Friday, June 01, 2007
The liberal mind
Peter Berkowitz says the right is a cauldron of debate, but the left isn't. A sample:
"On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent. ... One explanation of the unity on the left is its belief that today's divisive political questions have easy answers--but because of their illiberal opinions and aims, conservatives are unable to see this."
Reminds me of a letter I had published in the Tennessean a few years back:
Lee Martin would have us believe in his letter to the editor that university professors who vote for leftists candidates do so because of their "intelligence quotient" ("Gore leftist only compared to Bush," Tennessean, September 10, 2003). If that's the case, perhaps we should examine more closely the cognitive skills of those who're currently teaching at our institutions of higher learning.
Modern liberalism is not only an ideology for the intellectually lazy, it is an ideology for individuals who - to be perfectly blunt - aren't all that bright. A liberal's answer for practically all public policy questions is the same: income redistribution. Even though we're still dealing with the failures of Great Society redistributionist schemes, liberals continue to trumpet their personal brands of '60s-style idealism and liberty-crushing statism.
It's interesting to note that the past half-century's most important works in the social sciences have been penned by those who've refuted liberal nostrums: Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Charles Murray, Ludwig von Mises, Russell Kirk, James Q. Wilson, etc. If liberals were forced to read such visionary economists, sociologists, and political scientists, we might never have to be subjected to their idealistic, emotionalist claptrap again.
"On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent. ... One explanation of the unity on the left is its belief that today's divisive political questions have easy answers--but because of their illiberal opinions and aims, conservatives are unable to see this."
Reminds me of a letter I had published in the Tennessean a few years back:
Lee Martin would have us believe in his letter to the editor that university professors who vote for leftists candidates do so because of their "intelligence quotient" ("Gore leftist only compared to Bush," Tennessean, September 10, 2003). If that's the case, perhaps we should examine more closely the cognitive skills of those who're currently teaching at our institutions of higher learning.
Modern liberalism is not only an ideology for the intellectually lazy, it is an ideology for individuals who - to be perfectly blunt - aren't all that bright. A liberal's answer for practically all public policy questions is the same: income redistribution. Even though we're still dealing with the failures of Great Society redistributionist schemes, liberals continue to trumpet their personal brands of '60s-style idealism and liberty-crushing statism.
It's interesting to note that the past half-century's most important works in the social sciences have been penned by those who've refuted liberal nostrums: Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Charles Murray, Ludwig von Mises, Russell Kirk, James Q. Wilson, etc. If liberals were forced to read such visionary economists, sociologists, and political scientists, we might never have to be subjected to their idealistic, emotionalist claptrap again.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, June 01, 2007 
