Maggie's Farm

Why do Liberals hate Conservatives so much? A quote from Ace:

...researchers determined that "there are five psychological foundations of morality, which we label as harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity." Conservative morality is based on some combination of all five of these moral foundations. There may not be an exact 20% input from each one, but they are all present. Liberal morality is based on only the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations.

"Conservatives have many moral concerns that liberals simply do not recognize as moral concerns... liberals often find it hard to understand why so many of their fellow citizens do not rally around the cause of social justice, and why many Western nations have elected conservative governments in recent years."

Read the whole thing, but the point is well-taken. Libs and Conservatives are coming from different places, with different basic assumptions. I don't think it explains the hatred, though.

Readers wanted the lyrics for the Maria McCool song, For Ireland I'd not tell her name, (which was a Liam Clancy song). Sipp sent them to me. It begins:

Last night as I strolled abroad
On the far side of my farm
I was approached by a comely maiden
Who left me distraught and weak.
I was captivated by her demeanour and shapeliness
By her sensitive and delicate mouth,
I hastened to approach her
But for Ireland I'd not tell her name.

Here's the rest, in Gaelic and in English.

I promise that this will make your day better than it may be already - the Gaelic tune Ar Eirinn Ni Neosfainn Ce Hi:

From guest poster Bruce Kesler - 

Business As Usual Goes In Circles

Statists on the Left resemble some private sector advocates on the Right.  They argue over which path to take, both leading in similar circles.  Both avoid the road right before their feet, as it would require looking forward to benefits for all instead of selfishly at themselves.  That road not taken is of outcome neutral free enterprise that enriches all.

Statists on the Left defend and want to enlarge government programs that sap productivity, reward sloth, and create a New Class of taxpayer-supported or obliged favored. Their fun-house mirror images from the Right defend and want to enlarge large corporate welfare, wasteful and needless products, and self-serving and enriching speculation.  Both are dependant upon the supposed largesse of government steering its huge budgets toward one or the other’s pets.

Government’s core role is in preserving freedoms to be individuals and national freedoms to avoid foes endangerment of our individual freedoms. One can legitimately, also,  propose that government serves that role when it can mobilize to increase our abilities.  But, government must then compete with other providers for which can do so most cost-effectively.

Private enterprise’s core role is in developing and selling -- transparently, honestly and without coercion -- solutions and products that individuals want to purchase, either directly or through government.  One can legitimately propose that trial-and-error may be wasteful, and some of that waste enriches selfish schemers. But, if subject to market penalties, waste is most quickly penalized and investments that benefit more are encouraged.

In the current economic meltdown, the central fallacy of runaway statists and of irresponsible corporatists is exposed. Both plead they are too big to be allowed to fail.  But, both already have failed. Both seek to put makeup on the zombie by sucking life out of productive sectors.

The easy pickings of criticism come to mind, but they only scratch the surface of our aimlessness and lack of understanding of what works: Competitiveness comes from competition, not from government protectionism.

Big-Three auto industry critics correctly point to uncompetitive wage rates and pension promises reducing profitability, but erroneously criticize now competitive quality or pricing. Their strides forward on these fronts came from having to meet quality and pricing market pressures from foreign-owned auto makers. Preserving their uncompetitive labor structure injects formaldehyde -- at the cost of more jobs lost and of  taxes and debt squandered -- rather than life. Instead, auto executives plead for taxpayer-relief from exorbitant labor costs. Those who enable this avoid the clearly marked road. 

That this seemingly easy and obvious conclusion is neglected by statists and by auto executives, both under pressure by union supporters or by union threats, highlights the path in other realms of our difficulties.

The bulk of state budgets are consumed by labor costs and pensions. The Left’s think tank, the Center on Budget and Policy Studies, counts 41 states in severe deficits, most wanting Washington to pay their bills as if manna from heaven. The Center points at relatively minor restraints placed on program beneficiaries – the first to be impacted when 50-75% of budgets are deemed “fixed costs” of government workers and structures -- while hiring – which exploded along with wages and benefits during the past 10 years – is merely slowed. The largest contributors to statist political candidates are government-employee unions. The obvious path should be that any state program be first subject to cost-effectiveness competition, as with school vouchers and other private service providers, subject to reasonable standards. Private providers, however, must meet – indeed, take the forefront in proposing -- such reasonable standards rather than seeking loopholes to be primarily self-serving. Clear and tested market standards are not the enemy of free enterprise but its underpinning.

Notice, this is a separate matter from whether this or that program is worthwhile.  Those  decisions will be clarified by open competition and standards of measurement.

More difficult distinctions arise when other realms are considered.  For example, the contracting of Defense and State tasks abroad provide flexibility in staffing and incurring costs only when needed instead of idly in reserve, but at higher costs when necessary.  Again, reasonable standards of competence and results for competition are required, rather than protecting government payrolls and longer-lasting retirement obligations.  Veterans  organizations and retired diplomats, here, operate like unions in being more oriented toward benefits than toward mission effectiveness.

Taxing certain expenditures and not others, exempting certain organizations – particularly “charities” whose prime recipients are those running and working for them, are more difficult to justify when exposed to more scrutiny.

These and many other instances of spreading transparency and freer competition provide citizens with clearer choices over their taxes.  One-by-one and in mass, special favors embodied in the thousands of pages of tax codes will be exposed.  Essentially, this would move toward more neutrality between richer and poorer, between saving/investment and consumption.  Competition breeds competitiveness and more efficient choices that better meet each individual’s needs and ability to advance.  The truly unfortunate are not abandoned.  Instead, resources are not wasted but able to be focused on providing them with more opportunities. The truly motivated are not penalized for adding to their and our opportunities.

That’s the American road, not the protectionist staying-in-place circle of self-destruction we’re now trodding in circles.

Reviewing our posts since the election, I notice that we have returned to a better, more wholesome balance between Real Life and politics. That's a good thing.

As heavy-duty tax-paying Citizens of a free republic, we feel obligated to care about current events and, as our readers know, individual freedom and respect for our culture are our primary political interests. But current events (ie the "news") consists mainly of ephemeral things which mentally exist in a strange virtual reality as much as in reality, and likely never matter to us on our deathbeds - assuming that we will even die in bed (but that's what we at Maggie's call the "Deathbed Test" of what is important in life - a test which is highly individual.)

Semi-sorta related: We see that Diana West, author of Death of the Grown Up - a book we plugged when it came out - has a blog or, as I prefer to call these things, a website. We need to add her to our blogroll, and I will tell her that we admire her and that she is on the same page as our resident shrink Dr. Bliss. (A communal site without a shrink is like a canoe without a paddle.)

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

5:1 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you.

5:2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

5:3 When they say, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!

5:4 But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief;

5:5 for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness.

5:6 So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober;

5:7 for those who sleep sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night.

5:8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.

5:9 For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

5:10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him.

5:11 Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, as indeed you are doing.

We are long-time fans of Keith Jarrett - everything he does. And he does everything, from deep in his soul. Thanks to LGF for this Danny Boy on a rainy November day in Yankeeland:

AVI speaks up for the Social Conservatives. I think you could call them "normal, decent people."

Online Books

Boston: "We're #1." In ugliness, totalitarian-style. I think that building was designed to make people terrified of their government. Why didn't they build something human-scale and welcoming, instead of something that looks like it has security cameras and 50 mm machine gun mounts? After all, the people are the ones who pay for all of this.

Celtic coin cache found. I've been reading that there really is no such category as "Celts," but I guess people sorta know what is meant by the term - barbarians.

Hitler's mortgage

Obama skips his grandmother's funeral. There's a pattern of family disconnection here which seems odd to me.

Steele update. I think Steele is a good guy.

A quote from J C Phillips:

I disagree with the politics of Barack Obama. To suggest that because we share the same skin color I should be teary-eyed as he takes office is to make the election about racial validation rather than ideas.

More on how Conservatives need leaders who can communicate. Bush and McCain are fine men, but neither can talk their way out of a wet paper bag.

Villainous on the prospects of "getting past race"

Worst post-election stock market ever

Leading Psychiatrist says Liberalism is a mental disorder. A bit of hyperbole there. h/t, Theo

Via Conservatism Today:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative
and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves.

William Boetcker, 1873 - 1962

Very amusing. Dennis Miller on Palin's great sex life, Obama, and other topics (h/t, Tiger):

The cartoonist had a great idea, but is surely no hunter because no waterfowler would wear orange.

h/t, Theo

Researcher Robert Carter has a good summary of the realities of the AGW frenzy, with the above title. One quote from his essay:

...science reality in 2008 is that the IPCC’s hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming has been repeatedly tested and failed. In contrast, the proper null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we observe today are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. The only argument that remains to the IPCC—and it is solely a theoretical argument, not evidence of any kind—is that their unvalidated computer models project that carbon-dioxide-driven dangerous warming will occur in the future: just you wait and see!

He goes on to make the case that mankind can adapt to climate shifts, regardless of their causes, just as it has done in the past.