I maintain that if a conservative position can't be defended based on fundamental rights, the constitution or objective law, then it is lost.

Note: that does not constitute an anti-Religious sentiment. What it does mean is that I accept the reality that issues cannot be decided in modern America on a religious basis alone.

My preference is to be politically atheistic, keeping my religious values private. This platform begets moral consistency - I can speak loudly from self-interest, and ignore any of the platitudes that are based on 'helping' the down-trodden.

The fact that the pursuit of self-interest actually helps the down-trodden (by reducing their numbers significantly) bolsters the pragmatic and moral case for such a stance.

Also, separating religion from politics forces us to make consistent policy decisions on social issues. In a previous article, I present such an approach to the Gay Marriage issue.

I don't expect all conservatives to agree with my position(s) on social issues, but it is difficult to argue against consistency.

My point is that Christianity (and most other institutionalized religions) preach the virtues of self-sacrifice. There is also a tendency to glorify the downtrodden. Once ingrained with those concepts, people are programmed to accept Socialism.

Leftists have exploited this weakness. It is also the reason why good people begin their lives as leftists (it just seems like the moral high ground), until their life experiences make the blinders come off. Think of the cliche "if you aren't a liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't a conservative at age 40, you have no brain!" 

The fact that a large percentage of older American Conservatives are Christian actually shows that many are able to separate Religious Self-sacrifice from their politics and embrace Capitalism instead. It is also telling that there are quite a few Christians who switch from the Left to the Right in their 30s and 40s.

However, it is an indisputable fact that we lose many good (mostly younger) Christians to the Left. If we stop to think why that happens, we will find that it is because of this dichotomy - good Christians truly want to help the needy; as a direct consequence, taxation for the benefit of others is acceptable to them. Building on this mindset, it is easy to see why so many Christians support welfare programs, public education, universal health care and other Leftist entitlement programs.

It is very difficult for religious conservatives to argue that taxation for the purpose of entitlements is immoral. Pick any of the above programs and try to put forth a moral argument against it (other than the pragmatic argument that it just will not work).

So, does anyone want to make a moral argument against welfare, public education or universal health care? Try it and you will find yourself 'dancing on the head of a pin' to avoid a religious contradiction. Or, try to justify the conservative stance on illegal immigration - besides the law-breaking, aren't they just hardworking, good, unfortunate people who want jobs?

But what is it that makes people consent to such policies? Why have so many generations of people fallen for the concept of Communism or socialism? What is it that glorifies 're-distribution' to the point that no one dare oppose it for the evil that it truly represents?

Obviously, once a country is in the hands of Communists, they are able to use force to stay in power. But what would you say about our own country's voluntary, but inevitably leftward slide? What makes people voluntarily vote in favor of socialist programs such as public education, welfare, universal health care - and continue to support them despite the obvious failures?

After all, there is such a thing as the "consent of the governed". And, if the governed (read: voters) are susceptible to the creed of self-sacrifice, they are prime targets for re-distributionist ideas.

And that is the point - the concept of self-sacrifice loads the dice in favor of socialism. Since the creed of self-sacrifice comes from institutionalized religion, I state that socialists take advantage of our 'religious bias towards self-sacrifice' and subvert it for their purposes.

If we don't understand the origin of our society's attraction to socialist ideas, we will not be able to defeat socialism. 

"Don't be judgemental", say the multiculturists! And that is exactly where they get it wrong - right at the very beginning!

After all, if we suspend our judgement (as the multi-cultis suggest) we are easy prey to anyone who uses their (usually twisted) judgement of our society against us.

Multiculturists are empty-headed frauds with a perverse, self-hating streak.

Observe that the multiculturists often feign a look of absorbed interest in some random (usually medieval) and anachronistic concept. Having accepted the idea of suspended judgement (read: intelligence) they have no ability to carry out a real study of the facts.

All that they need is to say, with a fake look of benevolent attention "Oh my goodness, that is so interesting, Ngumpo-mumpo! Tell me more about the ancient tribal rain-invoking chants of the Mau-mau. Gosh, you natives are so much closer to Mother Nature than us greedy Americans. I can certainly understand why you hate us so."

How do we counter this nonsense?

Be judgemental - be very judgemental! If you suspend your judgement, you have effectively suspended your power of thought. Asking a human being to suspend his judgement is like insisting that a cheetah should suspend its ability to run fast. Without judgement, humans would starve to death. Even cavemen used their judgement to decide (based on experience) which berries tasted good, and which ones caused a tummyache!

A person who begins his argument with "let's not be judgemental" is a con-man, who is usually asking you to suspend your judgement, so that he can set you up for the con.

When dealing with a fawning multi-culti, remind them "but don't the Mau-mau live in leaky mud huts and have a life-span that is 50% that of Americans?"

A similar argument can be made when a multiculturist attempts to establish a moral equivalence between 7th century Islamists and 21st century Americans. Here is one possible response: "Imagine: over a billion people, and they have fewer patents in their entire recorded history than did the citizens of Utah last year."

Note: the above statistic was 'borrowed' from an article on the American Thinker site.

We should use the infinte powers of our intellect to first recognize, then remove the double fraud that is multiculturism.

Why is it a double fraud?

First, because multiculturism is passed off as an ideal. Secondly, those that claim to be multi-cultural are almost always faking it! 

Disclosure#1: I am a happily married, heterosexual, conservative male. Socially, I don't have a personal stake in this debate. What is the significance of this disclosure? In our polarized country, it is assumed that only Gays or liberals care about Gay Marriage and that all straight conservatives oppose it. However, conservatives too believe that there has to be fairness and equality in our policies.

Disclosure#2: Due to my political atheism, I choose to ignore the religious viewpoint that opposes gay marriage or any other issue. If a conservative (or libertarian) position can't be defended based on fundamental rights, the constitution or objective law, then it is lost anyway! As I have mentioned before, that does not constitute an anti-Religious sentiment. What it does mean is that I accept the reality that issues cannot be decided in modern America on a religious basis alone.

I find that the secular, conservative viewpoint opposing Gay Marriage is weak. Most of the points that are raised by secular conservatives can also apply to heterosexual marriage as well. Therefore, conservatives who oppose Gay Marriage typically fall back on the argument from tradition or religion.

What if:

• heterosexual couples also received a Civil Union document along with their marriage license
• gay couples could also obtain Civil Union documents
• the word 'marriage' had religious and traditional connotations, but no financial or civil benefits
• all Civil Unions were treated identically by the state

While on the subject, why not assume that:

• taxes were 'flat'
• married couples did not get any special treatment under the tax laws

Would gays still agitate for the right to marry if there were no economic benefits involved?

It took a Civil War to end Slavery -- perhaps Civil Unions will end the the 'War' on Gay Marriage?

Since many people throw out analogies & examples on this subject, here is a parallel that hasn't been made before (I think). Homeowners are allowed to deduct their housing cost (mortgage interest) for tax purposes; renters are not afforded the same privilege. Although this might be beneficial to the real estate market as well as the lenders, it seems unfair to the renters. TH readers are smart enough to figure out that homeowners in this example are analogous to heterosexuals - while renters are analogous to gay couples.

So, should renters also get a tax deduction for their housing costs? In fairness, they could certainly make such a case. The reasons that there hasn't been a taxpayer revolt on this issue are (a) most renters eventually aspire to become homeowners (b) landlords are not as organized as real estate professionals (c) due to the numbers, there isn't enough financial or political motivation behind this issue

My solution: repeal this deduction and lower taxes for everyone - clearly the Govt doesn't need this money, if they can give it back selectively!

I invite thoughtful comments from readers, preferably along non-religious grounds. Why? Because it usually ceases to be an intellectual debate when one injects Religion into poltical or social debate.

Although I'm an ABCB conservative, I am also a fan of Jon Stewart & Steven 'Colbeah'. In fact I Tivo both shows every night.

Why? Because they are funny - even to a conservative who disagrees with their world-view. But I am aware that their comedy is like the bait on a fishing hook.

It achieves two purposes:

First and foremost, it sells extra-primo-good advertizing. The 18-35 demographic is a prime segment, and is less concerned about intellectual consistency or historical accuracy than entertainment with a feel-good bias. And Lefty ideology may be broken, but it sure can FEEL GOOD! Warms the ol' cockles to hoot derisively (while basking in the camaraderie of fellow hooters) at anyone who can intellectually defend CEO salaries.

A distant SECONDARY motive is politics. This may sound incorrect to some conservatives who believe that the PRIME motive behind those Lefty comedy shows is politics. If they couldn't sell beer and chips to the target audience, they wouldn't exist.

No free-market conservative should begrudge the business success of these shows. After all, they know their audience, and they serve them well.

The sharp end of the comedy-laden hook is their ability to influence politics. And there is no doubt that Jon Stewart had an impact in the waning days of the Nov '06 campaign while broadcasting from battleground Ohio every night.

Conservativism lacks the 'feel-good' and provocative dynamic, but is anchored in reality. So, an action/drama show like '24' that has a conservative take can succeed. But a comedy .. not so easy to be irreverent.

Dennis Miller has had some success due to the fact that he takes an irreverent look at the PC culture which evolved from Lefty ideology. But that's a long way to go to get laughs! 

Leftist satirists have an edge, because a large part of contemporary comedy comes from irreverence.

And, the essence of Leftist ideology is to BE irreverent. For example, Leftist comedians can always get an easy laugh when they poke fun at our Govt (especially a Rep administration) and otherwise lambaste American failings.

Conservatives have a respect for American principles - so, we cringe when someone pokes fun at our country, irrespective of which party may happen to be in charge.

Since we also reject the tongue-in-cheek irreverence that is fashionable in contemporary comedy, we come off as 'boring' and dated in this genre.

However, we are more consistent in our thoughts and actions. In the long run, that counts for a lot more than the sneering, America-bashing Leftists.

Note: my comments here are intended to encourage thoughful comments from others who have tried to understand the success of Leftists in the area of entertainment in general and comedy in particular.

I believe that the rise of info-tainment as a political force deserves more attention. Since comedy plays a significant part in this, our lack of focus in this area will cost us dearly in the future.

I realize that it 'don't work that way', but if we are going to end American's love affair with Govt-funded space exploration, can we at least get some of our money back?

Actually, the space program was (is) a good thing - even though, as a laissez faire capitalist, I am against Govt funded scientific research. My support for the Govt-funded space program is due to the size and scope of the space program, from the 1960s to the present.

In the early days of the space program, there was no infrastructure, no training, and no expertise in the field.

But now, we have generations of scientific accomplishments behind us in the space program, and huge cadres of trained scientists.

Instead of mothballing the space program, it is time to privatize the Govt-funded space program and allow private enterprise to take over. Why would private companies do so? To earn revenues from satellite launches, Govt-paid defense projects, space tourism and other ventures.

And, here's a thought: the money that our Govt raises during the privatization could be returned to the taxpayers! How's that for a novel idea?

The result:

* we would continue to have an American space program (although privately run by divisions of American giants such as [GE, GM, Microsoft, Google, ..]

* the 'space dividend' tax rebate would spur other Americans to harness THEIR productive energies and create more for themselves (and the country).

Let freedom ring .. in space!

It has become fashionable to look down on 'profit-making' enterprises, and speak glowingly of 'non-profit' ventures. Somehow, people seem to trust non-profit entities more than for-profit corporations, despite the fact that it is much more difficult to hold non-profit entities accountable.

Most people assume that profits apply only to businesses, or to cartoon-like, bloated, cigar-smoking, whisky-swilling capitalists. Also, the adjective that is most commonly associated with a for-profit corporation is .. "evil". In movies and cartoons for children, an evil corporation is quite often seen dumping toxic chemicals, or turning the kids' park into a parking lot.

So, is the profit-motive inherently evil ? Does it create a system that relies on exploitation?

Consider the example of Joe, an honest, hard-working worker who works at Acme Inc. and gets paid $15/hr. What is his profit motive?

You can write Joe's profit-and-loss statement (in words) as follows:

Joe works 8 hours a day - he is investing his capital (labor, time), in return for $15/hr. To Joe, the $15 that he makes for every hour worked has more value than any other use of those 8 hours - if not, he wouldn't invest those hours.

The $250K machinery that is provided by Acme allows Joe to be more productive with his 8 hrs than otherwise. In fact, if Acme had not invested in the machinery, Joe's productivity could not have commanded an hrly rate of $15/hr, it would've been more like $8/hr.

What does Acme Inc. get out of this relationship? Do they do it 'at cost', just because they like having Joe around? Well, since they too are interested in making a profit, Joe's 8 hours are worth MORE than $15 each to Acme. Let's say that Joe produces goods or services that are worth $25/hr to Acme, because that is what they can sell those goods and services to their customer, who happens to be Wily Coyote, Inc . (WCI).

WCI, who may be an 'end user' of Joe's goods/services, thinks that they are getting a bargain on those products at $25/hr; that's because it may have cost them $50/hr to produce the same! Why? Presumably because they weren't in the business of producing that particular product or service - but needed it in their own enterprise.

Is WCI taking advantage of Acme, who (in turn) are taking advantage of Joe's labor. Of course!

Is anyone getting hurt or exploited? No!

Is everyone in this intricate game acting on their own self-interest (read: profit motive)? Yes!

Is there somethin' DIRTY going on? No!

So, why do most people instinctively feel "non-profit good, profit bad", to badly paraphrase the Orwellian "four legs good, two legs bad"?

That's because self-interest has become a dirty word in our lexicon, despite the fact that it is honest, consistent with human nature and the source of productive capitalism.

This is a philosophical dichotomy that causes us to 'feel' our way towards huge mistakes - with the noblest intentions at heart and the counterfeit currency of altruism. As a result, we 'feel' that Public Education is the only way that we can ensure a quality education. Or, we just hate the idea that doctors, nurses, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies make a profit while providing life-saving services and products. So, we 'feel' our way towards Universal Health Care.

The result: we pretend to be altruistic, and fake our way through life. Since our affluence comes from actions taken in our self-interest, we feel guilty for our success.

We claim altruism as a Value - but secretly value our affluence - setting ourselves up for guilt over our well-deserved high standard of living. So, the Joy of attaining our real value (earned through hard work and careful risk-taking) has to be hidden.

Perversely, we honor philanthropy over well-earned wealth. We seem to forget that the process of earning wealth is actually more difficult than the process of giving some of it away. The process of earning wealth also directly or indirectly contributes much more to 'society' than a wealthy person's philanthropy. So, why is Bill Gates reviled for earning billions (while revolutionizing the business world), but lauded for giving away a few millions?

What is it in human nature that sets us up for these contradictions? Why are we so susceptible to the mostly manufactured aura of selflessness? If we could answer that, we would have a good understanding of the instinctive dislike that many people have of the profit motive.

Perhaps it might also give us some insight into the allure of socialism.

The business world is getting more complex and competitive, and it takes a lot to be successful, or even to maintain an existing company.

Try to start a business (any business), and you will understand.

A simple analogy - since there are a lot more channels for entertainment these days, the landscape is more competitive. Not surprisingly, the actors and producers of hit TV shows and movies make a lot more money than entertainers of the 60s, 70s and 80s. We still pay about the same money for a record (notwithstanding the digital format), but avg recording contracts for performers are at least 50-100x higher than two decades ago.

BTW, it has ALWAYS been difficult for people who start and run successful companies (I speak from personal experience on both counts).

* It doesn't just take 'book smarts', although a good education doesn't hurt!
* It takes a level of self-confidence that is a rare commodity
* It requires a strength of mind to make a string of correct decisions without any fore-knowledge of success. This is something that the MBA case-studies never reveal, because they have the luxury of hindsight, which makes everything so patently obvious to the reader who might say "Hey, that looks easy, anyone could do it!".

So, yes, capable CEOs who can guide their companies towards revenue growth and profitability are in EXTREMELY short supply. And, if you attempt to regulate their compensation pkgs, you will hurt the 'workers' a lot more than the CEOs.

Consider these issues that either didn't exist, or were relatively minor matters:

* global competition
* compliance issues: e.g. S-Ox
* hostile media
* jaundiced public opinion

The reality is that there are an infinitesimally small number of capable, productive, self-starter types in any society (even in America). And it is on their shoulders that we all stand, while feeling 10ft tall.

If you found a way to curb Bill Gates' ability to make money, he would probably hit the 'permissible' cap that you would place on his personal wealth - say, $200M instead of $34B. The loss to all those who benefit from his generosity (and I'm not talking about his philanthrophic 'giveaways') would far exceed $33B. His lifestyle would only be minimally impacted - but his customers, employees and vendors would be hurt.

So, you would be smart to 'permit' Bill Gates to earn his $34B, or more. To paraphrase a philosopher (any guesses?) whose words are often forgotten, "When you take away the shirt off an industrialist's back, you are actually giving up your own!"

Once the Gordian knot between Religion and Politics is untied ..
.. Conservatives can trump the puffery of 'holier than thou' liberals by consistently stressing:

* self interest over altruism
* freedom over enslavement
* fairness/justice over entitlement

It isn't easy to take this road - the temptation to sound altruistic is all too real. Particularly since conservatives know that the freedom to pursue one's self-interest actually IS beneficial to society at large!

Most issues can be categorized along three axes -Economic, Nationalist or Social, with some overlapping areas.

Economic: conservatives should hold laissez faire capitalism as the economic model with a proven track record and one that is consistent with individual freedom. Encapsulated in these principles are property rights, individual freedoms and objective laws that make it impossible for any group to be enslaved for the supposed benefit of others. This would make public education, welfare, universal health care and other tax coerced institutions illegal.

Nationalist: conservatives should support an America-first policy that is based on American self interest. As in the case of domestic policy, this doesn't result in 'exploitation' - although this charge will be levelled by the usual suspects who believe that everything is a zero-sum game. Such policies will raise other nations as trading partners, encouraging them to match our accomplishments.

Social: conservatives should support an agenda that is based on individual freedom and justice, but without the dogma of any particular religion. This will be difficult for many conservatives, particularly those who have found these issues to be vote-rich. However, we can't have it both ways! Issues like abortion, gay marriage and others will be particularly thorny -there will be some issues in which we may have to reconcile our politics with our religious convictions. 

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but .. consider the following:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:17-26)

"Therefore, I urge you brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will."
(Romans 12:1-2)

"Then Jesus went to work on his disciples, “Don't run from suffering; embrace it. Follow me and I'll show you how. Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self. What kind of deal is it to get everything you want but lose yourself? What could you ever trade your soul for?” (Mathew 16:24-26) 

There are numerous references in the Scriptures, as well as in sermons, that extol the virtues of self-sacrifice, renunciation and other 'virtues'.

In most denominations, the most stirring sermons occur when the pastor gave real-world examples of self-sacrifice.

Of course, there are numerous references and parables that support hard work as well as the proper utilization of ones talents.

It is therefore natural (and maybe even right) that religious people develop a sense of morality that is based on altruism. And, I'm not here to say that it is wrong to help one's fellow-man. Just that if altruism/self-sacrifice are raised on the pedestal as universal values, then it becomes impossible to argue the IMMORALITY of well-intentioned socialist ideas.

It is also the reason that many good people are naturally drawn towards socialist ideas in their early years. After all, there are centuries of morality built into the creed of self-sacrifice as a virtue.

What I would like to see is conservatives arguing their case in economic or political terms w/out the support of altruism-inspired rhetoric. Imagine a foreign policy debate that was based on American self-interest and security, and did not begin with "we must help the poor, starving people of ____."

In most cases, we DO put a premium on American self-interest. But we always seem to seek the cloak of a self-effacing, morally liberal position that resonates with the UN-types.

Conservative (and some liberal) leaders of a few generations ago didn't seek that false mantle - it is a relatively new dichotomy in our politics. But it ties us up in knots!

Religion and Politics sure are touchy issues! And, we're told (as children) not to discuss politics & religion in polite conversation. But here goes, anyway ..

In my opinion, religion is a deeply personal matter. Also, it IS the source of many of our values and virtues. However, we also can be blinded by religion - if we accept EVERY value & virtue that is extolled by religion, into politics.

For example, all major religions extol the virtues of self-sacrifice. And that is the moral basis of socialism. Once we accept the maxim that 'self-sacrifice is a boundless virtue' into our DNA, the dice is loaded IN FAVOR OF socialism.

As a result, you find religious conservatives arguing against socialism ONLY on pragmatic grounds (e.g. it doesn't work, therfore it is evil). We no longer have a MORAL argument against socialism, and have to resort to contortions like 'compassionate conservative' against the charge that we are selfish, cold, unfeeling ...

Leftists have exploited this weakness. It is also the reason why good people begin their lives as leftists (it just SEEMS like the moral high ground), until their life experiences make the blinders come off. You've heard the saying "if you aren't a liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't a conservative at age 40, you have no brain!" - I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I'm sure you've heard this?

For this reason, I am atheistic in my political beliefs. In my personal life -- well, that's personal, and mama told me not to .. y'know!

I don't discount the contributions that are inspired by religion, and by religious people.

If religion is the ONLY source of morality for many people, then it should be encouraged. However, I think that we would be selling our compatriots short by making that assumption.

Also, religion (and often, the interpretation of religion) can bring inconsistencies into our political and social lives.

For example, altruism is a core tenet of Judeo-Christian principles. Altruism, when applied as the philosophical basis of political and economic policy, leads to 'feel-good' legislation such as minimum wage increases, universal health care, welfare, progressive taxation, and other unworkable premises.

Observe the helplessness of Religious Conservatives when they try to vote down such proposals - while still trying to appear to have the moral high ground. All that they can do is to whine plaintively that "it doesn't work".

Without the albatross of altruism, Conservatives should be able to say that "It is immoral to ask productive people to be victims AND it doesn't work".

The mess that results from this is that non-religious Liberals absurdly seize the moral high ground with well-intentioned but fallacious arguments. Note that the liberals' mystical beliefs merely replace "religion" with some euphemism such as "the state", or "the common good".

Does it boggle the mind to think that a self-proclaimed conservative (and a staunch supporter of Capitalism) would say that "Capitalism is a dirty word because of .. religion".

Before you click over to another channel in disgust, answer this question.

Q) What human attribute is most commonly associated with Capitalism?

Did your answer contain any of the following words or their synonyms?
* selfishness
* unsympathetic
* cold, lacking human warmth
* un-feeling
* not compassionate

Now, think about the fact that most religions have value systems that would consider the above words to be pejorative in nature.

And, since most people base their values on religious beliefs -- "Capitalism is a dirty word because of Religion".

Q.E.D.

Actually, the words that SHOULD'VE come to everyone's mind when considering the above question are "FAIR" or "MORAL". But those are not words that are usually associated with Capitalism!

Capitalism - which actually represents the ABSENCE of central control of an economy, provides the most FAIR playing field for individuals and businesses. It is MORAL, because it doesn't require the enslavement of anyone for the supposed benefit of others.

Click on the link to read  "Why some good, religious people are Liberals" 

When did we Americans get to the point of being such snobs?

I realize that Democrat politicians like to claim that their 'humble beginnings' ensure that they are in touch with the 'working people'. To which I usually say "Bollocks!"

Most people recognize that for what it is - hypocrisy & reverse snobbery! One is reminded of the political slogans from Soviet Russia, as in "he was proletariat, not bourgeois".

But conservatives shouldn't make apologies for anyone who may (or may not) have been born into 'big WASP money'? All that matter is if the person has anything sensible or original to contribute. 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009715

This is what principled Democrats would sound like without the political posturing that has become the norm in our Congress.

Note: Lieberman may disagree with conservatives on many other policies, but he earns my respect as a man who realizes that political opportunism should not drive national security issues.

Kudos Senator, for your principled position!

Let's begin with some semi-serious, semi-philosophical ONE-LINE definitions.

Joy (aka happiness): what you experience when you attain your values

Value: that which you seek to obtain or retain

Virtue: the actions by which you seek to obtain or retain your values

----and now for some analysis----

I'm sure that a suicide bomber feels a perverse kind of 'joy' just before he blows himself up. After all, he has just attained his 'value' which just happened to be the destruction of innocent lives. In his loony-tunes world, his action is 'virtuous', truly deserving of multiple virginal defloration rewards in his benighted paradise. For the record: my sympathies are with the virgins!

So, it comes down to this: happiness depends on your value system. So, the 'pursuit of happiness' (per se) cannot be defined as a universal 'virtue', although it has come to be known as the foundation of a free society.

Values, on the other hand, make all the difference.

Somewhere in all this is a clue to WHY conservatives are losing the MORAL debate.

[whine] Oh fudge, it's just 'too hard' to think about all this serious, buzz-killing stuff. Much easier to slouch off into another night of mindless gluttony and leftist debauchery! [/whine]
=========================
Response to "Sonny" who posted in a TH forum about the differences between JOY and HAPPINESS.
------------------------------------------------
I don't object to your definition: happiness is a transient, ephemeral version of joy - which, you state, is a more lasting emotion.

That is analogous to a statement that an emotion is a 'transient' thought, not always representative of a fully-reasoned, rational, cognitive response. By this definition, an emotion can be subjective (or even wrong). Sort of like an instant 'barometric' response, but one that may have to be replaced by more deliberate thought. People who are more objective in their thought processes (and values) are more likely to experience an objective emotional response - which is consistent with the fully-reasoned thought that follows.

Example: [whine] I really, really want to watch the Superbowl on an expensive 100" plasma HDTV [/whine] - but the tradeoff is that I have to put my kids in a sub-standard public school (and I happen to disagree with the premise of Govt-run education). A subjective emotion may pull me momentarily in the direction of the splendiferous TV; an objective thought soon replaces the emotional pull, but only if I VALUE the education of my kids.

With the definitions understood - let's stipulate (in the context of a discussion about the 'pursuit of happiness') that we're talking about a lasting joy (aka happiness).

No doubt we can ascribe all the ills of leftist ideology to the whiny 'it feels good in the short term, so it must be OK' mentality. Although it does apply in some cases (e.g. drug use, casual sex etc), that is an oversimplification in the larger context.

Why is it an oversimplification? Contrary to popular conservative analysis, mature leftists ARE capable of thinking long-term. Consider a semi-trivial example: leftists are often quite conscious of healthy diet & exercise. If their viewpoint was only one of instant gratification, that would hardly be the case. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that leftists are more health-conscious than their conservative counterparts?

So, if leftists ARE capable of long-term thinking, why does their world-view not reflect that? Thomas Sowell touches on this topic in his "Vision of the Anointed", but he stops short of exposing the 'values' inconsistency.  Ayn Rand identifies - and defines - values and virtues better than anyone that I've read. Disclosure: the above one-line definitions are paraphrased versions of hers!

We should also ask ourselves "Do modern-day conservatives espouse a consistent world-view"?

I am interested in identifying the reasons why mature, intelligent people (of both left and right persuasions) choose an inconsistent value system.

Comments, anyone?