Conservatives more honest than liberals? (Schweizer, Examiner.com)
The headline may seem like a trick question — even a dangerous one — to ask during an election year. And notice, please, that I didn’t ask whether certain politicians are more honest than others. (Politicians are a different species altogether.) Yet there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty.
This doesn’t come as a shock to me based on my dealings with associates, even friends, of mine who would identify themselves with a left-leaning world view. Clearly it’s not fair to paint every person of either persuasion with this broad brush. I also know some very honest, kind, well-meaning leftists in my life. Lord knows I’ve had my own personal shortcomings, as well. The difference is, I suppose, that I will not try to defend, spin, or explain away my actions. I will take responsibility for them, pay restitution (in whatever form necessary), and try to put things back together.
The honesty gap is also not a result of “bad people” becoming liberals and “good people” becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.
Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” **
Well put. Naturally, if there is no truth, then any action taken can be justified. We have truthiness.
**In the interest of full disclosure, here’s the entire passage regarding the Alinsky quote from Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York: Random House, 1971).
An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth—truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist. He accepts the late Justice Learned Hand’s statement that “the mark of a free man is that ever-gnawing inner uncertainty as to whether or not he is right.” The consequesce is that he is ver on the hund for the causes of man’s plight and the general propositions that help to make some sense out of man’s irrational world. He must constantly examine life, including his own, to get some idea of what it is all about, and he must challenge and test his own findings. Irreverence, essential to questioning, is a requisite. Curiosity becomes compolsive. His most frequent word is “why?”
…the free-society organizer is loose, resilient, fluid, and on the move in a society which is itself in a state of constant change. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations our society presents. In the end he has one conviction—a belief that if people have the power to act, in the long run they will, most of the time, reach the right decisions. The alternative to this would be rule by the elite—either a dictatorship or some form of political aristocracy.
An interesting look into a leftist world view to say the least. Incidentally, Rules for Radicals was dedicated to Lucifer; how droll.