Oh Boy! My political tag surfing filled with short circuited conservatives

Oh Boy!

Oh Boy! My political tag surfing is filled with short circuited conservatives.

It is really an exercise in mental gymnastics, reading up on all the political conspiracy theories going on. One post suggested that sensible theory regarding a political endorsement (that Bush is keeping a low profile in the McCain campaign), represented the “kind of thinking” we would be subject to under Obama. What?

I get a kick out of how some conservative minds work; they describe a context to their liking, with its own built in assumptions, then blame the liberals for not being able to think right, like them. Then these folks go on to use that as an example of some sort of liberal press conspiracy, or “the kind of thinking” under Obama. Oh my gosh! Now, if I do not agree with someone it is evidence of their unwholesome scheming nature? Wow!

A basic context is excluded by conservative mindsets; liberalism is inclusive, while conservatism is exclusive. Liberals do not intend to eradicate conservatives, yet as the Rovian plan played out; conservatives planned to eliminate liberalism’s influence. It seems conservatives see liberals from their own exclusive mindsets. They then assume lliberalism is the enemy of a sorts. Seems conservatives cannot comprehend the expansiveness of liberalism, and instead, insist it is a view closed in some way as their own.

Then it follows that it must be closed against them. Many conservatives believe in their own perfect world or world view. Problems do not issue from perfection presumably, so they must all be caused by…, Exactly! Liberals fault! Those different thinking people. To conservatives, debate and democracy are inherently antithetical in action, though they might claim to be fore those abstractions, in the abstract. They have a bias against democracy, as well as much liberty for it implies expansion. These legitimate children of freedom must be called names and be told they are unwholesome. And on that, conservatism delivers day and night, 24/7. The liberalism of the US Constitution, and Jesus Christ, must somehow be reversed. This seems to have become much of modern day conservatism’s purpose and passion around the world.

We need not look too far to see why some conservatives only look for responsibility outside themselves. No one can force them to think about anything new in a new way. Change equals bad. No one need tell them anything about anything outside of their ideological boundaries. No one who thinks differently than they do, need think they can be right and a conservative wrong. (The consequence of not being reality based in any objective like way.) With such faith in ones own infallibility, established in some from their view of faith itself, countervailing truths will be seen as deception.

Another post said, that since coverage of Palin is so negative, it is proof of a negative biased liberal media. Maybe true. Then again, there is so much important negative information about her. She is in the position she could be the president any day if elected VP. This information must be seen, all of her evasive rationalizations, for instance, about most any subject asked of her regarding the role and function of the federal government, weigh heavily in voters consciousness, and should. I hardly think one needs be “fair” or superficially “balanced”, and so come up with the same amount of positive info. It was found that that same allegedly liberal media favored Bush in 2000 by a 2 to 1 margin. And that was because…?

In politics, what a candidate is missing in can become all of our problem, as Bush and Cheney have so superbly demonstrated. But then, journalist have some duty to find an equal number of positives? That would have been real odd during war time if the same standard applied to being informed of our enemies perspective. But then, why then does it not? What kind of conspiracy is that one? Liberal media patriotism conspiracy? Here I am showing how circular this, who is what and when, can go.

How would that even be conceived of qualitatively, when reality is neither fair nor balanced? And of course, what if the most important things do happen to be the negative for one person and positive for another? How is serious consideration served by balancing them with something else, that in effect, becomes diversionary? Oh, and if one has not noticed, the McCain campaign has next to nothing positive to say of Obama unless it is to bolster their own view, does that make all their accusations right? Will McCain supporters have to balance these negative Obama impressions with positive ones? Should the media be “fair” and only show Obama’s point of view to counter his opponents negative ratio dominance?

I can be wrong about just about anything. To prove me wrong is to prove me right, in that I will attempt to reestablish my perspective on truthful information given in truthful context to reflect the new reality. What point is there to living in a distorted world view? Yet how we perceive reality itself; does much to tweak our perspective to or from actual reality. If I cannot admit or comprehend my own pre existing biases, I cannot honestly perceive or receive what is happening now.

We all have ideological lenses, but one based on being open to changing ones mind is superior to mindsets that cannot admit mistakes, or that their ideology; their political or even religious bias, can contain wrong notions. Liberalism accepts this intrinsic predicament in becoming more objective. Overall. Conservatism has no such allegiance to adjusting to Living Truth in the now. It avoids contradiction by denying the evidence. There is increasing evidence of conservatism in the US, in some circles, seeking to make its world view the only acceptable one. This is a threat to democracy itself.

Liberalism’s strength of openness is considered a weakness by conservatives– because liberalism does not accept the restrictions imposed upon objectivity by an unalterable pre existing bias. Liberalism can contain the world of diversity and ambiguities. Does not make liberals always right, or say that democracy does not have negative qualities to address, that cannot permanently be fixed, for they are related to unpredictable discrepancies in human nature.

While for conservatism at large; only their way is right. And in all respect and fairness; that is a highly problematic cosmological view in the face of diverse cultures and human conceptions toward reality.  Like or believe in reality or not.

Democracy is Liberalism’s Child

Democracy exist due to liberalism.

Judging from what we hear from the political right, we would think liberalism is out to “turn” democracy into something else; perhaps socialism or some dictatorship. It is an interesting twist in perception that has been created.

Democracy is revolutionary, for it overthrew the long instilled human paradigm of rule by aristocracy, or other dominator type rule over society. Liberalism’s parents were suffering, and the promise of being in charge of ones own life, as much as that is feasible. There still exist economic and other societal arrangements that require humans to participate in activities together, in fact, the world is being forced into increasingly more cooperative behaviors. Villages, towns, cities, regions, nations, have their own sorts of life that democracy takes part in for collective reasons of health and well being. And now the world of nations finds it must also set certain rules and regulations to function.

Conservatism, unlike in some popular opinion, seeks to reestablish the kinds of relationships that existed before democracy came. Democracy and liberalism are against conservatism’s fiefdom mentality’s of us an them, and how do we keep them down. This is exactly why conservatives in the US seek to diminish voting among liberal groups, thus actively acting against democracy. It is also why so many were silent when the resent conservative party started its push to create a “permanent majority”. They actually want an advantage over other citizens made permanent. Totalitarianism. Why is that?

Why did the number of governmental scandals (the so called culture of corruption) have an exponential like explosion under conservatism’s stranglehold on the government for 6 years? Blinded faith placed as a golden calf ahead of reality checking. Opportunistic predators swoop into conservative ideological frameworks to exploit everything about The Commons that they can get away with. The rule of law was assumed to be subservient to opportunism’s lust for wealth and power. To even mention the primal nature of “have” opportunism over those who have not, is equated with so called class war mentality. Interesting how stating a fact is considered wrong, which is why I call conservatism’s opportunistic faith, as being blinded. It cannot allow self questioning to establish honest truthful consideration. Except, perhaps, in its myopic inner reviews of effectiveness in controlling the dialectic.

Once again, it is not what popular propaganda suggest. Propaganda has attempted to emotionalize the population to all negatives being somehow the products of liberalism. They look to areas of liberty, then suggest in strong ad-hominem terms that they are bad. “Loose morals”, and a fundamental conservative belief in certain humans laziness, leads many in conservative mind frames to wish to reign in human freedom in social areas, yet allegedly free us to “do what I want” in the economic realm.  Notic how ideas of laziness do not even apply to someone whose wealth is handed to them by heredity.

Wealthy conservative interest had to convince other conservative interest that their intent where the same. many religious conservative groups have come to accept the ideological notions of economic conservatism as being their own. this has served the wealthy conservatives well as a base to use again and again by a faith based trust in church leadership. The Jack Abramoff scandal showed some of the naked associations between the two manipulating their followers, a if they were a resource to exploit for private gain. This part of that freedom to get away with what ever one can, however one can.

However, this freedom is generally meant to suggest freedom to do to the world what I want to make money, and not for instance, to live so as to tread lightly on the planet, meaning it is OK to be against mass consumption. Once again, conservatism restricts the interpretation to bias to individual “right” to not be held accountable to The Commons for ones effects upon it. Yes. Conservatism has become against individual accountability to The Commons. They even try to poison the perception of The Commons as some sort of liberal guilt trip, such as lazy people are against success and achievement etc., then we can ignore our environmental impacts until they reach in and grab society by the throat. Then society must pay up if it can afford the bill.

In most elections, the two party system features these two forces and their followers opposing one another. The conservatives attempting to overthrow the heart of democracy for some restricted reinterpretations of grand abstraction, favoring the return of subservient states of citizenship to economic or religious entities. We are told to have allegiance to economic or church/social order, and thus have no US to ask redress of grievance to.

Conservatives interpret freedom and ensuing responsibilities through the lens of non expansive understanding. Ideologies stand in for understanding.  If you do not agree with them you are wrong.  And if you show where they are wrong, you are still interpreted as wrong.  This is how faith becomes a set up used to exploit; it cannot be questioned in its own context, it is conserved.  Questions are blamed on the questioner; circular reasoning is when logic cannot escape its own trap.

Liberalism has lost much ground to societal indoctrination from propaganda to view social freedom as often a bad thing, and predatory capitalism, as a good thing we all aspire to to prove our high character and achievement natures. This has leveraged perception against admitting, let alone understanding human effect upon The Commons.

We have many corporations and some individuals “doing what they want”, including trying to commandeer the electoral system, without regard to the damage done to society or the worlds ecosystems through their behaviors. In fact, these abusers of The Commons run their own propaganda campaigns to inform the public how they are helping them, not harming anything.

The 2008 election is ultimately about these underlying issues often obscured by emotionalized smoke and mirror schemes. As long as there still are elections and the ballots actually counted, conservatives will be out demonizing liberalism to divert the individuals attention from their fundamental interest, to fear and insecurity based promises to fix society’s “them” alleged value ills by fiat. These will be in the emotionalized areas that can commandeer individuals attentions to act against liberalism. The “Liberal Press” and who is the “most liberal” have actually been turned into negatives.

In the name of freedom and even what is defined as “right”, many conservative followers are seduced into undoing their own interest in favor of the world view of predator upon The Commons. The largest bait and switch operation currently known is occurring right before our eyes. Yet as long as perception can be biased with no accounting for the consequences of so doing, predators upon The Commons will seek their prey.

The Commons will continue to deteriorate. Taking what is left of democracy with it. In the meantime, conservatives dish out emotionalized values to justify their dominator psychologies, while alleging liberals are against those prescribed interpretations of values. This is necessary to keep cognitive dissonance assuaged and project the blame out to someone else.

See how Barrack Obama was blamed by his opposition for most everything wrong from the Bush administration. It was assumed the followers would see such dubious opinionated proof as fact. The conservative mind is expected to not check facts and thus not stress a blinded ideological bias. Reality and truth themselves, can be seen as enemies of conservatism, and that is frightening.

Yet once addicted to conservatism’s bias, it is hard to admit the reality of many things, literally forcing the conservatives to seek out deception as reason. Conservatives often turn reality right back to a liberal, then accuse them as being the source of the discontent. It is a philosophical/psychological addiction that makes the conservatives campaign often so much more profoundly negative in its attacks, than the liberals. There tends to be a poverty of accountability in the conservative ideologies which drives them to hold liberals accountable. It was astounding to hear George Bush when he was unable to acknowledge making any mistakes. So telling of the view from conservatism’s “high ground”. They literally cannot admit that we are all in this together, or that Life is, and there is a Commons to be accountable to.

As it may end up; defeating liberalism will also destroy democracy, leaving us all stranded far in the past. Only now days, with the power to control perception so well understood, our servitude may last until it destroys our planet. Voting for conservatism’s rationalizations may well be taking the ballot out of ones own reach, then putting it into histories shredder.