the poor. Second, Deneen believes the Catholic community has a privileged access to the truth that the rest of the political community — which has already made up its mind on gay marriage and premarital sex — does not. Just like they can't interpret the constitution anymore I guess.
This is cherry picking Submitted by rolf on October 9, - 2: Submitted by Dave G on December 10, - 2: Yes -- George Soros is so Submitted by lkfnmjkln on May 11, - 3: Rich liberals are phoneys. It served him well in the budget wars. And then came George Herbert Walker Bush.
But Bush and those around him never truly appreciated Reagan or the roots of his presidential success. Upon taking power they set about to dismantle much of the Reagan legacy. Most significantly, the new president never understood or appreciated the Reagan tax philosophy. Also during that year, unemployment rose to 7. He declined to position himself as a champion of working-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. His only serious growth issue was his call for a cut in capital gains taxes, which he pushed with intermittent enthusiasm.
Bush had no antidote. After Reagan had redefined his party by drawing votes from large numbers of Democrats, Bush induced many of them to return to the Democratic fold. His subsequent defeat in his reelection bid was not only a rejection of him but also, in the eyes of many, a rejection of Reaganism. He installed as surgeon general a social-issue liberal prone to provocative statements that outraged many Americans.
He raised taxes, though not by much, in a mild reversal of the Reagan tax philosophy. He fostered the family leave act and an assault weapons ban. Most significantly he brought forth a huge health-care initiative that would have greatly increased federal intrusion into a large segment of the economy. After all this, in , Democrats suffered their greatest political setback in 50 years. Clinton responded by fashioning a brilliant new political paradigm calculated to propel him through the thickets of divided government.
He expropriated carefully chosen Republican issues and gave his party a deftly calibrated center-left cast. The starkest example was his decision to sign the big welfare overhaul of No Democratic president since the Great Depression would have considered such an action. Also, many executive agencies began to shift their policies toward the right in a host of administrative decisions designed to blunt the force of the Republican Congress. And Clinton reversed decades of deficit economics.
For the first time in decades, the government actually paid down on the national debt. Clinton exploited this ongoing gift to foster his own strong growth rates and eradicate the deficit problem. From onward Clinton governed with an apparent appreciation for the fact that the country had seen no successful liberal president since Lyndon Johnson was forced into retirement in Then came George W.
Bush, whose presidency transformed the nation, the Republican Party, and conservatism. He essentially killed Reaganism as a viable political outlook, though he did push through Congress two tax-cut measures in his early tenure. Liberal critics have lambasted that tax policy as contributing seriously to subsequent runaway deficits, but it helped Bush move the country out of the economic sluggishness he inherited—an economic growth rate of only 1 percent in his first year.
With his tax cuts in place Bush got growth up to 3. That unquestionably contributed to his reelection that year. With his antiterrorism policies, Bush claimed unilateral power as commander in chief that outstripped the claims of any previous president—wiretaps without warrants, the seizure of terror suspects, brutal interrogation practices, the establishment of tribunal commissions for terror suspects with limited due process protections. These are declarations that a president considers provisions of legislation he has signed to be unconstitutional and hence null and void.
The appropriate recourse for presidents who consider legislation unconstitutional is to veto it or take the matter to the courts. During his presidency Bush issued signing statements touching on 1, provisions of federal law. According to the Cato Institute, Bush gave the country an 83 percent increase in federal spending in eight years. But Bush was particularly promiscuous in discretionary spending, which soared by De Rugy points out that Bush also added thousands of new federal subsidy programs.
In , she writes, there were 1, such programs distributing hundreds of billions of dollars annually to state governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals. This represented a 30 percent increase over the number. Two recessions contributed to that big fiscal swing, and the tax cuts may have had a small impact. But much of it stemmed from two things: This brings us to American foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, a time of entirely new global complications and challenges.
We know also that the American people soon grew weary of it. In this project the increasingly globalist Republicans were joined by humanitarian interventionists on the Democratic side.