Posts Tagged ‘liberal’

Many conservatives say that those of us who are Liberal are idealists. Recently, after receiving this label for the nth time, I started thinking about what it actually means. The concept of labeling liberals as ideal became perplexing.  The different ideologies of either side, in my opinion, lend more to the inverse of what conservatives say-that in fact they are the most idealistic of the pair.

Take government involvement, which happens to be one of the more divisive viewpoints between liberals and conservatives.  Many individuals on the right claim they have more grounds in reality due to their basic mistrust of the government.  Just watch Fox News, or speak to a member of the right, and you will hear the claims that government cannot handle serious issues like healthcare, social security, and civil rights. These claims that government should not create welfare states, over tax, or provide too many social services are primarily based in the belief that government is inherently self-interested and incompetent.

So then how do conservatives propose the ailments in society be remedied?  Well it can be fixed by the private sector, don’t ya know! Let’s forget welfare and let private charities help the poor, private health insurance companies will always provide adequate coverage, of course the private sector will secure proper retirement plans.

The issue with the faith in the private sector at large is that conservatives think people will do the right thing if there is no government to step in and prevent them from doing so.  Frankly, I cannot think of a more idealistic outlook on life.  I want the government to provide the aforementioned services because I do not think the private sector is capable of doing so.  Not when so many companies are out for pure profit and willing to skirt the basic services they promise to provide to their customers.

As a liberal, my faith in government stems from my distrust of individuals in the private area.  If people receive tax cuts, they are not anymore likely to walk down to their local charity and donate that money.  Perhaps liberals are more grounded in reality for wanting the government to provide basic services because they are more aware of how willing individuals are to ignore the needs of their fellow citizen.  Is it not more realistic to understand the greed and avarice that plagues so much of our society, and to try and work around it by using the government to our advantage?

The government is bound by the Constitution and the will of the people during the elections to remain as open and honest as possible.  Now we all know that the government is not impervious, and quite often people within the government do greedy things as well.  However, the people have a say, and we can do something about it.  If a company denies a healthcare claim, or has loopholes to rid its customers of the service they pay for, there is no one to complain to.  The private sector is far more of a risk, and anyone who watches the news and has a basic understanding of current events could tell you this.

Let’s put some faith in an institution whose sole purpose is to serve us.  I’m tired of being mislabeled an idealist by those who fail to come to terms with the blatantly greedy and capricious system.  Lets get real people.

The Obama Administration: a time of change, a new era of bi-partisanship, getting together and feeling all right…

Not quite.

We have a new president who campaigned on changing the way Washington works. He follows a president who never once considered the opinion of the opposition and yet, almost three months into his presidency, what has happened? Bitter political fights over the stimulus deal, budget, and CEO bonuses. Then there have been people like Michelle Bachmann— who only a few months ago called for an investigation of Congress to see who loves America and who hates it—calling herself a “foreign correspondent, reporting from enemy lines,” talking about Obama’s intent to start “re-education camps for young people,” and calling for an “orderly revolution” against the “tyranny” Obama is inflicting upon the American people.

Granted, Bachmann is considered pretty far out there, even by Republicans. Yet we still hear arguments like these coming from other right-wing ideologues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. They call Obama a Communist or a Socialist (Beck recently realized he was wrong about calling Obama a Socialist—he’s actually a Fascist). Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, while Hannity warns listeners about the daily danger we all face if universal health care and taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy are raised…Oy.

Now here I am, a liberal, ranting against conservatives—what’s new? I get pretty riled up just thinking about what these people say, and I think, who in God’s name watches this stuff without their minds turning to mush? Then I remember: there are plenty of people on the left who are just as ignorant as Beck and Hannity. Left or right, anybody is capable of holding far-fetched ideas. That is how our country works: we may swing from one side to the other, but moving too far in either direction can have bad consequences. The middle is where America is healthiest.

Why? Because no matter how much we try, there has been, is, and forever will be, disagreement between people. The only way we advance as human beings is by having others point out the error of our ways. Are we completely incapable, though, of sitting down with people whose views we can’t understand and having a substantive discussion without hurling insults?

I honestly don’t think we are. I’m as guilty as anyone else of jumping to conclusions and yelling at the TV or radio whenever there is a conservative on. But as long as we stay in our little bubbles, only listening to people with whom we agree, we can never learn the opinions of those on the other side of the political spectrum. There needs to be more personal, face-to-face interaction between people who have strong disagreements, because when we see that our “enemies” are just as human as we are, we may understand their viewpoints better rather than vilifying them.

Conservatives have O’Reilly, Hannity, and Kristol; Liberals have Olbermann, Maddow, and Krugman. Of course, these are people in the media, and they need to inject more drama than may be necessary into our public debates. As college students, we should go beyond our comfort zones and interact more with those with whom we may disagree strongly. It may be more fun to get riled up and insult them, but it would be more productive to sit down, talk, and see what we can agree on. Let’s all enjoy our primetime talking heads, just don’t let them talk for you.

© Copyright Rutgers Democrats - Libertas Magazine. All Rights Reserved.