|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.]
People often ask, “How do you handle mean, vicious people when out in public?” The truth is I rarely encounter nastiness. It does happen, but thankfully, it is pretty rare.
In general, when people don’t like me, they possess the maturity to restrain themselves from verbal road rage. I conduct myself the same way when I run into someone whose views I don’t care for. At a restaurant, I said hello to a host of a left-wing cable show, and he politely returned the gesture. After all, I dislike Hamas, the Taliban and drivers who fail to use their turn signals much more.
Nor does it particularly bother me that there are some people who say unkind things. A sports commentator once asked heavyweight boxing champion Larry Holmes whether he felt bad about the punishment he inflicted on an opponent.
“No,” Holmes said, “I’m in the hurt business.”
I choose this path as a Republican/libertarian commentator, and I do not expect a standing ovation when I enter a room.
And, from time to time when encountering someone who disagrees with me — depending upon the situation and my mood — I invest the time to engage in a civil, productive conversation. Sometimes the “antagonist” reassesses his or her position.
Such a case recently took place at a restaurant. I sat at the crowded bar, and a lady — whom I later learned was 50 years old — sat on the stool to my right. A number of people came up to me over the course of 15 minutes, after which “Linda” said, “You are obviously well known. May I ask what you do?”
I told her I spent 30 years in talk radio, and that a few years ago I ran for governor in the California recall election.
Oh, yes, I know who you are — and I’m sorry, I disagree,” she said.
I told her I am used to people disagreeing. “But,” I said, “What’s our biggest disagreement?” I asked myself,“What’s the over/under how quickly she says ‘Trump’?”
Instead, she said, “I grew up poor. I’ll never forget the embarrassment I felt when my mother pulled out food stamps in the line at the grocery store. I’m now quite successful, but I remember the struggle. People need help, often through no fault of their own. Republicans don’t get that.”
“So,” I said, “you think liberals are more compassionate and generous than conservatives?”
“I know they are,” she said.
“Liberals are more generous with their money?”
“Oh, yes.”
“They volunteer more of their time?”
“Yes.”
I told her about a book called “Who Really Cares?” by Arthur C. Brooks. Then an economics professor at Syracuse University, Brooks found that no one had done a comprehensive study on whether liberals or conservatives were more likely to give to charity and were more likely to donate their time for the care of others. So, he conducted a study. Like Linda, Brooks assumed the answer would be “liberals.” His findings so surprised him that he re-examined his methodology, research and results, only to reach the same conclusion. Conservatives were more generous with their money, and it was not even close. Same thing as to time devoted to others. And it had nothing to do with household income. In fact, conservative households generated less income, on average, than did liberal households.
Religion, found Brooks, plays a big role, as does one’s philosophy about the role of government. Conservatives are far more likely to be religious than liberals — the religious are more generous than the nonreligious — and conservatives believe the needs of the needy are best addressed through private charity than through government, and they donate accordingly. Liberals who are religious, though much smaller as a percentage compared to conservatives who are religious, were just as charitable as conservatives.
I pulled out my smartphone and read Linda part of a review from the Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Breaks new ground … In ‘Who Really Cares?,’ Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.”
“I’m shocked. I really am,” Linda said. “May I buy you another drink?”
If liberals really cared they would stay away from Hamas and Islamic radicals and they would hug their kids and Parents and fiancés and not the Trees
I had a similar conversation with a couple of guys I’m working with this week, one is from an Indian family. They said that conservatives were only out for themselves and they were protecting the hierarchies. I mentioned that they had chosen three women as their leader and one Indian man too, whereas all the opposition parties between them had only one woman leader.
yes liberals do care more than conservatives . they care more about themselves than anyone else ., ” its easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled . ” as thomas sowell once remarked . ” the real motives of liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people , instead they have 2 related goals – to establish themselves as morally & intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful people how they must live their lives ”
T.Sowell is great, as was the later Walter Williams.
Right there lies the problem, the unquestioned ideal that charity makes you the highest possible, most virtuous kind of human being, the greatest kind of ideal hero. That charity is the most important virtue in life.
If this were true, then it would be necessary to create as many victims of tragedy, catastrophe, misery, disease, and poverty as possible, so that we could all be altruistic heroes. But then there would be no one capable of helping others, we would all be dying of starvation and disease.
“Now think about it for a moment. If something’s the ideal, then the world would be a far better place if everyone practiced that ideal, correct? Yet what would happen if everyone lived like Mother Teresa? All of civilization as we know it would stop. There would be no more doctors; no lawyers; no hedge fund managers taking risks in investment; no engineers building bridges; no Silicon Valley executives making all of our software work; no profit-making drug companies manufacturing life-saving medicines; no profit-making food companies filling our stomachs, etc. No Netflix; no Amazon; no iPods; no Nike; no McDonalds; not anything. Why? Because everyone from the CEO to the janitor at these enterprises is doing what he or she does for his or her own sake. None of them are Mother Teresa. The world as we know it would not last for five minutes if all or most of us sacrificed ourselves and lived solely for the sake of others….
Civilization would literally come to a stop if people stopped pursuing their own interests. Famine and poverty would immediately overtake not just the United States and the Western world, but all of humanity. Billions would die, and they’d die quickly. This is morality? Granted, there would be a lot of needy people desperately crying out for the efforts of a Mother Teresa. But even Mother Teresa, or her contemporary equivalents, would all be famished and diseased themselves, since all of civilization had stopped working. How would she and her Pope fly in their airplanes, and cure their own illnesses, so they could regain their strength to aid the needy? Where would they get the money to fund their projects? In a collapsed economy, there would be no donations.” – Michael J. Hurd
Thank God we are not all you. You will always be one of the everlasting blots on society…..always very busy cutting and pasting, cutting and pasting. And then sitting around wondering why none of your repetitive Objectivist bilge gets any traction.
Mother Teresa deserved the Peace Prize better then did Obama
“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.” – Ayn Rand
“My idea of a saint? Someone who produces. Producers don’t do what they do for our sake; they do it for themselves, for their own profit, and out of their own desire to be productive. And that’s just fine with me.
The world desperately needs more producers. Charity is perfectly fine. But don’t kid yourself that charity lifts millions out of poverty and disease. Only economic progress does that. And progress arises not from a Mother Teresa-like compulsion to sacrifice. It arises from the best within us: Our desire to live for our own sakes, most of all.” – Michael J. Hurd
When I want to see more production I always turn to Michael Hurd (who?)
I think I would rather turn to Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. You know, the guys who can actually fix things.
And there it is. A quote from Ayn Rand. I can always rely on you to try to tie everything back to a quote from her. I have to give you credit though, you know more about your religion than most people know of their own. Your downfall is that you worship a person instead of God.
Ayn Rand was right Ryan, “Atlas Shrugged” fiction to fact in 65 years.
Liberals know how to suck better than anyone else!
I enjoy Larry Elder’s columns. He takes complex concepts and puts them into everyday language. This column is an example.
Explaining how much conservatives are charitable-relative to liberals, at least relative to secular liberals-is an eye opener. But connecting it to religion-how much religion plays a part in voluntary charitable giving-is also an eye opener (it’s lucky I have two eyes or I might have missed something.)
His last paragraph is quite interesting. I’m sure a lot of people knew it in their hearts-especially conservatives and libertarians-but now it is not only “conjecturally true” but also scholarly true that liberals who are for the government providing sustenance tor others are only charitable if it can be with someone else’s money.
I nominate for the charlatan of the year-the con man without a conscience:: Bill Gates-who wants to use other people’s money to support HIS charities.
I knew this Australian woman once who told me her goal in life is to help others, basically everybody, so I told her that’s fine and dandy but she must also learn how to accept the giving from others towards her self…
Oh no she replied, I dont need any help as I just help others…
So you are depriving others of committing an act of giving for your own self righteousness…
She doesn’t speak with me any more.
We can practice giving but we must also practice receiving from others.