The question, “Are you a glass half full or half empty kind of person?” is often used to determine if a person is an optimist or a pessimist. It can be found on personality tests, in job interviews, or on awkward first dates. It also applies to the world of politics.

When it comes down to it, there are two general groups of thinkers: those who remain pessimistic about the world (the half-empty glasses), and those who maintain a sense of optimism (the half-full glasses). Upon further reflection, I might be so bold as to venture that those two groups generally correlate to liberal political ideology and conservative political ideology, respectively.

Take, for instance, the attitude towards productivity. Conservatives tend to view life through a lens of optimism. Individuals should feel a sense of responsibility to be proactive, work hard, and fulfill their God-given potential. Instead of sitting back and waiting for others to provide for them, they can pursue the liberating thrill of reaping the fruits of their own labor. Any young person beginning his or her career understands this — there is an immense sense of pride that comes from receiving a paycheck that you worked for, that was earned by your own efforts and not simply handed to you by your parents. Sure, it might be easier (and more fun) to have money given to you, but when you know that you can take care of yourself, it fosters a sense of self-sufficiency and, ultimately, self-esteem.

While I certainly respect many of my liberal friends who truly care for those suffering in poverty, it seems that pessimism plays a central role in their method of thinking. Liberal ideology tends to embrace the notion that individuals are helpless beings who must be “rescued” by their benevolent and merciful government. This may help explain why so many liberals are against the idea of a free market. In a free market system, people must take the initiative to participate and be competitive, while in a government-controlled system people are free to lay around waiting for their welfare checks.

Liberals may indeed have a noble desire to help others, but the method of freely handing out assistance instead of spurring citizens to be productive chips away at the core of what provides people with initiative and dignity, namely, earning something. The old proverb comes to mind, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day — teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” One sees evidence of this in underdeveloped countries around the world with microfinance programs. People in poor nations almost always repay micro-loans they receive to finance small businesses. This is the basis for the programs’ reputation for successfully boosting local economies. On the other hand, politically corrupt leaders typically squander foreign aid and prevent their own country’s economic success. This illustrates the concept that when individuals produce something for themselves, their sense of self-fulfillment positively impacts society.

This is not to say that there are not instances where people are “down on their luck” and need help. In this area, again, it boils down to the question of who should help those who need assistance. Liberal ideology tends to view the government as a motherly figure that tenderly cares for its dependents. Conservative ideology, however, views individual citizens as the caregivers.

Americans are very giving people, as evidenced by their enormous generosity towards others around the world. History has shown that when taxes are lower (meaning that government is more limited) and people have more money in their pockets, individuals are free to give more money to churches, charities, and local organizations. If people need help, they can then rely on these local entities to help them get back on their feet. That’s the whole optimistic point — helping people who stumble to get back on their feet or helping those with disabilities to carry on with their lives. Unfortunately, those who believe that the government should provide everything to everyone tend to proliferate a negative cycle of dependence which strips people of the standard upon which the U.S. was founded: the pride and satisfaction of being self-sufficient.

The battle between optimism and pessimism is fought in every aspect of politics. It is not a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, as evidenced by those Democrats who are conservative on different issues. It is a matter of seeing the glass as half full or half empty: “half full” referring to the belief that people are capable of working to provide for themselves, and “half empty” meaning that people are helpless and must rely on the government to give them handouts.

Suffice to say, the beauty of the American system is that it was founded on optimism, not on pessimism. The founders recognized that encouraging a country of self-motivated, optimistic citizens would result in a productive society, while fostering a system of pessimistic individuals dependent on government would lead to a stagnant society.

This is an important principle to consider as the Obama administration, which tends to espouse the more pessimistic view of mankind, is currently striving to create a government that gives its feeble citizens everything, from government-controlled health care to federally guaranteed automobiles. If the liberals in Congress and the White House have their way, we won’t need to feel a sense of responsibility because we’ll have the Almighty Government.

In that case, the question would become, “How much did the government put in your glass?” Lindsey Douthit reporting for Concerned Women of America.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by CentersForDecency.org are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the CfD.  If you wish to contact CfD - call 713-266-2715 or write: 1415 South Voss Road, #110-393, Houston, Texas 77057.  We also appreciate your Comments@CentersForDecency.Org.