I have a dear friend in Chicago. She’s a wonderful person. She is also a hard-core Democrat. The few times we’ve actually delved deep into politics, I realized that she – an upper middle class woman living on Chicago’s north side – was a huge proponent of government “programs”. It didn’t matter what they were. It didn’t matter whether they were effective. She just felt better about politicians who advocated more programs.
Translate this to a Canadian context and it’s very easy to see why the Liberals & NDP have such appeal. The next time you get a chance to talk with a Leftie, ask them this question: “If there’s a longstanding government welfare program that has proven to not help people get out of poverty, would you be in favour of cutting it?” The responses I’ve received involve a whole lot of squirming and mental gymnastics!
Compassion isn’t political, though the political class would certainly like you to believe that. Politicians don’t “care” any more than the rest of us do just because they’re politicians.
Compassion has nothing to do with whether you’re right-wing, a centrist or a leftie and everything to do with how you regard other human beings.
An excellent example of the ‘compassion’ of a liberal was Vancouver’s Libby Davies,who,with her husband started the Downtown Eastside Resident’s Association.
Davies scolded and excoriated various governments, except NDP governments, at every level, eventually riding her activism to a seat in Parliament,now retired with a lovely big pension.
The result of her decades of compassion: see above sentence. As for the DES, it is still,after 40 years of Davies liberal compassion, the poorest neighborhood in Canada.
Liberals,small and large “L” are brilliant at promising the world to the gullible,then never delivering,counting on the short memories of their constituents to re-elect them time after time.
Perhaps that’s why liberals are horrified at the thought of giving the people real power through referendums.
To actual liberals, the focal point of society is the individual. To progressives the focal point of society is government. Progressives/statists seek to remove the individual’s reference and influence from their families and communities to the state and its benevolent despots.
Liberalism and progressivism/statism are supposed to be mutual exclusive. These are the real opposites, not contradictions with conservatism.
This increases the power of the state and feed the fatal conceit governments run economies, create jobs or even enhance wealth.
Government uses wealth created by others, as pointed out in the video, and thus removes wealth from society in transactions of decline, not prosperity.
None of this matters to the statists for two reasons. First, they are well served by their doctrine, no proof of success required, it’s their only narrative.
Second, the fact their policies make poverty worse, not better makes no difference because it’s about the statist, not the citizen.
Besides only the great unwashed are poor; the apparatchiks live fine in gated and police protected communities, thanks now to the poor’s carbon taxes.
“Besides only the great unwashed are poor; the apparatchiks live fine in gated and police protected communities, thanks now to the poor’s carbon taxes.”
You mean the middle class (including what used to be called the working class – though we’re all too diversity-sensitive now to call it that).
Other than sales tax of some sort, the poor don’t pay any tax. And even with sales tax, they generally get a credit on their income tax return.
Have a friend who studied in post-Communist eastern Europe. The English-language library was very small, so he donated some textbooks he had brought from home and no longer had a use for. Also was able to find other relevant (though not the most recent) English language publications in his field and took them over for the library. The librarians were astounded; such generosity was apparently unheard of under the Communists, where the state supposedly provided for all but so little was provided that it was each man for himself. It was, for him, an interesting insight into what had gone on during the prior Communist regime (less than ten years gone), and the lingering effects of those policies on the people as they moved towards capitalism.
That’s because that’s all liberalism is: emotions without thought. As Ellsworth tells Katie in Fountainhead: just *believe*!
Best line I ever used to counter a progressive lecturing me on being an uncaring pig: You do not have a monopoly on compassion.
Looks like blm is having a huge influence on DNC.. Occasionally they throw a token white on the podium.. Frightening bunch I must say.. Compassion for this?..All the fruits,nuts and general squirrels are in one place..oh well!
You might well also have used “show me your list of charitable donations and I’ll show you mine”. Progressives are always eager to donate other people’s money, never their own. I do taxes in season, and the most generous donors I see are ALWAYS conservative Christians, who will give sacrificially. Others, not so much.
“…Progressives are always eager to donate other people’s money, never their own. …”
People don’t vote for politicians or parties that promise to help the needy because they want to help the needy, nor because they want the needy to be helped. They vote that way because they want to be relieved of any necessity to help the needy themselves.
Sadly, Tooner, you are right about the motives of far too many voters. The people I know and respect are those who do acknowledge their responsibility to help the needy, and do it quietly from a conviction that “to whom much has been given, from whom much is expected”. Sadly, some of the whiniest taxpayers I encounter are those who have a really good income and no charitable contributions, but still gripe at the taxes they do pay.
What I find interesting is people seemingly defining “compassion” by the amount of cash one donates.
In my experience, true “compassion” is better demonstrated as TIME invested with people, not MONEY given to a 3rd party.
Speaking of Compassion: Bill had folks in tears.
Tonight Bill told a wishful fairy tale of a wonderful competent Hillary, reminds me of his testimony under oath to the Grand Jury…..right up to the point they advised him that his DNA was found on the blue dress. He perjured himself, was impeached and later disbarred. Slick sick Willie
Bill Clinton was asked once before how he & Hillary got together:
He said “When he was growing up in Arkansas it was common for guys to Tie a Five dollar Bill on a string & drag it through a Trailer Park…You would be surprised what you pickup.. She was his Clinger & you don’t get much for 5 bucks”.
You chose which version you believe
The multi-millionaire philanthropists always receive the accolades after donating large sums to various causes. Their generosity is acknowledged ad nauseam when, in reality, the amounts donated are a pittance in comparison to their financial position.
Now don’t get me wrong. Such donations are welcome and much needed for things such as hospital equipment but I am much more impressed when the average joe living from paycheque to paycheque finds the time to coach a little league team or comes up with twenty bucks for the kid peddling cookies or chocolate bars door to door in order to fund a sports team.
You illustrate how government has taken over the role of charity, by its grav of individuaks’ money, it reduces the ability for individual charity. The latter, with individuals involved, keeps charity efficient and honest; the former, being beurocratic, leads to inefficiency and corruption.
The irony is that the government variety if not charity as tforce is implied.
They think that having Big Government Programs makes them immune to any criticism. And unfortunately it does, to some extent (at least from screeching leftoid-bots). Other questions are: “How much socialism is enough socialism?” and “What should be the upper limit for taxation?”
“How much socialism is enough socialism?”
Any socialism is too much socialism. Socialism is a cancer, it grows and never does enough. It politicizes everything.
They don’t call it Progressivism for nothing. If they stopped continuing to progress toward communism, stopped changing and altering things with the NEW and IMPROVED programs and regulations, if they became satisfied, contented, and dared to say, …”Finally we’ve got it right, let’s not change a thing.”
Do you know what would’ve happened? They’d have turned into conservatives, that’s what.
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
~Vladimir Lenin