SansPretense

I blame the Catholic education and the nuns.

The biggest difference between a truly educated person and someone with a collection of useless facts is the ability to think for one’s self. This doesn’t mean thinking without considering the opinions of others, but to form a balance between the analysis of others and self-analysis. Characteristics of an educated person include the ability to 1) think independently through those facts to form an opinion, 2) listen openly to others’ opinions, analyze, and draw conclusions, and 3) admit when personal opinions, long held, are in error.

Not everyone with an advanced degree can claim to be educated under the above description, and most, show some at least some of those traits some of the time. Likewise, one doesn’t have to earn a degree to shows those characteristics, but without the degree, the in depth knowledge and thinking skills are usually (not always) lacking. Most importantly, a truly educated person never stops re-evaluating their beliefs and opinions when presented with new facts.

One of the most important lessons I learned during the years of my secondary education is to always approach something with an open-mind and try to understand the world through the perspective of another person. That’s what I blame on the Catholic education. It’s the idea that one’s individual self is to be sacrificed for the greater good of another, and one of the forms of this sacrifice is an intellectual (and spiritual) exercise of perspective change. What did the world look like from the perspective of Christ on the cross, as He forgave His Executioners? If God looks upon the world with the eyes of Man, shouldn’t we attempt to look at the world through the eyes of another? Isn’t this what leads to the deep feelings of compassion that we have for our fellow man?

It was with this mindset, which is quite correct and good, that many people set their political beliefs around. When I graduated high school…(more after the jump) in the year 2000, I was able to vote in my first presidential election. Like most 18 year olds, I didn’t bother following the primaries. Once the general election roled around, we were faced with the choice between Al Gore and George W. Bush. I was sure I was a Republican, but it was probably for the wrong reasons…which I have no idea at this point what they were. It probably had to do with Clinton’s actions in office, the pro-life stance of the party, and the belief in a strong military. What did I know about politics?

I felt I was a moderate, believing in the necessity of state welfare, government subsidies (whatever the hell that was), federal education assistance (I couldn’t have gone to college without it), etc, but socially conservative. So President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” appealed to me. I was against the death penalty because I had a pretty strong dream about being on death row, which convinced me that the death penalty was wrong. Gun rights? Good idea, but please keep them out of the school zones, etc. What would be wrong with registering guns and banning assault rifles? On abortion, what right did the state have to make me pay for someone else’s abortion? However, let’s keep abortion legal for special cases. Gay marriage wasn’t an issue at the time. The media was slightly biased, but that’s ok.

Most of the moderate beliefs were reinforced during the next five or six years of typical college classes. Then I started reading blogs and listening to forum conversations. Then that whole lesson from seeing the world through another perspective returned, but with different eyes. The new facts and observations and analysis played well with Sr. Theodora’s (and others) lessons, and I found myself re-evaluating some things.

I understand now some important lessons:

1. Seeing the world from a different perspective is important, but one cannot do this through the lens of the government. The government’s solution to problems is rooted in efficiency. This lens only sees statistics. It doesn’t see the individual. Remember, from above, that whole thing of sacrificing one’s self in order to see the perspective of another? The part where we are to make personal sacrifices for the common good? Through the lens of the government, we cannot see the individual we are sacrificing our paycheck for. The forced charity that this brings about is no longer a charity (meaning love), but part of a systematic way of reducing our individualistic identity into a collective. This affects both the “giver” and the “reciever” of said charity. It is no accident that the political left are far lacking in charitable donations than the political right.
2. Seeing the perspective of the other and sacrificing one’s self requires a personal act, addressing the individual needs of the other. The needs of the other are very rarely just a “hand-out”, which is more patronizing than anything else. Give the unemployed meaningful work. Treat minorities not as victims of society, but as individuals with the same capabilities as their white counterparts. Take personal responsibility for the good of society, and not wait or expect the government to do so.
3. People will rise up to the expectations set for them if only we stop making excuses for them.
4. Conservative economic theory beats socialization any day.
5. Give the government the opportunity to take more power and they will do it…no exceptions.

I can keep going, but the point is that I am now solidly on the side of classical liberalism – or conservatism. Not the compassionate conservativism, but solidly conservative. Yes, I still believe that the government should help out poor people wanting an education (though in a way that won’t raise tuition across the nation), government subsidies for research, etc. Art museums may need some extra help once in awhile, but dammit, Amtrak and airlines don’t need bailing out if their business models don’t work. Socializing healthcare is a bad idea: the free market would do better. Shrink the size of the federal government and return power to the states. If CA wants to experiment with socialized medicine, let them do it on their dime. Abortions are always wrong, and gay marriage is a redefinition of the basic building block of society that I’m not willing to concede.

The great fallacy of Progressivism, in my mind, is this mistaken belief that by artificially elevating the less fortunate and “downtrodden” to a position of false empowerment via cultural and government coercion will eliminate the power gradiant caused by capitalistic and aristocratic forces, thus solving the problems we face. This is quite naive and patently false, especially when coupled with the notion that seeing the world through another perspective implies a need to always apologize and bend over backwards to accomodate the other. True empowerment originates from an individual overcoming the burdens and challenges that fate has placed on the person. This artificial empowerment, on the otherhand and for the most part, is a direct result of arrogant patronization from the “enlightened” in a way to justify their own existance, inflating their lack of humility and self-worth. The individual who steps into a soup kitchen to serve soup to the homeless and poor does more good for those people than a hundred politicians handing out welfare checks. Even more, the individual who sits at the table and shares a meal with someone has much greater chance of empowering that person, even if just for a brief moment, than any government hand-out ever given, for this simple act of humility serves as a reminder to all that we are all humans, not statistics in a government report.

In this period of awakening, I’ve also realized that I want to be more involved in the political process. It’s made me question my previous desire to go a straight academic career path. I’m not sure where I want to go anymore, but we’ll see where this road takes me.

Later, I’ll elaborate on these themes in regard to the current presidential election, and I’ll talk about how, in just one week, John McCain has convinced me that he is the best man to lead this country at this time. I don’t agree with him on everything, but the McCain-Palin ticket has more hope of bringing about change (of the good kind) than any empty promise and socialized ideal that Obama has ever talked about.