Posted by
Scottie on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:19:25 AM
Perhaps the simplest litmus test for determining whether someone is a liberal or a conservative is to ask, “Do you think Robin Hood is a hero or a criminal?”
Only an answer based on feeling would elicit the hero response. It just feels good to punish those greedy rich people in order to help the poor, right? If your basis for reasoning is feeling, you’re done. Problem solved; next issue. If someone confronts you on this position, all you have to do is accuse them of hating the poor. Life is just so simple when you don’t have to invoke the power of reason before you take a position.
However, if your first impression is that he’s a criminal, you can probably come up with a bunch of questions on the matter with very little effort at all. Isn’t it wrong to steal? Who gets to identify the evil rich and the worthy poor? Does giving free money to the poor really help them? What would happen if everyone did this? Where does it stop?
I think this is what separates the thinking of the Left from that of the Right. Pick any issue that the Left FEELS strongly about, and you will find the same pattern. Here are a couple of examples:
Immigration:
From the Left you get: “Yes, we should let anyone in that wants to come.” And if you challenge this position, you get, “You’re just xenophobic”.
From the Right you get a lot of questions that often go unanswered. How will this influence the culture? Who’s going to pay for all the social services we will have to provide? Don’t we have rules about this? Isn’t this a violation of our national sovereignty?
Affirmative Action:
From the Left you get: “Of course, we have to make up for past discrimination” followed by the “racist” epithet is you challenge this.
From the Right you again have some questions: How does sanctioning discrimination fix discrimination? Wouldn’t it make more sense to help people based on lack of opportunity, rather than race? Won’t this devalue the efforts of the people we help?”
This is particularly unnerving as many of these positions have been put into practice somewhere at one time or another and the results are there to be evaluated. Programs leave a paper trail, empirical evidence that is often ignored or cherry picked. The fundamentals of economics haven’t changed; but one has to understand them before rational conclusions can be reached. One isn’t required to rely on emotion or instinct to evaluate proposals, but rather is required to do some “leg work”.
Thankfully, the internet makes a lot of this research available to the masses. What is missing, particularly from those on the Left, is the intellectual curiosity to search for the answers, to see things clearly before coming to a conclusion. All too often we see feelings substituting for facts and intellect. If nothing else distinguishes the Left from the Right, the desire to understand the true nature of the situation tends to come from the Right whereas the resort to emotional evaluations tends to animate the Left.
I say “tend to come from” because many arguments the Right puts forth are arguments by biblical citation. Theology is a wonderful basis for organizing a life, instilling a philosophy, and setting the fundamental tenets of social interaction. But theological arguments are less convincing than those that put them forth would believe. At their core they are emotional arguments based upon beliefs, not facts. The theology to which one subscribes should indicate where one should look for the examples and answers rather than be put forth as an answer in and of itself. Further, it doesn’t do much to sway those that do not share that theology. Theology informs how to think through a problem, but lacks the necessary specificity to be a conclusive argument on its own.
I celebrate the diverse opinions and debate available to us here at Townhall. I have developed a keen eye for arguments that fall flat from both sides. I have seen people with intellectual gravitas undone in the heat of the exchange. In virtually every case, it was because the response was emotional rather than reasoned. If you “know” it, you should be able to prove it or give an example or two. If you can’t, you have some work to do before you put your idea forth. If you can’t do the work, the Left will provide you with a nice kit of “Verbal Stink Bombs”, and you will have much more time to lord your moral superiority over the rest of us without the bother of thinking, researching, or making sure you’re right. The choice is yours; will emotion or reason inform your positions?