From various sources, we have learned the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
Let me explain.
On the day following the debate, many liberal columnists, video media pundits and assorted other liberal spokespersons decried ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for wasting the candidates' and viewers' time with an hour of needless questions concerning character-related issues. Even Frank Luntz, the former conservative campaign manager, now independent pollster working with CNBC, gave an unsolicited, on-air castigation of the moderators, as he provided focus group results which confirmed that undecided liberal/Democrats found the initial questions to be unwanted and unimportant.
Even my own personal ex poste, anecdotal research confirmed the larger media findings. One liberal acquaintance in particular, a native of the Keystone state, when I asked if he watched the debate, replied,
'I watched it on Jon Stewart's show. The first hour was a real waste of time with pointless questions. It took them until the second hour to get to the real issues- what the candidates will do about the economy, healthcare, etc.'
If you step back and consider this ironic little experiment, you see a really bright line dividing liberal/Democrats and conservative/Republicans. It is this.
Conservatives believe that a President's character is of supreme importance. We never know what challenge will become the one which any given President must face as his or her primary issue. And, in our system of governance, no matter what a candidate tells you s/he will do upon occupying the Oval Office, those plans are moot unless a majority of Congress agrees.
Recall Jimmy Carter's impotence in the face of a Congress controlled by members of his own party. Or Bill Clinton having to function as such a centrist that, to this day, I have liberal acquaintances who maintain that Slick Willie was a functioning Republican while in office, and the best Republican President the Democrats ever elected.
Even our current President couldn't get his landmark, much-needed Social Security reform past a Congress controlled by his own party.
So, when the liberals catcalled over the moderators' insistence on questioning Obama about his relationships with people like his minister, Jeremiah Wright, or violent former Weatherman Bill Ayers, they were, in reality, providing us with a clear view of what they feel is important in a President.
Liberals don't care about character, they primarily care about the new programs and spending with which a Presidential candidate claims s/he will 'fix' some problem. The issue may be healthcare, or trade, which admittedly require active work to provide better solutions than America may have today.
But many liberals eagerly await Obama's or Hillary's "solution" to our alleged current economic 'crisis.' Rather than acknowledge reality, which is that economies such as ours go through cycles which cannot be 'tamed,' both the candidates, and their ardent acolytes believe that some sort of executive action will magically solve any economic ills our very large, vibrant and complex economy may experience.
For liberals, it's all about more government intervention, more programs to 'fix' anything you might not like, and, then, which rich people will pay for the solutions by paying higher taxes.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to want a President whose character they trust, to some degree, because they know that, between Congress and fate, what a President actually spends his/her term doing may well be very different than the agenda s/he had coming into office.
Thus, we see that, while Gibson and Stephanopoulos probed the very genuine, legitimate and valid topics which they chose for that first hour, the bulk of the voters in the primary for which the debate was held had nearly zero interest in these matters. Liberals just don't care about character, because their view of the world focuses on large governmental programs and spending to fix whatever they don't like about their personal situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment