~ Open Letter from Law Student: I Want a Divorce

This letter from a law student was read by Neal Boortz on his radio show and posted on his website:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters,

We’ve stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what’s right. So let’s just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.

So here’s a model separation agreement.

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That’s going to be the difficult part, but I’m sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste. We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we’ll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.

We’ll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and we’ll let you have NBC and Hollywood.

You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us. You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won’t have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine. You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.

We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. We will keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place “Imagine”, “I’d like to teach the world to sing”, “Kumbaya” or “We are the world.” We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the friendly spirit of parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law student and an American

P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda.

——————————————————————

– RBS

 

~ Bipartisanship is a Liberal Concept, Not a Conservative One (Repost from March 2009)

When Republicans slam the door on Democrat proposals, it’s not just for spite.  It’s not just to be difficult.  It’s not just playing partisan politics.  It’s mostly an instinctive response to the very concept of change.  Liberals cannot relate to this, so they label the Republican Party the “Party of No.”

Conversely, Democrats could be called the “Party of Yes” — as in “Yes, government is your all-purpose solution.  Yes, we want more programs and entitlements.  Yes to higher taxes.  Yes to more gun laws, more rules, more regulations, more restrictions.  Yes to more government control.  More and more of everything means constant change;  conservatives cannot relate to this.

The result is gridlock.  Impasse.  Never-ending head-butting.

The solution, they tell us, is BIPARTISANSHIP.  Liberals demand compromise — conservatives resist it.  Bipartisanship is, in my opinion, virtually impossible, as long as the two sides do not understand where the other is coming from.  Even then, it may still be impossible.

Without dealing with the varying degrees of the two ideologies, for the sake of this discussion, and without mentioning specific political issues, there are two essential differences between conservatism and liberalism that keep them light-years apart.  One has to do with principles, and the other, with the matter of emotions.  Evaluating political and cultural behavior with an understanding of these inherent differences may shed a little light on the political stand-offs and difficulties that are sometimes perplexing, often frustrating, and just plain infuriating the rest of the time.

The conservative lives his life by certain principles, within defined parameters, and based on those principles strives to make life decisions.  The liberal spends his energies liberating himself from restrictive boundaries, and views life as if there are few, if any, absolutes.  Conservatives are all about sticking to the tried-and-true;  liberals are all about change.  Conservatives, by nature, stand fast;  liberals, by nature, morph with every situation.

The conservative willfully confines himself within his personal boundaries of conviction, believing those beliefs to be correct based on experience, tradition, observation of human nature and human behavior, religious beliefs, etc.  The liberal is ever flexible, ever modifying his viewpoints, ever reaching compromises when dealing with situations.  The liberal often denies the realities of experience, tradition, human nature and religious beliefs, even if they are obvious and proven, in favor of progressive thinking, imaginative experimentation, and change just for the sake of change.  Conservatism embraces and nurtures the establishment, while liberalism defies and resists the establishment.

Bipartisanship is essentially political compromise.  Sounds easy, on the surface.  But compromise flies in the face of conservatism.  Compromise is all liberalism knows.

This is why bipartisanship is a liberal concept, and why liberals cannot for the life of them comprehend why conservatives refuse to back down.  It’s also why conservatives cannot understand why liberals refuse to stick with what works, and why they propose ever greater, and sometimes radical, changes.

The other notable difference between the two is that of emotional temperament – the tendency to display or refrain from displaying emotions outwardly.  As a rule, conservatives lean heavily on the side of being reserved, and thus present the appearance of being unfeeling, cold, hard, unsympathetic, harsh, calculating, indifferent, etc.  The very word conservative connotes an understated emotional personality, in the same way that conservative clothing, hairstyle, home decor, lifestyle, and so on indicate that one does not care to “make a statement” or wear one’s emotions on one’s sleeve.  Liberals, almost invariably, are extroverted by nature, or at least more overt when it comes to emotional display.

Politically,  here’s how it shapes up:   Liberals tend to be more politically active, and are more apt to be activists.  They use emotional arguments when discussing issues and ideas.  They are more likely to take to the streets in protest, participate in marches, engage strangers in conversation, circulate petitions, knock on doors, make phone calls, assemble in rallies, raise their voices loudly, speak in hyperbole (over the top rhetoric), use vitriolic language, engage in personal attacks rather than attack on issues or policy, flaunt their viewpoint at the office, the gym, on their car bumper, etc. — in short, liberals tend to downplay logic and reason and let loose their political emotions.

Conservatives tend to be less active, and are unlikely to participate in activist endeavors.  They use intellectual arguments when discussing issues and ideas.  They rarely (if ever) march in protest of anything, are reluctant to actively participate in petition drives.  They might talk to a few friends about their political views — then again, they might not.  They avoid the hubbub of election campaigns, evaluate issues for their substance rather than style — in short, conservatives tend to restrain their emotions and focus on logical arguments and reason.

Are you getting the picture?  Let me summarize it this way:

The extroverted, activist nature of liberals magnifies their insatiable desire for change, so liberalism lends itself readily to the idea of bipartisanship.  The brick wall of conservatism represents what they hate the most — adherence to rock-solid, established principles.

The reserved, non-activist nature of conservatives amplifies their instinctive resistance to change, so conservatism is the natural antithesis of bipartisanship.  The ever-progressive demands of liberalism represent what they hate the most — modification and compromise of established principles.

Hence, bipartisanship is a no-brainer for liberals.  Conservatives hear the word and run from the room.*

(* – note that this is about conservatives.  It does not apply to RINOS or members of the Republican Party who number themselves with the elite ruling class of Congress.)

– RBS

———————————————

Related Posts:

Critical Political Thinking:  ~ In Which I Suggest That the Brains of Progressives Are Wired Backwards (Or, Why You Just Cannot For the Life of You Understand Liberals)

Michelle Malkin: A chance for responsible bipartisanship: Raise the retirement age