The moral arrogance of the left

[Argus]

I don't always agree with Andrew Coyne, but then he doesn't always echo what I've been saying.

Previous Liberal governments acquired that arrogance only after many years in office. With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority: a belief, not only that their views are superior to those of their opponents, but that theirs are the only views it is possible for a decent person to hold.

Last week the Conservatives nominated their MP responsible for status of woman issues as the head of the status of women committee. Traditionally, this position goes to the official opposition. The Liberals were so affronted they walked out in protest.

As exhibit A, I give you the recent fiasco at the status of women committee. For those just joining us, the fracas was set off by the Conservatives’ nomination as chair of the committee, Rachael Harder, the party’s critic for the Status of Women portfolio. Thirty years old, smart as a whip, with a background in sociology and youth consulting, Harder is a promising up-and-comer, of a type and vocation one would more typically find in the Liberal caucus.

Her crime? She's in favour of abortion legislation. Maybe not banning abortion, but that hardly matters. It also hardly matters the majority of Canadians probably are in the mushy middle in terms of abortion rights, not liking the lack of law, but not wanting abortion banned either. To the Left, there is no suitable or acceptable position to take on any social issue, be it abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, right to die, immigration, etc., but theirs. To choose another side is to reveal a depths of evil that is simply not to be tolerated.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-pro-choice-stance-wont-cost-liberals-in-the-polls-but-their-moral-entitlement-might/wcm/2503abc6-9cd1-4522-9fe8-9cd382e328a6

[Michael Hardner]

The title of the thread is wrong - it should be 

'The Cynical Way in which the Federal Liberals are able to Politically Torpedo the Conservatives'

[Argus]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The title of the thread is wrong - it should be 

'The Cynical Way in which the Federal Liberals are able to Politically Torpedo the Conservatives'

No, I think Coyne was quite correct. He does admit some of it is posturing, but it arises from the fundamental belief of Liberals and NDPer that their social views are the only ones which are moral, and that anyone who disagrees is fundamentally immoral. Besides, I don't see how this is going to hurt the tories.

[Boges]

I think it's beyond argument that these Liberals are gigantic hypocrites. 

In an era where Conservatives are realizing that social issues are a non-starter in Canadian politics, it's the Liberals that will try and bring up social issues as things that really matter to them. 

JT is only a Feminist when the woman in question agrees with him. 

[Bonam]

Moral arrogance is a great term. Definitely accurately describes the attitude of a typical Seattle lefty once. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I think it's beyond argument that these Liberals are gigantic hypocrites. 

In an era where Conservatives are realizing that social issues are a non-starter in Canadian politics, it's the Liberals that will try and bring up social issues as things that really matter to them. 

JT is only a Feminist when the woman in question agrees with him. 

The Liberals are bringing these up, in part, because they want the conservatives to oppose them. The media is all on the liberals' side on these issues and will rain condemnation down on anyone who opposes their views of abortion, gay rights, death penalty, immigration, etc.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

The Liberals are bringing these up, in part, because they want the conservatives to oppose them. The media is all on the liberals' side on these issues and will rain condemnation down on anyone who opposes their views of abortion, gay rights, death penalty, immigration, etc.

I guess after you've fought hard to overcome the narrow mindedness of the religious right you work to maintain those achievements.

[Moonlight Graham]

“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”  - Thomas Sowell

He's of course talking about the left (generally).  I agree most (not all) people on the left are like this.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”  - Thomas Sowell

He's of course talking about the left (generally).  I agree most (not all) people on the left are like this.

I'd never heard of him, but he has some great quotes!  I'm a fan.  I'm going to have to read more about him.

[eyeball]

49 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”  - Thomas Sowell

He's of course talking about the left (generally).  I agree most (not all) people on the left are like this.

I think its more accurate to say Sowell is simply describing people who are being assholes.

Not to say the left doesn't have a few but generally speaking I'd say the numbers of assholes on the right far outnumber them.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”  - Thomas Sowell

He's of course talking about the left (generally).  I agree most (not all) people on the left are like this.

No, not everyone. But the most irritating thing I've found when trying to discuss issues like this on-line is the number of these people who, as Sowell said, are not interested in facts or analysis. Instead every time I get involved in one of these issues the discussion inevitably winds up being about me, and not the subject, as they vent their indignation and outrage that my beliefs don't match theirs and make accusations about my character. Of course, their opinion of me as an anonymous entity is supremely unimportant, but it does make actual thoughtful discussion difficult if not impossible. That's one of the reasons I've put so many of these types into my ignore list.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

I think its more accurate to say Sowell is simply describing people who are being assholes.

Not to say the left doesn't have a few but generally speaking I'd say the numbers of assholes on the right far outnumber them.

Oh there's definitely more a-holes on the right.  I think you can apply his quote to a lot of people on the right as well, but they tend to be less smug.

[Michael Hardner]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

No, I think Coyne was quite correct. He does admit some of it is posturing, but it arises from the fundamental belief of Liberals and NDPer that their social views are the only ones which are moral, and that anyone who disagrees is fundamentally immoral. Besides, I don't see how this is going to hurt the tories.

Since you're talking about actual party members, or maybe voters now, I am going to agree with you.  I think it's divisive to assume a religious  morality when it comes to these issues.  Morality is political, and taking a hard line on every issue isn't helpful.

[Hal 9000]

The left has always sold politics as NDP/Liberal = good people, Conserv = bad/mean spirited.  It's a very simple concept.  They indoctrinate kids to this belief in elementary school.  They're just more open to it now.  The fact is; on most issues we all want to get to the same place, but have different ideas of how to get there.   

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

The left has always sold politics as NDP/Liberal = good people, Conserv = bad/mean spirited.  It's a very simple concept.  They indoctrinate kids to this belief in elementary school.  They're just more open to it now.    

That's because the union members have been instructed to put something in the water.

I was reading about it in an article from Left-Wing Central HQ.  Too bad you're on to us, now we'll have to kill you.

Quote

The fact is; on most issues we all want to get to the same place, but have different ideas of how to get there.

Well, the forward backward method you guys employ is pretty ridiculous.

[dialamah]

5 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

The left has always sold politics as NDP/Liberal = good people, Conserv = bad/mean spirited.  It's a very simple concept.  

Actually, it has been right-wing posters on this forum who have persuaded me of that.   I had no pre-conceived notions about right and left when I got here, since I wasn't particularly clear on what those terms even meant, let alone the political ideology behind them.   Maybe Liberals didn't have to sell anything, maybe the mean spiritedness is really there.   Not that conservatives can't be really nice people too.  

[Benz]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎05 at 12:05 PM, Argus said:

Her crime? She's in favour of abortion legislation. Maybe not banning abortion, but that hardly matters.

I appology for not being very well informed about the said legislation proposal. Is it about setting restrictions to the right of abortion? Or is rather about removing the priviledge or having free public support for abortion in some specific cases?

If it's about the first one, I understand the objections seem arrogant to you. Until a specific number of days, the right of the woman prevails over the fetus. Discussion about it can only open a can of worms.

However, if it is about removing the priviledge of using free public health care in some conditions, I am open for discussion. Not necessarly in favor of setting conditions, but I think it is legitimated to raise the question. I think free abortion has sometimes the undesired effect of disempowerment. I do not know what is the best solution to that but I think all possibilities must be debated.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Benz said:

I appology for not being very well informed about the said legislation proposal. Is it about setting restrictions to the right of abortion? Or is rather about removing the priviledge or having free public support for abortion in some specific cases?

If it's about the first one, I understand the objections seem arrogant to you. Until a specific number of days, the right of the woman prevails over the fetus. Discussion about it can only open a can of worms.

However, if it is about removing the priviledge of using free public health care in some conditions, I am open for discussion. Not necessarly in favor of setting conditions, but I think it is legitimated to raise the question. I think free abortion has sometimes the undesired effect of disempowerment. I do not know what is the best solution to that but I think all possibilities must be debated.

There is no legislation under discussion. This is about the Liberals and NDP deciding that she is unfit to represent the interests of women on the status of woman committee because she is opposed to abortion. In other words, only women who are pro-choice can represent womens issues. 

The latest poll I'm aware of showed that 77% of Canadians favour abortion. However, only 53% of those felt abortion on demand (without restrictions) was the way to go.  That's about 41% in total. I don't see how you get to decide that someone who is not part of that 41% is unfit to lead a status of women committee unless you're the type of person who dismisses all those who disagree with you as being beneath contempt. 

Her views on abortion have never really been much of a part of her public life. They aren't really known. The Left bases its antipathy to her, as far as I can tell, on the following, from Macleans.

Harder granted $11,681 to two pregnancy clinics in Lethbridge to hire summer employees in 2016, using money that MPs were given to create local jobs. The clinics have mandates suggesting that every child has the right to be born. The same year, Harder supported a private member’s bill that moved to make it a separate crime to kill a fetus when harming a pregnant woman. Harder has declined requests from journalists to detail her anti-abortion/pro-life profile.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Argus

[peoples advocate]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎05 at 10:13 AM, Michael Hardner said:

The title of the thread is wrong - it should be 

'The Cynical Way in which the Federal Liberals are able to Politically Torpedo the Conservatives'

 I believe that all parties are as bad as each other and it is time to work for the country and its people instead of the party. Dreaming I guess

[Jariax]

On 10/6/2017 at 8:28 PM, Hal 9000 said:

The left has always sold politics as NDP/Liberal = good people, Conserv = bad/mean spirited.  It's a very simple concept.  They indoctrinate kids to this belief in elementary school.  They're just more open to it now.  The fact is; on most issues we all want to get to the same place, but have different ideas of how to get there.   

That's certainly an optimistic way of looking at things. Unfortunately, the non-religious right's beliefs always seem to come back to lower taxes as their cure-all for everything. And I'm left wondering how many really hold those beliefs and how many just play along, because it serves their own self-interest. 

Do they really think that abolishing the minimum wage will help the poor?
Do they really think that a decrease in corporate taxes will result in more government revenue because of all the new business?
Do they really think that universal health care will make health care worse? And do they really think it's slavery?

I see these people espouse these opinions. Bright people, like Paul Ryan, and I wonder if they can really think that. 

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, Jariax said:

That's certainly an optimistic way of looking at things. Unfortunately, the non-religious right's beliefs always seem to come back to lower taxes as their cure-all for everything. And I'm left wondering how many really hold those beliefs and how many just play along, because it serves their own self-interest. 

The base of the desire for lower taxes is twofold. One, it's admittedly good politics. Two is the pretty firm belief that whatever government does it does inefficiently, and that wherever possible the private sector should be doing it instead.

I am of the belief that the government should do what government MUST do as efficiently and effectively as possible, without regard to cost. That means that, assuming top efficiency, we must spend as much as necessary to ensure that, for example, highways and bridges are in top shape, along with other infrastructure. That the health care system works as good as anywhere on earth - which precludes 6hr waits at the ER and six month waits to see specialists). That the military is fully funded, with modern equipment and sufficient people to do the jobs assigned them. We should have an adequate number of embassies abroad, proper controls on the border, and proper security forces. Taxes must be properly collected, and the budget maintained.

However, after government does what MUST be done, there comes a whole lot of stuff that government does it does not need to do, but which governments have done for mostly political reasons or because it sees them as helpful in some way. That includes, by way of example, money for sports and the arts, for cultural groups, for subsidies to a whole host of  businesses and industries. The US cabinet has about a dozen members. Why do we need thirty?

Why do we need a ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology as well as a Ministry of Science? Government sucks at all these.
Why do we have a minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and a minister of indigenous services?
Why do we need a minister of Foreign Affairs, a minister of International Development and La Francophonie and a Ministry of Trade, What is the point of a Ministry of natural resources? That is a provincial area of responsibility.
Why would we need a Ministry of Canadian Heritage, or a Ministry of Sports and persons with disabilities?
Why do we need both a Ministry of Transport and a Ministry of Infrastructure and communities?
The idea of a minister responsible for 'the status of women' is archaic in a day when half the cabinet is female, is it not?
WTH does the Ministry of Democratic Institutions do anyway?

Every time government decides to do something to 'help' some group that program becomes sacrosanct. Any attempt to end the program becomes an attack on whoever it was deemed to be helping. The wailing and whining and caterwauling is endless. Yet if you never end programs how can you keep adding new ones, as government does, without eventually going bankrupt?
 

16 minutes ago, Jariax said:

Do they really think that abolishing the minimum wage will help the poor?
Do they really think that a decrease in corporate taxes will result in more government revenue because of all the new business?
Do they really think that universal health care will make health care worse? And do they really think it's slavery?

I see these people espouse these opinions. Bright people, like Paul Ryan, and I wonder if they can really think that. 

Do the left really think shooting the minimum wage up won't cost jobs? Is that supposed to help the poor?
Do they think corporations will stay here if taxes are significantly higher than in other competing jurisdictions?
As for universal health care and Paul Ryan (who is not a conservative) these are not things Canadian conservatives argue about.

[Jariax]

On 10/22/2017 at 12:04 PM, Argus said:

Do the left really think shooting the minimum wage up won't cost jobs? Is that supposed to help the poor?
Do they think corporations will stay here if taxes are significantly higher than in other competing jurisdictions?
As for universal health care and Paul Ryan (who is not a conservative) these are not things Canadian conservatives argue about.

I think most reasonable people believe minimum wage can be set too high, although there is much disagreement on what constitutes too high. However, removing it entirely, would be a disaster for many poor people - unless there is a social safety net. The simple fact of the matter is that the textbook laws of supply and demand don't really work in a labour market, where there is a greater supply of labour than is needed, and people must find a job to survive. If finding a job is optional, then abolishing the minimum wage could work, because employers would have to offer enough of a wage, to entice people to work. 

 The thing about corporate taxes that governments don't seem to understand, is that when we lower our taxes 'to be more competitive', nearby jurisdictions to the same thing to complete. Now instead of Canada, Mexico and the US all taking in 20% corporate tax, we're all taking in 10%, with no one getting the upper hand, in this clever little competition - except for millionaires and MNC's. That's a big part of the reason so many countries are piling up staggering deficits and nearing bankruptcy. 

 

 

[Bubble Burst]

I agree with no minimum wage, but add Guaranteed Minimum Income for every adult, not just for those over 65, and tax the wealthy (300k+) to pay for it.

Also eliminate corporate tax, but compensate 100% by taxing the wealthy at progressive tax rates. Add additional progressive tax rate brackets going up to 99% for incomes over 100M.