Posted on 10/21/2017 9:23:56 PM PDT by TBP
s someone who voted for Barack Obama twice, supported the Affordable Care Act, and could be persuaded to vote for the right kind of single-payer system, I've found the entire health-care debate over the past several months deeply depressing. That's no doubt why my first instinct was to cheer when reading a recent rant against the right from an editor at The Huffington Post.
The transparently titled opinion column, "I Don't Know How to Explain to You That You Should Care About Other People," is a perfect expression of our political moment in its utter exasperation at those on the other side of a policy debate, but even more so in how it casts these partisan opponents as moral monsters with whom communication, let alone persuasion, is simply impossible.
I admit that it does often feel that way these days, especially when it comes to the House and Senate bills to remake the nation's health-care system, since so much of the discussion has been conducted by Republicans in undeniable bad faith with bills primarily designed to cut or eliminate taxes dishonestly described by leaders in Congress, as well as the president, as efforts to make health care more affordable. (The tax cuts ensure that health care would in fact become much less affordable for millions of people.)
But the instinct to cheer on the argument should be resisted.
The fact is that most intelligent and informed people on the right do not oppose progressive policies because they're stingy bastards who don't give a damn about their fellow citizens. It's true that this may describe some Republicans. There are probably a non-trivial number, especially those unduly influenced by the odious ideas of Ayn Rand, who do come close to viewing the poor as parasitic moochers. But many, many others the vast majority, in my experience do not take this position. They believe, instead, that progressive policies do more harm than good for the very people they're designed to help.
Consider the minimum wage. Many conservatives oppose raising it, especially as high as $15/hour, as some municipalities around the country have opted to do over the last few years. Do they take this position because they prefer lower-wage workers to struggle? No. They take this position because they understand basic principles of economics, which predict that raising costs for businesses that employ low-wage workers will lead them to make fewer hires, thereby hurting these workers overall. (A study released earlier this week seems to indicate that this is precisely what's been happening in Seattle since the city began incrementally raising its minimum wage.)
The same holds for the concerns that led the original neoconservatives to make various proposals for reforming crime and welfare during the 1970s and '80s proposals that powerfully influenced policymaking at the local and federal levels during the 1990s.
My point isn't to make a case for these policies (though I think many of them were defensible in the context of the time). The point is to recognize that the proposals were made with the intent of improving the lives of the poor, crime victims, and others, not with the intent of hurting them, or of giving the rich a post-spending-cut tax break. (While it's true that most of these conservatives supported tax cuts as well, those cuts, too, were justified as a spur to economic growth and job creation that would benefit everyone.)
It's certainly easier and more morally satisfying for those on the left to presume that the right is just motivated by rank selfishness. But it's no more true at an individual level than it is as the level of public policy debate.
Because in order to commit genocide you first must de-humanize those you intend to murder. This is standard human behavior.
Why can conservatives admit that they are in a fight to the death with a mortal enemy?
LOL as Senate just took retirement away from workers....yeah sure they care about people. Good grief. GOP would be happy to see workers working until death.
Too?
Liberals don't care about people. They only care about power.
True. See my sig line.
Why cant conservatives stop giving a damn about why liberals feel, say and think about them. This codependence is sheer stupidity.
I believe you’ve nailed it.
Because they are trying to vilify conservatives as much as possible and if they admitted something good about them, it would work against their agenda.
It is also a way to spur the rank and file Liberal voter in to a moral outrage.
Liberalisms primary rhetorical instrument is emotion. Logic and reason are secondary tools at best and are usually disingenuous when used in debate.
The Left is never going to admit that Conservatives have the poor's best interest in mind when proposing policy because it is not in their interest to do so.
Self satisfied liberals care only about themselves.
The left is going to excommunicate Damon— dissent with groupthink demonization is forbidden.
Headline assumes liberals care about people. Thats absolutely not the case. False premise.
Why do we honestly expect perverts to admit conservative views should be considered to their perverse solutions ?
You nailed it.
Count me among the Ayn Randian monsters who dislike parasitic moochers that claim they can’t afford food, but always manage to pay for cigarettes, booze, and tattoos.
So many good answers on this thread!
I’ll add my version:
Because liberals are all about feelings. That’s all they’ve got. No knowledge. No facts. No logic. They present themselves as morally superior by claiming that conservatives are uncaring and unfeeling. If they admit that conservatives have feelings, too, then the libs have nothing to offer. (and the whole rest of their power game collapses.)
The base probably at least thinks they do. The leaders? HAH!
Anyone who would ask such an asinine question is too stupid to deserve a response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.