Sometimes I think "Liberals" don't really think out their arguments...
And of course the same can be said for conservatives. But anyways, take the case of an article written by Mike Greenberg on the SA Express News, the arts and entertainment editor. Here are some excerpts from his writing, and my take on it.
The consistent message of exit polls last Tuesday was that Bush voters, the conservatives, were heavily motivated by fear — specifically, fear of terrorism and of same sex marriage, but more generally fear of ambiguity, the unknown and change.
Ok, this is partially true. But after his first two valid points Greenberg then proceeds to give a dictionary definition of conservatives...afraid of change. Personally, I don't think it's fear of change in it's basic terminology that drive conservative voters. It's more fear of things that they believe are morally wrong. Change is all fine and well if it benefits society in some way. Allowing gays to marry, which the majority of America believes is wrong, despite what hollywood would have you believe, is just a "change" that has really no benefit to society besides allowing gays to feel "accepted" even though they do everything else they can to show that they are "different."
By contrast, Kerry’s voters were motivated by opportunity — hope for economic opportunity and equality of opportunity in particular, but more generally the opportunities for experience and growth that are associated with ambiguity, the unknown and change.
Opportunity? Are you serious? The many Kerry voters I have spoken to haven't a clue what Kerry's agenda was, beside the sole fact "He's not Bush." Liberals aren't striving for "opportunity," liberals are motivated by hate, to be really honest. The hatred they had for Bush was more driving than "opportunity." And seriously, what opportunity was John Kerry going to bring to them? A hope for higher taxes and an ineffective social security reform? Perhaps.
The conservative attitude is insular and closed. The liberal attitude is cosmopolitan and open.
Man, don't even get me started, Mike.
The arts thrive in such cities — and most artists are politically liberal — because the rapid, broad and fearless exchange of ideas is crucial to the arts.
Mike, you want to know why most artists are liberal? Because it's trendy. No shit. The only coherent artist I've ever heard speak on behalf of liberals is Moby. That's it. Everyone else is dumped into "Bush bad" camp. Artists latch onto liberalism because it is ingrained in them to be nearly mindless in their political policies. "Fearless exchange of ideas"...Mike, I do believe you are dramatizing things a bit too much. It's one thing to keep an open mind. It's another to be "fearless" and seriously Mike, have you ever noticed the widening gap between "art" and real "society?" How what is cutting edge on the theaters on NY would never run on a stage to more than 20 people in any other city? Is it because you are so open, or the fact they have lost touch with society. There used to be a time when art did not exist to needlessly "challenge" us and instead existed to inspire us. Do you remember? As a musician who does not buy into the wholesale liberal agenda, this distresses me.