It should come as no surprise that conservatives and liberals are wired differently, have different priorities and think differently.

As public service, I am going to do a week long series detailing some of the fundamental differences in how they think.

As a quick disclaimer, as in all things any time you resort to generalities you risk finding and offending the exceptions.  It will be pointed out to me that not all Liberals think this way, or that way, and the same will go for the Conservatives.

I readily admit that.  This is not a scientific study, and I make not claim about anything beyond this:  These observations are my own, based on the people I see locally, in the media and on the national stage.  I humbly defer to any exception you may note.

Todays lesson is about Patriots and Traitors.  First, let’s agree on the simple definitions:

• trai·tor (trā’tər) 
  
  n.   One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
• pa·tri·ot (pā’trē-ət, -ŏt’)  
  
  n.   One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.

Ok, that seems straightforward. 

Now the baggage.  The use of either of these two words in a conversation brings howls of outrage.  And in candid moment, I admit that they do get tossed into peoples faces a bit too often.

But the lingering question is how do the two sides see and define these two classes of people.

For example, the conservatives consider people who fight terrorists to be Patriotic and those who interfere in that fight, or those who provide help to the enemy unpatriotic.  They feel that finishing the war and defeating the enemy is a worthy and necessary goal.

The liberals object to this.  They feel that the war on terror is too nuanced to have such cold hard definitions.  Going a step further, they feel that ending the war now regardless of whether we leave behind more chaos and an emboldened enemy is in itself patriotic because it goes to saving the lives of the troops in harms way.

The reality is that both sides have a point, but the truth is that ending the war in a decisive fashion offers more in the protection of the country.  So to make both sides happy, we should end the war quickly by going in full strength and beating the crap out of Al Qaeda.  Then we can all go home and have soy burgers at the liberal’s houses.

Another interesting area of contention is that of immigration, specifically Illegal Immigration.

Both sides recognize that immigrants to America are a huge part of the greatness of America.  Where they diverge is on separating the issues from illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

Conservatives feel that unchecked illegal immigration is a problem for several reasons.  First, it is the heart and soul of border security, and we now roll right back to the area of terrorism and national security.  On the same stage is the illegal immigrant who is her legally and overstays their Visa.  In the same way, they represent a threat in that we have people unchecked.  So when the Liberals push for amnesty paths to citizenship without doing anything measurable to seal the borders they see it as a betrayal of safety and security. (yes I recognize how many Republicans along with the president support bills like that.  But you will notice that the conservative base exploded in retailiation)

The Liberal is a bit more nuanced again.  They don’t prefer to distinguish between the legal and the illegal, they do not wish to appear racist or offensive.  They broad paint them as undocumented workers, and undocumented Americans, point out all their contributions to society and their necessity to our economy and denounce to all who can hear that anyone who disagrees is a racist.

The reality is that again both sides have a case to a degree.  They open borders are the most serious domestic issue facing us, and the complete failure of both conservatives and liberals to effectively address it.  But it is not a racial issue.  It real is a matter of security, and a matter of law.  The illegals in order to work depress wages, commit identity theft and displace American workers.  Despite the claims to the contrary, the average American really will work.  They do want a decent wage, but many employers will happily pay the lowest wages to people who will not complain, and they will look the other way at false ID’s or pay under the table.   The cost to society is also measurable in the expenses of social services and other factors.

What we need is realistic border security effort that offers some sense of security, a program of enforcement in the work place to cut off the illicit job supply, and reasonable way for people who want to obtain legal residence to get it.  What we do not need is a fast track for the people on the southern border while we hold Europeans to a years long waiting list.

But the liberals have their line in the sand.  For example, Global Warming.

RFK Jr recently said that:

“The most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process and get rid of all of these rotten politicians that we have in Washington D.C. — who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company. These villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity. This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors. ”

Yes, you are a traitor when you demand scientific proof, or point out that the scientific consensus is hardly unified or the vast majority.  In essence, when you question the predetermined conclusions that are rapidly lining Gore’s pocket, you are not just a heretic, you are also a traitor.   No one on the left cares about his financial intersts.

I wont even point out the absurdity of that, or point out how foolish it is to determine laws regarding science that is not even settled yet.  I already pointed out the fact that many prominent liberals like Al Gore have huge financial interest in Global Warming, not to mention political gain.

And you know what, most conservative believe in climate change, they just want proof it is Hummer’s fault.

Yes this has been a biased cynical sarcastic look at the differences between liberals and conservatives.  I totally cherry picked out all the points that pointed out that Liberals are less concerned about national security and more concerned about social issues and legalizing potential voters. 

That’s how I see it.  The conservatives are more concerned about National security, be it in Iraq or on the Border, or at least they seem to support more legislation that leads us in that direction.  The Liberals want the war to end regardless of the consequences to the Iraqis, regardless of the long term effects of emboldening the enemy and regardless of the cost in lives to the demoralizing of the troops as they feel the support for the fight they volunteered for slipping away, and they lose their funding.  The war spending package was proof of that.  I found it ironic that they castigated the Republicans for a lack of armour, but they dwaddled on funding them.

They marginalize the issue of immigration making it a racial issue, making it a social issue and making it about anything but security and law.  They mitigate the crime of illegal entry and call the criminals undocumented Americans.  They call work place enforcement intrusive, racist and a violatoin of civil rights.

They march for the constitutional rights of people who violated our borders and live here illegall, and they wondere why conservatives consider them unpatriotic.

And in the case of terrorists, some liberals call them freedom fighters, toady up to terrorist state leaders and ignore the obvious threats.  And they too wonder why some conservative think them traitors.

But they will hop all over welfare, income redistribution and quasi-socialism.  They love issues that make them feel good.

So what does it mean?  I dunno, I am just in a sour mood, and frankly RFK’s idiotic spoutings, calling people like me a traitor or a flat earther, just pissed me off.  So thanks to him all liberals get stereotyped.

I’m sick of people like him telling me that my belief in reason and logic is akin to flat earthers.

Since when is a demand for science a flat earth philosophy?

Frankly I do see more logic and sense in a focus on national security over polices of feel good pointless legislation like banning incandescent bulbs.

Or Rock Concerts with the carbon footprint of a small city protesting Carbon Emissions.

Tomorrow I will be looking at personal responsibility, welfare and crime.  Tune in.

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Right Celebrity, Wake Up America, DeMediacratic Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS