imreallyperplexed
Council Member
Many of the debates between liberals and conservatives on this board and across the nation seem to revolve around the topics of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic. However, it seems to me that none of these terms are very well-defined in most of these debates. They are just vague notions that most people take for granted.
Here are the dictionary definitions:
self-reliance: reliance on one's own abilities, decisions, etc.
self-sufficiency: able to maintain oneself or itself without outside aid : capable of providing for one's own needs
work ethic: a belief in the moral benefit and importance of work and its inherent ability to strengthen character
From listening to conservatives on PJ (and across the nation), it is my impression that conservatives place very high value on the "virtues" of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and a strong work ethic. They see those virtues as the values of the founding fathers and embedded in the Constitution. They also seem to believe that government necessarily undermines self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic. As someone who is a progressive, I can say that I also think that self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and a strong work ethic are essential virtues. At the same time, I see "self-reliance" as tempered by interdependence (because I - though I can do a lot for myself - I can't do everything). In this respect. both community and government are important. (Even someone as conservative as DefeatObama conceded that some level of government was needed to maintain a civil society). However, progressives have more confidence in the ability of a democratic government. In particular, where conservatives see government undermining self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic, progressives see government strengthening both the community as a whole and individual self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic.
I know which perspective makes more sense to me. I am sure that President Obama sees things the way that I do. I am sure that the bulk of PJ progressives see things the same way as well. At the same time, there is ample evidence on PJ that conservatives see things quite differently and gravitate (whether by choice or necessity) to Romney.
Here are the dictionary definitions:
self-reliance: reliance on one's own abilities, decisions, etc.
self-sufficiency: able to maintain oneself or itself without outside aid : capable of providing for one's own needs
work ethic: a belief in the moral benefit and importance of work and its inherent ability to strengthen character
From listening to conservatives on PJ (and across the nation), it is my impression that conservatives place very high value on the "virtues" of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and a strong work ethic. They see those virtues as the values of the founding fathers and embedded in the Constitution. They also seem to believe that government necessarily undermines self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic. As someone who is a progressive, I can say that I also think that self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and a strong work ethic are essential virtues. At the same time, I see "self-reliance" as tempered by interdependence (because I - though I can do a lot for myself - I can't do everything). In this respect. both community and government are important. (Even someone as conservative as DefeatObama conceded that some level of government was needed to maintain a civil society). However, progressives have more confidence in the ability of a democratic government. In particular, where conservatives see government undermining self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic, progressives see government strengthening both the community as a whole and individual self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic.
I know which perspective makes more sense to me. I am sure that President Obama sees things the way that I do. I am sure that the bulk of PJ progressives see things the same way as well. At the same time, there is ample evidence on PJ that conservatives see things quite differently and gravitate (whether by choice or necessity) to Romney.