Micro liberalism and conservatism
On introspection, I have found the need to practice what some might see as a “Conservative” approach to dealing with my son. You see, my son is likely one of the laziest and selfish youths in all my extended family. He will be 19 in February and has been out of school approaching two years now. In dealing with his attitude and behavior, I find myself exemplifying a “micro conservatism” in dealing with him.
Having not been a part of his life, most of his life, upon marrying my wife I inherited a son who had not been conditioned into understanding that to get something means.... that something must be given up on the part of the receiver, in turn. He was also not properly conditioned to the concept that he could do what he wants, as long as he is willing to accept and bare the burden of the consequence of his actions, set forth by those who make the rules, justly. His mom, a single mom at 18, was simply not consistent in dishing out rewards and punishments to develop him along that path. His biological father was simply a terrible example and role model, but he was/is active in his life.
Now, I have a son, whom I love, who has been out of school going on two years who wakes up around 11:00 am, forages for food in the kitchen, watches TV, listens to blaring rap music, then spends the rest of the day at his girl friend folks home or at the gym. He has a job in sales at a local shoe store, but my wife and I recently learned that he only works about 13 hours in a two week period. We always wondered why he was so broke all the time, not being able to put anything on the car insurance we pay for him each month, or to pay his cell phone bill, which was recently cut off. The bottom line here is that he simply does not want more hours and had the job only because my wife had threatened to kick him out unless he enrolled into college or found a job.
So, my wife and I, plus our new little daughter, decided that we would take a vacation somewhere warm this winter, So we made our plans with my wife siblings and their family. Our son was not in the travel plans,though, to his dismay. He is begging and pleading with his mom so that he can go, but of course, he has no money to contribute to his expenses. Had he demonstrated the willingness to work hard, the ability to show gratefulness and appreciation and the ability to be humble, I would be willing to pay his way…without payback and without a second thought, if he lacked the funds. However, the one thing that I refuse to do is to subsidize his laziness and bad attitude.
There it is folks.....the exemplification and practice of a conservative philosophy, but at the micro level. In truth, one of the things that irk me the most is lazy people. They are second only to lazy people who want something from me, without giving something in return. Thus, one might properly then ask why I am not a conservative, because this is part of the conservative philosophy. Well, the reason is quite simple, which is that I only invoke this response when I can personally bare witness to the truth that an individual is lazy. I cannot make that assumption on the macro level, about millions of people whose lives and personal situation I cannot bare witness to say that a conservative approach is what is needed. For that matter, I cannot bare witness to when a liberal approach is what is needed either.
In light of this inability to be specific and precise, this is why I am not a conservative or liberal and I do not consider myself an independent either...hell...I don't even vote. The problem with the system is the options it provides. Each ideology only offers a cookie cutter, mutually exclusive, white perspective and approach to dealing with social and behavioral issues, when one size does not fit all. Also, what is offered always has to be different or opposite than the opposition, so that people will not vote to for the different idea and thus the different party.
Thus, the system must oscillate between the two approaches. As each produces certain problems over time, this creates opportunity for change and opposition canidates. Given that that the choices in a two party system are binary, we just keep going back and forth, rarely curing or solving what ills us socially. However, this oscillation is what creates opportunity for opposition politicians, who are dependant upon things not going well so that people will vote for a change…and thus create opportunity for them. Besides, these two approaches are the options because they are the cheapest to implement. To specifically target people, based upon their unique situation, with oversight, would be extremely more expensive than the current liberal approach. But remember, you get what you pay for. Furthermore, the black situation in America is unique enough to require a targeted precise program directed at our peculiar instituational situation.
On the micro level, When I was a youth, I benefited from a liberal mother, who stuck by my side and supported me, when my micro conservative father did not. You see, I always worked hard. When I was a youth I always had a job. In the summer time, I worked two jobs, when the economy could support that. I have been working since I was 14 and before then, I use to hustle carrying ladies bags as the neargy grocery store. However, I had no vision or guidance in regards to what to do with my life and my education suffered. I actually flunked the 11th grade. I decided to enroll into college and I struggled initially due to my poor training and lack of direction. I had moved to Atlanta to go to school and escape Michigan. I enrolled in Dekalb community college; I roomed with this older lady whose son had referred me to, while I was living in a hotel on Stewart Ave.
To make a long story short, even though I was working and going to school, I needed funds to make ends meet. My dad would not help out, but my mom would send me cash when she could afford it. That little bit actually kept me from “beating” from the local stores for provisions….cause a brother was hungry and had to much pride to ask folks for help. Some times I would get a letter in the mail with a money order for $20 dollars….and tears would come to my eyes because it was like God knew when I was in the most need. Eventually, I moved back to Detroit to finish school. It took me, all in all, 61/2 years to get a 4 year Bachelor of Science degree.
Had it been left up to my dad and his micro conservatism, I would likely have never graduated from college, because my dad never gave me opportunity for failure or mistakes, which I had many. But my mom’s liberalism did. Consequently, I finished college and ultimately a good paying job. I also later found that I had a pretty high IQ. Thus, my mom’s liberalism allowed me finally progress towards my full potential, notwithstanding mistakes and bad choices on the way. I would like to think that it was because of the fact that I have always worked hard and sacrificed….when it was something I wanted. However, I know that such is often simply the loving and nurturing nature of mothers….especially towards son. Also, my fathers influence did help balance out the nurturing, which helped me to become a man.
When I think of my son, I often wonder is my macro conservatism denying him the ability to evolve and recovery from mistakes. I rationalize a difference between the two of us, at that age, based upon willingness and desire to make sacrifices for what we want or desired. Even the things he loves and desires most, he will not make the personal expenditure of energy to try to make it reality.
posted by Noah TA @ 12/27/2004 01:17:00 PM
35 comments
35 Comments:
I was having a discussion on my political list serve, that concluded much the way you did. Well we can't tell why people followed a particular path and so we can't judge.
Its a cop out.
The discussion on my listserve was about health care and should people who overeat and smoke be allowed to use a disproportionate share of medical resources.
Everyone knows that being fat, and smoking is bad for you so if they are fat or smoke you know they have made a choice.
The fact is most conservative ideology assumes people are rational. For example you son is very smart, he gets to live rent free, have a car without paying for the expenses. So of course he is going to take advantage of you. Same thing with welfare wether personal or corporate, when you reward failure like with airline payouts of course you will continue to see the same behavior.
Expecting people to be noble wether its paying 20% more to shop in a black owned store or work instead of staying on welfare making 80% of you minimum wage salary for saying home doing nothing. Is foolish policy.
You have choice to finance you sons failure. When the goverment takes your hard earned money and redistributes it you have no choice. Choice is the essence of freedom. That is what conservative ideology is about.
I think you missed the point. Conservatism, liberalism or an equilibrium strategy can only be effectively calibrated at the micro level. At the macro level, assumptions and sweeping generalizations converge to create a cookie cutter, one size fits all approach to social issues and that will always leave many behind. Think of it like the difference between individual learning styles. Some people learn more effectively audibly. Others learn more effective visually, while others learn more effect with a combination of the former or the latter. If the teaching methodology was determined by a two party audible and visual competing, mutually exclusive dichotomy, some students will suffer at the expense of others. Hence, society would not be maximizing the full potential of students with a cookie cutter approach.
Your example about health care and overeating exists in a vacuum. Just because what you lament in that particular case is true, does not therefore mean that conservatism is always the best solution. For example, conservatives like to raise the bar and increase standards across the board. However, such an approach will produce more failure for those who are barely making the current standards, thus, reducing their self confidence and withdrawing them from their full potential. Although the higher standards will benefit some, it will be offset by hurting others. The reason being is that there are many who need to build up their self confidence via a progression of successes. That progression of success is best achieved by incrementally increasing standards, starting from low, then to high. It should be a dynamic and flexible approach, not a static high mandate that will simply increase rates of failures. But again, raising standards is the simplest and cheapest solution, while the most expensive method to implement, dynamic, specific and flexible, is the most efficacious.
Besides, conservatism and liberalism at the macro level are based upon the assumption and beliefs of the white masses. Therefore, the long standing doctrine of white superiority/black inferiority, plays a major role, ultimately, in social politics. When white conservatives thus create their cookie cutter platform for the poor, it is primarily based upon the assupmptiong that the poor are poor because they are lazy. This is, to a large degree, because whites see poverty and social spending on transfer payments, as a BLACK FACE with a hand out looking for something for nothing. It is the same old historical beleif in black laziness
"However, such an approach will produce more failure for those who are barely making the current standards, thus, reducing their self confidence and withdrawing them from their full potential."
First: Self/confidence Self/esteem being helpful for success of the individual is TOTAL bs. Scientific American has finally put out some reseach to back up what I have learned from years of teaching.
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000CB565-F330-11BE-AD0683414B7F0000
"Some findings even suggest that artificially boosting self-esteem may lower subsequent academic performance."
Nuff said on that.
"This is, to a large degree, because whites see poverty and social spending on transfer payments, as a BLACK FACE with a hand out looking for something for nothing. It is the same old historical beleif in black laziness"
Second point you are wrong on. In fact they don't see the poor as LAZY they see the poor as economically rational which they are. And if you give them something for nothing people will take it. Its called MORAL HAZARD and that is what they are trying to avoid..
http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/RiskExclusion/Risk.html
"Moral hazard is the result of maximizing behavior. A person weighs the costs and benefits of an action, and when benefits exceed costs, he takes the action. This does not mean that if a person has a building insured for $50,000 but only has a market value of $30,000, the owner will necessarily commit arson. There may be costs of violating one's moral code and of getting caught and convicted for arson. But some people put into this situation will find a way to torch the building because they do not find the cost of violating a moral code very high and they consider the chances of being caught small, and other people will be less careful about avoiding fires. Moral hazard does not require that people intentionally cause the misfortune. If they simply take fewer measures to prevent misfortune, the same outcome occurs."
Final Note: Most big time conservatives don't give a DAMM about black and white. They care about GREEN. Do you think if all black people dissapeared we would double our welfare benefits. Don't fool yourself. Do you think they don't know the majority of people on welfare are white. Of course they do. They don't give a damm because they are poor and they don't make them money.
If you do not understand the importance of self confidence in life and performance, you are a bigger idiot than I suspected.
Your problem Scott is that you are not a thinker, you are a reader. The problem with that is that what you choose to read is biased towards your preconceived notions and politics. For example, I presented a link, in a previous op-ed, by Harvard scholars, that concluded that the majority of Americans believed that the poor are lazy. However, let’s see how well you can defend other people’s theory….OK.
You said that white’s conservatives do not see the poor as lazy, but as economically rational. However, what is the proof that the two concepts or ideas are mutually exclusive? You statements allude that the poor cannot be seen as lazy, due to them being seen as economically rational. What makes this true? Maybe being economically rational is simply a euphemism for being lazy, and hence represents a distinction without a difference. So tell me Scott, what makes those who are economically rational, not lazy too? Maybe you can provide a link that will speak for you, because you are to intellectually rational to do the thinking to explain it yourself. Why think for yourself when white conservatives have already thought it out and placed it at the public disposal for people who are not willing to take the time to think for themselves.
Obviously human life is biologically programmed to only act when the mind determines that the benefits out weigh the cost. That is simply the nature of life. Such should tell you then that if everyone has the goal of a doing what is best, and then certain environment offering a different array of information and viable options thus determines people’s choices. The environment of poor is conducive to perpetuating poverty, while the environment of the other class is most conducive to perpetuating that class. Thus, your moral hazard argument is simply common sense that serves to promote my conclusions more than yours.
Big time conservatives might not give a damn about black and white, but rather money, however, most white conservatives are not BIG TIME. In fact, as far as my working definition of big time goes, they are a very small minority in America. They are less than 10% of the total population. My image if the white conservative is based upon the white conservative masses, not the few white elites. The Southern Redneck more than offsets those Big Time white conservatives.
In regards to my son Scott, to you it may look like a free ride, but it is not. When he juxtaposes his life with some of his peers, he realizes that he does not have the freedom and options to do many of the things that they are doing. People like you may interpret his situation as “getting over” and getting something for nothing. However, in truth, he is not getting over, he is only getting by. This is true also of the people on welfare. There may have been a few exceptions of people who learned how to get over on the system, but I can guarantee you that it is not a standard of living that the average American could be proud of. If I compare my options and freedom that come from my increased income, they would rightly feel that they were missing out on much. There lifestyle only become tolerable by being in an environment where others are in like situation. Thus, it is the environment that perpetuates the condition more so than the hand outs. When the welfare recipients are immersed middle class environments, rank and competition from peers inspires them to better their lives, more so than does living surrounded by other poor people.
"My image if the white conservative is based upon the white conservative masses, not the few white elites. The Southern Redneck more than offsets those Big Time white conservatives."
You obviously have NO clue how the world is run. If you think rednecks have any power. They are nothing but tools. You might as well fight a gun instead of the person pointing the gun.
What I am wondering is why you chose to respond to your claim that white conservatives do not see poor people as lazy, but instead, economically rational. If that was not some intellectual masturbating, phraseology BS, then excuse me for my erroneous interpretation.
Scott, what I do understand is that you either are too lazy or too inept to defend the positions of others that you parrot. Furthermore, I understand that this is a representative form of Democracy where politician’s fate is dependant upon representing their constituent’s interest and beliefs. You are the fool if you think that white racist interest are not represented to a palatable degree by white conservative politicians, such as Trent Lott. This people represent redneck districts with redneck interest and a history of anti-black beliefs, laws and practices.
You are a FOOL Scott. It is hard for me to find any redeemable and respectable quality about you, gleaned from your rhetoric.
Wether the poor are viewed as lazy is irrelevant.
The point is wether government policies change peoples behavior, and it does.
Welfare has allowed more women to "get by" as unwed mothers so guess what we have more unwed mothers. And guess what this is a bad thing for no only society but for the children of these mothers as well.
(this is one of many examples of bad government policies that conservatives don't like, we don't like farm subzidies either, or the bailout of Long term Capital Management , or the airline, or federal flood insurance, or even social security which creates a disincentive for saving for retirement)
Well, I think perceptions of laziness plays a profound influence on people’s attitude about transfer payments. Also, laziness is relevant in this discussion because it represents a pattern of you not being able to defend statements that you make. You cannot be taken credibly with such a pattern of non tenable conclusions, then just shrug it off as irrelevant because you can’t defend it. If it was so irrelevant, then why did you initially spend the time trying to repudiate my assertion? Obviously it was relevant until you were challenged and could not google to find a white person who had written a response or thesis to such a question.
It is easy for anyone to point out the symptoms or side effects of transfer payments implemented without oversight and with a cookie cutter distribution methodology. What create the white lie and false perspective is that they never talk about the lives saved from the program. People do not talk about how poor nutrition has been radically reduced in children of the poor. What effect do you think that poor nutrition has upon the ability to learn? By attempting to hold adults responsible and accountable, macro conservatism ends up increasing suffering among children, which is a trade off your callous and greedy souls are willing to make? What about crime? Can you imagine how many people would have turned to illegal activity without social safety nets?
"Second point you are wrong on. In fact they don't see the poor as LAZY they see the poor as economically rational which they are. And if you give them something for nothing people will take it. Its called MORAL HAZARD and that is what they are trying to avoid.."
-- what do you think I need to defend about this statement ?
You said that white’s conservatives do not see the poor as lazy, but as economically rational. However, what is the proof that the two concepts or ideas are mutually exclusive? You statements allude that the poor cannot be seen as lazy, due to them being seen as economically rational. What makes this true? Maybe being economically rational is simply a euphemism for being lazy, and hence represents a distinction without a difference. So tell me Scott, what makes those who are economically rational, not lazy too?
after you answer that...then adress the below:
It is easy for anyone to point out the symptoms or side effects of transfer payments implemented without oversight and with a cookie cutter distribution methodology. What create the white lie and false perspective is that they never talk about the lives saved from the program. People do not talk about how poor nutrition has been radically reduced in children of the poor. What effect do you think that poor nutrition has upon the ability to learn? By attempting to hold adults responsible and accountable, macro conservatism ends up increasing suffering among children, which is a trade off your callous and greedy souls are willing to make? What about crime? Can you imagine how many people would have turned to illegal activity without social safety nets?
"What about crime? Can you imagine how many people would have turned to illegal activity without social safety nets?" - Noah
From a quick look at crime data there seems to be negative correlation between welfare and crime. If you think they are correlated at all. Do you think they are correlated ?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
Great society started about 1964 Homocide rate "4.9"
by 1980 Homocide reathe was "10.2".
So exactly what is your point ?
I never said these points (lazy and rational) are mutually exclusive. You made the assumption. Don't ask me to explain your assumptions.
If you are unclear on what conservative believe check out thier talking points.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues2004/welfare.cfm#TP
"The conventional welfare system rewarded non-work and non-marriage. By promoting dependence and illegitimacy, it increased poverty, crime, and a host of social ills."
These are direct critisms of the system.
Can you debate without providing links?
You made the statement that white conservatives do not see the poor as lazy. That is exhibit “A”. Then you make the assertion that instead, they see the poor as “economically rational. That is exhibit “B”. Thus, how does “B” influence the validity of “A”? If “B” has no bearing on “A”, then what is your evidence to repudiate the assertion of “A”?
Crime or violent crimes in particular, are caused by a convergence of multiple factors. Unless those factors are isolated for, one cannot due a comparison between poverty rates and crime rates, in relation to welfare. The question is this: When violence was at its past peak, how would the situation have been effected if there was no social safety net for the poor? Would that have more than likely increased or decreased the rate of crime? Personally, I think any sane individual would pick the former. Poor women would have turned more to prostitution and more poor young men would have chosen the underground economy, which is run via violence and intimidation. Remember, when whites were poor, they were bootleggers, gang members and organized criminals. They gave us the infamous Bonny and Clyde’s. Al Capone’s and Baby face Nelsons, to name only a few.
Noah, learn to read a research paper and stop pulling your so called facts out of your ass.
You have zero evidence that there is a relation between self esteme and performance. I have both person experience as a teacher and studies published in scientific American that shows its not.
You have zero evidence that welfare reduces crime but you continue to blather on. My evidence would show at the very least an inverse correlations, which I am not claiming.
Show some evidence beyong pulling shit out your ass.
Or should I debate like you. Noah why do you refuse to acknowledge that more white people are on welfare than blacks so attacks on welfare are not attacks targeted on black people at all. Since the convervative leaders are well aware of this fact. But I don't choose what you want to discuss but please. You have a world of information use it. And stop making shit up.
The thing about using others research and thesis is that there almost always exist an anti-thesis that contradicts. Thus, it boils down to a matter of who you want to believe and trust, given our inability to bare witness about the truth of the whole. Who we in turn are willing to believe or trust is a product of our biases. So why even bother with what others say?
I am a student of life and human nature. I know the effect that lack of self esteem can have on a person. Ask any women what she finds most attractive in a man...and see how high self confidence rates. Self confidence is what makes people take risk...it is what inspires people to try new things...it is what inspires people to believe that they can accomplish anything and be anybody. If one does not believe in themselve and their abilities....the fear of failure denies them from reaching their full potential...which can only be reached by taking risk and believing that you can achieve more....because you have the ability to be all that you want to be. It affects all aspects of your life, including education. I don't give a flying puck about what some researcher that you read said....that is total BS.
"The thing about using others research and thesis is that there almost always exist an anti-thesis that contradicts"
Bullshit, show me a thesis that says it good for kids to grow up without enough food, or without two parents. Once again making shit up.
Black men and women micro conservativism is what the white racist try to appeal to and those negro men and women that fall for it fail to realize that white folk extrapolate from our micro conservativism and generalize it as being what produces Black social and economic conditions. This sum of Scott and all those like him. The biggest problem with Scott is he live and thinks on the micro level but apply his micro thinking on a macro level, which is absurd. When one thinks on the macro level he or she must consider all causes and the effects they produce to conclude any one thing about what is the reality on the macro level. It would be wrong for Noah to conclude that a young man down the street from him whom reality is the same reality of his son is guilty of the same thing his son is guilty of without confirming such. This is what the white racist and their Negro apologist conclude. A closer look at the young man down the street might conclude that his situation though exactly like Noah’s son is what it is for an entirely different reason that has nothing to do with being lazy and unmotivated.
Faheem you are missing the point, Noah son is guilty of nothing. Poor people are guilty of nothing. But we as a society are guilty of discouraging them from working, saving and being responsible when we design systems that allow them to in noah's words "get buy" without becoming responsible adults.
Its the system that needs changing. Not the people. But you are trapped in the belief that conservatives want to punish these people when all they want to do is not reward them when they have the tools to take care of themselves.
Scott, you talk like there is an unlimited supply of jobs that actually pay something, and that the big corporations won't just move those jobs over to some country where it's ok for them to use slave labor. There are plenty of models for what you are proposing- they are called third world countries. I don't think there is any country in the first world that is so callous to the poor- and we all suffer in quality of life.
Not dying isn't a reward for not working, it's pretty much a human right.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think that maybe Scott is taken aback by the fact that we are hard working, educated and moral people, who on the micro level can and do often practice what some would term a “conservative” approach to personal issues. I think that many conservatives like to see themselves as superior to those whom they label as “liberal”. Notice that I said whom “they” label, for I do not consider myself a liberal, in the political sense. I like to see my self as aspiring towards “Righteousness”.
Anyway, those who proudly call themselves conservatives project themselves as being morally and ethically superior. This is because in juxtaposition, they see “liberals” as promoting or condoning immoral and unethical phenomenon such as homosexuality, lazy people and anti-spiritualism. Thus, when they find people, who on the micro level embodies ethics, personal responsibility, hard work, spirituality and all the other things they think “liberals” lack, they can’t handle the contradiction to their erroneous assumptions.
Both Faheem and Nmaginate Cleary corroborated and augmented my points. At the micro level, it is alright to impose conservatism, because you can bare witness to the reality of what approach is needed for a specific human entity. However, one cannot assume that approach will be effective and not detrimental to many individuals at the Macro level. It is a logical fallacy to assume that what is true of a part is thus true for the whole. Therefore it is fallacious for an individual to assume that their person life and experience is a microcosm for the whole. Different strategies are needed because humans are not genetic clones, plus, environment and situations vary to combine to make every human condition different in degree and or kind.
What macro conservatives do, motivated by prejudice and greed, is that they make negative assumptions about the poor to rationalize not helping them, with the goal of reducing their taxes and or keeping black people down (Southern Racist whites for example). As I said before, the primary people hurt by the loss of social programs and transfer payments are children. No matter how true it may be that some parents are irresponsible, lazy and bad choice makers, many do have children who will suffer in societies attempt to hold the parents accountable and responsible.
Macro conservatives are always talking about how social assistance has created dependencies. However, they never address the issue of the children and how food stamps, housing subsidizes, free medical care for the poor or public assistance, has improved the nutrition and health of children. The children are the future, yet, the conservatives make the children suffer to spit their parents.
I realize that there is no cheap panacea for America’s social problems. Given the binary options provided by white conservatives and white liberals, both will fail many people, plus, produce unwanted side effects. The real solution requires massive commitment funds, much greater than what even political liberals condone. However, this society does not have solving many of these social problems as a high priority. In fact, the system is structured to produce failure in different degrees, which will funnel workers efficiently into what the economy demands. Hence, the country does not push or prioritize education because most jobs in the economy do not require a college degree. Most jobs in the economy requires being sound in the 3 R’s, not having Bachelors, Masters and PHD’s.
"the primary people hurt by the loss of social programs and transfer payments are children."
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov16.html
Percentage of all Poor people who are children " 34.5 %"
As say again and again to you Noah please please get some facts.
"Scott, you talk like there is an unlimited supply of jobs that actually pay something, and that the big corporations won't just move those jobs over to some country where it's ok for them to use slave labor."
Shannon what world are you living in. There are tons and tons of jobs in America. why do you think the going rate for illegal day laborer is $7 a hour. Because the demand of workers outstrips supply. Why do you think bboth dems and republicans condone illegal immigration because without it jobs would go unfilled.
And these migrant workers managed to send $13.3 billion to mexico alone.
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/0920phx-remit.html
What are you talking about Scott? Were have I said that THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR IN AMERICA ARE CHILDREN? More importantly, you need to get strait what it is that I have said. I said that the primary people hurt by the loss of social program and transfer payments are children. Only an idiot and or a disingenuous person would interpret that statement to mean that the majority of poor people are children. Children will be the ones primarily affected because their age usually prevents them from being able to take care of themselves or to go out and get a job.
Child poverty is created from the poverty of their adult parents, as they inherit the condition of their parents, while they are in their parents care. Thus, if you cut off the parents and the parents cannot find employment, insurance, daycare…the children will suffer.
Also SCott, how do you morally deal with the fact that macro conservatism will increase the suffering of children? Instead of addressing that point, you try to obfuscate the issue by focusing away from the effect and onto the demographic characteristics and distribution of the poor. You are like a little weasel or rodent. You are like a cock roach who runs when the lights are turned on.
You have Zero way of knowning that transfer payment of to irresponsible parents are the best way to help children which is what you are implying. Infact we have evidence that it isn't because in addition to food stamps which provide for food, most poor kids need free breakfast and lunch programs to make sure they are not hungry.
We also have evidence than many free/subzided homes are horrible places for kids to live because they irresponible pareent make these homes hell.
So if you want to help "the children" then you need to be talking about taking these kids away from their parents and changing foster care and adoption rules so its easier to adopt a kid from harlem then it is to adopt a kid fron China.
Dang Scott...the natural progression of your reason seems to lead to sterilizing poor black women so that they cannot have kids. You are SICK. Don't you know that children will have to be taken care of...through tax payer’s dollars...if you take them from their parents or leave them with? What do you think the psychological consequence of stripping children from their parents would be? No matter how poor the parenting is....nearly all kids’ love their parent’s immensely and would be damaged by forced separation.
When you first started coming to this blog...I had respect for you...although we disagreed. I have no respect for you now...not that you care or need my respect, however. I just wanted set the stage for calling you an idiot.
Its the liberals who are for government sponsored genocide though government finaced abortions so don't put words in my mouth.
But in a age of effective birth control it would not be unreasonable to only give welfare benefits for 1 child born out of wedlock.
You totally don't get conservatve point of view, its about freedom. Have as many kids as you want, just don't expect me to pay the bill. They aren't my kids, they weren't my decision.
I know plently of adopted kids, and they are no more fucked up than kids who are with their parents. But once again you are pulling facts out you ass about the damage of adoption. Or is that the excuse for your sone he is damaged because he is not you son by blood.
Get a clue. Kids are help and hurt more by their parents than by anyone else. If you want to help kids then you need to change the parents. As conservatives we don't believe in forcing anyone to due anything so we live and let live. But don't force me to pay for your mistake.
I understand that white racism needs a political outlet. I understand how conservatism and the politics of DENIAL plays into the need of white racist to deny blacks things that may help blacks better their situation. I understand human nature and the Nature and history of America run by white people. Thats all I need to know to draw my conclusions about Macro conservatives.
Do you know the fact that there are more white people on welfare than black people ?
The issue for white conservative racist is not numbers, but perceptions and percentages. Welfare has a black face...regardless of numbers. People see what they want to see.
So you do see that they are using racism to pass their classist adgenda.
Post a Comment
<< Home