Liberal Naiviate

One of the projects on which I am currently working is to involves working with a lot of leftists.

I have been empowered to write the by-laws of this organization, along with one other person. This person is extremely liberal, very pro-environment. But, we have the same goals, which is to preserve the farmland in avalley. How can a consevative do this, you ask? If privately done, which is what this is, then open spaces can be preserved. It is thru an organization of which I have been involved.

So what will happen?

I predict that, unless I can convince the majority to go along with my plan, it will be doomed. That is because liberals oftentimes are too naive to engage in the necessary political infighting to make their plans work.

In fact, they are too naive on too many issues. They fail to understand a basic componnent of human nature, that people are going to exploit a situation to protect their interests. Many times, they do not understand that the underlying structures of organizations are the most important componnents of an organization, not the fun activities. I, on the other hand, am motivated by the machinery and underlying structures of organizations, not the fun stuff, or the bread-and-butter issues. Since becoming conservative, that has been my chief political motivation, after killing bad liberal programs. That is, for example, one of my top issues is the right to keep and bear arms.

There are a few who understand this on the left. The hard leftists. That is why you get hard edged representatives in all governmental bodies, pushing the issues. The majority of liberals get left behind.

Morton Blackwell stated that you do not miss a meeting where you wish you could be there. Essentially, those who consider the fun stuff the bs are those who get to run an organization - and they tend to be more hard headed. Everone else either does not run it, or wonders why they do not run it.

This reflects their position on issues. Take these issues:

• Health Care. Despite the fact that government funded health care is a disaster the world over, they still are advocates of this idea. They do not seem to grasp the key concept that a. It costs a lot of money to train doctors, b. So only those who are interested in money will largely become doctors, and c. People will take advantage of a free circumstance as much as possible. Thus, leading in the long run to a lower supply and a higher demand - the disaster for a true health care crises. Yes, there are some people who cannot afford health care, but health care is a matter of degrees - based upon what one can afford. And not everyone can own a Cadillac.
• Islamofascism. There seems to be a belief that if you talk to all fanatics, you will convince them that their ideas are wrong. Well, wrong. While winning hearts and minds is a good long run strategy (especially if Imams are effectively used to show how Islamofascism is contrary to some of the tenents of the Quran, for example), in the short run, you need to either lock them up, and if that is not an option, to eliminate them. Which it is why this is a bad idea to put enemy combattants on trial. They are the type who admit that "War is Terrorism," which pretty much opens a society up to a quick destruction if this is the attitude it has toward this necessary evil.
• Sex Ed. Some liberals believe that if you teach a bunch of kids sex ed, this will somehow encourage them to use safe sex. And teaching them that abstinence will send a "mixed message." My teenage years were not that long ago, but I can clearly remember that I can easily process the fact that "Not doing it is the best way to prevent STD's, but if you will do it, using a condom is the next best option". Sexual intercourse can be taught in one lesson, which, if need be, is needed to propagate the species. However, there is so much material out there today, that kids pretty much know their lessons in this aspect of life long before their teachers give it to them. In fact, basically reiterating the Kama Sutra not only is not a deterrant, it whets the appetite (especially for a bunch of 15 year old males).
• Gun Control. Liberals believe that if you take guns out of the hands of society, crime goes down. And governments will never oppress. Another variation of this is that if guns are registered, there will not be any confiscations (actually, I believe that, in any campaign for gun registration, the proponnents are pretty much lying). All three of these have been disproven by history. Crime has gone way up when a certain class of guns is taken away. And governments have engaged in genocidal tendencies against armless people. That is because bad, evil people (i.e., criminals) by definition do not follow the law if it is against their interests, either a common criminal, or a bureaucratic criminal.

That is all I can think of right now. I find that left wing naiviate may be one reason why their ideas are not getting promoted (thank God), and why conservatives, who really are not as naive, are winning some battles.