Speaker 1: [Orates at length about some "cause" he deems important]
Speaker 2: Tell me, are you one of these supposedly downtrodden types, or are you trying to persuade me that I am?
Speaker 1: Well, uh...neither, actually. But--
Speaker 2: Stop right there. So, by your own admission, this cause of yours is personally irrelevant to both of us.
Speaker 1: Yes, but we're more fortunate than--
Speaker 2: Excuse me. You've already made your pitch. But you're not asking me to help you, and you're not asking me to help me, so why should I care?
Speaker 1: But the welfare of a lot of people--
Speaker 2: A group that includes neither you nor me.
Speaker 1: But don't you care about--
Speaker 2: Emphatically no. I care about myself, my family, my friends, my obligations, and my future. Beyond those boundaries, I don't give even half a damn.
Speaker 1: [draws himself up haughtily] Well, some people--
Speaker 2: Are better than that? By your standards, perhaps. Not mine. You know what? If I were a member of that group you claim to be so concerned about, I'd prefer that you not care about me. You and every other busybody who agrees with you. Because your sort have never done more good than harm. So do the world a favor and care less.
Speaker 2 in the above is what the typical left-liberal Cause Person -- e.g., Speaker 1 -- would call "a typical conservative, concerned only for himself." I have come to the conclusion that his is exactly the right attitude to wield against the self-serving, self-glorifying, would-be do-gooders that infest the political landscape:
They're intrusive beyond endurance;
They wear an air of moral superiority founded on how much they "care;"
They think we need to be "re-educated" or have our "awareness" raised;
Most damning of all, they don't really "do good."
Tell them, in exactly those words, that you don't care. Be as blunt as possible about it, to the point of being personally offensive.
Would you be lying? Even a little?
No doubt you've heard the term compassion fatigue. It first entered our sociopolitical lexicon in the Eighties, when the relentless demands of the New Deal and Great Society social-engineers finally jarred a good many Americans into a pattern of rejection against government meliorism. The underlying idea was that we'd been worn out by the unending stream of attempts to prick our consciences into action on behalf of unnamed others. We simply couldn't bring ourselves to care about any more causes, any more supposed victims of injustice, or any more casualties of the uncaring Fates. It was a useful phrase that expressed a useful idea, but like many political catchphrases, it was partially fallacious.
We weren't fatigued. Not most of us. We were irritated.
******************
... Quadrennial election years are boom time for Cause People. They're never quite as thick on the ground as during a presidential election. They're aware that their chance of attracting some pandering from a candidate is greatest at this time. To augment that chance, they seek to rope as many persons as possible into signing petitions, participating in polls, attending rallies and demonstrations, and so forth. They need as many sheep as they can gather into their flock.
Don't be a sheep. Don't agree to be counted among them. Be better than that: be someone whose concerns are closely held and whose responsibilities are discharged as privately as possible.
Politicians, ever desirous of securing the largest support base possible, kowtow to Cause People with a shameful predictability.
Don't be a politician. Be better than that: be someone who wants nothing from anyone except to be left alone to tend your own garden and enjoy what you've justly and honorably earned.
Don't be a Cause Person, and don't be one of their victims.
Whatever your true concerns, keep them to yourself, in word and in deed.
Maintain a respectable public attitude of total indifference.
Be a self-sufficient, self-contained, sovereign individual.
Be an American.
Speaker 1: [Orates at length about some "cause" he deems important]
Speaker 2: Tell me, are you one of these supposedly downtrodden types, or are you trying to persuade me that I am?
Speaker 1: Well, uh...neither, actually. But--
Speaker 2: Tell you what pal, if it is important enough to you you'll open your wallet and underwrite it. It isn't important enough to me to even listen further. Have yourself a sparkly day ;D
Speaker 1: [Orates at length about some "cause" he deems important]
Speaker 2: Tell me, are you one of these supposedly downtrodden types, or are you trying to persuade me that I am?
Speaker 1: Well, uh...neither, actually. But--
Speaker 2: Tell you what pal, if it is important enough to you you'll open your wallet and underwrite it. It isn't important enough to me to even listen further. Have yourself a sparkly day ;D
Speaker 1: [Orates at length about some "cause" he deems important]
Speaker 2: [knee to the solar-plexus, right cross to the jaw - dusts hands, spits]
Thomas Sowell wrote at length about that in Vision of the Anointed; constrained vision (that's us) vs the unconstrained vision (that's the social engineers).
Except when it comes to gay "marriage"; then we're accused of wanting big government engineering relationships.
Thomas Sowell wrote at length about that in Vision of the Anointed; constrained vision (that's us) vs the unconstrained vision (that's the social engineers).
Except when it comes to gay "marriage"; then we're accused of wanting big government engineering relationships.
Thomas Sowell wrote at length about that in Vision of the Anointed; constrained vision (that's us) vs the unconstrained vision (that's the social engineers).
Except when it comes to gay "marriage"; then we're accused of wanting big government engineering relationships.
Sigh.
It isn't that we want to "engineer" relationships. It's the difference between recognizing the inherent rights of others versus civil rights that are invented.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only require one person to be exercised, therefore an inherent right.
Marriage, however, requires a MINIMUM of three people (as does voting, except in a married couple): Two to be married, AND ONE TO RECOGNIZE THE MARRIAGE.
Now, I don't care that your daddy didn't love your namby pamby, whiny little miserable self enough when you were a child, I'm not going to go out of MY way to make up for your personal problems because you don't feel you got enough recognition as a kid. Now shut the heck up, already. And if your 7th grade science fair project wasn't so dumb, you might have got a passing grade.
And here, here's a Kleenex.