What Makes A Conservative.
<div class="IPBDescription">According to Berkley</div> <a href='http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml' target='_blank'>The Wonderful Minds of Berkley</a>
I am a political conservative. In a study, the great minds at Berkely have found out why:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that describes me just about perfectly!
Or not.
Here is what Dictionary.com defines 'Conservatism' as:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds better. "To Maintain the exsisting or traditional order." The exsisting order that conservatives seek to maintain is that of the American Revolution and classical liberalism. That seems like a far cry from Fear, Terror, and a Tolerance for inequality. This is just one more example of the demonizing of the right in America, and frankly I'm a bit tired of it. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> This is just a political rant, and I'm not sure if there is anything to discuss in it... so ragggh at Berkely.
I am a political conservative. In a study, the great minds at Berkely have found out why:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that describes me just about perfectly!
Or not.
Here is what Dictionary.com defines 'Conservatism' as:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds better. "To Maintain the exsisting or traditional order." The exsisting order that conservatives seek to maintain is that of the American Revolution and classical liberalism. That seems like a far cry from Fear, Terror, and a Tolerance for inequality. This is just one more example of the demonizing of the right in America, and frankly I'm a bit tired of it. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> This is just a political rant, and I'm not sure if there is anything to discuss in it... so ragggh at Berkely.
Comments
For example, you talk about maintaining existing order, which I would agree is the core of conservatism, and is also synonymous with "resistant to change." "Dogmatism", "need for cognitive closure," and "uncertainty avoidance" are certainly traits that coincide neatly with a drive to maintain the existing order.
I'd also like to point out that conservatism in this country does not necessarily limit itself to the scope of your definition. For example, conservatives have traditionally been more in favor of fighting wars than liberals are, hence "fear and aggression". Liberals are typically more in favor of social programs whose purpose is to increase economic equality (eg making the poor richer and the rich poorer) than conservatives are, hence "tolerance for inequality".
The thing you find objectionable is simply their choice of words, I suspect, which I do agree seems unnecessarily inflammatory. Then again, perhaps these are established terms in psychology and are used for the sake of clarity.
Shut up Samwise <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, my main issues is word choice, though there are still serious problems with the findings.
I agree with "resistant to change", but resistant offers the conotation that change is by nature good, and 'resisting' it is bad. I do think there is a big difference between hawkish foreign policy and 'Fear and Aggression'. As for a 'Tolerance of Inequality', its again a mixed bag. In terms of natural rights, I am totally in favor of equality. Material equality is a result of culture, choice, and luck.
I do find 'Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity' totally out of place. Dogmatism attempts to link the religious right's behavior to the same kind of beliefs as the Iranian theocracy. Intolerance is a loaded world also. Uncertainity avoidance is again loaded with the word 'Avoidance' and again implies a innate good in 'uncertainity'.
Need for Certainty portrays conservatives as mentally weak minded people in need of an emotional crutch, and 'Terror Managament' is just ridiculous.
Hitler, Stalin and Lenin changed society they were progressive they all had statism. Conservatives don't want the goverment to have that power. If they want change they want it to come from other parts of society not goverment.
Now as far as war. Liberals tend to believe John Stuart Mill's philosphy on why war happens. Wars happen because there is a misunderstanding inbetween naitons.
Conservatives view why war happense as what I think madison said something like nations go to war usually when they think they will benefit.
I agree that "dogmatism" has negative connotations, but it does apply to all religions, not just the ones you find objectionable. The religious right is in fact dogmatic, almost by definition. This does not make it the same as the Iranian theocracy... but it is dogmatism just the same. And in fact, many members of the religious right attempt to put laws into effect that enforce religious dogma rather than social order. This is a narrow step away from theocracy.
"Need for certainty".... well, preserving the current order is indeed a good way to maintain certainty about the future. Opening the way to change by its very nature implies uncertainty. Whether weak-mindedness is involved on either side is not something necessarily implied by the phrase "need for certainty" - again, you're inserting your own connotations there and choosing to be offended by the connotations that you've inserted.
I'm actually not sure what exactly "terror management" is supposed to mean - I would think ALL people would want to manage their own terror, not just conservatives. I'm guessing this is a psych term that I just haven't been schooled in and so I'll refrain from comment.
It makes conservatives sound like loonies!!!! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Jammer: 0 Samwise: 1
I found this article.
<a href='http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20030726.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidli...l20030726.shtml</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like most good liberals, these professors believe that the thought processes of conservatives are less nuanced and more black and white. One of them, Jack Glaser of UC Berkeley, said, "[Conservatives] are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm. ?The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and need for closure."
Surely the professor can do better than that. This example tends to demonstrate the liberals' lack of nuance more than the conservatives', as do many other examples I'll give you. Can't these paragons of complexity understand that Bush's words were at most ill advised based on disputed, not phony intelligence? Don't they understand that a lie involves the intent to deceive, not just arguably erroneous information? Further, can't they grasp that this was not even one of the major reasons we used to attack Iraq?
Let me give you a few other examples of the liberals' seeming inability to make intellectual distinctions. They seem too narrow-minded to understand that:
perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of court are different from merely "lying about sex";
likening Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh to Hitler is the grossest form of hate speech they otherwise pretend to decry;
the desire to reverse liberal judicial activism is not conservative judicial activism;
one can favor action against Iraq without being a "neo-conservative";
opposition to affirmative action is born of egalitarianism not racism;
advocacy of government-forced wealth redistribution is not synonymous with compassion, and opposition to it is not incompatible with compassion;
their championship of tolerance as the highest virtue is inconsistent with their intolerance toward conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives;
opposition to federal control over education is neither anti-children nor anti-education, but precisely the opposite;
the tax code can affect economic behavior such that marginal tax rate cuts do not result in dollar-for-dollar losses in revenue;
the terrorist threat of suitcase nuclear bombs does not obviate strategic missile defense (SDI) ?we continue to face multiple threats;
developing SDI is not an offensive gesture, but defensive, and should not be deceptively dubbed "Star Wars";
America can attack Iraq without attacking all other despotic regimes in the world and not be guilty of inconsistency in its approach to foreign policy;
school choice will liberate and uplift minorities;
irresponsible gun control measures will cost, not save lives;
promoting "separation of church and state" often stifles rather than promotes religious freedom;
this bogus study by biased liberal professors so close-minded and arrogant that they don't even realize their findings were predetermined by their ideological prejudices speaks loudly to their tunnel-vision simplicity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes conservatives sound like loonies!!!! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Jammer: 0 Samwise: 1 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--"The Wonderful Minds of Berkley"+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ("The Wonderful Minds of Berkley")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for the way they phrased things, Samwise may be correct in that part of the poor connotations Jammer may have imagined, but I do believe that some of what they said were deliberately phrased in such a way.
Keep in mind that as being an article on the Berkeley web server, the article is meant to be addressed 'to the chorus' so to speak, and that relies on the fact that most people who go to Berkeley/Browse the Berkeley news are liberals.
I agree that sometimes Berkeley is annoyingly liberal (although I consider myself to be very liberal) there surprisingly is a great amount of conservatives on campus. In fact, the Berkeley Republicans is the single LARGEST student organization on campus, and there was a great deal of people who were pro war with Iraq also. We aren't all bleeding heart hippie liberals. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's just that Berkeley has a reputation for being liberal, and thus the conservatives on campus don't get as much media exposure as the liberals do -- so it perpetuates the stereotype that everyone at Berkeley's a liberal. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Rhuadin
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what I never understood. You reap what you sow. We all make decisions in life, whether it's deciding to go to college, working hard in school, being responsible, and good management of money are all the catalysts to wealth. Economic equality in short is just rewarding people who refused to make good choices in their lives. Not only that, it's detrimental to the need of responsibility, if you start creating social programs in which the government will provide an income for you, you'll find that there's no absolute desire to have to get off your bum, work hard, and work your way up. It's a fact that many Americans live off social programs because they can just stay at home, and this is awful for everyone, especially the individual.
Now, any arguments of racial equality, fair opportunities and should be addressed directly so speaking of the case of "They didn't have a good education" for whatever or reason is moot. Fixing those problems by implementing programs like economic equality is counter-productive, it doesn't help people get better educations, it doesn't help people live more prosperous lives, it just further ignores the true problems.
In light of lack of fair opportunities, economic equality on a fair playing field is just a crutch for the lazy and irresponsible. The government shouldn't help people. People should help people.
I don't call that intolerance for equality, I call that common sense.
Here are a few of the things that I don't really understand about the beliefs associated with the tags.
-Conservatives who are normally in support of state's rights also support attacking a sovereign state, Iraq.
-Liberals who are viciously against any perceived attempt to limit civil liberties are unwilling to attack an obvious despot, Saddam Hussein.
-Conservatives who hold the second admendment to the letter are willing to bend the constitution on separation of church and state.
-Liberals who would prefer to disregard the second amendment entirely and to bend the constitution to allow affirmative action vehemently oppose any religious influence whatsoever in a public institution.
-Conservatives who want less government involvement in their lives are also pro life and against homosexual marriage.
-Liberals who don't think the government should have any say in what a woman does with her body also are passing legislation to make smoking more difficult.
-Conservatives who are against welfare support farm subsidies.
-Liberals support welfare but tend to disapprove of any government aid to a corporation.
These things aren't necessarily direct logical contradictions, and are obviously generalizations, but they certainly show a bit of thematic tension in the parties' views. It just seems like a mishmash of beliefs to me without much in the way of a unifying philosophy on either side. These days, to win an election you have to get a certain number of single issue groups on your side, and I think at some point both parties just picked a subset of them to agree with. The only unifying theme seems to be old ideas vs new ideas, but I think they correspond to regional interests more than anything else.
The constitution's meaning of seperation of church and state is very different then the definition we warp it to today. It's true meaning was the seperation of church officials having political power. That would also infringe on the freedom of religion if political powers could define laws to somewhat "punish" other religions. This is entirely different between prayer in schools and the like.
These definitions are based on the more traditional view of the constitution, IE. The original meaning, not the one we've corrupted
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conservatives who want less government involvement in their lives are also pro life and against homosexual marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With the exception of Pro-Life, Conservatism is also relatively rooted in many aspects of Christianity, this applies to homosexuality as being wrong and sinful, in which I agree, but I do not advocate demonization of homosexuals, and in reality, conservatives don't either, you will always have your radicals. However, Pro-Life, even though being rooted also biblically, does certainly have some pretty substantial reasons for believing it's purely wrong for the reason that it's essentially murder.
However, we're speaking of party politics. A politician is rarely completely true to their party platform, and that it's ridiculous and reeks of irrogance to base a decision on political partisan.
The constitution's meaning of seperation of church and state is very different then the definition we warp it to today. It's true meaning was the seperation of church officials having political power. That would also infringe on the freedom of religion if political powers could define laws to somewhat "punish" other religions. This is entirely different between prayer in schools and the like.
These definitions are based on the more traditional view of the constitution, IE. The original meaning, not the one we've corrupted <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think that's entirely true. While I would agree that opposing funding of aid programs just because they have a religious base is a bit over the line, I think most of what has been said to be an infringement of church and state is pretty close to the intent of the law. Prayer in public schools isn't forbidden. It is only the official sanction of it by school officials that is forbidden. I don't want to derail the thread with this though. Lets wait for the discussion forums and we can start a thread on the topic.
The bit along these lines that I'm suprised hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet is "under god" still being in the pledge of allegiance. It seems to me to be clearly disallowed under article six, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." You could argue that no one is actually required to state the pledge of allegiance to get into office, but I think practical reality would prevent a president from being elected who wasn't able, with good conscience, to pledge allegiance to his country in the traditional way.
Sirus, you make the (if I may say, conservative-minded) assumption that social programs are limited to doling out money to lazy bums. I'm going to take a flying guess that you've never lived in a really poor neighborhood and seen how difficult it is for people from really disadvantaged backgrounds to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
I'd prefer not to entirely hijack this thread by elaborating, but if you'd like to start a new one, please be my guest - I will be there with bells on.
Glad you brought that up, because I did some digging through my old bookmarks and found this: <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm</a>
I'll quote a part of the conclusion:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A case can be made that the 99% of all abortions (those which are performed prior to viability of the fetus) do not appear to be prohibited by Bible passages, as translated by most versions of the Bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sirus, you make the (if I may say, conservative-minded) assumption that social programs are limited to doling out money to lazy bums. I'm going to take a flying guess that you've never lived in a really poor neighborhood and seen how difficult it is for people from really disadvantaged backgrounds to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not his point. You make the (if I may say, liberal-minded) assumption that reforming such social programs means taking away from disadvantaged people rather than limiting abuse by lazy people. I would take a guess you've never lived in a really poor neighborhood yourself.
But, since obviously no one here could answer that, I'll point out something I noticed in the article that basicly reduced it to the level of a suppository:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm curious, if there's so much information about Conservatism and so very little information about Liberalism, then why would they think studying Conservatism would be so enlightening? Wouldn't there be real value is searching for the limited Liberal information? Similarly, if there's so little data regarding Liberals, how are they assigning so many value related descripters to conservatives? In other words, what are they comparing their data to?
Now here's my favorite part:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."
Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The first word I can use to describe this characterization is Derogatory. It's a transparent way for the author to site some "researchers" summary to take a poke at non-liberals with the typical "I know better than you" condescension.
Based on this, imho, the article and, by way of the artcle, the psychological report are worthless. If they really wanted to know what makes a conservative tick, they could've just asked.
Take America and Britian, I choose these only because they are the two countries I know most about.
America is a lot further right than Britain is, a lot of people compare New Labour with the Democrats and the Conservatice Party with the Republicans.
However, where New Labour is, apparently, centre-left, the Democrats certainly are not, and the Conservative Party is certainly not as right as the Republicans.
So a British person will have a totally different view on what a conservative view is, because their view on conservatism is less right wing than an American persons.
I myself am a member of the Conservative Party (Go IDS) but I support the Democratic Party of America, my father is American (alas) and so he can donate to the democrats. So you see my view of conservatism is a lot different to that of an American person.
I support many things that most Americans would find liberal whereas British people would see them as conservative, so to ask what makes a conservative one must not only go on what views they hold, but where in the world they are holding these views.
What parts of those programs do you think need reforming? From everything I've seen welfare seems to be doing a pretty good job these days. You are only allowed to receive it for a total of 36 months out of your entire life.
Besides, every lazy person on welfare is one less person trying to steal my stuff. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> (joke, don't take as a serious point)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, Pro-Life, even though being rooted also biblically, does certainly have some pretty substantial reasons for believing it's purely wrong for the reason that it's essentially murder.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Glad you brought that up, because I did some digging through my old bookmarks and found this: <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm</a>
I'll quote a part of the conclusion:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A case can be made that the 99% of all abortions (those which are performed prior to viability of the fetus) do not appear to be prohibited by Bible passages, as translated by most versions of the Bible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's another thing I've never understood about the traditional political affiliations. It's been a long time since I've been a Christian, but if I remember correctly, Jesus spent a lot of time teaching of the virtues of giving to the poor, and didn't say much at all about homosexuals or abortion. I don't understand then why the religious right focuses so much energy on opposing homosexual rights and abortion, while actively opposing welfare, (or at least supporting the party that tends to oppose welfare).
The bible may indeed condemn both homosexuality and abortion. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to conclude either way. But I think we can agree at least, that they are secondary conclusions to the virtues of charity.
I would understand this more if they didn't believe in legislating their moral values into the legal code. That type of an argument would make a lot of sense to me. (What would it mean spiritually to give of yourself if it was legislated that you do so?) But their rhetoric clearly states that they would like the law of the land to be christian, and they are certainly trying to ensure that on homosexuality the law agrees with that, so I don't understand their rationale.
True, I believe that people reap what they sow. However, now I believe that not everyone really has the same amount of 'seed' to sow, i.e. they come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
I think the purpose of these programs is to account for the background of people who are disadvantaged.
That being said, I'm all in favor of social reform that accomplishes this goal. Also, I don't like to give beggars money, because I think it encourages them (and I believe that half of them are scammers anyway <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Rhuadin
I'd prefer not to entirely hijack this thread by elaborating, but if you'd like to start a new one, please be my guest - I will be there with bells on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I have to say that the liberal study did seem to me to be entirely biased and chose their words purposefully. I've always been bothered that many liberals, especially the "hardcore" ones, always tout their "open-mindedness" and yet when someone expresses an opinion contrary to their own then they become complete hypocrites. We all do, and yet the fact that they are usually oblivious to it puzzles me greatly (btw, i am a "conservative," if you will).
On to Samwise's post
You fail to see that the problem lies not with the inability to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" but rather in other areas, such as federally-funded education. I remember living with my dad on his work-study check of $800 a month...it wasn't much, but it was enough. I've gone to schools that have the majority of students being financially disadvantaged, some to a great extent. I know what it's like, and I have to say that it's a vicious cycle - the students, being disadvantaged, feel disinclined to learn at school, being from a background where the emphasis is elsewhere. Their lack of motivation leads to poorer grades, which leads to less opportunities, which leads to another generation of disadvantaged folks. I've been there, and I've seen it happen - it's not all bunk. Am I saying that they should just get with the program and become upstanding citizens without help? Of course not.
However, this does not mean that we should discredit the argument that "they're lazy bums and should help themselves" which admittedly is a gross generalization - it merely means that we are taking the wrong approach to solving the problem. Rather than giving money out to disadvantaged people, which by no means motivates them to better themselves or their situation, provide incentives other incentives. Welfare isn't the answer to poverty, just as affirmative action isn't the answer to racism - it is merely, in my opinion, a way for some people to clear their conscience or to claim credit where none is due. This is why I firmly believe that the problem is NEVER solved by any sort of gratis monetary benefits given by the government.
I agree that there are some people out there that actually do need financial assistance - those who have come upon hard times through bad luck, or some such, but what of the majority of people? Should we as a nation be forced to give charity to others? If people are to be charitable, I would rather have them do it of their own free will than to be forced by law to give up part of their income to those who don't deserve it. In my opinion, charity should never be taken for granted - it should be a personal decision of the benefactor and a grace to the beneficiary.
ZERG: I never said I was against social program reform, nor do I think Sirus mentioned reform in any way. The comment of mine that he was originally referring to was on the concept of social programs trying to promote economic equality - he in fact did not disagree with me that this is the point of social programs, so my original point about conservatives being opposed to promotion of economic equality still stood (bolstered by his saying that economic equality is not necessarily a good thing). I simply took umbrage at the implication that social programs by definition benefit lazy people and encourage unemployment.
Have I lived in poor neighborhoods? My mom was barely 20 when she had me, and working her way through school after being kicked out of the house by her parents. My dad was 30 and unemployed. From the age of about three to four I went to day care in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco. (The Tenderloin is one of the grimiest and poorest neighborhoods in the city, containing a fairly high concentration of prostitutes, crack dealers, and violence.) When I was eight, my mom was able to afford to move to a house in the Portola district, just up the hill from Hunter's Point, arguably the epicenter of gang violence in the city. I've been mugged on my way to school, and had my life threatened. She (and my stepdad and two half-sibs) still live there. My dad is living in low-income housing in the Tenderloin and is presently taking classes at City College so he can start doing office work (he suffered a hernia a year ago, which forced a change to a career that doesn't involve heavy lifting).
I have been extraordinarily lucky in that I was able to go to a private high school, due to a combination of scholarships, help from my grandparents, and my mom and stepdad working very hard and going into debt. I got into UC Berkeley and thanks to the combination of its low tuition and my working part-time, was able to pay my way through (like my mom before me, though I didn't have to carry a baby around to lectures like she did). I now have a very nice job with a software company and am living in a very nice Victorian apartment.
So I've seen a decent breadth of economic prosperity in my time, and I know that I had a lot of advantages that let me get where I am today. My primary personal feeling on social programs is that we need a lot more spending on education, because one of my main advantages was good schooling, and I certainly wouldn't have had that without so many people helping me out.
For reference, I pretty much agree 100% with what Wheeee and Rhuadin said.