In Five myths about why the South seceded, from the Washington Post, we learn that non-slave owning supporters of the institution of slavery in the pre-Civil War south were like currently poor supporters of the George W. Bush tax cuts.
In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Can these people be serious? Low income people who support the tax cuts of the Bush administration aren’t mostly expecting to be rich some day. They’re hoping to get or keep a job this year, and they understand that when the government takes money from the wealthy, the wealthy will employ fewer people. And the poor may have figured out that the government does not create jobs, despite the misleading rhetoric of the Left.
In any case, it’s risible to conflate the moral status of being allowed to keep more of the money you’ve earned through work or investment with the moral status of keeping slaves or supporting slavery.
Here’s a better comparison. Some people who have not had an abortion (or been involved with someone who had one), and don’t plan to get one anytime soon, nevertheless support abortion-on-demand. Why? For many, they want to keep the door open that someday, just maybe, they might want to get one, or push a woman they’re involved with to get one.
Like the poor southern subsistence farmer who doesn’t really expect to be able to buy a slave, but might want to sometime, and so supports slavery, these “pro-choice” supporters don’t want to arrange their lives and behavior to obviate the “need” for abortion to be available to them.
The moral status of abortion and slave-holding are far more comparable than the silly comparison quoted above, as is the reality of the “maybe someday” thinking that enabled both.
March 30th, 2011 7:02 am
“…Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday.” This is a very telling statement and yes, it is true. The possibility (and for many, reality) of joining the upper class someday was, and is, unique to America. This is the only country where moving up in social and economic status was ever seen as a possibility. Any intelligent poor person knows that the the government see him as wealthy when it comes to taxes.
Having said that, the following statement he makes, “In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.” is pure speculation on his part. Where does he give evidence for this supposition?
April 1st, 2011 7:04 am
Sounds like the typical, lefty-righty exchange of insults to me, you guys. So… now where are we? How ’bout this analogy: The blind leading the blind.
April 2nd, 2011 1:54 pm
You’re right, Innermore. There is no moral difference between “left” and “right”. Both are equally correct, and equally wrong. All comparisons are valid, between any two positions or any two issues. There are no analogies more distorted than any others, because all analogies are equally distorted.
In fact, no one can actually say anything that’s true, because we all have only part of the truth, and we all tell lies. So no one says things any truer than anyone else says. Or any more false.
Come to think of it, all criticism is equally valid, and equally invalid. All words lie. And all words tell some truth.
So why bother saying anything? In fact, why bother noticing anything? Why bother thinking? It all comes down to just someone’s opinion, anyway, since nothing is really true, or clear, right? Oops… I meant, “left”?
The blind only lead the blind when the blind refuse to follow someone who can see.
Of course, who is to say that seeing is better than not seeing? Sounds like a value judgment to me, the same old “blind vs sighted exchange of insults”.
April 10th, 2011 12:15 pm
Bravo, brother. Glad to give you the opportunity to slap me down too, which just proves my point. You guys are all too busy hardening your hearts to try and solve a problem. Actually, y’all are making the problem worse.
Umm… You got my analogy backwards. Most folks can see just fine. They’re just being told, over and over ad nauseam, that they’re blind. I for one, don’t buy it; along with many others increasingly. The rival blind leaderships truly know they’re blind. But they’re not telling their blind followers that, for obvious reasons.
How ’bout another flawed perspective of the abortion issue, which you seem to be vigorously referring to in response to my apparently self-induced amorality:
1) No woman should be forced to choose between sacrificing her personal pursuit of happiness and sacrificing her child. Not the main sufferer here, but close enough for starters.
2) Man up. Unintended pregnancy is an irresponsible, unjustifiable, unacceptable term. It is actually reckless impregnation, and that is a crime against a woman and her child. A crime that should carry penalties according to which of the two unforeseen consequences the victims have been forced to experience, or not. Men are only able to witness them, and justly must bear full responsibility. Too unfeasible?
3) A suggestion for the sex-addicted atheists. It’s a statistical fact. A woman can only have one full term pregnancy every 9 months. But a man can produce 100’s (I’m exaggerating)! Dependable male contraceptives (like adrenergics, Adjudin, IVD’s) must be much much more socially acceptable and obtainable than women’s, especially among the poor in our society, if we really wanna effectively avoid reckless impregnations.
4) Evil or not, the abortion genie is here to stay; deal with it. Fortify your pro-life message with that in mind. Religious institutions should open abortion clinics and establish their own “Planned Parenthood.” The church is a lot better at comforting victims, counseling impoverished families, teaching morality, or whatever than any other organization I can think of. Never gonna happen, but at least get out of the convict-and-condemn-for-profit business.
Get stuff like this socially established in this country first. It’ll provide some real substance for an actual discussion about solving the more important, underlying ethics and morals. Yeah, you guys’ve heard this before and most certainly have better theories. I’m just sharing these thoughts to illustrate my lack of vision, I guess. But at least it’s a teensy bit more constructive than mocking liberals as nihilist state-sponsored murderers, conservatives as egocentric televangelist bigots, and the rest of us: self-rusing Surrealists. Even if it’s true!