Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:6613 alt.flame:1360 Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!dewey.soe.berkeley.edu!robinson From: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame Subject: Re: The Difference It Makes . . . Summary: An anti-conservative diatribe Message-ID: <22620@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 17 Jan 88 08:56:07 GMT References: <2226@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <18538@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <8801160000.AA20929@jiff> <2296@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson) Organization: School of Education, UC-Berkeley Lines: 130 In article <2296@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >(Note: although I have added alt.flame to the distribution I don't get >it so I won't respond to postings there.) For this reason, I've left talk.politics.misc in the distribution, but I don't read it, so I won't respond to postings there. >In article <8801160000.AA20929@jiff> jiff!lazarus (Andrew J Lazarus) writes: >>Not that I think the ten cents is a big problem. You know, one point, >>lazarus@athena, is that people who work full-time on a minimum wage >>job and find they can't eat on it are so unlikely to embrace >>Republicanism. Think about it. > >I already made this point. In my opinion that is why Democratic >politicians perpetuate this situation. Politicians aren't dumb, you know. So, you think that someone who was working hard at a full-time job and not making enough to live on would not embrace the ideology of the Republican party. Why do you think that is? Is it that the Republican party would leave him or her (especially her) to swing in the wind? I think so. Republicans like to talk of meritocracy. To each according to their ability, they say. Those who are most qualified to succeed should enjoy most the rewards of success. Those who cannot or will not succeed deserve none of the well deserved wealth of the successful. Critics call this social Darwinism. Cynics call this the Peter Principle. None of the above is an accurate or fair description of how the ideological principle manifests itself in the real world. The hard-working, able-bodied man or woman gainfully employed at a full- time job who can not earn enough to support themselves knows how this abstract notion works in the real world. So does the young, well-bred, well- educated kid who maybe works four hours of a eight hour work day, and makes more in one of the hours he doesn't work than some earn in a full eight. The reason the persons you mentioned will not embrace a conservative ideology is because they know the Republican lie, and because they know it can never benefit them. They know that success is not who you are, but who you were born to. They know it is not how well you work, but what job you do. Those who reject right-wing hypocrisy do so because they know it is not what you learn, but what school you go to, not what you know, but who you know that makes the difference between comfort and a struggle for survival. They know that the caliber of one's character does not matter as much as the color of one's skin in determining the distribution of reward, justice, and respect. The coin of the Republican realm is elitism, and divisiveness the seed that is sown. The motto of the conservative guard is "I've got mine!" and woe be to those who challenge the ownership. Whether ill-gotten or not, a man's loot, his estate, his place at the trough, is his no less than if it were given him by God Almighty (praise the Lord). So sayeth the Republican National Commitee. Should he reap where others have sown, that is of no concern. The conservative cabal shall defend his prowess as a more qualified reaper of grain. Should others starve that he may gorge, that is of no concern. The right wing will praise his skill at obtaining more bread than any other. Should the children of others be stunted that his may grow to be leaders of men, it still matters not. To divide--rich from poor, schooled from ignorant, successful from struggling, white from colored--that is the end of the Republican means. It is implicit in the conservative doctrine that there are those who deserve to be have's and there are those who deserve to be have not's, and the sooner the division is accomplished to the satisfaction of the have's, the happier everyone will be. The criteria for dividing the have's from the have not's may look palatable on paper, and may have a pretty glitter, but the real criteria lurking in inner-city housing projects and lurking in luxury penthouses are morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt. The only real criterion which defines the elite is the power to successfully define who is and who isn't among the elite. The elite are elite. They want to keep it that way, and will even join the Republican party to do so. They have the power and the money, and they don't mind using it to keep it. >>There are so many conservative postings from athena, I guess your >>true login scrooge@athena was already allocated. > >II. Perhaps the reason there are so many conservatives on Athena is >that we are (virtually) all MIT undergraduates. Being much more >intelligent than Berkeley people we are naturally much more >conservative. There is nothing about being a conservative that requires any intelligence. Even the magpie will steal what does not belong to it. Even the crow will horde shiny things for which it has no use. Even the cuckoo will starve the offspring of other birds for the benefit of its children and for its own convenience. To realize that one's fellow humans have rights, deserve respect, and need compassion--that is what requires intelligence. To understand that, but for the grace of God, you go there as well--that requires understanding. To see the hidden rewards of giving without reward--that requires insight. It requires no intelligence to horde, only greed. It requires no intelligence to oppress, only arrogance. It requires no intelligence to ignore suffering, only callousness. If these are the qualities you claim for you and your peers, so be it. >III. I will add that we aren't all rabid right-wingers. Check out Seth >Gordon's postings. He also posts from Athena, and is a personal >friend. Unfortuantely he is distressingly left wing. As he is also, in >my opinion, extremely smart, I am sure he will see the light some time >in the next few years. Separate the have's from the have not's, and the sooner the better. Divide those who can help from those who need it. Define the elite and make the definition stick. By these things might one tell a conservative. One expects one of the successful elite to espouse an ideology and patronize a party which will protect their property and status. On the other hand, it is a sign of character and enlightenment for one of the fully enfranchised to support the welfare of those less fortunate. Your friend's philosophy may distress you, but that you would have him reject it distresses me even more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu