Flock of conservatives
Both YCT responses to "Modern-day witch hunt?" (April 10) in Monday's Firing Line had good intentions (which is new for YCT) but were misguided ("Livin la vida liberal," The Firing Line, April 14). Both claim that powerful liberals not living by the ideals they preach is proof that liberal ideas are wrong. But they are wrong on two counts. First of all, that would mean that as soon as Larry Craig and the many other gay-bashers came out as homosexuals, conservative ideals would be immediately thrown down the drain. The fact is, though, that sleazy people use both liberal ideals and conservative ideals to gain power without actually ever espousing them. Nearly every politician today does that. Bush used the religious-right vote, just as Nancy Pelosi is using the Berkeley vote, both without actually caring for the respective positions. Power is the name of the game. Not ideals.
Second, you say that without liberal ideals guiding their lives, these people lead much easier prosperous lives, which is true. But the problem is that liberal ideas were never meant to make the ultra-rich and powerful have easier lives (like conservative ideals). They already have good lives. It's those un-unionized workers in Pelosi's hotel that liberal ideals are for. They are the ones whose lives are bad and would be better with the true implementation of liberal policies. YCT constantly forgets to look at the other side of conservative policies; you help the rich lead easier lives without restrictions on their business and labor, but you forget that the labor they use are human beings too. They their lives aren't easier without the implementation of liberal policies.
Don't forget the lower (and at times) middle classes in your policies, YCT. And also don't forget that a movement is not worthless just because some of its supposed leaders are power-hungry hypocrites, because that happens on both sides of the aisle.
Charles Allen Government sophomore
As a defense from being overwhelmed, people tend to simplify things. This is problematic when dealing with delicate issues of importance. Politics is a good example. A smart debate is one that would clarify issues enough to bring potential solutions to light. People like Peter Schwiezer detract from this process by exploiting people's nature to behave like a flock of birds. It is entertaining to be riled up, but as far as conflict versus solutions are concerned, he is just adding fuel to the fire. People are able to be much more constructive when using their frontal lobes instead of entrenching feelings to advance themselves. So if advancing the hopeless power struggle is not your primary goal, then it would be smart to lay off of the labels that keep underling issues complexed.
Ben Chorush UT alum
Be the first to comment on this article!