Have you ever noticed that when a person tells you their position on one controversial issue, you immediately know their position on just about every other newsworthy topic as well? Eventually they tell you anyway, but the truth is, they don’t need to tell you. All you need to hear is one opinion and you automatically know all opinions.
Let me share some examples: A person who believes in gay marriage also takes the side of the Palestinians over Israel. Now what on earth would one issue have to do with another? They would seem to have nothing to do with each other. As a matter of fact, they are completely unrelated, save for the fact that our Politically Correct friends have a list of items we darn well better believe in.
One who takes the side of the Palestinians is also (by an amazing coincidence) Pro-Choice. And one who accepts abortion also accepts partial birth abortion, which isn’t even the same thing. It is down right infanticide. Yet, those who think it’s OK to kill babies have a tremendous problem with parents who spank their children. A spanking is an abuse. But killing the kid? That’s not abuse at all! They are also against capital punishment. Taking the life of an evil murderer concerns them more than the innocent life of the unborn. Oh, and these people also believe George Bush stole the 2000 election. I don’t merely mean that they preferred Al Gore. Everybody prefers someone during an election. I mean, they MUST believe Bush STOLE the election!
If indeed, you feel this way about all of these issues, you undoubtedly want to defend yourself by reminding me that the viewpoints of Conservatives are every bit as predictable. To some extent you are correct. But let’s be honest. Diversity of opinion is embraced far more on the Right. The greatest evidence of this is in the Right’s willingness to have open debates and the Left’s preference to censor their opponents or shout them down. For all the talk from the Left about diversity, I have found (as a general rule) they do not accept diversity of opinion. Diversity of genders? Diversity of sexual preference? Diversity of cultures? Sure. But not diversity of opinion.
Conservatives also tend to disagree with each other. That’s why the Republican Party is so fragmented right now. For myself, I disagree with fellow Conservatives on many items. In some cases I support capital punishment for murder but in other situations, (such as genuine remorse from the guilty) I would come down on the side of mercy. And as a Christian, I accept traditional marriage for the most part, but I am not of the opinion that wives must submit to their husbands or that women cannot be pastors. I have been literally scolded by fellow Evangelicals for taking such positions. And with my fellow Jews (I was born Jewish), I take their side when it comes to the current situation in the Middle East but we are at great odds with each other when the subject of Jesus comes up. As for abortion? I am Pro-Life and I would vote to make abortion illegal but I would not want to see women who had abortions put in jail. Now, if you want to talk about putting some of the doctors in jail… there’s an idea.
I’m sure there are people who lean more to the left who could also offer some varieties in their viewpoints. But sometimes generalities cannot be avoided. As a general rule, I know what a person believes about everything when they tell me their beliefs about just one thing. I should not know this. I am not a prophet. The predictability of our generation and its lack of critical thought is something to be lamented.
Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and columnist. Details of his show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net. Comments to posts are discussed by Bob over the air where anyone is free to call in and respond/debate. Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170
Comments 5
Ah, but us pesky Libertarians violate that one-opinion rule of thumb! For example, I believe in gay marriage and also support Israel.
Author
Bradley, I did say in the article that there are exceptions and that I was speaking in generalities. Free thinkers like yourself, unfortunately, are the exceptions in our current society.
Funny, when I read the article I had the same reaction as Bradley, except I’m a Republican. I’m a pro-choice, pro-Israel, gun-owning supporter of forms of gun control, pro death penalty, and so many more non-conforming traits.
Good thing we live in America where Bob, Bradley, myself and everyone else has the freedom to think and write as we want, join whichever party we want or dont want, and be allowed to think for ourselves. Count yourself blessed…nothing is greater than democracy.
I could go on and on but its 3am and I haven’t gone to sleep yet. That’s because I live in America and I have freedom to stay up as late as want.
Oh yeah, I forgot, I’m a married heterosexual and support gay marriage.
For all the talk from the Left about diversity, I have found (as a general rule) they do not accept diversity of opinion. Diversity of genders? Diversity of sexual preference? Diversity of cultures? Sure. But not diversity of opinion.
As Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2002,
” To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. . .
Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.
Liberals suffer incurably from naivete, the stupidity of the good heart. Who else but that oracle of American liberalism, The New York Times, could run the puzzled headline: “Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling.” But? How about this wild theory: If you lock up the criminals, crime declines.
Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension. Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean. How can conservatives believe in the things they do — self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, military power — without being soulless? How to understand conservative desire to abolish welfare, if it is not to punish the poor? The argument that it would increase self-reliance and thus ultimately reduce poverty is dismissed as meanness rationalized — or as Rep. Major Owens, D-N.Y., put it more colorfully in a recent House debate on welfare reform, “a cold-blooded grab for another pound of flesh from the demonized welfare mothers.”
Liberals, who have no head (see above), believe conservatives have no heart. When Republicans unexpectedly took control of the House in 1994, conventional wisdom immediately attributed this disturbance in the balance of the cosmos to the vote of the “angry white male” (an invention unsupported by the three polls that actually asked about anger and found three-quarters of white males (not angry.)
The “angry white male” was thus a legend, but a necessary one. It was unimaginable that conservatives could be given power by any sentiment less base than anger, the selfish fury of the former top dog — the white male — forced to accommodate the aspirations of women, minorities and sundry upstarts.”
To which Libertarians would add that the left’s putative generosity is fixated on spending other people’s money. They consider that a virtue. They’re not quite so generous with their own money.