Liberalism vs. Conservatism is Elitism vs. Individualism

by Sal on April 27, 2007

in Culture,Election 2008,Politics

One of the major topics in last night’s Democrat Primary Debate was climate change and the environment, and instituting tough policies that would require sacrifice from the American people.  I think that the Democrat candidates for President should look in the mirror and start with themselves.  All eight Democrat candidates in last night’s debate chartered or took private jets to South Carolina.  There was no commercial travel, no airplane-pooling.  It just shows how liberalism is the party of the elite.  The elite can do whatever they want, but they are presumptuous enough to tell us how we should live.  It truly is akin to how Communism played out.  Communism was supposed to be “for the people” where there were no elite class, where everyone had an equal role.  However, it turned to totalitarianism where the party members lived a life of privilage while the common man suffered.  The same thing is happening in today’s Democrat party. 

The elite can live lives of privilege, taking private charters to debates, using more electricity in a month than the average American uses in an entire year, or almost universally sending their own kids to private school, while denying that same choice to poor and working-class Americans (and increasingly middle-class Americans).  America is bad, the Democrats know what’s best for you, and you better listen.  It’s an attitude that permeates their politics, their personal lives, and their political and judicial philosophy (the liberal members of the Supreme Court fancy themselves as philosopher-kings). 

It is conservatism that teaches individual greatness, that government is the problem and not the solution, and that each person is truly capable of greatness.  Conservatism looks at each person and realizes what their true potential is, and tries to remove the obstacles in the way of their achieving greatness.  Which world would you rather live in? 

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

etheralreality April 27, 2007 at 2:53 pm

I do not believe that you can compare Liberal Democrats to Elitists. There are many Conservative Republicans that are heads of giant corporations. Take Dick Cheney for an example. His company, Halliburton failed to provide enough evidence for 1.8 billion dollars in costs in contracts for Iraq. Now doesn’t this mean he’s an elitist taking advantage of America? His company received over 10 billion dollars in contracts.


Ryan April 27, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Our government is essentially a coercive body designed to enforce dictates from our elected representatives. It is a simple formula that we discovered in the 20th century: the more government does, the less freedom the individual has. People in a party looking for power who used 90 minutes to say what more the government can do are people who view themselves as better than the rest of us and want to increase the forementioned dictates. They claim know what’s best for us and seek the power to philosophically and actually restrict our freedoms as a result. That may not be “elitist” in some people’s books, but it is kind of scary.


Frederick April 27, 2007 at 4:29 pm

This post is the worst kind of duplicitousness. Do any of the Republican candidates meet these standards you impose? No. Do any of them get $400 hair cuts…yes. Maybe some of them the took jets because they actually showed up to do their jobs and cast their votes in Washington on the Iraq War Supplemental(unlike McCain). It’s this kind of pettiness that is chronically demonstrated by Republicans and their candidates that lost you seats in 06′ as it will again in 08′.


Mike April 27, 2007 at 5:05 pm

If #3 would take the time to actually read this post, he would understand that it was about the Democrat do as i say not as i do mentality. Moreover, it is dishonest to say voting is the reason for their hypocirciy because Gravel, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich are not in the Senate and therefore did not have to attend.

Although I disagree with comment #1, I appreciate that it at least appears to be based on thought.


In terms of Haliburton, Dick Cheney severed all ties with the company before becoming Vice President. The salary he received until 2005 was a staggered payment on money earned during 1999. He has no financial stake in the company now and has not at any time during this administration. He did when the Clinton Administration also awarded Haliburton favorable deals because Haliburton is the best and one of a select few companies who do what they do, but he doesn’t now.

The elitist point had to do with Democrats imposing their views on everyone else except themselves. Republicans are happy when people make money or travel on expensive jets. We do it ourselves AND have no problem when others do it as well. Democrats lecture everyone else for their unwillingness to sacrifice BUT WOULD NEVER impose the same sacrifices on themselves. That was Sal’s point.


Your comment was the worst kind of revisionist history. The Democrats gained power in 2006 for two reasons. First, Republicans abandoned their ideals. Second, southern and midwestern Democrats specifically promised not to cut and run or abandon our troops. The retreat/surrender bill you love so much is exactly what those Dems promised not to do. Democrats breaking their promise to support the troops is the reason why the Democrats will lose in 2008.

This kind of grandstanding will only reinforce what Americans already know: Democrats are not to be trusted with national security. You forsee a replay of 2006. So do I. The party in control of Congress will have their asses handed to them for breaking their word.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: