In reading the comments on my last post, I issued a challenge for someone to answer a question I posed. I continually hear that being a conservative, I am somehow morally inferior to my liberal equivalents, who simply want outcomes to be "fair" for everyone. For the record, I believe in a small government, traditional or "conservative" social values, and believe each person has an individual responsibility to make or break their own life. These ideals put me solidly in the "conservative" category.
I am regularly surprised to hear that my lack of support for expanded government intervention (read "mandated intrusion") into the private lives and decisions of indvuals somehow equates to: greed, hate, racism, homophobia, elitism, etc. While I know these labels are not actually true for me (those labels simply don't "stick"), I wondered if those who espouse similar conservative principles were, in fact, guilty of such ugly accusations. Please note that I am not referring to "Republicans" or Democrats", but rather, a set of ideals which we each use to shape our world-view. I was surprised to see research which yielded some very surprising results, considering all the accusatory slander directed at conservatives by liberals. Take a look for yourself (all info below taken from the book Makers and Takers, by Peter Schweizer):
* Seventy-one percent of conservatives say you have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent versus less than half (46 percent) of liberals.
* Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts.
* Liberals are 2½ times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck.
* Liberals are 2 times more likely to say it is okay to cheat the government out of welfare money you don’t deserve.
* Conservatives are more likely than liberals to hug their children and “significantly more likely” to display positive nurturing emotions.
* Liberals are less trusting of family members and much less likely to stay in touch with their parents.
* Do you get satisfaction from putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own? Fifty-five percent of conservatives said yes versus only 20 percent of liberals.
* Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Bill O’Reilly and Dick Cheney have given large sums of money to people in need, while Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and Al Gore have not.
* Those who are “very liberal” are 3 times more likely than conservatives to throw things when they get angry.
* Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts.
* Liberals are 2½ times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck.
* Liberals are 2 times more likely to say it is okay to cheat the government out of welfare money you don’t deserve.
* Conservatives are more likely than liberals to hug their children and “significantly more likely” to display positive nurturing emotions.
* Liberals are less trusting of family members and much less likely to stay in touch with their parents.
* Do you get satisfaction from putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own? Fifty-five percent of conservatives said yes versus only 20 percent of liberals.
* Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Bill O’Reilly and Dick Cheney have given large sums of money to people in need, while Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and Al Gore have not.
* Those who are “very liberal” are 3 times more likely than conservatives to throw things when they get angry.
* Liberals are more self-centered than conservatives.
* Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals.
* Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives.
* Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying.
* Liberals are more angry than conservatives.
* Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.
* Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives.
"Schweizer argues that the failure lies in modern liberal ideas, which foster a self-centered, “if it feels good do it” attitude that leads liberals to outsource their responsibilities to the government and focus instead on themselves and their own desires."
* Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals.
* Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives.
* Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying.
* Liberals are more angry than conservatives.
* Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.
* Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives.
"Schweizer argues that the failure lies in modern liberal ideas, which foster a self-centered, “if it feels good do it” attitude that leads liberals to outsource their responsibilities to the government and focus instead on themselves and their own desires."
I find it especially interesting that for all the talk about helping the poor, showing compassion, spreading the wealth, etc., liberals generally wish to do so at no/little cost to themselves. I think it's "cute" when someone acts so passionate about a cause, and yet wants to put MY money where THERE mouth is. You can check out the book at Amazon.com
EDIT (9/19/09 4:53a): In looking over the post, I'm not intending to "bash" anyone, but simply to point out the irony in the information being presented. I recognize it's a pretty big brush to paint with, but interesting nonetheless. Some of the statements sound like over-generalizations, but are obviously explored further in the book.
12 comments:
Cameron,
I haven’t read this book, but I would be interested to know how the author so conveniently happens to lump everyone he studied into only two categories: liberal and conservative…and THEN proceed to determine just how often one or the other group hugs their children, calls in sick to work, whines less (?), etc. I’m able to overlook the distinction by simply declaring that a lot of people are assholes, period, regardless of political or ideological persuasion. I’ve lived among both diehard conservatives and liberals, and I can say for sure that there are redeeming qualities about both…and also qualities that are not so redeeming. So what? The only difference tends to be that those of a conservative mindset tend to be a little more upfront with, and perhaps more honest about, their convictions. The liberal will declare that health care should be universal, and please, can’t we all just pitch in…until the moment of truth comes and they find out how much it’ll cost them. The conservative says, pay for it your damn self, and don’t expect any free handouts from me. OK, so everyone arrives at the same conclusion. They just take a different path to get there, right? Well, it is true that there are some generous people out there of both distinctions, and once again their generosity manifests itself in different ways. The selfless liberal is willing to pay more taxes to help someone less fortunate. The selfless conservative would rather his charity be voluntary. But here’s the problem: there’s not enough voluntary charity out there to remedy the profound problems that exist within our $2 trillon health care system. Not by a long shot. Like it or not, there are some things that are too enormous for private charity to sort out. If you know of a way, I’m sure there’s tens of millions of people waiting to hear of a solution that doesn’t involve government. But the sad reality is that the US spends far more than any other country on health care (17% of GDP), doesn’t cover everyone, and offers limited coverage for those that DO have insurance. Insurance firms can pick and choose whom they cover, can refuse coverage to just about anyone, can deny claims, and can rescind coverage for trivial reasons (i.e. once the consumer gets too risky or expensive for them to cover). US healthcare consistently ranks at the bottom of developed nations (or very close to the bottom) in most major international studies. The World Health Organization ranks us 37th in overall performance (behind Costa Rica), 47th in life expectancy (behind Bosnia-Herzegovina), 24th in the world for a HEALTHY life expectancy (behind Israel), and 10th in infant mortality (behind Poland). Obviously there’s a problem. If private charity can find a solution to that, and do it soon, I’d love to hear about it.
To answer your question from your last entry: of course no health care system is going to be free, but ANY alternative to what is we have is bound to be less expensive than it is now. The countries that have adopted universal health care (and the US is the only developed nation that hasn’t) pay for it one way or another, and do so at a much lower price tag. Germany is one of the most expensive systems in the world, at 11% of GDP, but: it covers everyone for life, patients never see a bill, it has one-third the administrative costs of US healthcare, and you can choose from over 200 plans…all of which are PRIVATE, but non-profit…and this system has remained intact and nearly unchanged for 125 years. Premiums are paid jointly by employer and employee, but government foots the bill if you lose your job or if you can’t afford the premiums. OK, so often this means less pay for doctors and nurses. Sometimes budgets are stretched. But the funny thing is that doctors in these countries don’t see health care as a money making scheme. They’re happy to be caring for sick people and making a decent income. For many of them, their education was free, too. Wonder who pays for that.
I think it’s reasonable to expect that a person gets to keep as much of their income as possible. I think government sticks its fingers where it doesn’t belong much of the time (of course, I also think that a half-trillion defense budget is outrageous). But I also think there are some things that people deserve, regardless of their income or their status, and health care is one of them. If for no other reason than the fact that a healthy society is a productive society. After all, we offer “free” public education because we believe that everyone benefits from it. Ditto with dozens of other government services. The ONLY reason health care is such a thorn is because it works so well at making money, and those who are making money from it are not eager to see it evolve into a more patient-centered (rather than profit-centered) enterprise.
Marc
Hey Marc, Thanks for posting. A couple questions for you:
1) With respect to your 1st post; while I wasn't seeking a discussion on healthcare, do you find it interesting that those who identify themselves as conservative are overwhelmingly willing to ACTUALLY commit their own resources to helping others, while for those identifying as liberals try to enact policies to compel OTHERS to foot the bill? Especially interesting since the "compassion" we hear for the poor, sick, widows, children is usually heard loudest from those who are liberal? I know there are fringe elements of people at both extremes, but this is pointing out actions of each general group... and that talk is cheap.
2) How do you explain the statement by the Canadian Medical Association advisory board that their system is "imploding" and "more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize"? Or the rationing which is denying care under the English system at present? Do you disagree that reforms in areas that shown to raise prices for consumers(such as malpractice laws/winnings and not allowing health insurance across state-lines) would have some very real benefit, and may help to address the issue, as opposed to committing an entire nation to financially backing a system shown to balloon in other examples?
Hey Cameron,
I oriented my reply towards health care for two reasons: one, because your last entry, which I missed out on (sorry!), was discussing it; and two, because it’s an excellent example of how people of different stripes are applying their beliefs right now.
As for the question of charity, I did a Google search but was unable to find an objective discussion of it within the first several pages. From what credible details I could glean, it does appear that conservatives do give more to charity, as individuals. Liberal philanthropic organizations, however, appear to give far more. I also found that the overwhelming majority of charity was religion-based. Some of this goes to the church, and in my opinion that doesn’t really represent a charitable contribution (especially since it’s mandated by God, no?). I would have to assume that most of rest of it, with religion as a driving factor, is given to organizations that represent the giver’s moral and ideological convictions. Some of this I also feel is of questionable merit. After all, a charity that refuses to hand out condoms to AIDS-ravaged African nations, or fund stem-cell research, or consent to abortion in any case, for example, may be of limited usefulness in the area of health care.
There is more to the discussion than meets the eye, though. Liberals are far more willing (at least on paper), to support wealth redistribution that aids less fortunate people. Many consider charity an impediment to true social change, and in a sense this is true because it may discourage progress. In other words, many liberals would prefer to address the problem at its most fundamental level: the raw inequalities within a society. Instead of throwing their money at a problem, they want to see change enacted at the institutional level. I’m torn in some respects on this. I do not believe that everyone is presented with the same opportunities in this country. I also believe that with enough determination, many people with less initial opportunity can rise above their adversities. But human nature being as imperfect as it is, this often doesn’t happen. So I do see utility in trying to make the playing field more level to begin with. I also feel that the opportunity to make wealth is a privilege, and that those who manage to do so owe something back to the society in which they've prospered. I would suspect that’s why rich liberals like Bill Gates and his foundation have provided $20 billion to help the world’s less fortunate in the past nine years, “guided by the belief that all life has equal value.”
As for Canadian health care, it’s true that they might be teetering on financial trouble because of rising health care costs, and that wait lists to see a specialist can be very long for non-urgent concerns. Some Canadians apparently come to the US and pay for treatment because the wait can be so long in Canada. Like any system, it has it’s own set of disadvantages. But at least no Canadian dies or goes bankrupt because of an inability to obtain affordable medical services. Every Canadian is guaranteed care. Canadians generally fare better in health statistics than the US, too.
It’s also true that England rations care to keep costs under control. But the US rations care to keep profits high. Take your pick. England spends one-fifteenth the amount of money that the US does, and there are no insurance premiums or copays for the patient. For-profit insurance can be purchased in England if you want more coverage than the national plan allows, but only 3% of Britons choose it. The National Health System in England is the biggest single employer in Europe, yet they provide one of the lowest-cost health care plans in the world, with administrative costs 1/5 those of the US. The most striking thing about their system is its focus on preventative care. This is a calculated move, because general practitioners get paid per the number of patients that are registered with them – not by the number of times they see the patients. So it’s in their best interest to keep their patients healthy and out of their offices.
Reforms such as limiting malpractice suits would probably be of limited help. From what I’ve read, it would reduce health care costs by only about one percent. The biggest factors are administration, marketing, and profit. 20% of the cost of health care in the US pays for these things.
Far from ballooning, health care systems in other countries end up costing much less. The US spends about $7000 per person per year on health care, with less than stellar results. Japan, on the other end of the spectrum with one of the lowest-cost systems in the world, spends about $3000, and their costs haven’t risen since the mid-90’s (in fact, they’ve actually gone down a couple times). Japan has the oldest population in the world, too, and its people have the longest lifespan.
HAHAHA! When you google Peter Schweizer, the words that come up are "Conservative Author and Speaker." OF COURSE THATS WHAT HE'LL SAY! You're bringing facts to the table from a biased point of view! And the "facts" and percentages you bring to the table is not even valid to the arguement. What are those percentages supposed to prove? Are you simply just trying to prove that Conservatives are better than Liberals, because that's all I got from those facts brought to the table.
"I find it especially interesting that for all the talk about helping the poor, showing compassion, spreading the wealth, etc., liberals generally wish to do so at no/little cost to themselves. I think it's "cute" when someone acts so passionate about a cause, and yet wants to put MY money where THERE mouth is"
I find this final comment interesting. What I want to know is what makes you think that liberals are wishing all these things at no/little cost? When did taxes/budget cuts/losses etc. not apply to liberals? And plus, NO LIBERAL is asking YOU CONSERVATIVES to put "YOUR MONEY" anywhere. Your money isn't going to liberals, but is to help this country, help the starved, help those who don't have the same benefits as YOU DO. And for you to make a comment like that is just aboslutely terrible.
Hey Marc, thanks for the thoughtful responses. As for anonymous postings, I wonder if we should start requiring people's identities...it's too tough to respond effectively to a barrage of postings. A couple responses for Marc:
1) The charitable giving considered in this guy's research is considered AFTER all religious giving.
2) With respect to wealth redistribution, I also agree wealth should be distributed...according to the job, task, service or good someone provides someone else. We will fundamentally differ on this point, and probably will never reconcile.
3) A point of clarification I need: when you state that the "US" spends $7000 more on healthcare or that we pay 15 times as much as Britain, are you referring to the government paying, or total expenditures?
4) When you condemn profit and if healthcare is SO profitable, what prevents more hospitals or healthcare related companies from springing up to lap up this amazing flow of money? If healthcare is so unfairly overpriced, why not create a group or hospital that only charges what it needs you, yet provides amazing care consistent with the standards you tout in other countries? What's stopping you, or anyone else who shares your ideals? Surely there would be a market for this type of quality, inexpensive healthcare that isn't profit driven!
Anonymous posters: For the record, I am NOT trying to say that Conservatives are better than Liberals. I'm saying that one ideology puts other people first in WORD, and another set of ideals puts people first in DEED. The point was to contrast the heartless image with which conservatives are branded, with is actually the case. You can't honestly discount factual research, simply because the author is a conservative! Attack the argument, not the worldview of the person compiling the facts. One method is honorable and the other is a cheapshot.
In response to the anonymous poster who said liberals are not asking for conservatives to put their money anywhere; what do you believe taxes are? Wouldn't it be fair to say that politicians, specifically, give away money in order to maintain voting blocks of people willing to keep them in power because of the hand-outs they receive in kind?
The numbers represent how much is spent per person per year. It doesn’t identify where the money comes from to pay for it (which differs from country to country).
I’m guessing it would be possible to create non-profit insurance in this country that works alongside and competes with the for-profit plans, but besides being a monumental undertaking that would no doubt require a huge amount of money to get off the ground (without investors/stockholders/...taxes, I’m not sure where that money would come from), there’s always the external factors that remain unchanged. We’d still be working within a profit-making framework. We'd still have drugs that cost up to ten times what they do in other countries (for the exact same drug). We'd still have overpriced procedures and equipment. We'd have doctors that are paid several times more than doctors in other countries. We'd have an absurdly complex billing system, which is why administration ends up costing so much. I think these factors (and I’m sure others) would have to brought under control before any large non-profit could succeed. There’s also the matter of mandatory coverage. In countries with universal care, everyone is required to have coverage, and this spreads the cost over the maximum number of people. In the US, the law limits what insurance a person can buy, so mandatory, nationwide coverage is impossible right now. Additionally, even in countries where plans are private, government still plays a large role in setting prices and determining the pay of health care providers. So I don’t think it would be as simple as one might imagine to take on the health care industry.
Besides, I think we need ask what the best approach would be to making health care more affordable and accessible. Like any other situation where an industry has become greedy and out of control, I think government is going to have to take a role in fixing it. In looking at examples from around the world, this is the way it works without exception. And the role is usually a major one. That’s not to say that it couldn’t be done differently, just that it hasn’t, and there’s probably a reason that it’s worked out that way (perhaps because most of these systems were implemented at least 50 years ago, before big business got a hold of health care). So if it turns out that government involvement actually happens to be the most expedient, least costly way to get the job done (which appears to be the consensus everywhere else but here), why not? I think that a general bias against government involvement in ANYTHING is a poor excuse not to let them do the job if they’re the best suited for it. Plenty of conservatives rail against government, but nonetheless take advantage of their services (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, schools, police, libraries, fire, parks, roads, etc.). Unfortunately, I think there are too many pundits that whip people up into an irrational frenzy by equating universal care with socialism, death panels, Hitler, and the like…and people actually believe them.
And I agree with you, Cameron, that we should evaluate the person's argument rather than their "orientation." Although, a person's beliefs will often color their research, so it IS good to know where the author is coming from beforehand.
In response to “I find it especially interesting that for all the talk about ,,,, MY money where THERE mouth is. “
Are you saying liberals do NOT pay taxes? or are you saying conservatives earn more therefore pay more? AND - I NEVER sign up for my tax dollars to fund bombs and tanks and jeeps and billions of $$ to fund WAR but I realize this is a fact of life. I guess it’s okay for conservatives to put our money where their guns are!
Post a Comment