Conservative voters, we should do a gut check! We have handed the 'Compassion Trophy' foolishly and passively over to the left where Iggy and Layton yelled "gimmie" throughout the campaign…with NDP clearly holding the trophy at the end.
Why did the NDP win the Compassion Trophy and become viewed as 'fighting for families'? Millions of Conservatives argue that the free market is good, but do a poor job arguing who ought to 'fight for families'.
Most Conservatives do not know how to articulate/respond to basic NDP logic:
NDP Logic:
Some people have dire needs
People should love people and one major way to do this is by meeting needs
(key premise) Fairness/rights of humans means a governing body ensures needs are met (otherwise how Can we govern fairness?)
People and companies have money to give government and in turn gov. meets people's needs
Therefore high taxes pays for needs and thus people are loved (because NDP meets needs)
Hand Compassion Trophy over to NDP!
I started this blog b/c I was embarrassed to be a Conservative. Why do Conservatives en mass fail to look the camera square in the eye and tell it straight? Politicians and voters alike seem unable/unwilling to dismantle this way of thinking.
Here is a basic response to the NDP:
Conservative 3 part Logic
Part 1
Governments ought not to spend money where they have no jurisdiction. (Governments do not spend money on buying Canadians their favorite Hockey Jersey's because they have no jurisdiction: therefore no authority to spend)
Refusing to spend money where one has no jurisdiction is prudent and wise.
No normative (obligation/duty) argument exists why endless program spending OUGHT to be under jurisdiction of the government. (Socialists give reasons why they think we should spend billions on socialized programs, but no sufficient reason to demonstrate obligation)
Therefore proposed spending denied.
(this is where conservatives fall apart and look like fools…we are here viewed as cruel and heartless for 'denying a need'. Shame on us for accepting this. Or, knowing we will look like evil people, we turtle and spend money just like the left)
Part 2
Some people have dire needs.
People should love people and one major way to do this is by meeting needs.
(key premise) Compassion (free will of seeing and meeting a need) of humans means we personally should oversee such an event (many was to express this within free market).
People and companies have compassion and money… they can give to others and meet great needs.
Therefore limit taxes and free up more money for people/companies to invest in people's needs.
Part 3
Wealth is built by working hard, developing skills, taking responsibility, wise choices and building relationships.
Developing and applying what we learn is often difficult and therefore a highly relational process.
Developing and applying what we learn is often difficult and therefore a highly relational process.
As we personally receive from others to help us build wealth, we ought to help others build wealth (by investing, teaching others to work hard, develop skills , take responsibility, make wise choices and build relationships etc.).
This is a tough process where we as conservatives have to receive and give. It requires us to be less selfish and blind to the needs of those around us.
Once this is modeled…will see powerful results: explosion of victories, healed hearts, encouraged souls and lives changed.
Then, we can take the 'Compassion Trophy' back because we are investing in others on the same basis by which people invested in us: free choice.
Conclusion:
We are most loved and best served when someone chooses to love us from their free will. This is a powerful argument that dismantles the Lefts key premise! The argument of 'forced love' is not love. If you have a 'law' for your children that they will hug you 10 times a day for 30 days…you will get a fraction of the gratification as though the child of their own free will ran to you with a big hug! With our children this logic is so obvious, yet when we move to politics things get cloudy and fuzzy yet remains real simple.
This is the powerful argument against socialism: Love from a position of free will: not by socialist's force via fairness, rights and taxes.
If modeled, we will win the trophy back.
We have the right premise, starting point and logic. We need to MODEL this logic in our daily lives and that is what I plan on devoting my next 4 years to…I want to BRAG to the media with my chin held up high, "we have won back the Compassion Trophy. We have crushed the 'key premise' of the left and triumphed! The free market freely lets me build wealth, then freely invest in others to build wealth…and through this needs have been meet: better then socialism which destroys wealth because it takes the fruit of labor away to meet an immediate need." Join me in acting to ensure we have many more years of Conservative government in the house.
Where does my thinking fall apart?
Good luck getting corporations to be less selfish! Over the past 40 years, U.S. companies have followed a pattern of giving between 1.2 percent and 1.7 percent of annual pre-tax income to charity, according to Giving USA.
ReplyDeleteThese same forms were given a tax break of up to 10 percent of pre-tax income. So why less than 2%. One thought is that it is because they have to answer to shareholders who are all about $$$$$ Another thought is that donations are given for PR reasons and/or when the donation will yield profits as a result. The largest of these companies do not need tax-cuts in order to be charitable - they profit billions.
Wall Street Journal
Questions:
1. Why should we trust the private sector to look after our citizens? They have not done so thus far. Also, how can we be certain that all needs will be covered if provided on a voluntary basis only?
2. If left to the private sector, how can we be sure that ALL citizens in need will have equal access, void of bias?
We do not just "think" that the government should take care of its people. They "ought" to take care of its people. Otherwise, who is going to do it and how can you be sure that the job will get done?
Finally, if you are truly interested in changing the image of conservatives, you should stop assuming that people who need help are irresponsible or not hard-working. It makes us lefties VERY ANGRY. It is a stereotype and it is inaccurate. Remember that not all needs require a simple "handout". The issues are a little more complex than that.
I think one of the basic differences between ( generally speaking)the "left" and the "right" is that the "Right" has ultimate faith in individuals and the "left" has none.
ReplyDeleteI see this in two key areas, One being that if wee see a situation that needs rectifying we will use our own time, energy, money to educate about the real need and also to actively change that situation, where as the "left" seems to feel it is better left to the government to force others to take care of the situation so they can get on with their lives with minimal effort. Oh goody we don't have to do anything ourselves because the government will have professionals to take care of it.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that shareholders are not all rich white guys with their trophy wives massaging their balding heads. Shareholders are everyday people, like my family and my elderly mother, RRSP/ mutual funds and unions who invest their savings hoping to make $$$$$ for their member's retirement.
Compnaies are not human entities, they are run by people. It is up to the folks who use the services of a company to do so looking at what that company represents.YOu have a choice as where you spend your hard earned money, YOu don't have to buy from corporations that do not have "helping their fellow man" as one of their goals, you can even go so far as to educate the public and try to persuade them to also not spend their hard earned dollars with that corporation. WE see this sort of activism with the rise in popularity of "Fair trade coffee", "blood diamonds" and "chocolate". In the past we also saw the effects on NIKE who used to have child labour making their shoes. There is no end to the influence a motivated individual can have on a corporate entity.
Individuals that make money off the corporations can and do give funds to those in need that strike a cord for them personally. One only has to look at Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft to see this "theory" fully in action. He and his family have set up a foundation that gives away BILLIONS to causes that apply. He is not forced to do so by any government entity but he chooses to do it. As do many others who go unknown.
Volunteerism has nothing to do with which political party you support. I don't think the first post presented this stereotype of shareholders (don't they exist to make money?) and the information is from the Wall Street Journal. I agree with the rest of your post about generous individuals and consumers who make good choices, however I don't think this serves all of the needs of society. I am not sure that the questions posed in the first post have been answered.
ReplyDeleteTJ
Good morning TJ,
ReplyDeleteIt is customary when giving "information" from a credible source to separate it, possibly with "quotation marks" and providing a link so it can be verified and the context of the quote can be seen.
It is not the job of any poster to argue or answer every question you may have. This is a voluntary thing. I pick and chose which points I want. I am the mother of (don't faint now) as many children as most have toes. I am busy, kinda really busy... I do this as an educational exercise in my not so abundant spare time.
I am not sure how your post is relevant, proper formatting or not, no stereotype was presented. However, I think this blog has taken a downward turn. I am not interested in posting if we are dealing with stereotypes, insults and generalizations. Another left has left the building.
ReplyDeleteTJ
Of course you were stereotyping with this sentence:
ReplyDeleteOne thought is that it is because they have to answer to shareholders who are all about $$$$$.
You say that as if it were a BAD thing. I happen to think my elderly parent, my family, people who invest their RRSPs, mutual funds, group pension plans, Unions have a right to the expectation that a company will ethically make profits.
When you charge a corporation more taxes, they don't pay it your neighbour the shareholder does. It impedes their ability to take are of their own future, it takes money from the elderly to pay for their prescriptions, to keep up the maintenance in their homes, to pay someone to help them stay in their own homes, be they a monthly maid or lawn care. Sometimes due to high property taxation it is the difference between staying in their own home and being forced to sell. It takes money out of the pocket of teachers, union workers, everyday people to spend as they choose, be that for everyday expenses or for an odd dinner out. All their purchasing decision have a direct effect on the economy. It goes to the the student waiter/waitress's tips. It keeps small businesses alive and employing others.
I don't speak to stereotypes, the blog has not taken a downward turn, you just aren't comfortable with ME.
Have you ever thought of ignoring instead of fleeing????
Ryan's posts are still wonderful...