I had a very interesting conversation with my brother last night. He’s in England studying, and is watching the circus that is the US election process from way over there.
He’s not a political junkie, so he’s not foraging around the internet for every scrap of news and controversy on the candidates. He’s not done a lot of research on their platforms, is not really hindered by seeing the US political landscape through the lens of left and right, or liberal and conservative, and the mainstream media is his only real access to the race.
He’s a twenty something and a devout christian, someone who would be considered in our society a social conservative… and he digs Barak Obama.
Yes, that visceral, what?? was my initial reaction as well.
We got to talking the way we usually do, pouring over all possible angles of analysis of this man that America loves, or loves to hate.
I put forward the conservative red meat and potatoes argument. “He’s the most liberal senator, against life, against traditional marriage, he seems to have questionable associations, he’s all rhetoric and no substance.
It was clear to me, as a social conservative, that Obama was pretty much as close to ‘the devil’s own man’ as we could get this political season.
And then my brother began to reason. “You’re talking about Obama the ‘liberal’, what about Obama the man. Where is his heart?
He apparently was deeply moved by Obama’s race speech. As an unbiased observer, he really thought that Obama meant what he said about wanting to bring America together, about wanting to help heal the wounds, about wanting freedom and equality for all. This is probably what John Q Public experiences when they plug into Obama and his into his dream for the future.
Then my brother started talking about what being liberal might mean from their point of view. What it must be like to percieve yourself as fighting for the rights of women, or for the rights of the gay community, or for the protection of the environment or for the provision for the poorest or weakest among us. It is the intention of the heart, he argued, in some respects, that should be considered, even before the consequences of the political policies they propose. They believe they are fighting the just cause, giving everyone a voice.
I began to think of the stunned reaction that liberals are having to Mike Huckabee’s display of humanity in his dealings with the subject of race in America, and realized that they are surprised because they have only ever thought of him as a ‘conservative’ and not as a man with a heart.
What if they stopped to think of him as an individual who is for the life of all people, including the unborn, or for the financial success of all people, from the family around the kitchen table, to the biggest copporate giant, or for the preservation of strong family units so that all could prosper.
We focus so much on what the other side is against, that we sometimes forget that they are people too, not monstrous beasts waiting to consume our world and destroy us. This is why we are so divided, we insist on seeing each other, as ‘other.’
There are many positions on which the left and right will never agree, but we can at least agree that we both mean well. Neither side is intentionally trying to destroy America.
Time and time again Mike Huckabee has helped us to see this perspective in action, when he has spoken kind words about what he believes to be the heartfelt intentions of Obama, and yes, even Hillary, during and after his campaign.
This is why it is more disturbing to me, the longer that I think about it, that there seems to be a concerted effort now in the conservative media to villify Obama’s intentions in running for president.
The impression is being created, via this Wright scandal and other means, that Obama and his family secretly hate America, and that in a manchurian candidate kind of way, he is talking himself into the white house for the express purpose of what, intentionally handing us over to our enemies for destruction as some form of sick revenge?
I don’t think I can buy that, although there are some who can. (usually of the Obama is the Anti-Christ variety)
I can buy that Obama’s good intentions could have terrible unintentional consequences, but I think that we need to be careful that we don’t blur the lines so much, that we move into the realm of character assasination.
The liberal mindset does not see in absolutes, there is no right or worng. This is why we, as social conservatives especially, find it hard to see the world through their eyes. We do, especially those of us anchored in biblical or religious principles, see the world in black and white, right and wrong, for and against.
As much as we would like the world to be reformed to mirror the truths we hold to be self evident, we live in a secular world, where fredom of individual choice will always play a pre-eminent role in the way things are run; especially in a democracy.
We will never be able to change that completely, although we will be able to nudge society along in what we believe to be the right direction.
This means that there will always be a place for ‘liberals’ in our midst, and we should once in a while, take a moment to walk a figurative mile in their shoes, to see the world through their eyes.
Just so that we remember to remember, that liberals are people too.
His Handmaiden
Thank you for your insightful article. I always considered myself “center left” until I found myself supporting Mike Huckabee. It is difficult to support a party which still believes “a rising tide lifts all boats” economically speaking while committing Katrinicide on a city while the whole world watched a rising tide swamp everything.
One of the things which drove me to a “conservative” candidate was his response to Katrina. He was the only Governor faced with thousands of refugees who thought outside the box and took excellent care of all of them. If his faith showed him the way, well and good with me. Its the results that matter, and Huckabee’s plan for opening religious camps brought stunning results.
Mike Huckabee’s comment that we could get news crews in to film the disaster but no food and fresh water to the victims convinced me he was my candidate.
Whether one is liberal or conservative, we all want want to see problems solved with common sense and completely averted when possible. Any candidate with a proven track record of working across the aisle and years of experience successfully and compassionately running a state government while leaving it with a surplus must certainly warrant consideration by both liberals and conservatives.
Unfortunately when it comes to caring for the least of us, conservatives have a terrible track record. I think I would rather take my chances with a candidate whose heart is in the right place.
I certainly applaud Huckabee’s priority of considering a situation from everyone’s point of view. And, what is being said about considering the perspective of liberals is vital to actually constructing a productive government. But, I always stress that conservatives need to understand that that is the honest situation for millions of Democrat voters, even if they are convinced as I am that many officials and strategists may be in it more for the sheer power than for any stated concern.
But, I say that we should not worry so much about those left-wing operators and focus on those millions of voters who only support what they genuinely believe is right. It should be our priority to listen to their concerns and appeal to them with our genuine prescriptions for their concerns, so they see us as primarily concerned about what is right, too.
Conservatives too easily fall into being defined by what they are against, which is both morally vacuous and not incidentally, politically foolish.
I do believe that a rising tide inclines to lift all boats, but not because I am or want to be on the biggest boat. What I know for certain is that a falling tide sinks all boats, which is worst for those already with the smallest boats. And liberal policy will often achieve that, irrespective of anyone’s intentions. To mind all boats, we need not an activist federal government, but to be better, more socially active people.
Good intentions are terrific, but if they are fooolish or disingenous they can also pave the road to hell. We have to offer wise advice with well-meaning hearts, and that’s a trick. But, Mike Huckabee has set a pattern like I have not seen in American politics in all of my years. Let’s not let that spirit die.
No matter how eloquently Obama speaks or what piece of his “heart” he chooses to show the media, any human (especially one in power) who so easily agrees with killing babies that were born alive during abortion procedures is cold and heartless. Little ones left on shelves to die and then thrown in the trash … anyone who does not want to stop this has no heart.
I agree one mom,
The issue of Obama’s pro-abortion stance is an area that we could clearly be pointing out differences, and advocating that this could or should disqualify him from office.
But instead of talking about this, we are debating whether or not he hates America. It’s a red herring, and could influence people to vote for him in ’sympathy’ instead of on the issues.
Also, I was not particulary trying to defend Obama, I just realized that we have a tendency to judge all ‘liberals’ as tarred with the same brush. We should probably engage with them on an individidual basis.
I didn’t think you were defending Obama, and you’re right that we need to lose the “us/them” mentality that so easily forgets that just because someone is a democrat doesn’t change the fact that are still fellow human beings. That’s what I like so much about Gov. Huckabee and his ability to practice “vertical politics” that build everyone up without compromising on the “non-negotiables” (such as LIFE).
Obama’s charisma combined with his positions regarding abortion makes him (in my mind) a dangerous person.
On another note, I am enjoying the conversations and thoughts on this blog.
Wow, where to begin. Your whole premise seems to deny that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I am not sure but are you implying that because George Soros defines my opposition to confiscatory tax rates as “greedy” I should try to tap into liberal guilt instead of considering how much the “rich” already pay? You know, THINKING?
What difference does it make if Stalin really, really CARED FOR the common man? Mao claimed that the “Cultural Revolution” would liberate rather than murder millions, he was FOR the peasant. That Hitler believed he was purifying the human race? It did not matter one bit, their actions were still evil.
Which parts of “conservatism” should I ignore so that I can think with my heart? When does government redistribution of wealth help people, instead of making them dependents? When has class warfare done anything but hurt all involved, enriching the politician who engages in it at the expense of all of the rest of us? When did so called “Christians” decide that envy was no longer a sin?
How does accepting racism from black people “heal” anything?
I do not oppose affirmative action because I am not FOR minorities, but because I think it dehumanizes them. I do not favor free trade because I am FOR big business, but because I am FOR, the average man who works and benefits from the same. I believe, like Adam Smith, that the wealth of Nations comes from the efforts of individuals, rather than through the force of government.
Your brother asked “your talking Obama the Liberal, what about the man’s heart”? What? How can the two be separated? He would recreate the Soviet Union but he would mean well while he did it?! Shouldn’t people be expected to at least think a couple of seconds about what they FEEL? No? Who cares what one says or does what is important is what they F-E-E-L?
How does caring, with other people’s taxes, equal caring with your own money?
I repeat, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The bloody history of socialism should indicate, to all who even pause for a second to look, that this statement could not be more true.
Churchill is credited with saying “If you are under 30 and not a Liberal you have no heart. If you are over 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain.”
I can only hope that most of you are under 30.
Hello Marshall,
Thank you first of all, for bothering to comment, most would just look and leave.
I am actually fairly close to thirty, 32 to be precise, but I a no where near as naieve as you would seem to think.
I do know that the way to hell is paved with ‘good intentions’
If you re read carefully, you will see that nowhere did I say that we have to accept the ‘good intentions’ of those with a liberal agenda. In fact, we must do everything we can to limit the growth of that agenda into policy.
But the overt ‘dehumanization’ of liberals into this monster like caricature that the conservative establisment and media propogates, is really not helpfu.
We can oppose their ideology, but it does not have to be done in a way that ignores the areas in which we can find agreement. We can have an issues based discussion without the scaremongering.
That’s all that I was getting at.
We are talking about politics. There is almost nothing on which I can agree with a Democrat and possibly nothing. It isn’t that I wish to “dehumanize” them, I am opposed to their worldview. They want to discuss football or their favorite food, sure, we might find some common ground. There is just so little political common ground between people who think with their minds, using facts, and people who “think” with their hearts, using feelings.
I believe the policies in which they believe hurt people, and enslave them. I believe that their policies of killing the innocent, abortion, and sparing the guilty; opposition to the death penalty, and opposition to self-defense, are anti-human and anti-Life. Their worship of the “environment” also places even the snail darter above human beings.
Who are the “conservative establishment”? The pols in Washington like McCain, and perhaps Mitch McConnell or “talk radio”? The editorial board of the WSJ? Anyone who might question if a certain ex-governor might not be particularly conversant with the language of conservatism? Ann Coulter? People who believe they bear no responsibility for what happened in Arkansas decades ago because they were not even born?
How is blaming people, for something done over 40 years ago, based upon the color of their skin helpful? How does it help for anyone, white, black or green to say, “yep, hate someone because of their skin color, I would”? Is “hate thy neighbor because of what color his skin is and what was done to people with the same color of skin you have” in the New Testament?
Liberal ideology must be defeated. There can be no compromise between human liberty and the power of government, what Jefferson called a necessary EVIL. The populist message of the Left, that government, and not economic freedom, is what makes people wealthy is one that can not and should not be compromised. It represents the mortal sin of envy.
Barry Goldwater was exactly right when he said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Like the Christian, I do not hate the sinner (the liberal) but I do hate their sin (their anti-human policies). Either you believe that the individual is responsible for their own actions or you believe all are simply part of the collective “race” or “class”.