Comments on: Preaching to the Choir http://www.anwyn.com/2006/11/15/preaching-to-the-choir/ Sometime editor, all-the-time mother, delivering facts, reviews, commentary, and rants. Occasionally in that order. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:21:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Allen http://www.anwyn.com/2006/11/15/preaching-to-the-choir/comment-page-1/#comment-1454 Allen Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:12:54 +0000 http://www.anwyn.com/2006/11/15/preaching-to-the-choir/#comment-1454 I suppose you're right. There probably aren't too many liberals involved in something called "compassionate conservatism." ;-) But if his (and your) point is to say that the conservative position on aid to the less fortunate is better provided on the personal as opposed to governmental level, I wholeheartedly agree. As for "who gives more," who gives? If you're a liberal and you think that government welfare is the better solution, doesn't it stand to reason that you would think of your taxes as part or all of your community obligation? I'm not (honestly) being snide here. Wouldn't that just naturally result in liberals doing less on a personal level than similarly situated conservatives? I'm not saying the liberal approach is better (it's not) but I am sort of saying, "Duh!" And also, "Who gives?" Hopefully there's more to this book than statistical analysis in the service of ideological cheerleading. (Hooray! Conservatives good; Liberals bad!) I just can't tell from the blurb. A better thesis (in my opinion) would argue that individual contribution is more effective and compassionate than is government wealth redistribution. When liberals help with the local food drive, they're doing good too -- even if you can show definitively that they don't it very often. The person on the receiving end doesn't really care how you voted. Seems less like preaching to the choir and more like something people sometimes do when they're alone and lonely. I suppose you’re right. There probably aren’t too many liberals involved in something called “compassionate conservatism.” ;-) But if his (and your) point is to say that the conservative position on aid to the less fortunate is better provided on the personal as opposed to governmental level, I wholeheartedly agree.

As for “who gives more,” who gives? If you’re a liberal and you think that government welfare is the better solution, doesn’t it stand to reason that you would think of your taxes as part or all of your community obligation? I’m not (honestly) being snide here. Wouldn’t that just naturally result in liberals doing less on a personal level than similarly situated conservatives? I’m not saying the liberal approach is better (it’s not) but I am sort of saying, “Duh!” And also, “Who gives?”

Hopefully there’s more to this book than statistical analysis in the service of ideological cheerleading. (Hooray! Conservatives good; Liberals bad!) I just can’t tell from the blurb. A better thesis (in my opinion) would argue that individual contribution is more effective and compassionate than is government wealth redistribution. When liberals help with the local food drive, they’re doing good too — even if you can show definitively that they don’t it very often. The person on the receiving end doesn’t really care how you voted.

Seems less like preaching to the choir and more like something people sometimes do when they’re alone and lonely.

]]>