Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fear Not

In a continued look at values I thought that I might bring up the number one value that separates conservative s from liberals - fear.

Of course, fear is a value that everyone shares. Fear is nature’s effort to make us cautious and prompt us to preserve ourselves. Fear keeps us from jumping off high places and killing ourselves. Fear keeps us from eating poison mushrooms, being bitten by snakes or spiders, or being attacked by bears or lions. But, if we allow fear to take control of our lives we may become frightened to try new products, foods or ideas. And, the over riding tenant of conservative values is to prevent things from changing. The fear of the unknown urges the conservative to stick with what he knows.

On the other hand, progressives seek the new ideas that will make life better. There are risks with new ideas. The progressive is willing to take the risk because he or she has the courage to change. There is comfort in knowing what to expect. There is fear in taking a risk to try something new. But, progress can not be made by doing the same old song and dance.

The funny thing about conservative s is that their common tie is in their fear. But, many conservative s act fearless in order to hide their fear. The high percentage of conservative s in the military is reflected in this fear. Psychologica lly they choose to face a fear - the ultimate fear - the fear of death. They chose to face this fear in an effort to immunize themselves from all of the other fears they have.

Obviously in reality a person is generally afraid of some things, and not afraid of other things. Most people are not purely conservative or purely progressive. Some people like the way the old ball park was before they built the new one, not because they fear the gods of baseball will make the home team lose, but instead because they were familiar with the old ball park. The new ballpark is an unknown and they fear that they might not be able to find their seats or the concession stand. For the most part, most people end up liking the new ballpark and not worrying about these things.

Conservative s tend to be on the side of issues that they fear will change the status quo. Some people will fear that change for one issue and not fear the change for another issue. But fear itself is the key determining factor as to which side of the issue you fall. If you fear change - then you are on the conservative side of the argument. Of course there are legacy grudge matches that have been lost by conservative s. In these cases the conservative s want the world to revert back to a time before they lost the battle. And, some of these grudges have been held for hundreds of years. But the origin of the argument will be found in fear.

This is why fear always seems to work for the conservative s. Fear is a tool that can be used to rally the troops on the conservative side. Fixing a problem with new ideas takes courage. Fear encourages one to fix a problem with force and violence. It takes courage to talk to the enemy. It only takes fear to rally the people to fight the unknown enemy. Standing up to fear might take bravery, but what you do when you stand up to that fear takes courage.

———————————— —————–

Don’t forget what Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit


Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • Fark
  • Reddit

10 Responses to “Fear Not”

  1. Doc:

    I discussed this very topic… well sort of, on my blog today. I got to tell you, your post yesterday was my inspiration for mine today. But check out my post… see if it puts any fear into you.

    Your people are led by the herd. Where ever the herd goes, sure enough… the rest of the like minded individuals follow. Most liberals don’t even take the time to study what they are following. If it’s a cause and it sounds compelling… people follow without reading up on it. For example, Global Warming… a very bad thing… But most of the people that believe in it, don’t actually study it.

    Anyhow…read my latest post… check out the context of my argument… see where I take it. See how I disagree with your whole fear thing. Notice my writing style. Make a comment and I’ll trackback to this post.

  2. Nice I screwed the link…
    http:\\froms teve.blogspo

  3. http://froms teve.blogspo

    Dammit… forward slash…

  4. steve,

    I did read your post. Interesting, but you need to try to make the point of your last paragraph once again.

    It sounded like you were saying that you don’t like people that have opinions and are able to organize others behind those opinions. Hey, I am already frightened by people who have done that, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reily, James Dobson, and many more scare the Hell out of me when they can lead so many non-thinking people like lemmings off a cliff.

    Your point seemed to be that you don’t like liberal bloggers doing the same thing.

    Perhaps the point isn’t about the leaders getting the non-thinkers to follow them. Perhaps the point is that people should all be thinkers and be skeptical when they hear something that seems to good to be true, like tax cuts make society rich.

  5. Let me ask you something Doc… If Hillary Clinton becomes President, what changed?

  6. Doc,

    This has to be one of the funniest pieces I’ve ever read. Take a look at this paragraph:

    On the other hand, progressives seek the new ideas that will make life better. There are risks with new ideas. The progressive is willing to take the risk because he or she has the courage to change. There is comfort in knowing what to expect. There is fear in taking a risk to try something new. But, progress can not be made by doing the same old song and dance.

    And how do “progressive s” propose to seek new ideas, takes risks by trying something new, by making progress? “Progressive s” rely on the same old song and dance by expanding government and raising taxes.

    Case in point:

    Social Security: Bush came up with an approach to keep Social Security solvent and partially privatize it, a novel approach in this country. Nobody knows if it would have worked because “progressive s” wouldn’t discuss it, relying on the same arguments that the only way to keep it going was to raise the payroll tax ceiling in place, or just raise the payroll tax rate, the same way they’ve always done it. Hell, after Bush, in his 2006 SOTU, discussed how his reform plan had been stifled, the “progressive s” all stood up and cheered about how they stopped doing something new.

    S-CHIP: Bush proposes a $5 billion expansion of S-CHIP, the “progressive s” $35 billion. How do the “progressive s” propose to pay for it? Doing the same old song and dance: raising taxes, and using the regressive cigarette tax at that. But, even this taxation is nothing but an old song and dance. At the same time, “progressive s” are doing everything they can to get people to stop smoking so that if this becomes policy, and less tax revenue comes in, they’ll work on raising other taxes in order to keep this $35 billion in place. Same old song and dance.

    Health Care: On top of S-CHIP, “progressive s” want a single-payer health system. The world can see the failures of these systems in Britain, in Canada, in Cuba, etc. But are the “progressive s” willing to take risks and try something different, like getting the government out of much of the health care industry it already is in? No. They propose to expand government. And raise taxes. Same old song and dance.

    What’s interesting is that the only place “progressive s” feel a need for fiscal reform and governmental restraint is in those areas that have to do with defending the nation and handling law and order. Of course with the latter, law and order would be replaced with the PC police, the smoking police, the health care police, and the tax police. Things that are crimes now, murder, robbery, etc., would be handled by their “reform” initiatives, while violating speech codes would be punished by a life term in prison.

    And this is just the tip of the “progressive ” iceberg as they plan on putting the U.S. into the same fatal direction as the Titanic. The means “progressive s” have taken (higher taxes, expanded government) hasn’t changed in decades, and yet these people claim to not be afraid of new ideas even though they propose more of the same. What they don’t want is the everyday working man to get involved in handling their own lives. That would make the American people smarter, something which would be detrimental to the elitist and arrogant “progressive s”. That is the real difference between conservative s and “progressive s”; conservative s believe the people are smart enough to create a consensus in keeping America going on the right course; “progressive s” believe only a select few (themselves) should run America.

    Every time I hear someone proclaiming that they are a “progressive ”, it takes a lot for me not to laugh in their face knowing that they believe in nothing more than the same old song and dance.

  7. SteveIl

    Did you write to your representive s to request a tax to pay for the war like you said you would?

    That said

    con·serv·a ·tive /kənˈsɜrv ətɪv/ Pronunciatio n Key - Show Spelled Pronunciatio n[kuhn-sur-v uh-tiv] Pronunciatio n Key - Show IPA Pronunciatio n
    1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions  , etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
    2. cautiousl y moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
    3. tradition al in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

    In other words afraid to try new things even if the old is not working.

    Most of the things, like bush’s plan for SS, have been rejected because they wont work. Privatetizin g would be a disaster for many people. On the other hand allowing SS to invest like a pension and outlawing the government from borrowing from it probably will.
    This will probably not happen for three reasons.

    1. The government could no longer hide the true deficit.
    2. The government would find it harder to raise money.
    3. Thruogh the fund the government could influence busniess like CALPERS does.


    I read your post and watch the video. It talks about the herd instinct. I wish this was just a liberal problem. However it is a human problem. It is the reason brands are so important. The store brand detergent may be the exact chemical formula as TIDE and be cheaper. Yet many people will buy the TIDE even when they know there is no difference.

    The herd instinct is the reason people join the church, nazi party, go to time square on New years eve when it is 5 degrees outside, and do all sorts of other stupid thing just because other people are doing them

  8. SteveIL,
    Actually, the UK spends less on healthcare per capita than the US and has better outcomes. So tell me again how that’s not working because spending less and getting more than you seems to be a relative success, wouldn’t you say?

  9. Steve

    If socialized medicine is so bad than why have none of the politicians spoken out about medicare? Why did the vote for the new drug benefit?

  10. “Men…think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” - Charles MacKay

Leave a Reply