From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:42:38 GMT

mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article Nathan Engle writes:
>>I used 
>>to think (because of what Rush has told me) that Democrats were the ones 
>>who always complained about the terrible unfairness of our capitalistic 
>>system,

>Silly generalization.  Are you trying to claim that I, an admitted
>Republican and right-winger, am "complaining" about the "terrible
>unfairness" of our capitalistic system?  Life is unfair and ...

>>but it's really warmed my heart to read so many posts by so many 
>>obviously compassionate conservatives.

>I assume this is sarcastic.

    Actually, it was intended as my honest and heart-felt opinion. The 
first part was perhaps a little sarcastic. I disagree with Rush almost 
every time he tries to say that some particular behavior is typical or 
characteristic of any one group. However I have generally observed that 
people don't think of themselves as villians. This can be seen in things 
like interviews with Germans who lived under Nazi rule. The government 
they lived under did terrible things, but the people don't hold themselves 
personally responsible for the horrors. This is one of the big communication 
blocks for the pro-life people who demand that the abortion discussion be 
framed in language like murdering babies, or environmentalist extremists 
who're trying to tell us how offensive we are to the planet.

>>In part it warms my heart because 
>>it reaffirms my belief that conservatives have compassion,

>Oops - maybe you're serious?

   Yes, this was serious.

>Can you be more specific?  Compassion
>for whom?  Those who are unable to care for themselves or those who
>are able but unwilling to care for themselves?  Are the "homeless"
>unable to care for themselves or are they "unwilling" to care for
>themselves?  An "average" AIDS "victim" "costs" $80,000.  (This
>morning's newspaper.)  That's a lot of compassion.

    In terms that dittoheads are probably familiar with by now, I would 
say that conservatives demonstrate compassion by "feeling the pain" or 
empathizing with the plights of people who suffer. The fact that you feel 
compassion doesn't mean that you're willing to go to every expense to fix 
a problem, but conservatives (and most other people) are more than able 
to look on the case of someone in distress and say there but for the grace 
of God go I. 

>Let me take this opportunity to express "compassion" for school
>teachers - public and private.  Let me also note that a much larger
>percentage of money paid to a private school goes to its teachers
>compared to the (scandalously low?) percentage of public school
>money that goes to the public school teachers.  It seems obvious to
>me that the good ones do it for love, not money.

    They may do it for love, but if the money wasn't there they might 
well do something else.

>>but mainly it 
>>warms my heart because it indicates yet another case in which one of 
>>Rush's generalizations is demonstrated to be basically worthless.

>This is your conclusion, but I've lost track of which generalization
>you are referring to.  So I assume you mean the following:

>>You're
>>correct that Rush has never said that Democrats "have to" always act on
>>symbolism, but Rush has said repeatedly that Democrats *do* act based on
>>symbolism rather than substance.

>Are you now trying to claim that this distinction is meaningless and
>that therefore Rush's generalization is worthless?

    Yes.

>Let me try to
>claim that Rush says that Democrats OFTEN act based on symbolism
>rather than substance.  But let me also claim that Republicans also
>SOMETIMES act based primarily on symbolism.

    That's fine. I agree with it when it's stated that way. Get Rush to 
say that and I'll agree with him too.

>So now you're trying to claim that Rush's generalization that
>"Democrats ALWAYS (or just often) act based on symbolism" is
>"worthless".  I disagree.  I think his claim offers a very useful
>"starting point" for evaluating a Democrat's motives.

    I think it's also a useful starting point for evaluating Rush's 
motives.

>  For that
>reason, it's not "worthless".  (The other good starting point is
>that he's saying that in order to enhance his chances of re/election.)

    Perhaps. I would say, however, that as a predictor of what a Democrat 
will do in any given instance, Rush's theory leaves something to be desired.

>>Rush certainly has his own opinion about what's necessary for public 
>>education to succeed, however I would note that his opinion is not shared 
>>by very many of the teachers and administrators...

>Who is watching the henhouse?  The administrators?  That's a funny one.
>Are you going to claim that the NEA has the best interests of the
>students at heart?  That's a funny one.

    No, I'm talking about lots of teachers who can barely tolerate the 
NEA any more because of its condescending attitude towards them. My Mom 
is one of them.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh