Friday, January 5, 2007

Teaching Conservative Kids The Difference Between Right and Left

I had a curious conversation with my 6 year old daughter.

Dad, why do you think that Democrats are pro-abortion but against the death penalty, while Republicans are pro-life but for the death penalty?

And dad,

Why do you think that Democrats are for helping the poor and disadvantaged but against a war that liberates such people; while Republicans, conversely, are for self-sufficiency in people but for a war that will help people who have demonstrated little ambition, courage or wherewithal to help themselves?

and Dad,

Why do you think that Democrats are for a perverted definition of the separation of church and state and want desperately to rid this country of God, but ultra protective of all the things that God has given us, while Republicans are for keeping our moral compass pointing reverently toward a higher power, while exploiting all the gifts that God has given us?

Honey, honey slow down, I said.

It all has to do with power and money. Republicans are for X, so Democrats must hate X (with a fervent venomous passion). Democrats are pro-y, so Republicans must be anti-Y. It doesn't matter what X or Y is.

OK Dad, than something doesn't make sense. You said awhile back that Republicans are pro-big business, so by your theory Democrats must be anti-big business.

Generally that is true, Honey.

OK then, why do you think that the media, who is owned by big big business (Time Warner, Disney, Viacom), has such a liberal bent? You'd think that they would have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to be right leaning toward policy makers that would pass laws that would benefit them.

(Silence)

So dad, you'd agree that this puts a slight hole in your power and money theory. Especially when all the data shows that conservative news is growing (Rush, Hannity, Fox, Savage) and liberal news is dying (NYT, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS). So what was CBS thinking when they replaced Dan Rather with the ever so perky, but liberal Katie Couric?

Honey is our lesson over?

9 comments:

Tom said...

Smart Kid!!

salvage said...

You'd think that they would have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to be right leaning toward policy makers that would pass laws that would benefit them.

So you're saying that right leaning policy makers craft legislation that benefits large corporations rather than the voters and tax payers?

I'm pretty sure that's not right.

You seem to be suggesting that not only is corruption a feature of the conservative political movement but a good one.

Weird.

Conservative Dad said...

Don't forget that big corporatations and small companies like my company employ tax payers and voters. Conservatives support legistlation that promotes business which is good for the public as a whole. As business expand they hire more people therefore the people who work for that business benefit. (More jobs and higher salaries)

Liberals support legislation that tax corporations to a higher degree. This money is then earmarked for redistribution to the needy.

As a result, businesses enact strategies to maximize the return on investment of their stockholders. Some strategies include layoffs or moratoriums on salary increases.

I am not sure how this amounts to corruption.

Anonymous said...

I think the seemingly arbitrary differences between the two opposing political factions is funny. That is the point of this blog post.

Anonymous said...

I do not agree with your right leaning views - but the contradictions between the parties are confounding. It is really interesting. I do think that you are right - money and power are powerful forces that create the divide. I would bet that there are Democrats who have secret conservative views and Republicans who have secret liberal views - but there dare not reveal their true thoughts in fear of losing their political power base.

salvage said...

And what happens when the corporation's wishes conflicts with the well being of the public?

Let's say GM has a new design for a car that’ll be cheaper to make but the downside is that it pollutes more. So it would be good for GM to make these cars as it would widen their profit margin but bad for the public because it puts more bad stuff in the air.

So the way you think the politicians elected by the majority should instead be beholden to a minority with a narrow and self-serving interest?

You seem to think that tax dollars have more power than votes.

I’m not sure if that was the Founding Father’s intentions, they seemed more keen on a government for the people by the people rather than for businesses.

Conservative Dad said...

The beauty of the founding fathers bicameral system of government coupled with a two party system is that there are checks and balances to make sure that nutjob rightwingers and whacky leftwingers do not take this country down a path that the majority of the people do not want. The right might relax environmental pollution restrictions. If unchecked that would be bad. The left might put a stranglehold on the economy with overly restrictive environmental mandates. if unchecked that would be bad.

I believe that capitalism makes this country the greatest in the world to live. Conservative policy makers help enact laws that help businesses and my main point is that businesses are made up of people - people who vote.

I am not sure I understand the comment that you assigned to me that I think that tax dollars have more power than votes. Not only is it false it is a complete non sequitur. If anything, I think that the left taxes the rich and redistributes the money to the poor to buy votes. But both parties to be clear are guilty of buying votes with questionable spending and legistlation. (For example, no party wants to touch social security reform when the AARP voting base is growing. No party wants to touch immigration reform as they pander for the Latino vote.

salvage said...

>The beauty of the founding fathers bicameral system of government coupled with a two party system is that there are checks and balances to make sure that nutjob rightwingers and whacky leftwingers do not take this country down a path that the majority of the people do not want.


Ah I guess that’s your shtick; the sensible middle road but you do seem to favor the right hand side a wee bit more.

>The right might relax environmental pollution restrictions. If unchecked that would be bad. The left might put a stranglehold on the economy with overly restrictive environmental mandates. if unchecked that would be bad.


Now funny thing about that, can you please provide me with an example of an economy that has been strangled by environmental laws? It’s odd that since the 70s we’ve had more and more of these EPA style laws and yet our economic growth continues at quite a nice pace. At any rate what would you rather have for your children tons of cash or clean air and water?

I know I'd rather have tons of cash but I hate kids.


>I believe that capitalism makes this country the greatest in the world to live. Conservative policy makers help enact laws that help businesses and my main point is that businesses are made up of people - people who vote.


They sure do and I don’t think their votes should carry anymore weight toward policy shaping than anyone else’s. Furthermore businesses are only interested in what profits them (as they should be) so I don’t think that such a narrow focus should have any significant impact on the law.


>I am not sure I understand the comment that you assigned to me that I think that tax dollars have more power than votes. Not only is it false it is a complete non sequitur.

While the veracity of it is up for debate it’s completely in-line with what you’re saying; that big business should be conservative because that means they’ll get laws that they like passed and you’re cool with this because they pay more in taxes.


>If anything, I think that the left taxes the rich and redistributes the money to the poor to buy votes.

No, not really as the poor do not vote as much as people who make money.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/9/23/14298/0065

It’s one of the things that keeps the poor, poor (and stupid); apathy.

>But both parties to be clear are guilty of buying votes with questionable spending and legislation. (For example, no party wants to touch social security reform when the AARP voting base is growing.


Because no one has come up with a social security reform plan that will make it better.


>No party wants to touch immigration reform as they pander for the Latino vote.


This is very true. The Latinos have proven that not only are they organized but they can get a crowd out real quick. This is one area where the GOP have painted themselves into a box, if they go after that vote they’ll lose a chunk of their base if they ignore it the Dems will fill the vacuum. It’s a big pile of power that no one can figure out how to tap efficiently. Furthermore many of the larger donators love illegal immigration because it’s super cheap labor.

But your philosophy seems to be that Wal-Mart should influence legislation so they can hire illegals… excuse me guest workers, for pennies so they’ll make more money and that’s always good right?
See what I mean? A corporation’s wants and needs are often at odds with the wants and needs of the whole. Their influence in government should be curbed rather than codified.

Conservative Dad said...

Do you agree that Conservative Policy favors big business? I am assuming yes.

Do you agree that Viacom, Disney and Time Warner are among the biggest companies in the world and would therefore benefit from Conservative Policy of lower corp tax and less regualtion? I am assuming yes.

Then the point I was making - is that it seems contrary to me that Viacom, Disney and Time Warner would have such a left leaning media bias. It just seems counterproductive.

I am not for policy that allows big business to run amock. My original post never stated that. But if I was the CEO of Viacom or Disney - you better believe that I would manage my company to maximize profits and it seems that a conservative bias would be more beneficial.

Now - regarding your statement that the ecomony is growing at a nice pace regardless of stronger regulations - I agree - but China and India and other pollution spewing emerging industrial nations are growing faster - and really these regulations have helped transform our economy from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. Which is fine until there is a major world war and we do not have the manufacturing capacity to produce the goods we need to win that war.

Regarding cash or the environment - I think that corporations should not go unchecked to pollute the world. There is a happy balance where America can continue to advance and our children have a healthy place to live.

I also think that Gore is an alarmist and a hypocrite. He flys in corporate jets and has 3+ houses.

Finally, I am for strict border control. I am against amnesty. I am for English as the official language. I am for policy that protects our nation as a melting pot of ideas not separate factions. This may have an immediate negative impact on businesses that illegally hire these migrant workers, but the long term impact on our culture and our way of life is not worth the price.

I do like the middle road, but I do lean right on most issues. Where I get really conservative is I believe in self reliance. If you give someone a handout you erode thier ambition and eventually their self worth.

And you are right, these people who have had thier ambition and self worth eroded by a well intentioned by failed welfare system do not vote as much. But as we have seen in 2000 and 2004 - those few votes can make all the difference. So those nasty politicians will keep pandering to them.

Thanks for the discourse