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.
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2萬的網紅林昶佐 Freddy Lim,也在其Youtube影片中提到,(本影片為隨行側拍,若要更完整、好畫質的畫面,請參考各大電視台畫面) 致辭全文: Ladies and gentlemen, good evening, I am honored to have the opportunity to share some thoughts with all of ...
「power and politics in organizations」的推薦目錄:
power and politics in organizations 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳貼文
Barak Obama's statement on killing of George Floyd.
As millions of people across the country take to the streets and raise their voices in response to the killing of George Floyd and the ongoing problem of unequal justice, many people have reached out asking how we can sustain momentum to bring about real change.
Ultimately, it’s going to be up to a new generation of activists to shape strategies that best fit the times. But I believe there are some basic lessons to draw from past efforts that are worth remembering.
First, the waves of protests across the country represent a genuine and legitimate frustration over a decades-long failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system in the United States. The overwhelming majority of participants have been peaceful, courageous, responsible, and inspiring. They deserve our respect and support, not condemnation — something that police in cities like Camden and Flint have commendably understood.
On the other hand, the small minority of folks who’ve resorted to violence in various forms, whether out of genuine anger or mere opportunism, are putting innocent people at risk, compounding the destruction of neighborhoods that are often already short on services and investment and detracting from the larger cause. I saw an elderly black woman being interviewed today in tears because the only grocery store in her neighborhood had been trashed. If history is any guide, that store may take years to come back. So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.
Second, I’ve heard some suggest that the recurrent problem of racial bias in our criminal justice system proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time. I couldn’t disagree more. The point of protest is to raise public awareness, to put a spotlight on injustice, and to make the powers that be uncomfortable; in fact, throughout American history, it’s often only been in response to protests and civil disobedience that the political system has even paid attention to marginalized communities. But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices — and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands.
Moreover, it’s important for us to understand which levels of government have the biggest impact on our criminal justice system and police practices. When we think about politics, a lot of us focus only on the presidency and the federal government. And yes, we should be fighting to make sure that we have a president, a Congress, a U.S. Justice Department, and a federal judiciary that actually recognize the ongoing, corrosive role that racism plays in our society and want to do something about it. But the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels.
It’s mayors and county executives that appoint most police chiefs and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with police unions. It’s district attorneys and state’s attorneys that decide whether or not to investigate and ultimately charge those involved in police misconduct. Those are all elected positions. In some places, police review boards with the power to monitor police conduct are elected as well. Unfortunately, voter turnout in these local races is usually pitifully low, especially among young people — which makes no sense given the direct impact these offices have on social justice issues, not to mention the fact that who wins and who loses those seats is often determined by just a few thousand, or even a few hundred, votes.
So the bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both. We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform.
Finally, the more specific we can make demands for criminal justice and police reform, the harder it will be for elected officials to just offer lip service to the cause and then fall back into business as usual once protests have gone away. The content of that reform agenda will be different for various communities. A big city may need one set of reforms; a rural community may need another. Some agencies will require wholesale rehabilitation; others should make minor improvements. Every law enforcement agency should have clear policies, including an independent body that conducts investigations of alleged misconduct. Tailoring reforms for each community will require local activists and organizations to do their research and educate fellow citizens in their community on what strategies work best.
But as a starting point, here’s a report and toolkit developed by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and based on the work of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing that I formed when I was in the White House. And if you’re interested in taking concrete action, we’ve also created a dedicated site at the Obama Foundation to aggregate and direct you to useful resources and organizations who’ve been fighting the good fight at the local and national levels for years.
I recognize that these past few months have been hard and dispiriting — that the fear, sorrow, uncertainty, and hardship of a pandemic have been compounded by tragic reminders that prejudice and inequality still shape so much of American life. But watching the heightened activism of young people in recent weeks, of every race and every station, makes me hopeful. If, going forward, we can channel our justifiable anger into peaceful, sustained, and effective action, then this moment can be a real turning point in our nation’s long journey to live up to our highest ideals.
Let’s get to work.
https://medium.com/@BarackObama/how-to-make-this-moment-the-turning-point-for-real-change-9fa209806067
power and politics in organizations 在 多益達人 林立英文 Facebook 的精選貼文
Good company: the capitalists putting purpose ahead of profit
In a volatile ( ) world jolted ( ) by protest, revolt ( ) and environmental alarm, capitalism is showing signs of twitchiness ( ).
For decades, business has been all about maximizing profits and keeping owners happy. Now, thousands of companies and organizations are experimenting with broader values – purpose over profit, staff and communities ahead of shareholders ( ) – in order to meet the mood ( ) of the times.
Driving this shift ( ) in consciousness is a phalanx ( ) of upstart, sustainable ( ) businesses. They cluster ( ) under different groupings – Conscious Capitalism, B Corp, The B Team, Just Capital – but all share the same central objective: to reshape capitalism for an environmentally endangered ( ) age.
The best of these boast ( ) laudable ( ) motivations. In the past, if you wanted to change the world, you went into politics or joined a campaign group. Given the shift of power and resources to the private sector over recent decades, the smart money is increasingly on business to deliver solutions.
Not business as usual, that is. Plastering ( ) products with eco labels or providing perks ( ) to employees will make not a jot ( ) of difference if, behind the scenes, companies are still happily burning fossil fuels and browbeating ( ) suppliers.
“If businesses really want to be part of this movement for change, then great. But that change has to be radical ( ) and transformational. If not, it’s empty words and spin ( ),” says Katie Hill, a spokesperson for the ethical certification body B Corp, which now counts over 3,100 registered members in over 70 countries.
何謂好企業:資本主義者嘗試不再利益至上
在一個示威、反抗和環境示警衝撞的動盪世界中,資本主義也出現顫動的跡象。
數十年來,商業關注的一直都是盡力擴大利潤並使持有者開心;如今,數千家企業和組織正在實驗更廣泛的價值,包括企業宗旨重於利潤、優先考慮員工和社群勝於股東,以期符合時代風氣。
推動這波意識改變的是一群初嶄露頭角的永續企業,他們因不同團體聚集,包括非營利組織「自覺資本主義」(Conscious Capitalism)、B Corp、The B Team和Just Capital,但所有企業都有共同的核心目標:為環境岌岌可危的年代重塑資本主義。
這些企業的佼佼者吹捧值得讚揚的動機。過去如果你想改變世界,你會從政或加入活動組織。有鑑於最近數十年權力和資源改流向私人企業,精明的投資者也逐漸利用企業來提供解方。
也就是說,企業沒辦法照舊經營。如果企業背後仍開心燃燒化學燃料並威逼供應商,那麼就算使用有環保標章的石灰產品或提供津貼給員工,那麼也無法帶來些微的差異。
道德認證機構B Corp發言人凱蒂希爾(Katie Hill)表示:「如果企業真想成為這波改變運動中的一部分,這樣很好,但這項改變必須徹底又能帶來重大變動;若非如此,那就淪為談空話和杜撰內容。」該機構現有逾70個國家超過3100名註冊會員
#高雄人 #學習英文 請找 #多益達人林立英文
#高中英文 #成人英文
#多益家教班 #商用英文
#國立大學外國語文學系講師
#時事英文
power and politics in organizations 在 林昶佐 Freddy Lim Youtube 的精選貼文
(本影片為隨行側拍,若要更完整、好畫質的畫面,請參考各大電視台畫面)
致辭全文:
Ladies and gentlemen, good evening, I am honored to have the opportunity to share some thoughts with all of you here. My name is Freddy Lim, a parliamentarian from Taiwan, and am affiliated with the New Power Party, which is only one year old. The NPP received a lot of support from young people in Taiwan, which made us the third largest party in the Taiwanese parliament, and a new force in Taiwanese politics. I would like to express our voices to strengthen our mutual friendship, with the hope that you may continue to be Taiwan’s strong partners, offer us your support for our participation in international organizations to make our own contribution to the world.
Despite being a country that still has a hard time joining the UN,Taiwan is, in fact, a sovereign state with territories, people, elected government, and president. Last Friday, we had our third rotation of power, showing that Taiwan’s democracy is both stable and reliable.
Taiwan has a mature public health and national health insurance system, an outstanding biotech industry, as well as rich experiences in researching and developing medicines and vaccines. We believe that, through multilateral medical cooperation, participating in the global epidemic control and becoming an official member of the WHO, we will absolutely contribute in the global fight against diseases.
The complicated history of Taiwan surfaced with the rare mention of UN Resolution 2758 in the WHA invitation to Taiwan. After World War II, the Chiang Kai-shek regime who had nowhere to go after losing the Chinese Civil War was sent to Taiwan by the Allies, where it started a prolonged authoritarian rule. Along with the regime, the international community also threw the “one China” problem to Taiwan. In 1971, the UN passed resolution 2758 to expel the Chiang Kai-shek regime occupied the seat for China. However, Chiang’s regime was not only unrepresentative of China, it did not represent the people of Taiwan either. After decades of resistance by the people, Taiwan has finally become a young democracy. Now that the Taiwanese people are extending their efforts to contribute to and participate in different aspects in the world, we sincerely hope that Taiwan would engage in more positive and respectable exchanges with the world as a normal country, to fulfill its obligations as a global citizen.
Like all of you, we firmly stands behind the universal values of freedom, democracy, and human rights, and continuously work for these values. I believe that, based on our shared values, Taiwan would absolutely become a reliable and friendly partner with supports from all the nations. I would like to sincerely thank you for being good friends of the Taiwanese people, and sincerely hope that you would continue to support our international participation. Let’s stay closer to work for a better world.
It’s a pleasure to speak to all of you here, thank you for your time, and have a good evening.