Wabatuckian wrote:Hello,
I've heard many times that
When Conservatives don't agree with something, they don't own it or do it. When Liberals don't like something, the don't own it or don't do it, don't want anyone else to either, and pass laws to keep others from owning or doing the thing.
This is quoted by Conservatives.
An example cited would be Rosie O'Donnell. (I think it's her, anyway, could be Oprah. I don't follow those people.)
They talk about how this person is so against gun ownership by the common person, yet this person's bodyguard(s) was able to obtain a carry license in a state not normally known for issuing them due to this person's fame and/or political stance.
The Right cites it as one of several cases of elitism by the left.
How would you respond?
(I'm just trying to learn here, folks, so forgive me if my questions seem a bit elementary! I've never understood human nature well anyway, and this political galvanization just compounds my non-understanding.)
Regards,
Josh
Right here you have a group of liberals who think that the position you have described (whether or not it is actually O'Donnell's) is bullshit. In particular, most here think it is inconsistent with liberalism. I'd venture to say that the position you describe is a traditional conservative approach to the world. Think about abortion or gay marriage and then think about the "don't own it or don't do it" vs "don't want anyone else to do it" attitude. On any subject other than guns, you will find that the liberal/conservative divide is the opposite of what you describe.
That the liberal position (actually liberal, meaning more freedom) on guns has been adopted by the political right in US politics is a very strange twist of fate and has more to do with rallying cultural biases between rural and urban citizens than it has to do with what conservatism means in any other arena.
Here we are, a group of liberals who can see this disparity and aim to change it. Where is the group of gun loving "conservatives" who are denouncing the rampant gay-bashing, slut-shaming, and race-baiting of their political party?
"Elitism" is used in the same way to stir up biases between people. While the detachment of the wealthy from the rest of our experience (Romney) is a problem in both parties, it is generally liberals who do a better job of crossing the class divide in terms of people's actual needs. Conservatives seem to only cross the class divide in terms of people's fears. I, for one, don't think that being governed by the wealthy is a great thing, but would prefer a thoughtful and educated wealthy person to an uneducated (and proud of it) person of any class. Too often, in US politics, claims of elitism are used to dismiss the positions of people who are actually educated enough to understand how the world actually works.
Wabatuckian, I would describe both ideas presented in your example as not tenets of conservatism, but very effective techniques employed by the US Republican party to get a large number of people to vote against their own economic interests. See Lee Atwater and the southern strategy for more on this.
