Conservatives and Liberals | Lee Yee
In the 1960s and 1970s, the American Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the European movement were in the rage. At that time I was still young, and saw that in Western ideologies there were the liberals and the radicals. The middle-aged and older people were mostly liberals, and young people were mostly radicals. Nobody called themselves conservative at that time. It was as if there was a consensus that society should reform, that being conservative means not progressive. It was not until 1979 and 1981 when Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Reagan came to power and implemented conservative policies, succeeded, before the British and American politics went back to being traditional. However, the yearning for equality brought about by these civil movements has since become the mainstream driving ideology and consciousness in Western academics and media.
In the United States' two parties, the Republicans are generally considered conservatives, and the Democrats are liberals. Of course, there is mutual influence and infiltration into each and among each other. There are no generally accepted standard definitions for liberalism and conservatism, for they reflect socio-ideological trends and political practices of politicians.
Liberalism basically has four pillars: one, it recognizes that there are unavoidable conflicts of interest and beliefs in society; two, distrust of power; three, that people are progressive, and subjectively promotes the progress of human civilization; four, regardless of people’s ideology, identity, race, gender, or sexual orientation, they should be respected and accepted for their diversity, minorities are tolerated, and equality is pursued.
Conservatism is by no means an antonym to the pursuit of freedom. Both Mrs. Thatcher and Reagan are the most resolute guardians of freedom; conservatism does not deny power, but emphasizes that power must be monitored, checked and balanced.
In terms of welfare policies, liberalism pursues equality, protects minority rights, protects disadvantaged groups, and promotes and enhances social welfare. Since the increase in welfare would come from government spending, therefore there have to be tax increases. It is not like conservatism disregard the disadvantaged groups, but rather, it believes that there can be no true equality except before God and a fair court. It must first recognize the various differences and groups in people, and the pursuit of equality regardless of differences will only create new inequalities. If society eventually moves towards the equal distribution in socialism, people will move towards the path of slavery. Conservatism does not oppose welfare, but rather, it believes that charitable organizations, churches, civic organizations, or foundations should help the weak and helpless in society. The government ought to provide only policy assistance from the side, because if the government is to lead welfare, it will lead to excessive governance and intervention, and the price to pay will be an increase in taxation, leading to inflation. One of the founding spirits of the United States is that everyone is self-reliant. For those with the ability to make their own living to rely on government welfare for a prolonged period will actually make people live a life without self-esteem.
Liberalism seeks equal distribution from anti-discrimination, anti-difference, and equal opportunity, which is a road towards socialism. Conservatism does not seek rapid progress,; it believes that customs, conventions, and continuity should be followed. Ancient customs allow people to live together in harmony; those who destroy customs can destroy beyond what they want to destroy. The Cultural Revolution revolutionized the fate of culture. Conservatives also do not oppose social progress, but progress will not fall from the sky. If certain parts of society are progressing, other parts usually are declining. A healthy society must be both “enduring” and “developing”. For society to sustain endurance for a long time, there must be lasting faith. If that cannot last, the root source of righteousness will collapse.
In order not to interfere with people’s freedom, conservatism advocates small government, deregulation, tax reduction, in an attempt to create an environment conducive to the operation of private enterprises. Before Reagan was elected, both society and the economy were in difficult situations. The Americans hoped that Reagan could save the economy when he came to power, but in his inauguration speech, he said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Loosening up, reducing taxes, and adopting inaction, Reagan rejuvenated the U.S. economy.
Despite advocating for small governments, successive Republican governments, from Reagan to Bush to Trump, have increased military spending and maintained a strong military power; the Democratic Party’s Obama, on the other hand, wanted to be tolerant of totalitarian countries and cut military spending. Reagan developed a space war plan, and Trump developed the space army, because they believe that neither democracy or totalitarianism is people’s choice between different systems, but between people’s choice or the system imposed upon them by those in power; it is the difference between righteousness and evil, no middle ground, no moral relativism. Goodness must become the strong one, or else evil fascism will encroach, control, and ultimately defeat you.
period equality 在 張家瑋 GAWII Facebook 的最佳貼文
NBA又停賽了
因為美國又有黑人被開槍了
身為亞洲人
我想前陣子不是有黑人被開槍嗎?
我去了解一下整件事情以及那段影片。
我不明白,在這種敏感時期
為什麼警察還是看似無所謂的,這樣子連開開7槍。
7槍欸!不是1槍,是7槍。
那意思也就是 你活著算你幸運的意思
其實一直以來我都認為種族歧視是無解的
是我們這個世代無法改變的
但還是要宣誓嗎?還是要!
但真的改變的了人心 或是 心中的陰影嗎?
就像是性別平權
就算同志結婚,還是有很多人在歧視同志,或是不同方式的霸凌 。
在台灣,警察會開槍,是要非常嚴重的情況下才能開,舉例:嫌犯開車逃跑,在逃跑中各種逆向行駛,已經再三廣播停下,還是不停,才會開槍。
或是
嫌犯已經嚴重讓警察感受到生命危險時,才會開槍。
而且警察每一顆子彈都要寫報告書的
所以真的很少開槍
只要有開槍會上新聞。
我認為能夠改變的只有法律,改變警察執法上的標準。
真心希望美國可以更好
不是一言不合就開槍
-
GOOGLE TRANSLATION ENG VER
NBA suspended again
Because another black man was shot in America
As an Asian
I think a black man was shot a while ago?
Let me learn about the whole thing and the video.
I don’t understand, in this sensitive period
Why did the police still seem indifferent, firing seven consecutive shots like this.
7 guns! Not 1 shot, but 7 shots.
That means you are lucky if you live
In fact, I have always believed that racial discrimination is unsolvable
That our generation cannot change
But do you still have to take the oath? Still have to!
But has it really changed people’s hearts or the shadows in their hearts?
Like gender equality
Even if gays get married, many people still discriminate against gays or bully in different ways.
In Taiwan, the police will shoot. They can only be fired under very serious circumstances. For example: the suspect ran away by car. During the escape, he drove in various reverse directions. He had already repeatedly broadcast to stop, or kept firing.
Or
The suspect will only fire when the police feel his life is in danger.
And the police have to write a report for every bullet
So I rarely shoot
As long as there is a shooting meeting on the news.
I think the only thing that can be changed is the law, changing the standards of police enforcement.
I really hope that America can be better
It's not about shooting at a disagreement
#blacklivesmatter #justiceforgeorgefloyd #justiceforjacob #jacobblack
period equality 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
The prophecies of Xu Zhimo | Lee Yee
Carrie Lam took the initiative to cancel her US visa, and now she has taken another action to renounce her honorary fellowship from Wolfson College of the University of Cambridge. That Facebook post of hers indeed gave us a bit of joy in sorrows. Some proposed, “Please renounce the British citizenship of your husband and two sons as well, in order to demonstrate your loyalty to the country.” There, we could tell where public opinion lies and where the public’s heart is.
To conclude her post, she wrote, “Despite this unpleasant incident, Cambridge University is still a world-renowned university that many aspire to, and Cambridge, under the pen of Mr. Xu Zhimo, still leaves many beautiful memories for my family and me!” As she bids farewell to Cambridge, one can’t help but recall Xu Zhimo’s “Taking Leave of Cambridge Again”.
Xu Zhimo’s Cambridge era was in 1920-21, but I think the most noteworthy moment of his was his tenure as the editor-in-chief of the Morning Supplement from 1925 to 1926. During this period, he discovered great writers such as Shen Congwen, and predicted how the next century would unfold.
The predecessor of Morning News [Shen Bao] was Morning Bell Daily [Shen Zhong Bao], founded by Liang Qichao and Tang Hualong. Morning Bell Daily published novels, poems, essays, and academic speeches in the seventh edition, so Morning News Supplement was initially referred to as the “Seventh Edition of Morning Bell”. Many articles and works of the New Culture Movement, including Lu Xun’s episodic novella, “The True Story of Ah Q”, was published in here. It was one of the three major publications during the May Fourth Cultural Enlightenment Movement. The Chief of Morning News was Chen Bosheng, and the seventh edition was led by Sun Fuyuan, who gave it the name Morning Bell Daily. Until 1924, when Sun Fuyuan left, it was the “golden age” of the propagation of the new culture. During this period, there was the October Revolution of the Soviet Union, which led to the establishment of the first socialist country, and China’s May Fourth Movement, which developed from enlightenment that promoted liberal and democratic ideas to socialism and salvation that catered to the global trend. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was established, and the Kuomintang (KMT) was transformed into a Lenin-style party. Joining forces, the two parties set up the Republic of China Military Academy (ROCMA), to which the Soviet Union sent representatives to participate in preparation for the Northern Expedition to overthrow the most civilized Beiyang regime (aka the Republic of China) in the early days of the establishment of the Republic of China.
At the insistent invitation of Chen Bosheng, the editor-in-chief of the Morning News, Xu Zhimo agreed to serve as the editor-in-chief of the Morning Supplement in early 1925 after his Europe tour. He started to travel by train to Soviet Russia in March, and then off to Europe. At the time, he was carrying the yearning of most Chinese intellectuals, including Hu Shi, for the realization of the ideal of human equality in the Soviet Union, but he had sensitively noticed the gloomy expressions on the faces of Soviet Russians, the sense that they “had no idea what the smile of natural joy” was. He visited Tolstoy’s daughter in Moscow and learned that Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky’s books were no longer available. Xu Zhimo then wrote a sharp, honest, literary note, “They believe that Heaven is available and achievable, but between the secular world and Heaven there is a body of water, a sea of blood, and humans must survive crossing this sea before they could reach the other shore. They decided first to realize that sea of blood.”
That was the early years of the establishment of the Soviet Union, when the new regime was praised by intellectuals around the world, and inspired Chinese ideologies. The poet’s keen observation foresaw that this regime under the dictatorship of the proletariat would realize a sea of blood.
After returning to China and took over the Morning News Supplement on October 1, 1925, the first thing Xu Zhimo did was to start a series of discussions around the Soviet-Russian issue in the paper. More than 50 fiercely controversial articles on whether to introduce “friendship” or “hatred” towards Russia. At around 5 p.m. on November 29, the Morning News building in Beijing was set on fire by the protestors, which also burned the discussions to ashes.
Why did Xu Zhimo try so hard to discuss Soviet Russia? He said, “China’s problem with Soviet Russia…to date, it has always been a gangrene that has never been removed nor punctured. The pus inside has gathered to a point where it can no longer be silted, and the hidden chaos is so obvious that we can no longer simply ignore.” Therefore, “the problem this time,…to exaggerate a little, is a problem of China’s national fortune, including all possible perversions in the livelihoods of its countrymen.”
The prophecies of the creation of a sea of blood by the Soviet Union, as well as the Chinese people living in perversions, have all came true. Today, we are not only commemorating Cambridge under the pen of this renowned poet, but we should also remember how the Chinese ignored this prophet’s words, and brought about a disaster that is still continuing a hundred years later.
She bid farewell to Cambridge. But Cambridge would never have tolerated the smearing of these hands, which created a sea of blood anyway.