Boss
Take a Memo:
As a psychologist who is fascinated with the human mind and how it works, I find politics have an interesting tie in. Specifically, the politics of the liberal left who now dominate the democrat party. The universal theme driving their politics is emotionalism. Plain and simple. We've all heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" and this is synonymous with the politics of emotionalism.
It's interesting, the term "bleeding heart" actually comes from the Bible, which most "bleeding heart liberals" have no familiarity with whatsoever, as they are secularist, agnostic or atheistic.
Romans 9:16 - Compassion doesn't originate in our bleeding hearts or moral sweat, but in God's mercy.
And perhaps this is the difference between a "bleeding heart liberal" and a religious right-winger? The liberal feels a moral responsibility to be the stewards of compassion while the religious rightie leaves it in God's hands. I'm a Spiritualist, so I remains somewhat in the middle on this. I feel that we all have some responsibility for our fellow man but at the same time, I also feel that the natural order of the universe sorts things out in the end.
There is a danger in allowing government authority to implement compassion through emotionalism. It's really not any different than a Christian sending $100 to the PTL Club in hopes that it will change lives and make a difference in the world. It may help to ease our conscience but it really doesn't amount to much actual change. However, ceding this authority to the government can really backfire and have dismal consequences. Not only does it not make much difference, it sacrifices personal freedom and liberty for the sake of feeling good.
It's almost always more wise to think with your head and not your heart. Thinking with your heart and allowing emotions to control your actions leads to careening your car into a ditch to avoid hitting a helpless rabbit in the road. Sure, you saved the rabbit but at what cost? Sometimes it is better to avoid your emotional reaction for a hot minute and think pragmatically about the overall situation. Liberals don't understand this because their entire moral foundation is based on self gratification instead of a higher power.
It makes them feel good to know that their politicians are going to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick... pay off all the student loans and dole out free cell phones. They can lay their empty little heads on their pillow at night and sleep well knowing they did their part to support those who care and oppose those who don't care. It doesn't matter that the actual conditions aren't changed or that they gave away more freedom and liberty, the intention is all that is important.
Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts. And the bleeding hearts respond because it makes them feel good about themselves. Most liberals are convinced those on the right want to starve school children because they want to reform the school lunch program to eliminate waste and abuse. The right wants people to die of illness in the streets because they don't support socialized health care. They don't care about the needy and poor because they want to balance the federal budget. They want to push Granny off the cliff because they want to make Social Security solvent for the future. Across the board, pragmatism is met with emotionalism.
It's interesting, the term "bleeding heart" actually comes from the Bible, which most "bleeding heart liberals" have no familiarity with whatsoever, as they are secularist, agnostic or atheistic.
Romans 9:16 - Compassion doesn't originate in our bleeding hearts or moral sweat, but in God's mercy.
And perhaps this is the difference between a "bleeding heart liberal" and a religious right-winger? The liberal feels a moral responsibility to be the stewards of compassion while the religious rightie leaves it in God's hands. I'm a Spiritualist, so I remains somewhat in the middle on this. I feel that we all have some responsibility for our fellow man but at the same time, I also feel that the natural order of the universe sorts things out in the end.
There is a danger in allowing government authority to implement compassion through emotionalism. It's really not any different than a Christian sending $100 to the PTL Club in hopes that it will change lives and make a difference in the world. It may help to ease our conscience but it really doesn't amount to much actual change. However, ceding this authority to the government can really backfire and have dismal consequences. Not only does it not make much difference, it sacrifices personal freedom and liberty for the sake of feeling good.
It's almost always more wise to think with your head and not your heart. Thinking with your heart and allowing emotions to control your actions leads to careening your car into a ditch to avoid hitting a helpless rabbit in the road. Sure, you saved the rabbit but at what cost? Sometimes it is better to avoid your emotional reaction for a hot minute and think pragmatically about the overall situation. Liberals don't understand this because their entire moral foundation is based on self gratification instead of a higher power.
It makes them feel good to know that their politicians are going to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick... pay off all the student loans and dole out free cell phones. They can lay their empty little heads on their pillow at night and sleep well knowing they did their part to support those who care and oppose those who don't care. It doesn't matter that the actual conditions aren't changed or that they gave away more freedom and liberty, the intention is all that is important.
Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts. And the bleeding hearts respond because it makes them feel good about themselves. Most liberals are convinced those on the right want to starve school children because they want to reform the school lunch program to eliminate waste and abuse. The right wants people to die of illness in the streets because they don't support socialized health care. They don't care about the needy and poor because they want to balance the federal budget. They want to push Granny off the cliff because they want to make Social Security solvent for the future. Across the board, pragmatism is met with emotionalism.
