Shortly after
Ronald Reagan first moved into the White House in 1981, a single-panel cartoon
appeared in The New Yorker depicting an older, wealthy, white couple
strolling down a sidewalk past a homeless man begging for change. Referring to
the beggar, the female half of the couple – stereotypically wrapped in a fur
coat, dripping in jewels, and nose in the air – said to her equally haughty husband
something like, “To hell with him. There’s a Republican in the White House
now.” I’m probably butchering the punch line but it wasn’t any funnier in the
original, and in any case it wasn’t intended so much to be funny as it was to reinforce
the left’s bigoted perception of Republicans as rich, old, white, and most
significantly, heartless.
I was reminded of
this old cartoon by a rather pathetic recent Huffington Post essay called, “I Don’t Know How
To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People,” which embodied
this common misperception of conservatives as unfeeling, greedy monsters who
hate the poor, the sick, the underprivileged, the nonwhite.
The writer of the
article – Kayla Chadwick, described as an Emmy Award-winning video editor in New
York – began by expressing her exasperation over trying to explain to conservatives
“why they should care about other people.” I am skeptical that she has ever
actually had a conversation with a conservative about this except perhaps
with strangers in the disputatious realm of social media, but she clearly
assumes that she, like her fellow Progressives, is a normal, decent, compassionate
human being; that the right is inhumanly and incomprehensibly cruel, almost a
completely different species; and that struggling to thaw a conservative’s
frozen heart is a lost cause.
It isn’t that
conservatives are heartless, of course; we simply have a different (not to
mention effective) philosophy about solving such ills as poverty, joblessness,
and lack of affordable health care. Unlike the left, we look for solutions that
actually help instead of just compulsively throwing more of other people’s money
into failed programs with compassionate-sounding names, and we also look for
solutions that encourage the needy to help themselves instead of keeping them
trapped in demeaning cycles of dependency. It’s the difference between the
proverbial giving a man a fish and teaching him how to fish.
But the left
cannot grasp this perspective, and there are two reasons why: one is that they
have demonized us as unfeeling monsters for so long that they are incapable of
seeing us as decent human beings; and two is that they are so convinced of
their feelings-based moral superiority that they cannot conceive that anyone,
much less evil Republicans, could possibly be as saintly and compassionate as
they are.
George W. Bush
didn’t help the right’s image by championing what he called “compassionate
conservatism,” which made plain old conservatism sound heartless. The fact is that
conservatism is compassionate. But because it emphasizes
real-world results for those in need instead of showy displays of compassion,
the left is able to spin our practicality into cruelty.
Here are some
examples from the article of how very compassionate and selfless Kayla Chadwick
is, and how those who don’t feel as deeply as she does about these issues are
guilty of “unimaginable callousness” and need to have heart transplants:
Personally, I’m happy to pay an extra 4.3
percent for my fast food burger if it means the person making it for me can
afford to feed their own family. If you aren’t willing to fork over an extra 17
cents for a Big Mac, you’re a fundamentally different person than I am.
I’m perfectly content to pay taxes that go
toward public schools, even though I’m childless and intend to stay that way,
because all children deserve a quality, free education. If this seems unfair or
unreasonable to you, we are never going to see eye to eye.
If I have to pay a little more with each
paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP.
Poverty should not be a death sentence in the richest country in the world. If
you’re okay with thousands of people dying of treatable diseases just so the
wealthiest among us can hoard still more wealth, there is a divide between our
worldviews that can never be bridged.
“I don’t know how
to convince someone how to experience the basic human emotion of empathy,” she
continues whining. “Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental
divide on what it means to live in a society, how to be a good person, and why
any of that matters.”
It’s true, there is
a fundamental divide between Democrats and Republicans today, but the problem
lies not in opening up a conservative’s hard heart but opening up a
Progressive’s hard head.
Let’s look at just
one of the examples she provided earlier from a conservative perspective. She,
like other Progressives, believes that giving fast-food workers a living wage
will save their family from poverty, and thus we should all happily make the
minor sacrifice of paying for more expensive Big Macs to make that happen. This
makes Democrats feel good and morally superior to conservatives who
think this is a bad idea. The indisputable economic reality, however, which
conservatives understand, is that the left’s feel-good “solution” ultimately
drives those workers into either fewer hours (and thus smaller paychecks) or
out of a job altogether. So Chadwick’s misguided empathy and generosity are
demonstrably harmful, not helpful.
Conservatives, on
the other hand, think entry-level, minimum-wage jobs should be exactly that –
entry-level – and that their purpose is to get unskilled people like young
teens into the workforce so they can begin to work their way out of fast-food
joints and into positions which offer higher pay and a greater sense of
self-worth. It’s a solution that encourages employees to grow and employers to
keep hiring instead of replacing workers with automated kiosks.
But Chadwick cares
less about solutions than about signaling what a good, caring person she is. “I
can’t debate someone into caring about what happens to their fellow human
beings,” she says, ignoring the fact that conservative solutions are better for
our fellow human beings than empty virtue-signaling. “I’m done trying to
convince these hoards [sic] of selfish, cruel people to look beyond themselves.”
It’s actually
so-called liberals like Chadwick who cannot look beyond themselves to notice
that their conspicuous compassion is not helping. But hey, at least it makes
them feel good.
From FrontPage Mag, 7/9/17