Tuesday, February 10, 2004

ScrappleFace: Kerry Ignores Reports That He Is 'Aloof': "'Just because I was born into wealth, attended an Ivy League school, married two wealthy women and live in a multimillion dollar home in Boston's finest neighborhood, doesn't mean that I can't identify with the common man,' said Mr. Kerry. 'I can relate to the average Joe Sixpack. He loves to hear about my service in Vietnam and I enjoy talking about it. So we have something in common.'"

I know it's just humor, but it raises an interesting point: why I'd never want to run for office personally, aside from the fact that I'll inevitably say something on this blog or in some other forum that will disqualify me from office. By have no ambitions for office, I [d]on't have to pretend I can relate to the average Joe Sixpack. Effectively, it's a license to be arrogant.

UPDATE: A liberal friend of mine (don't worry, Matthew L. Robinson, I won't use your name) chose my above typ of "con't" in place of "don't" to make this statement:
"I think you and Joe Sixpack have more in common than you think because you are both stupid."
Thanks, he-who-shall-remain-unnamed for helping to prove one of my theories about liberal arrogance. I acknowledge that I'm smarter than the average person, but recognize that that doesn't make me any more valuable than the less-blessed. The typical Liberal, it seems to me, does not operate from this assumption set. People like my friend really do believe that the average American is beneath them. Now, it's admirable that this individual also believes that it's his responsibility to help raise them up, even if it is based on the arrogant assumption that they need raising in the first place.

UPDATE: Beth pointed out another important point: yes, I am painting liberals with a fairly broad brush there, and it's very difficult to be accurate in such extreme generalization. I really do believe, however, that most Liberal compassion comes from two lines of reason: 1)The belief that most people don't live as well as they do, some sort of short-changing has occured; and 2)Guilt that they live as well as they do.

(hopefully the last) UPDATE: I suppose I'm being a bit unfair with such a broad generalization. As with any such classification, there are numerous exceptions, on both sides. I think it basically comes down to the fact that, people with opinions worth considering genuinely want everyone to live the most comfortable life possible. There are selfish people and apathetic people on both sides of the aisle, as well as people who try to help the less-privileged merely to ease their own guilt--these people are not worth dealing with, and I've unfairly subscribed them all to the liberal side of things in this post. I came from a moral high-ground that I don't really have a right to stand on, and missed the heart of the issue. Through some thought, I've decided that my two characterizations, while largely accurate, are not what separates Liberals from Conservatives--there are plenty of Conservatives who operate on the same reasoning (though I do think they're more common to the Liberal community). In truth, the division between Libs and Cons (particularly true Neo-Cons) is that the former believes that people acheive the most comfortable life most easily through governmental intervention, while the latter believes in using the government only to create equality of opportunity, then allow people to choose their own level of success.

If there's anything else I haven't addressed, feel free to use the comment link below. If there's more to be considered, I will do so in a new post.

No comments: