Defining the difference between liberals and conservatives
Agree or disagree Jack's response defining his affinity for conservatism deserves it's own post:
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are relative. That means that they shift as ideologies do. To understand conservative you also need to know what liberal is too.
In a purest sense, Webster gives a good definition of conservative as: disposition in politics to preserve what is established, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
It defines liberal as: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Given these definitions I would often say that I fit the definition of liberal as often as I do conservative, but I don't think that these definitions get anywhere close to defining contemporary American liberalism and conservatism.
If you do take into consideration the above definition liberalism denotes movement, while conservative suggests a static state. One can live in a pure democracy and being conservative think that it should stay a pure democracy. Likewise, one can be under pure tyranny and fascism and being a conservative would think that it should remain so. Liberalism advocates "progress" or movement and it is based on whatever criteria of "progress" is and the individuals who define "progress". Following the above logic, a liberal can be in a pure democracy, and in the name of progress want to move away from it--going from individualism to egalitarianism (or when empowering government in its forceful form-totalitarianism). A liberal can be under fascism and want to "progress" away from it towards democracy. Since liberals are in a constant state of movement in the name of progress, it is hard to place a finger on them in terms of definitive political view--liberals today may not be the liberals of tomorrow. We could say that the founding fathers were liberals for wanting a better form of government, one based on freedom and liberty!
Now my definition of what a true American conservative should be, is an individual intent on maintaining the United States as it was intended by our founding fathers. Never before in the history of the world had a nation of this size been built on a foundation as close to a pure democracy as this one. (I realize we are a representative democracy, but England's national constitution, the closest cousin to ours, of the time granted more power to the government (House of Lords and Commons--keep in mind that many of those who came here to escape England were commoners--represented by the house of commons, largely Puritans at the time) and the monarchy than it did to the people). It was a nation founded largely on individualism--where success was based upon individual hard work and initiative, an environment that was conducive to such, with the primary tool of freedom to determine one's outcome or lack thereof. It embodied life's lessons that are often hard taught, but rewarding. Personal responsibility coupled with personal initiative, and each one accountable to all.
A true American conservative wants to preserve those ideals that brought out the greatness in people and a nation. It wants to conserve the Constitution with the understanding that it was those very tenets that gave we the people the power and withheld it from government.
Examples of ways that this affects my thoughts as a conservative:
I refuse to enable someone to fail. Social programs like welfare despoil an individual of initiative, and prevent them from succeeding. I would rather teach a man to feed himself than have him dependent upon others to do that. I would rather empower someone to self-respect through short termed tough love than to keep him dependent upon others.
Rights are earned. I don't have the right to own a million dollar mansion. I have to earn that right. True--there will always be those of privilege who have everything given to them, but they suffer from the deficiencies that causes. I don't have the right to eat unless I earn the money to pay for it. I do not have the right to medical service or any other service that someone else has to pay for. I should have the right and freedom to pursue those ends, but not be guaranteed the outcome at the expense of others.
( I do not begrudge safety nets to catch those in society who are truly helpless, but those are few and far between. Productivity breeds prosperity, nothing else, which benefits all in society. I laud the morality of those times when family's and friends responsibly supported those who could not do for themselves.)
I believe in a government that governs least governs best. We have been brought away from that by changing our Constitution, by "progressing" away from the ideals of freedom and individualism--all in the name of egalitarianism. In an effort to bring about moral socialism we empower the government to assume more and more power over our lives. By pushing social programs (which account for the largest part of our expenditures) we enslave ourselves to it. Last year, tax free day was into June, which meant that over half of what we earn in the United States goes to a hulking government who spends it on anything from artwork, to mahogany furniture, politician vacations to unneeded medical procedures and medications. Empowering a government one way gives it the inch it needs, with the eventual outcome of placing ourselves once again as vassals under a system the type of which we left. Progressing away from democracy leads ultimately to fascism, an unavoidable cycle. Liberals push the ball up the hill and over the peak, then sit back horrified at the resultant plunge. (This is why liberals often become conservatives later in life--or in the middle of a political cycle).
Consideration and deliberation. I believe in reviewing every initiative of government carefully regardless of how noble the venture sounds to determine its long-term outcome. Hair does not grow faster by being pulled and the fast fix which may seem like a good idea eventually leads to undoing. Social Security was needed at the time of its inception, but FDR and our government at the time did not have the foresight to change it or let it see its sunset. In so doing, it has created a burden to society, a dependency upon government, and an impoverished retirement community. (A simple study would be to just consider the amount of individual contributions to Social Security annuitized over a person's work history, and most people would retire millionaires--instead we have seniors having to depend on a pittance and Meals on Wheels.)
I think that if you look at our nation over the span of years you can see what I mean. A simple question to ask is, "are we more liberal today as a society than we were 50 years ago?" The answer is obviously yes, so one has to look at where it has led us. That is the reason I am a conservative, because I value our freedom and the opportunities it affords us. Why change a good thing?
In closing, I'll give one of my favorite Barry Goldwater quotes (BTW, although venerated at this time, he was demonized and vilified by liberals while alive and in government):
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are relative. That means that they shift as ideologies do. To understand conservative you also need to know what liberal is too.
In a purest sense, Webster gives a good definition of conservative as: disposition in politics to preserve what is established, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
It defines liberal as: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Given these definitions I would often say that I fit the definition of liberal as often as I do conservative, but I don't think that these definitions get anywhere close to defining contemporary American liberalism and conservatism.
If you do take into consideration the above definition liberalism denotes movement, while conservative suggests a static state. One can live in a pure democracy and being conservative think that it should stay a pure democracy. Likewise, one can be under pure tyranny and fascism and being a conservative would think that it should remain so. Liberalism advocates "progress" or movement and it is based on whatever criteria of "progress" is and the individuals who define "progress". Following the above logic, a liberal can be in a pure democracy, and in the name of progress want to move away from it--going from individualism to egalitarianism (or when empowering government in its forceful form-totalitarianism). A liberal can be under fascism and want to "progress" away from it towards democracy. Since liberals are in a constant state of movement in the name of progress, it is hard to place a finger on them in terms of definitive political view--liberals today may not be the liberals of tomorrow. We could say that the founding fathers were liberals for wanting a better form of government, one based on freedom and liberty!
Now my definition of what a true American conservative should be, is an individual intent on maintaining the United States as it was intended by our founding fathers. Never before in the history of the world had a nation of this size been built on a foundation as close to a pure democracy as this one. (I realize we are a representative democracy, but England's national constitution, the closest cousin to ours, of the time granted more power to the government (House of Lords and Commons--keep in mind that many of those who came here to escape England were commoners--represented by the house of commons, largely Puritans at the time) and the monarchy than it did to the people). It was a nation founded largely on individualism--where success was based upon individual hard work and initiative, an environment that was conducive to such, with the primary tool of freedom to determine one's outcome or lack thereof. It embodied life's lessons that are often hard taught, but rewarding. Personal responsibility coupled with personal initiative, and each one accountable to all.
A true American conservative wants to preserve those ideals that brought out the greatness in people and a nation. It wants to conserve the Constitution with the understanding that it was those very tenets that gave we the people the power and withheld it from government.
Examples of ways that this affects my thoughts as a conservative:
I refuse to enable someone to fail. Social programs like welfare despoil an individual of initiative, and prevent them from succeeding. I would rather teach a man to feed himself than have him dependent upon others to do that. I would rather empower someone to self-respect through short termed tough love than to keep him dependent upon others.
Rights are earned. I don't have the right to own a million dollar mansion. I have to earn that right. True--there will always be those of privilege who have everything given to them, but they suffer from the deficiencies that causes. I don't have the right to eat unless I earn the money to pay for it. I do not have the right to medical service or any other service that someone else has to pay for. I should have the right and freedom to pursue those ends, but not be guaranteed the outcome at the expense of others.
( I do not begrudge safety nets to catch those in society who are truly helpless, but those are few and far between. Productivity breeds prosperity, nothing else, which benefits all in society. I laud the morality of those times when family's and friends responsibly supported those who could not do for themselves.)
I believe in a government that governs least governs best. We have been brought away from that by changing our Constitution, by "progressing" away from the ideals of freedom and individualism--all in the name of egalitarianism. In an effort to bring about moral socialism we empower the government to assume more and more power over our lives. By pushing social programs (which account for the largest part of our expenditures) we enslave ourselves to it. Last year, tax free day was into June, which meant that over half of what we earn in the United States goes to a hulking government who spends it on anything from artwork, to mahogany furniture, politician vacations to unneeded medical procedures and medications. Empowering a government one way gives it the inch it needs, with the eventual outcome of placing ourselves once again as vassals under a system the type of which we left. Progressing away from democracy leads ultimately to fascism, an unavoidable cycle. Liberals push the ball up the hill and over the peak, then sit back horrified at the resultant plunge. (This is why liberals often become conservatives later in life--or in the middle of a political cycle).
Consideration and deliberation. I believe in reviewing every initiative of government carefully regardless of how noble the venture sounds to determine its long-term outcome. Hair does not grow faster by being pulled and the fast fix which may seem like a good idea eventually leads to undoing. Social Security was needed at the time of its inception, but FDR and our government at the time did not have the foresight to change it or let it see its sunset. In so doing, it has created a burden to society, a dependency upon government, and an impoverished retirement community. (A simple study would be to just consider the amount of individual contributions to Social Security annuitized over a person's work history, and most people would retire millionaires--instead we have seniors having to depend on a pittance and Meals on Wheels.)
I think that if you look at our nation over the span of years you can see what I mean. A simple question to ask is, "are we more liberal today as a society than we were 50 years ago?" The answer is obviously yes, so one has to look at where it has led us. That is the reason I am a conservative, because I value our freedom and the opportunities it affords us. Why change a good thing?
In closing, I'll give one of my favorite Barry Goldwater quotes (BTW, although venerated at this time, he was demonized and vilified by liberals while alive and in government):
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
posted by mochi at 6:43 PM
7 Comments:
Man, Mochi! I feel almost like a celeb! ha!
Seriously, I think that over time we begin to see that we don't think very differently. I also think that the labels we sling around are often inaccurate and do nothing but help us mischaracterize others.
At times I have been called a flaming liberal--at others a stubborn conservative. I'm sure that you guys experience or will experience the same as time progresses.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and a very happy holiday to you all!
-Jack
Merry Christmas, I'll get back on the attack on Monday.
Okay, here’s my response to Jack…
”I don't think that these definitions get anywhere close to defining contemporary American liberalism and conservatism.”
If you redefine important terms, it renders the whole discussion moot. This is where I sound more conservative than you: I believe that established definitions must remain in effect. You can't simply take a word, say it means something totally different, and then argue for or against it. If you want to apply a different definition, then use a different term, or make one up. If the actual definitions do not apply, as you say, then you must be describing something else.
“Now my definition of what a true American conservative should be, is an individual intent on maintaining the United States as it was intended by our founding fathers. Never before in the history of the world had a nation of this size been built on a foundation as close to a pure democracy as this one.”
It was still a fairly small group of colonies, I think, and I understand they modeled our government after the Iroquois Confederacy.
“keep in mind that many of those who came here to escape England were... largely Puritans at the time.”
Incidentally, the Puritans outlawed the celebration of Christmas.
“It was a nation founded largely on individualism--where success was based upon individual hard work and initiative, an environment that was conducive to such, with the primary tool of freedom to determine one's outcome or lack thereof.”
We'll ignore all the slavery and indentured servitude stuff for now.
“I refuse to enable someone to fail. Social programs like welfare despoil an individual of initiative, and prevent them from succeeding. I would rather teach a man to feed himself than have him dependent upon others to do that. I would rather empower someone to self-respect through short termed tough love than to keep him dependent upon others. (I do not begrudge safety nets to catch those in society who are truly helpless, but those are few and far between).”
As we’ve discussed before, I think your perception of social-service recipients is inaccurate. You seem to describe the majority of them as able-bodied slackers who just mooching off the system, and you seem to perceive of social programs as handouts to said slackers.
From my experience: the majority of recipients are needy individuals, like the developmentally disabled (mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, etc), elderly legitimately disabled (and unemployable), working parents who can’t afford healthcare, etc. From our previous discussions, you already know what I see every day. Those are the rule, not the exception. On the other hand, sure, there are frauds and cheats and slackers in the world, but they’re the exception to the rule.
Also, just for other readers’ information, in my state at least, you can’t get food stamps unless you are employed, only children can receive cash aid, and you can’t get county healthcare services unless you’re pretty damn poor. These things aren’t just being handed out readily. And by the way, churches, friends, and family are not able to provide these services. If they were, the services would not have been established in the first place.
“Rights are earned. I don't have the right to own a million dollar mansion. I have to earn that right.”
No liberal is saying that everyone has the right to own a million dollar mansion. Far from it. I believe, as did the founders, that we possess certain inalienable rights. Liberals believe that people do have a right to some things that are not specifically noted in the constitution, like drinking water not tainted by industrial waste, a decent education, basic nutrition and healthcare. Also, people have the right to enforce rules to protect themselves from crime, whether that crime is a street robbery, or an S&L scam that wipes out the life savings of thousands of elderly retirees (thank goodness social security is there to feed the victims of “conservative” white collar crime!).
“Productivity breeds prosperity, nothing else, which benefits all in society.”
Prosperity can breed prosperity for some and appalling misery for others. Morality must be applied here. Sweatshops, child labor, 14-16 hour days for a few pennies; do you think labor laws were dreamed up just to annoy business owners? No, they were necessary. And they still are. Besides, if productivity without morality is a virtue, then why not just make your money from drugs and prostitution?
“I laud the morality of those times when family's and friends responsibly supported those who could not do for themselves.”
C’mon, really! You honestly believe that the whole country was that Mayberry-esque!? I think not. Social programs were developed because that scenario did not do the job.
“Liberals push the ball up the hill…”
You were doing okay here until you tried to place all the blame on liberals. You still apply all spending to liberals, and that’s simply not accurate.
“Social Security annuitized over a person's work history…”
When anyone can prove that people, in general, once were, or could now be, responsible enough to handle a retirement investment portfolio, as well as be simply lucky enough to avoid all natural disasters, catastrophic illness, auto accidents, etc., then maybe I’ll buy the “social security is unnecessary” line.
“I think that if you look at our nation over the span of years you can see what I mean. A simple question to ask is, "are we more liberal today as a society than we were 50 years ago?" The answer is obviously yes, so one has to look at where it has led us. “
Examine all of history, and you can easily make the observation that “now” is more liberal than “then”. But much of this change is very important, good change: women can vote, blacks and whites can enter and leave through the same exit, and, until recently, feeding babies mercury was discouraged.
“In closing, I'll give one of my favorite Barry Goldwater quotes…”
Well, Jack, as you know, I am from Arizona: Goldwater’s home state. Now, I don’t know when your quote is from, but you might be very shocked at how “liberal” Goldwater became. He reversed opinions and criticized conservatives. Sure, he was still a conservative. But you might find him to be surprisingly “liberal” if you find material from his later years.
I have engaged in countless discussions over the "true meanings" of liberal and conservative. I have even gone as far as to describe myself as a conservative (to my wife's horror). I agree, as do most people with which I speak, that government is much too large and powerful. But seriously, what constructive things can be done? Repeal social security? What good will that do? I can tell you it will cause immeasurable disaster in the short term. Squash all social spending? Who would that really help? I've always agreed with the adage "give a man a fish..." but, as Shea points out, most of the people who depend on these programs simply cannot make it on there own. They would literally die without them. Is that what we want?? Isn't that exactly what the Nazis tried to do?
I still consider myself a liberal because I want the country to "progress" toward pure democracy while embracing certain "socialist" aspects that are realistic and lead to positive results. Public education is a socialist institution, but it is absolutely necessary. Libraries, fire fighters, police, the military, (etc, etc) and even a modicum of "wealth redistribution" through different tax levels HELP this country and HELP our society. They were not granted in the constitution, so they are unconstitutional by definition, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It just doesn't make sense to put aside tangible results in the name of abstract ideals.
I hear a lot of "conservatives" talk about how abusive government is, yet most of them support our president, who has increased the size and scope of government more than any chief executive in decades upon decades. Honestly, how do they reconcile that?
"Conservatives" are fond of pointing at "liberals" as the cause of all this country's woes, but in actuality "liberals" have won many battles against tyranny with their "progressive" thoughts. If everyone still thought the way they did in the 1700's, our country would have been invaded and colonized all over again probably some time in the 1800's. We are smarter now, and it's a different world. We keep "progressing" because "progressives" lead us. Most of the time when a so called "conservative" like Bush takes the reigns they lead us over a cliff. Hopefully soon a "progressive" will come along to pull us out again.
Here are a few things I think will make our country "progress" toward a more robust democracy. Are they "liberal" or "conservative"? More importantly, does that label have any bearing on their validity at all?
- 100% public funding for ALL political campaigns
- Radical tax law reform
- Stringent GLOBAL environmental regulation
- Cut the military budget by at least 40%
- Begin multilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe
- Turn all authority in Iraq over to the UN
- Work with the UN to improve functionality rather than sabotage it
- End corporate welfare (part of radical tax reform)
- Pressure states to get public school class sizes to 15 students per teacher or less
Smorg,
A few thoughts, unproofed, unedited. Wanted to get them to you though before they went stale.
Good to chat!
-Jack
I have engaged in countless discussions over the "true meanings" of liberal and conservative. I have even gone as far as to describe myself as a conservative (to my wife's horror). I agree, as do most people with which I speak, that government is much too large and powerful. But seriously, what constructive things can be done? Repeal social security? What good will that do? I can tell you it will cause immeasurable disaster in the short term. Squash all social spending? Who would that really help? I've always agreed with the adage "give a man a fish..." but, as Shea points out, most of the people who depend on these programs simply cannot make it on there own. They would literally die without them. Is that what we want?? Isn't that exactly what the Nazis tried to do?
Smorg, I think that the problem lies in a government that rarely stops, and NEVER goes backwards. Conservatism is usually about creating a static state, but as we know conservatism has been dead in our government for decades. You use Social Security as an example, so I will give you what I think would have been a conservative perspective. When Social Security was created there were three kinds of people. Individuals who immediately needed the financial assistance because of their inability to work, individuals who would only be working a short time before needing such assistance, and individuals who had a lifetime of work ahead of them before they needed assistance. FDR recognized this in his statement:
""In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
Now I have NO idea why Democrats launched and all-out assault on annuitized accounts, when their patron saint recognized in the very beginning that it had to change in the future. On social security, I accuse liberals and Democrats of being "conservatives"--it is an old, outdated, outmoded, non-progressive program that has not been changed in decades and is destined for eventual failure, and it is liberals who are resisting any change! I guess I will call these people Con-Libs, or Lib-Cons or something like that. Smorg, money is something I understand, it is something I work in, and even your most basically educated person can understand that payments made on an annuity appreciate versus the exchange of wealth program we have now. As a matter of fact, Smorg, if the average person had taken 1/2 his social security contributions and put them in a standard annuity after working 30 years he would retire a millionaire. As the system is set up now, one can hardly afford to eat on current benefits--Imagine what it will be in the future. Another foolish notion by "progressives" is that there is a "Social Security Trust Fund". It does not exist, Smorg--all it is (to quote our esteemed Democrat former senator Fritz Hollings) is a "drawer full of IOU's". I know that Democrats are smug about defeating Bush's initiative to try to annuitize contributions--but to what cost to you, me and others who are counting on that money to be there? So in terms of the Social Security program in general, the true "conservatives" are liberals who refuse to upgrade a failing system for whatever reason. (Reasons I list are: Fear and control).
Now, in terms of what a real conservative would have done concerning Social Security to begin with, they would probably have advocated it only as a temporary measure, but not as a long term solution that creates dependence. How many people refuse to save money for retirement fully believing that the government and others will keep them up in their old age? How many people refuse to take personal responsibility for their own welfare in the United States as a result of Social Security? Collectivism goes on the assumption that people are not responsible, therefore the government has to do everything for them, including forcing them through compulsory contributions to "save" for their retirement (which is an oxymoron, because we AREN'T saving for our retirement, we are paying for someone else's). Since we have married the devil anyway and have to live with it, what would be the "conservative" fix for such? Well, going back to what a conservative thinks our fathers intended, we would want to scale back Social Security to be a safety net for those who really need it, empower and educate those who don't to save and prepare for their own retirements, and try to fix the program into an interest-bearing program that would yield some real revenues for those having to invest them. But these concepts go way over the heads of the Washington idiots who became congressmen and senators by virtue of good looks, political families or money--proving once again, that all of the above do not make one smart.
I also disagree with Shea. Human potential is far above what liberals credit their fellow men with. I believe in the human potential, have seen it at work--under the most extreme circumstances. What we have is a system that creates these individuals, sapping them of initiative and self-respect. I believe in compassion, I believe in helping my fellow man--but above all I believe in empowering and assisting others to live a life of fulfillment, self-respect, and dignity. I would say that the percentage of those who can't is far less than those who can.
I still consider myself a liberal because I want the country to "progress" toward pure democracy while embracing certain "socialist" aspects that are realistic and lead to positive results. Public education is a socialist institution, but it is absolutely necessary.
Given time I will elaborate more on social agency. I am no fan of public education. Our current system is based on Nazi Germany's model and they are bastions of indoctrination. Free markets create educational opportunities and in times past have brought about the greatest leaps in scholarship in history. If you are interested in more of my views on public education let me know. I think dollar for dollar it is America's lousiest investment.
Libraries, fire fighters, police, the military, (etc, etc) and even a modicum of "wealth redistribution" through different tax levels HELP this country and HELP our society.
I wouldn't lump libraries in with the others. Understanding like you do, that government is force, then we see the need to empower an agency other than ourselves to provide for those things applicable to force. The other's are beneficial without a doubt, but a conservative always keeps a firm grip on the benefit/cost ratio. The problem is, that once such social expenses are accepted, they are rarely monitored, so the cost continues to rise until the benefit is no longer worth it. Also the private sector always has to be considered and often if there is a market the service will be provided. (Look at TV for instance).
They were not granted in the constitution, so they are unconstitutional by definition, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It just doesn't make sense to put aside tangible results in the name of abstract ideals.
Now I don't want to read too much into this statement, Smorg, but I do want to issue a word of caution. Governments rarely deal in results--that is the problem. Governments largely work on processes, and there is a fundamental difference between process and results. It goes back to what I said earlier, when one looks at the results the government produces they have rarely been desirable. The problem is that they are desirable to SOMEONE, and therefore "abstract Constitutional ideals" get thrown out in favor of pet projects. Enter PORK. I am sure that there are many people in Iowa who think that a billion dollar indoor rainforest in the middle of Iowa is desirable and will bring about tangible results. Smorg, the conservative does not advocate exclusion, but mainly caution.
I hear a lot of "conservatives" talk about how abusive government is, yet most of them support our president, who has increased the size and scope of government more than any chief executive in decades upon decades. Honestly, how do they reconcile that?
I don't really understand how true (educated) conservatives could support our current Congress and Senate (they are the one's with the purse strings) either. Our President asks for money to do what he feels the executive branch needs to do. Congress is who spends the money. Between the two branches they have done a wonderful job at expanding government. This is something that no conservative would approve of. Keep in mind, Smorg, that just because someone discusses political issues, reads the paper, or gives themselves a label, it does not grant them common sense, intellect or analytical ability. There are tons of talking heads who have no idea what they are talking about--that's because they spend more time talking than listening. Also, Smorg, the instant feedback provided by the internet today (where one can Google any subject and instantly get information on a topic) is no substitute for sound education and experience--as I tell my class at church, one can have the question, one can have the answer, but that does not mean one has the understanding. So don't look to people who claim to be "conservative" or "liberal" to know what they are talking about.
"Conservatives" are fond of pointing at "liberals" as the cause of all this country's woes, but in actuality "liberals" have won many battles against tyranny with their "progressive" thoughts. If everyone still thought the way they did in the 1700's, our country would have been invaded and colonized all over again probably some time in the 1800's. We are smarter now, and it's a different world. We keep "progressing" because "progressives" lead us. Most of the time when a so called "conservative" like Bush takes the reigns they lead us over a cliff. Hopefully soon a "progressive" will come along to pull us out again.
Progress is a relative term also, Smorg. What may be progress for you may not be progress for me. Adolph Hitler, Mussolini, Tsung--all of them considered themselves progressive in thought--always moving toward what they thought was the ultimate form of human government. Progress is also relative to who is in power. Can one honestly say that governmentally we have "progressed" in this nation? If dedication to freedom was an ideal of "progression" are we freer now that we were 60 years ago? Smorg, although we have more knowledge, I hardly think that we are smarter. We may have advances technologically, economically, etc., but those things happen anyway. The greatest leap in technology in the last century was under Hitler's Nazi Germany. Is this what progressive is? Smorg, we have to be smarter than this carefully evaluating systems and ideals that are important. If we love freedom--something we bought and paid for at an astronomical price, then we should never want to "progress" away from that for the expediency of the moment. "Progressive" is as elusive a term as "liberal" :)
Here are a few things I think will make our country "progress" toward a more robust democracy. Are they "liberal" or "conservative"? More importantly, does that label have any bearing on their validity at all?
- 100% public funding for ALL political campaigns
Disagree. Where is collective funding in democracy? I think I know what you are saying, but I think the key to removing control from the power brokers is to limit their power. How do we do that? Educate ourselves and others at a grass roots level, and vote on principle, not politics.
- Radical tax law reform
Smorg, not sure which way you're going with this. The best reform is the elimination, and that starts with a hard look at what the government is doing and what it is costing us. I don't know if you are aware or now, but the cost of the foster care program in the United States averages out to almost $500,000 per child and is loaded with fraud and abuses. (Please don't ask me to find that report--I am not sure where I read it:) Can you how much more cost effective and even BETTER this may be done by the private sector? Also, we need to think about this seriously because if we look start talking about a flat tax or a more "equitable" tax, then poor people will have to do something they don't right now--pay taxes.
- Stringent GLOBAL environmental regulation
The BBC had an interesting show about volcanoes and pointed out that a single volcanic eruption of average size produces more "greenhouse gases" (carbon dioxide, etc.) than man is capable of creating for decades. Smorg, I am not against environmental regulation, but I am more for common sense and realistic perspective. Current environmentalism is more religion than science. Like all things the environmental issue should be looked at from a conservative perspective where costs/benefits are weighed. If we listen to the envirowhacks, we will need to eliminate our clothes, our vehicles, our buildings, our homes, and go back to the Garden of Eden state in order to "save the planet".
- Cut the military budget by at least 40%
Smorg, given that government's purpose is protection against enemies foreign and domestic, I think the other cuts should come first. That is what we have a government for. Not for all of these other things. If one thinks about it, just look at the most elemental form of primitive government in the past. People formed unions and communes, and selected the strongest to PROTECT them. That is the purpose of government. Now if you mean cut the budget by looking at the waste within it, then I will have to agree that if there is 40% wasted, then it should be cut.
- Begin multilateral nuclear disarmament across the globe
This will only happen if everyone agrees. Have one person, one country that won't, and you have a world power. In an ideal world it would be nice if there were no more nuclear weapons. But in a realistic world it will never happen. (P.S. Even though we won the nuclear arms race against the Soviet Union, do you know that they still have more nuclear warheads than we do?)
- Turn all authority in Iraq over to the UN
I have yet to see a successful "peacekeeping" mission credited to the U.N. How can you justify trusting them with it?
- Work with the UN to improve functionality rather than sabotage it
Clinton was in office for 8 years and we "played well" with the U.N. during that time. We saw no improvement in functionality, just an exponential increase in vice, corruption, racism and greed. What do you suggest that would help improve U.N. functionality?
- End corporate welfare (part of radical tax reform)
I guess I need a little more info on this one.
- Pressure states to get public school class sizes to 15 students per teacher or less
This is reality in my state, Smorg, and we still manage to be 48th in the nation in educational standard. The United States is far behind a lot of the civilized world in education. The average class size of most Chinese schools is 48-50 and they make the best and brightest of us look like drooling morons. I can't understand why American's cannot get off their high horses and realize that our education system sucks a big one and should be discarded and started all over again. Of course I think it has to do with us as Americans--we tend to think we're better than everyone else and don't need fixing. Oh well...
Smorg, just offering some counterpoint to your points. Not necessarily disagreement--just added perspective. (and maybe not even the right one:)
Kindest regards,
-Jack
Smorg,
I ran across this quote. Thought it cute:
Is it progress if a cannibal uses knife and fork?
-Jack
Jack,
Sorry my response was so delayed. I was sick for a while, then I wanted time to digest what you said.
The first section of your comment I pretty much agree with. I think social security is busted and needs fixing. Probably so much fixing that it will bear no resemblance to what it is now when it's done. I support contributions to annuities as opposed to a fund that simply depreciates, (I work in finance too). My original point was that it is good to have something in place to force (as government does) people to save. Otherwise, many people simply won't and we'll pay more for it down the line. Of course, when forced to do something we should get the best possible risk adjusted return - which is clearly NOT our current system.
We've come to this conclusion before, but you and I are not terribly far apart in our views of the ideal government. Which brings us to the end of the comment and the few bullet points I brought up.
- I still believe that there are few things more fitting to have funded by taxpayer dollars than political campaigns. Even if you and I got our way and the size/power of government was radically reduced, those in power would still favor those they're financially obligated to over their constituents. That will always happen now and forever under our current system. I believe public funding is the only way to eliminate this and make a level playing field. You said yourself that most politicians got there through good looks or a family name. If everyone had the same campaign resources, our country would take a HUGE step toward a real democracy - true rule by the people, rather than a corporate oligarchy.
- Admittedly, I didn't really give you any specifics to work with with my "radical tax reform" idea. It's just too complex an issue to get into in a comment section of a blog. Suffice it to say that I believe people should be taxed as little as humanly possible and that our government should run as leanly as possible (without sacrificing RESULTS). I think we're on the same page there.
- I think the "envirowhacks" that you refer to are few and far between. But I also feel that, in this case, too much emphasis is put on short term bottom line results. We simply have to look at the long term with regard to the environment - and we know for a fact we're going down hill. We've improved a great deal since the industrial revolution when we used rivers as sewers, to be sure, but we still have a long way to go. Getting on board with meaningful global environmental standards is absolutely necessary. We could lead by example here. We are the biggest polluter on Earth and we don't seem to care. If we spearheaded unilateral negotiations with other nations it would be a big win for our planet's future.
- Basically what I'm saying with my idea to drastically cut military spending is that we can save the taxpayers money. It's a conservative stance. Our military is many times larger than the next largest in the world. We are spread thin all over the planet. We don't need to be. We don't need to be the sheppard of the globe - that's one of the reasons so many people hate us. If we lead by benevolent example, such as with environmental regulation, foreign policy, and weapons proliferation, we could literally change the world for the better.
That paragraph makes me seem a bit like a hippie dippie, but think about it seriously. If we took the first step in environmental regulation, nuclear disarmament, and favored diplomacy over belligerence, what do you think would happen? China would immediately start dumping toxic waste into the ocean, North Korea would bomb us and the Al Qaeda camps would overflow? I doubt it. I think other countries would follow suit. And if the few who oppose what is obviously right wish to do us harm we will have a powerful alliance in place that is the result of our neighborly conduct. E pluribus unum.
- As for the UN, I know you hate them with a fiery passion. I realize they are far from perfect. The institution is similar to social security in that I feel it is necessary, but in need of serious reform. I get the feeling you'd have us withdraw entirely from the UN, but what other body is in a position to do what they do? I think we're better off fixing what we already started.
On a personal note, I'm entering an introspective stage with my blogging. I think I may lay low for a while and try to develop more specific ideas. I feel as though the conversations I have in the blog-o-sphere are too general. I want to feel like I'm moving toward results. I think I'll still eyeball around to comment on posts of interest though.
As always, I appreciate your thoughts.
Post a Comment
<< Home