Sunday, September 24th 2006
Children, ideology, and tolerance
Sorry about the lack of blogging. Honestly, there’s just not that much in the news these days that I feel motivated to blog about. So allow me to return to the letters to the editor that I’ve ignored for some time now. There, in the profound and profoundly stupid rantings of our fellow humans, I can always find inspiration.
In today’s Chronicle, Justin van Zandt of San Francisco writes that liberals should raise more children to compete with conservatives:
People say it’s “socially responsible” to have 0-1 kids. As a liberal Democrat raising four in San Francisco, I ask: Are you thinking about this and not selfish concerns? If so, adopt children. If all liberals, gay, lesbian and straight, had or adopted two to three kids from here or abroad, we’d get future liberals.
Liberals adoping children helps alleviate the problem of children without parents while also allowing the liberals who are concerned with population control to honor their beliefs. I’d say that a child having at least one loving parent is always a good thing when compared to the alternatives. Yes, even in the case of homosexual adoptions. So even if spreading ideology is an ulterior motive, one can hardly argue against (and should mostly applaud) those that choose to help children in need.
Moving on to the idea that ideology is transfered from generation to generation… Is this always the case? No one will argue against the fact that a child is profoundly impacted during the process of “growing up” (in both obvious and subtle ways). Yet how often is it that a grown child believes exactly what his or her parents believe? Will all of the children now growing up in religious right Republican households vote that way 20 years from now? Same question for the children growing up in progressive left families. Is the political landscape of the future solely determined by today’s family compositions? Or do social factors play much more of a role? I personally believe in the latter, given the massive and seemingly unpredicatable political shifts that seem to come every 20 years.
Switching gears again, van Zandt unfortunately slips in some arrogant condescention:
A well-raised kid here grows up with better culture, education and experiences than is possible in Utah or similar spots.
How can he even state this with a straight face? This is the kind of elitism that the left so conveniently ignores while railing against the other “-isms” of the world.
“I’m better than you because you grew up in Utah.”
“I’m better than you because you are black.”
On the surface, the latter seems much more offensive. However, I personally believe that the two are equal expressions of intolerance: Hate based solely on subjective notions of value when comparing things that are not inherently dangerous to others. This may seem like a radical idea, and I think that’s because it is. Both the left and right have much to learn when it comes to true tolerance. If van Zandt’s children do pick up his ideology, then I can only hope that some external social force helps guide them toward a more enlightened understanding of tolerance.
Which brings me to my last point that brings together all of my recent thoughts. Over the weekend, I finally had the chance to view the movie Thank You for Smoking. Let me say that I’ve finally found a movie (and a great one to boot) that says the things that I believe. I really enjoyed the dynamic between the father and his son, as the father tries to teach his son about how he sees the world. The twist is that the father has a libertarian worldview that makes much of the country uncomfortable. So, at least in my opinion, by giving his son the opportunity to learn about choice and freedom and tolerance, he deserves the top spot in the Hall of Fictional Fathers.
I guess I can see where van Zandt is coming from, trying to raise his children to believe as he believes. If and when I have my own children, I hope I can do as great a job as the dad from the movie. The left and right still rely on selective notions of tolerance to support their convoluted beliefs. All I would need to do is pass on the principle of tolerance, and liberty naturally follows. Can it be that easy?
Why do liberals always think that we have to be raised around them to be whole?
I suppose they just can’t imagine “tolerance” or “diversity” or “inclusion” unless it is mandated by liberals; as though these things don’t exist in the real world without their help.
It will come as a surprise to liberals that most of America gets along quite well without their input or their guidance.
I lived in San Francisco for 27 years. It is one of the most INtolerant places I’ve ever known. Stray one inch from the party line and you are instantly accused of being “racist” or of being a “bigot”, or God forbid, “insensitive” not not “inclusive”, or, (dare I say it…) “elitist”. It is probably the country’s most navel-gazing, self-centered, provincial cities.
It’s usually a pretty good sign that you are NOT the center of the universe when you think you are.
Comment by Scott — 9/25/2006 @ 1:40 pm
“I suppose they just can’t imagine “tolerance” or “diversity” or “inclusion” unless it is mandated by liberals; as though these things don’t exist in the real world without their help.”
They don’t. At least not with social conservatives.
http://www.africanamericans.com/JamesMeredith.htm
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576
Comment by Augie — 9/25/2006 @ 2:43 pm
Now you understand why it’s so vital for leftists to control colleges and universities. They simply receive the fodder by the truckload, already bred and raised with all the expense paid by their parents, then brainwash them into liberal footsoldiers. Simple and effective.
Comment by Pete Zaitcev — 9/25/2006 @ 4:29 pm
Seriously? Nothing worth blogging on?
Torture Bill? Path to 9/11 baloney? Coming elections?
Comment by Archangel — 9/25/2006 @ 11:16 pm
Those sound like very exciting topics that have been heavily covered by thousands of other people who have said pretty much everything that needs to be said.
Comment by Beetle — 9/26/2006 @ 10:10 am
I take it you’re one of them.
I suppose you’re right though, Beetle - expecting something new and refreshing on heavily covered topic is bit much to ask of this group of bloggers.
Comment by Archangel — 9/26/2006 @ 4:48 pm
I suppose you’re right though, Beetle - expecting something new and refreshing on heavily covered topic is bit much to ask of this group of bloggers.
That’s pathetic. So then why are you so well attached to this website? Is it your patriotic “keepin em honest attitude” or do you just like to shoot your mouth off?
Comment by Tommy Owens — 9/26/2006 @ 7:27 pm
I’m glad you find my commentary to be so enlightening, Archangel, that you feel I have said everything that needs to be said about major national issues, because I know I make an effort to avoid it. That I can do it by accident must reflect quite well on me.
Comment by Beetle — 9/26/2006 @ 9:27 pm
In general I don’t really support bloggers saying something about a subject unless they have something unique or interesting to say, so I understand your disinterest in blogging about a lot of the recent national news.
That being said, since it happens to be his schtick, you could bring out Tommy to serve as whipping boy in trying to explain why all the recent news about how terrible the war on terror is going really shows the exact opposite.
[And yes, I consider the Torture Bill as one example of how terrible the war on terror is going.
Comment by Andy R. — 9/27/2006 @ 10:43 am
A little bit o’ Both Tommy-O, a little bit o’ Both. I LOVE running my electronic mouth off. Moreover, my patriotic duty does require me that I check the sillier things that I said on this blog.
But I see you missed the subtlety in my statement - the surprise, that Beetle feels that these bloggers can’t have much to say or add just because a topic has been covered in depth by other sources. Besides, some things are worth repeating?
As you for you Beetle, did I say your commentary was enlightening? I’m sorry I gave that impression. Having only seen your comments on this blog, I must say, they are far from enlightening. But you don’t care about that, do you? Course not.
My guess is then that you like to stick to local topic? That your thing? Good for you.
Comment by Archangel — 9/27/2006 @ 2:59 pm
And the sillier things that are said by others, of course. What’s the fun in only fact-checking yourself?
Comment by Archangel — 9/27/2006 @ 3:01 pm
I wasn’t the one who said “I take it you’re one of them.”
Comment by Beetle — 9/27/2006 @ 6:22 pm
Sure you did Beetle, you said it right now.
But I also didn’t say that I ever thought your comments were enlightening - only sarcastically remarked that you’re probably one of those people who said all that needs to be said on a given topic. Ridiculous, don’t you think?
Comment by Archangel — 9/27/2006 @ 9:51 pm
perceivable+shipper+Tsun
Comment by Anonymous — 10/19/2006 @ 4:44 pm