On pardonable background
When arguing with liberals--especially regarding the economy--I usually try my very best to omit my ethnic background from discussion for as long as possible. It's not that I'm embarrassed of it, or that I actively try to hide it in any other arena of my life. It's simply because the minute a liberal hears that I'm an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, they immidiately relax, sometimes even smile and nod slowly--what one clever columnist once dubbed "the women's studies nod" of understanding and relating. They instantly stop regarding me as a dangerous right-winger, a force that "silences" them, a traitor to feminism and freedom, or whatever else. They instantly begin to look at me as someone to almost feel sorry for--a reactionary, if you will, taking an "understandable" conservative position in response to having seen the worst possible incarnation of socialism. Once they learn of my background, I am no longer thier ideological enemy, only a misguided person who "just doesn't understand" that conservatism is not "the appropriate response".
I take issue with this reaction for a myriad of different reasons, one of which being the fact that I cannot--and will not--take credit for having witnessed the evils of Soviet socialism. I was born in Leningrad in 1983 and attended a Soviet school for one year, learning in the classroom of a very old-school Communist but absorbing very little of her rhetoric. Most of what I know about the tragic and absurd fate of the USSR comes from the stories of my parents and grandparents (who wisely kept me home when Comrade Schoolteacher took the class on a field trip to see the embalmbed body of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin), as well as my own reading, learning, and travel. While I was born in a Socialist country and understand its ideological and practical failures quite well, I cannot accept the idea that my aversion comes from any solid personal experience.
Another reason for my objection to the idea of a "pardonable background" is the fact that I have not always been such a "reactionary" against socialism. DESPITE my background and everything I ever heard from the family, I was, as I mention in my profile, quite close to becoming a full-blown socialist in high school. I bought, for a long time and without the slightest reservation, the liberal lie that while Socialism has either failed or, at the very least, contributed to the slow death of self-sufficiency and independence in every country where it has been put to the test, it could and would work if it were only "correctly understood" and "correctly applied". It was not until I took the time to read political texts and, more importantly, to understand economics (quite a feat for someone who could barely figure out algebra) that I came to understand the inherent, unfixable flaws of socialism and the undeniable fact that capitalism--as close to laissez-faire as possible--is the only system that really works, harnessing man's innate selfishness to create a viable society rather than engaging in doomed experiments of "perfectibility". (It is no coincidence that very few liberals understand anything at all about economics. Just ask your university econ professor to decipher the Wall Street Journal and watch as he rails against the capitalist greed that this publication represents. The fact is, he cannot decipher the Journal because he is a professor of theory, and fantastical theory at that. Theory is a safe place for utopian ideals, whereas the necessity of looking at numbers and equations makes a realist even out of a pseudo-artistic Lit geek like me.)
A third reason (after which I will try to suppress my natural inclination to rant) is the fact that this "understanding" denies the conservative viewpoint as valid in and of itself. As I mentioned previously, liberals tend to think that conservatives are ignorant of the truth, which only the liberals know. In order to persist in believing this, they have to also create reasons for why the conservatives are ignorant or dismissive of the truth. If you come from a red state, or a conservative/religious family, or, yes, a "pardonable background" such as a childhood in a Communist country, your conservatism suddenly "makes sense", at least in context, and it is now the liberal's job to help you "overcome" it. (And how perfectly Leftist this assumption is! The idea that a person is a complete product of society and his surroundings is what leads the Left to pardon terrorists, serial killers, etc. It is also the sentiment that guides them in thier quest to help minorities and the poor "overcome" thier background by demanding government programs that actually keep people in thier dire conditions to further serve the liberal cause in lieu of truly constructive solutions for the most underprivileged persons in society.)
These assumptions are part of the reason why I argued earlier for cultivating an intellectual approach to political discussion among conservatives. It is important to make it clear that being conservative is not necessarily reactionary or hard-wired as a result of outside influence. I am dedicated to asserting that my views are a result of constant thinking, studying, and grappling with difficult issues. Invoking my past is a last-ditch resort, far too easy to bring up in intelligent debate. And besides--blaming your childhood is patently un-conservative!
I take issue with this reaction for a myriad of different reasons, one of which being the fact that I cannot--and will not--take credit for having witnessed the evils of Soviet socialism. I was born in Leningrad in 1983 and attended a Soviet school for one year, learning in the classroom of a very old-school Communist but absorbing very little of her rhetoric. Most of what I know about the tragic and absurd fate of the USSR comes from the stories of my parents and grandparents (who wisely kept me home when Comrade Schoolteacher took the class on a field trip to see the embalmbed body of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin), as well as my own reading, learning, and travel. While I was born in a Socialist country and understand its ideological and practical failures quite well, I cannot accept the idea that my aversion comes from any solid personal experience.
Another reason for my objection to the idea of a "pardonable background" is the fact that I have not always been such a "reactionary" against socialism. DESPITE my background and everything I ever heard from the family, I was, as I mention in my profile, quite close to becoming a full-blown socialist in high school. I bought, for a long time and without the slightest reservation, the liberal lie that while Socialism has either failed or, at the very least, contributed to the slow death of self-sufficiency and independence in every country where it has been put to the test, it could and would work if it were only "correctly understood" and "correctly applied". It was not until I took the time to read political texts and, more importantly, to understand economics (quite a feat for someone who could barely figure out algebra) that I came to understand the inherent, unfixable flaws of socialism and the undeniable fact that capitalism--as close to laissez-faire as possible--is the only system that really works, harnessing man's innate selfishness to create a viable society rather than engaging in doomed experiments of "perfectibility". (It is no coincidence that very few liberals understand anything at all about economics. Just ask your university econ professor to decipher the Wall Street Journal and watch as he rails against the capitalist greed that this publication represents. The fact is, he cannot decipher the Journal because he is a professor of theory, and fantastical theory at that. Theory is a safe place for utopian ideals, whereas the necessity of looking at numbers and equations makes a realist even out of a pseudo-artistic Lit geek like me.)
A third reason (after which I will try to suppress my natural inclination to rant) is the fact that this "understanding" denies the conservative viewpoint as valid in and of itself. As I mentioned previously, liberals tend to think that conservatives are ignorant of the truth, which only the liberals know. In order to persist in believing this, they have to also create reasons for why the conservatives are ignorant or dismissive of the truth. If you come from a red state, or a conservative/religious family, or, yes, a "pardonable background" such as a childhood in a Communist country, your conservatism suddenly "makes sense", at least in context, and it is now the liberal's job to help you "overcome" it. (And how perfectly Leftist this assumption is! The idea that a person is a complete product of society and his surroundings is what leads the Left to pardon terrorists, serial killers, etc. It is also the sentiment that guides them in thier quest to help minorities and the poor "overcome" thier background by demanding government programs that actually keep people in thier dire conditions to further serve the liberal cause in lieu of truly constructive solutions for the most underprivileged persons in society.)
These assumptions are part of the reason why I argued earlier for cultivating an intellectual approach to political discussion among conservatives. It is important to make it clear that being conservative is not necessarily reactionary or hard-wired as a result of outside influence. I am dedicated to asserting that my views are a result of constant thinking, studying, and grappling with difficult issues. Invoking my past is a last-ditch resort, far too easy to bring up in intelligent debate. And besides--blaming your childhood is patently un-conservative!
posted by Mishelle Levin @ 1:04 PM
8 Comments:
At 7:48 PM,
Anonymous said…
none of educated pukes knows how to spell the word 'their' but not 'thier'
At 3:37 PM,
Anonymous said…
Some Q&A on abortion for you to consider:
Why shouldn’t a woman have the right to choose an abortion if she
needs one?
The "right to choose" sounds desirable, but whether it is desirable or not depends on what the choice is about. Very few people these days would say a man should have the right to choose to beat up his wife. Most feminists would deny employers the right to choose their employees on the basis of gender. Most people would agree with a law denying women the right to choose to abuse their children. Our right to choose in so many areas is limited by the more fundamental rights of other people, and most people accept this.
But how does this apply to the case of abortion, where the woman is
the only one affected, and no-one else’s fundamental rights are in
question?
The fact is that the woman is not the only one affected. Abortion kills an unborn child. A society that allows abortion is denying the most fundamental human right - the right to life - to one group of human beings, the unborn.
How can a fetus be a human being when it has no separate existence?
Surely it is just part of the woman?
Advances in medical science have proved beyond doubt that the human embryo or fetus is biologically separate from its mother. From the moment of conception, after the sperm penetrates the egg, a new individual comes into existence, genetically different from its mother and father. This individual must be human - human beings can only conceive human beings just as dogs can only conceive dogs. Far from being part of the mother, the baby is in fact foreign tissue to the mother. The baby’s immediate environment - the amniotic sac - and part of the support system - the placenta and cord - are not part of the woman’s body but are formed by the child and have the child’s chromosomes. Ultrasound and other new technology make it possible to see the child in the womb from an early age. Since the development of in vitro fertilization, the embryo can certainly exist outside a female body, and medical science is steadily pushing back the age at which a baby will survive if born prematurely. All these scientific advances confirm that the unborn is a separate human being.
Isn’t the fetus only a potential human being?
The terms "embryo", "fetus", "baby", "child", "adult", are just different words for a human being at different stages of life. A child is a potential adult, and will grow into an adult if given the necessities of life; the fact that a child does not yet have all the capacities of an adult doesn’t mean the child is not a human being. The fetus, like the child, is a human being with potential. Given the necessities of life, a human fetus will grow into a human child and then a human adult. If a human fetus is not a human being, what is it? It is obvious nonsense to say that it belongs to any other species.
But isn’t the fetus completely dependent on his or her mother?
Until born, the child depends on his or her mother for food, oxygen and warmth. Even after birth the baby is dependent on her or someone else for these things, for a very long time. Very few people are ever entirely independent of others for their basic needs. At certain times of our lives, e.g. in serious illness, we may be extremely dependent on others. This does not give anyone the right to kill us, even if they find our dependency a burden.
Even if the fetus is human, it is not a person with rights.
Most of us use the terms "person" and "human being" interchangeably, except when we want to justify killing some type of human being. For example, the genocides of the European Jews and the Tasmanian Aborigines were carried out by people who did not think they were killing people with human rights. If it is just up to those in power to decide which human beings have fundamental rights, we are all in danger. In fact, however, society has traditionally regarded the unborn as having rights. For example, the unborn may own property or be an heir, and convicted pregnant women on death row were not executed until after the child was born.
Why should the rights of an undeveloped fetus take precedence over
the rights of a grown woman?
We are talking about the most fundamental human right - the right to life - in respect of the unborn child. In the vast majority of cases, continuing her pregnancy does not pose a threat to the actual life of the mother. (This is not to deny that her pregnancy may greatly affect her life, especially if she chooses to keep her child.) Because it is so basic, the right to life of the unborn child should take precedence over other rights of the mother, just as the right to life of a born child does. A woman is not allowed to kill her born children or her husband or her boss, even if they make her life miserable and prevent her doing things she would like to do. The mother’s right to a certain lifestyle should not take precedence over the unborn’s right to life.
But bringing up a child means a huge commitment of time and energy
for a major part of the woman’s life.
This need not be true, as the baby can be given up for adoption. These days there are long waiting lists of couples eager to adopt a child whose mother feels this option would be the best for her and her baby. Mothers who choose to keep their babies are making a major commitment of their lives. However, most parents find this is repaid in the love of their children. Fortunately, society has a more accepting and helpful attitude to single mothers now than in the past, although there is still a long way to go in getting society to cater for the reality of women's role as child bearer and child rearer.
The woman may lose her job or have to give up her education because
of her pregnancy.
This is less likely to be true now than it was in the past. For example, there are laws in New South Wales that prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. It is usually possible to continue education through pregnancy, at least. However, a woman may have to postpone some of her plans for a time.
How can women ever be equal to men if they are not allowed to
control their fertility?
Women should be allowed to control their fertility to the extent that is consistent with the basic rights of others. For example they have the right to consent to or refuse intercourse. It is true that men have been able to avoid the consequences of their sexual behavior to a much greater extent than women have. Now that it is possible to identify genetically the father of a child, this may change. Even if it does not, rights to fertility control should stop short of killing the unborn child. Abortion on demand, of course, makes it even easier for men to evade their responsibilities. Many women have abortions because of pressure from their male partner. This is not free choice.
Feminists regard the right to abortion as fundamental to women’s
liberation from male oppression.
Not all feminists do, and many others see abortion as a necessary evil rather than as morally neutral. It should be remembered that half of the babies aborted are likely to be female. They are not being given any "right to choose". Where sex identification of the unborn is available, there are recorded cases of females being aborted simply because they are the "wrong" sex. This is a form of discrimination against women which "pro-choice" activists would find hard to argue against. Abortion is really another form of oppression of the weak by those more powerful. It is a denial of true liberation for women to combat oppression by oppressing their own offspring.
If legal abortion is not available, women will simply resort to
illegal "backyard" abortions or self-abortions, which carry great
risks to women’s lives and health.
Studies have shown that most women with an unwanted pregnancy will not seek out an illegal abortion or self-abort if a legal abortion is not available. In any case, illegal abortions in recent times have generally been done by doctors, using the same methods as in legal abortions. The number of deaths from illegal abortion has been grossly exaggerated by abortion advocates to gain sympathy for their cause.
Why should the law impose compulsory motherhood on any woman?
A woman who is pregnant is already a mother. Her child already exists. Once the child is born, she may be free of it by giving it up for adoption. (However, many unwanted pregnancies end up producing wanted babies.) A law outlawing abortion seeks only to prevent a woman killing her child while the child is developing in her womb.
Why should the law interfere with what goes on in the privacy of a
woman's womb?
Because what goes on in the privacy of the womb is the growth and development of a human being, who is entitled to the protection of the law? The same reason allows the law to interfere with what goes on in the privacy of someone’s home if violence is involved.
A woman is the only one who should decide whether she should bear a
child or not. In particular, the woman’s partner should have no
right to prevent her having an abortion.
If this were true, it would mean that she had no right to call on him for support if she decided to have the child. If a woman can choose to reject motherhood of a child conceived "by mistake", the father of the child should equally have the right to reject his fatherhood and its responsibilities if he so chooses. This hardly seems conducive to true women's liberation, let alone justice for the child.
Used with permission from:
Foundation for Human Development
Suite 4A, 6th Floor
32 York Street, Sydney, New South Wales.
GPO Box 2642, Sydney, NSW, 2001.
Australia
Telephone: +61 2 9262 4488
At 5:12 PM,
Tom Naka said…
Your blog is excellent - keep it up! Don't miss visiting this site about iowa department of public health
At 6:46 AM,
Anonymous said…
Great Blog! Ilike it.But here you can find woman looking for sexTake a look if you have a minute. Thanks and have a good one!
At 9:26 PM,
Anonymous said…
Great Blog! Ilike it.But here you can find woman looking for sexTake a look if you have a minute. Thanks and have a good one!
At 11:34 AM,
Access said…
Hi,
Thanks for the information you provide on your site. I would like to learn more about this concept, I find it truly #keyword#. Could you show the full details as soon as you can, please?
Thanks,
pleasing
At 2:36 PM,
joel said…
John Tipton dropped out of school early, and worked boring jobs for 20 years, then he discovered distance learning and finally got the education that he missed, after lots of different courses at lots of different schools, Peter shares his experience in this series of useful articles.
Link to this site: e learning article
http://learningadvice.info
At 12:58 AM,
Hector said…
If your econ professors can't decipher the Wall Street Journal it doesn't mean they're too academic. It means you go to a college of suspect quality and should doubt the "economics" you claim to have learned.
Further, your notion that free market fundamentalism is beyond question is patently false. Keynes advocated something different than laissez faire and understood the market well enough to become fantastically rich. As does Warren Buffet for that matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home