actions or results?
occurred to me this morning that conservatives like to see their leaders take action in line with their stated values, regardless of the consequences of those actions. liberals, on the other hand, seem to be more concerned with the actual outcomes (which makes way more sense to me).
hence, Bush's swagger and action informed "by his gut" is, in the eyes of a conservative, the epitome of a great leader; while those same behaviors are seen as reckless and imperial by liberals due their consequences.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to the thoughts of a materialist-critical- applied-behaviorological sociologist.
3 comments:
occurred to me this morning that conservatives like to see their leaders take action in line with their stated values, regardless of the consequences of those actions
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
— Bertrand Russell, Mortals and Others: Bertrand Russell's American Essays, Routledge, 1998, p. 28.
By Russell's criteria, I guess I'm a God-like genius!
Put another way, conservatives do not believe that the ends justify the means while liberals can justify any means to attain their desired ends.
This certainly seems to be the case with the Prop 8 mess in California. If you don't agree with the vote of the people that banned gay marriage, undermine democracy in any conceivable way. And while you’re at it threaten and belittle those who believe in a different moral code than your own. Once you've accomplished your stated ends the way is then open for you to destroy religious freedom in our nation--the unstated objective.
hmm... is there a middle ground perhaps where principled people take principled actions consistent with their stated ends and means (of course this assumes winning is not the ultimate objective) or is the world as black and white as you make it out to be?
Post a Comment