The Mystery Deepens-A Middle Class White Woman Attempts To Explain Why She’s Committing Economic And Political Suicide

I read a rather sad article today by a woman who appears to be a very nice lady.  She writes with what I am sure are the best of intentions and yet is so full of hate that for her to even consider an alternative view would seem to be well nigh impossible.  She is one of those progressives who calls herself a moderate and then proceeds to completely disprove that claim by regurgitating lies and spewing hatred against those with whom she disagrees.  She self-righteously proceeds to explain how her prejudices and biases are actually evidence of her tolerance and that her resistance to considering the views of those with whom she thinks she disagrees actually provides further evidence of her commitment to the precepts of her Christianity.  In many respects I know this lady because I have many like her as members of my extended family.

As with those women, who I love dearly, the author’s mind has been made up and thus I suggest that it is highly unlikely that any attempt to introduce contrary data will meet with any success.  The really sad thing, as the author suggests when essentially defining herself, is that in most respects she does have the characteristics of a committed Conservative voter.  What she fails to understand is that it is she who has been led astray by those who would do her harm and thus it is she who has betrayed her personal values.  She agrees that she is essentially a Conservative voter and yet turns right around and accepts the progressive notion of what it means to be a Conservative.

Let me also note that the entire article posted by  Wendy Worrall Redal is filled with suggestions on how others might better please the author while there is little, if any, discussion about how the author might evidence her Christian goodness and tolerance by listening and trying to understand others.  The fundamental problem in her approach is that conservatives really don’t need to change much to meet with her approval, as she is one, it is her perception that must change and that can only come from within.  Is there not something in the Bible about hubris, vanity, and “pride goeth before the fall”?

I now turn to some of the more egregious statements and rather mean-spirited accusations made within the body of the article itself.  I’m assuming that the reader has realized why it is that I decided to forgo the comment section and instead chose to respond with this article.

Let me begin by quoting the same quote which apparently was intended to set the tone of the original article.  Unless otherwise noted all quotes should be attributed to the original article.  In the case of this particular quote the reader should note that there did not seem to be any understanding of the irony.

‘We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.” – Anais Nin

In any event, let me continue to show why it is not conservatives or conservatism which the author rejects, but rather it is her imaginative image of each that she seems to oppose.  Ignoring the rather obvious irony in her using the word “blowhard” when complaining about how conservatives refer to liberals let’s move on to the five reasons this wonderful lady voted for Obama.

1) I don’t believe Obama is a closet Muslim with a radical socialist agenda to undermine America. I don’t believe he has a false birth certificate and a fake Social Security card. I think he is a deeply sincere, smart, principled man who is far from perfect but deserves a chance to continue what he has tried to begin.

Obviously many seemed to have agreed, but considering the body of evidence that suggests otherwise, on what basis do you found your belief?  If you are like those women in my family I already had reason to reference, you have simply dismissed the charges without taking time to examine the evidence.  Without referencing those issues you mention, on what basis do you suggest “……..he is a deeply sincere, smart principled man…..”?  Frankly, in my opinion, I would suggest that it was Romney’s decency and unwarranted decision not to attack Obama’s vulnerabilities which cost him the election.

2) I’m more comfortable taking a risk on Obama’s economic agenda than Romney’s. The numbers are starting to look up. I’d rather hedge my bets with Keynes than Adam Smith. Mitt wants to cut spending and slash taxes, and give most of those tax breaks to the richest Americans. That doesn’t square with my sense of what’s rational or what’s just. We’ve tried that before, and that Kool-Aid does not trickle down for me.

Yes, we did try it before, and it touched off the longest economic expansion the world has every known.  I may have my problems with it, but your comfort is not the issue, particularly when the facts are not in agreement.

3) I’m willing to take a chance on Obamacare. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than a system that excludes millions and is dedicated to lining the pockets of insurance companies whose primary mission is not to cover care but to deny it. The Affordable Care Act is not “socialized medicine” in which the government dictates my health care. It’s a hybrid system that worked in Massachusetts; I’m ready to see how it goes in the rest of the U.S.

And yet Obamacare both bankrupts the country and lines the pockets of the insurance companies, which means you are supporting exactly what you suggest you oppose.  On what basis is it not “socialized medicine”?

4) I care deeply about protecting this planet, our home. How could we elect a president who is so cavalier about God’s creation that he wants to dismantle the EPA? Really? The clean air and clean water acts established under Richard Nixon aren’t important to keep for our kids? I can’t imagine a world leader not grappling with the problem of global climate change. Solyndra was a debacle, but to suggest that we ought not to pursue green energy isn’t just short-sighted, it’s grave foolishness.

Just foolishness, but at least you live in Colorado where you will feel the effect of lost jobs.

5) I believe a graduated tax system is the most moral means of structuring an economy. I think that rich folks who benefited so disproportionately from a wildly deregulated Wall Street need to return to shouldering more of our shared burden. Luke 12:48 says, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

And this differs from conservative’s how?  On the other hand, Obama and friends are busy benefiting disproportionately and you just voted to give him another four years at the trough.

Here’s the problem.  I’m not going to say that the cleaning women, the painter, or the other working women you mentioned are sponging off the system.  Of course the fact of the matter is that neither did Romney.  Did you not realize that all of the people you referenced are working?  On the other hand, you are the one taking advantage of those less fortunate by charging them $50.00 an hour for tutoring when you could be providing it for free.  You have an occasional cleaning woman and pay someone to paint your house and yet it would seem that you don’t even pay them enough to take advantage of your services.  You’re the rich, so why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and truly vote their self-interest as if it were you own?  Instead you assuage your conscience by voting to give them money which does not belong to you while continuing to charge $50.00 an hour to those who can afford it.  I don’t mean to be insulting, but you seem to want your cake and have others pay for you to eat it too.  What makes you think you have the right to charge money for your services when you clearly admit that you didn’t get where you were on your own?

I’m sorry, but on second thought, your article clearly shows you have no idea what traditional “American” values mean.

Advertisement