The word “Conservative” vs. the word “Liberal”

The label “Liberal” has awful connotations; I don’t care what anyone says. You don’t hear a whole lot of people proudly announce that they’re liberal; it’s a label that many people shirk from, and even for those that embrace it….I always feel like they have a little bile in their mouths as they try to convince themselves and the rest of the world that yes indeed, they are PROUD to be liberal. Look at this; this is the (non-political) definition of the word “liberal”: “Favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.” Now what does that mean? It sounds like a description of people that are borderline anarchist, sort of “anything goes” type of people that have no standards and no core beliefs and whose opinions chage with the wind. It literally conjures up images of peace, love and drugs 1970s grungy long-haired hippies (or more contemporarily, occupy wall streeters), flamboyant gays and pretentious, effeminate, zero-income artists. Those are the kinds of people that DO proudly self-identify as “liberals” (but they’re subconsciously suppressing a little nausea, believe me)….and everyone else that is labeled “liberal” hates being called that because they are aware of the associations the word carries.

Dictionary definition of “conservative”: “Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.” Pretty damn accurate. There really aren’t any bad connotations there; when you hear “conservative” you think of someone who is solid, who has unshakable core beliefs, who will stand up for what is right and who will fight to preserve the systems which work best. That’s a joke, because while I won’t quibble with those connotations, somehow what gets left out of the list is “bullheaded, sluggish wit, humorless, anti-intellectual and proudly strong-but-wrong steamrolling cowboy mentality.”

This kind of speaks to why many people who are not active political thinkers hate the “liberal” label: disagreeing with bullheaded anti-intellectual conservative stances doesn’t mean that you’re a free-for-all, weed-smoking liberal; it means that you simply saw how insane these irrational republicans/conservatives are and you said “What is wrong with these people??” You saw neo-conservatives championing the Wilsonian mentality of wanting to eradicate tyranny from the four corners of the earth and then bombing Iraq back into the stone ages, instigating a multi-factioned civil war/insurgency, sending 150k troops into this godforsaken land to desperately try to restore order/”rebuild” the country, and then claiming they “liberated” the Iraqis. If you disagree with these conservative actions, it doesn’t mean you’re a liberal; it just means that you aren’t a complete flaming retard. That’s why people hate the label “liberal”; no, if you disagree with aggressive US foreign policy, it doesn’t mean that you’re a wilting-lily dove; it means that you have at least 2 ounces of common sense. The label shouldn’t be “liberal”; it should be “sense-based”, or “non-retarded”.

Now again, I’m speaking for people who are not active political thinkers. There most certainly are people out there who deserve the label “liberal”. For one, all the people that I mentioned in my list of “liberal” connotations. They can all rot in hell. For another, political activists that truly believe in core liberal tenets, i.e. things like government programs being the panacea to cure all societal ills. Yes, we need roads, bridges, police and teachers, but they take it into areas like “social safety nets” (i.e. social security), wanting to help the poor/bums etc. This mentality I cannot understand; I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the whole concept of society and money is based around people being compensated for how productive they are. If nobody was productive, there would be no society because people wouldn’t be able to eat. We’d be back in the stone ages, trying to hunt for food. And so….the whole concept of “money” comes into play; you may or not be familiar with it. You are compensated for how much you contribute to society, i.e. if you’re productive, if you provide goods and services….you will be compensated accordingly. If you just dropped 10 million dollars into everyone’s bank accounts, society would collapse because nobody would have any incentive to go back to work. Money; it’s a perfect system, isn’t it? OF COURSE IT ISN’T you dolt; traders make millions and physicists make squat. There’s no such thing as a perfect system, but the compensation-based system of money that every civilization in history has had is like a law of physics; there’s no other way to do it. You can’t just give everyone money. And again, of course there are legit exceptions: people with skill-sets who are legitimately unemployed etc. One more example of the insane liberal bleeding-heart mentality that I have to mention real quick, because it gets my goad so much: poor people in Africa. Oh…my…god. You feel sorry for these fucks?? Let me tell you something: these idiots, these JACKASSES, are sitting there in extreme poverty, in societies where diseases run rampant and where they have no idea when an african militia is going to break down their doors, chop their hands off and rape their wives….and what do they do? They decide to procreate. If you’re living in the most squalid, unthinkable conditions imaginable, why in the WORLD would you force an innocent life to have to live in the same abominable conditions as you? Help poor africans?? When all they do is bring new life into their unspeakable living conditions? They are committing the greatest atrocity of all and I HATE bleeding-heart liberals that simply do not understand that. If you want to get rid of the monstrous Congo militias, THAT makes sense. But don’t say that we need to donate a few pennies to these god-forsaken africans so that they and their unfortunate children can continue their miserable existences. If I was an african child, I would slap my parents in the face and say “Couldn’t you have thought twice before deciding to birth me into this horror you call life??”

So anyways, my bottom line is this: if you’re a self-identified “liberal” or “conservative”, I have nothing to say to you. You’re already a lost cause. If you’re not an active political thinker, then don’t get suckered into subscribing to the “liberal” or “conservative” label/ideology, because all the bad connotations that each word carries? Yeah, they’re all true. If you think being a “liberal” is a good thing, just remember that Keith Olbermann is a liberal, Rachel Maddow is a liberal, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O’Donnell, Bill Maher, all liberals. “Conservative” evokes relatively better connotations, better images; you feel like that’s more seductive? Jesus christ, where do I start: Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Cheney & his neocon cronies….you know, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc….they’re all conservatives (I didn’t mention Bush #43 because monkeys don’t qualify as conservatives). And just remember, you may be attracted to conservative “strength”, but don’t forgot the “wrong” suffix. “Strong-but-wrong”; the neocons went into Iraq with their typical bullheaded strength of conviction….nothing can dissuade the good ole boys once they’ve made up their minds….but any halfway intelligent non-reactionary that actively employs critical thinking understands that it was a stupid decision.

Me personally? I used to think I was a liberal. Then as I became obsessed with politics, I realized I was almost pure libertarian/borderline anarchist. Then, with age, as idealism gave way to realism (as is the case with many people), I realized that I agreed mainly with the conservative darwinian mentality, but the roaring drumbeat that issues from my core and overrides everything is that YOU CAN’T BE AN IDIOT. Just please, for dear god’s sake, don’t be stupid; don’t be an ideologue; employ liberal amounts of common sense; employ critical thinking at all turns; understand that you can easily be wrong when trying to solve a complicated problem; and please, please try to gravitate to the answer that seems to make the most sense instead of forcibly trying to bend a solution around your pre-existing narrative, okay? YOU DO NOT KNOW BEST. You are not god; you do not have all the answers. You know what they say in sports? The best players aren’t the ones who take what they want, they’re the ones who take what the defense gives them. Rigid political ideologues say “The liberal/conservative way is the best way to do things because that’s what I think and my principles are right.” Sorry; the correct answers aren’t the ones that just happen to conveniently match everything you already think. You don’t get to take what you want from life; you have to take what life GIVES you and then try to find an answer that fits best. It would be so much easier to just be a “liberal” or “conservative” and call it a day, but if you have an ounce of intelligence, you will allow yourself to be humbled before complicated-ass life.

1/23/2012 – Christ

Read related articles:

• Ideology and principles: the bane of my existence
• The qualities I want to see in the next president
• Occupy wall street can kiss my ass