True American
conservatism is about preserving the things which have been proven to make us
great (individual liberty, self-reliance, personal responsibility, etc.), and
correcting the mistakes we make along the way, so that new greatness can
continually be achieved, better opportunities can continually manifest, and
socioeconomic hardships can continually be minimized and eventually eradicated.
Again, that's American conservatism, not classical Conservatism, and I'm not
talking about Republicans either. American liberalism on the other hand, is
about trying to correct unfairness, as defined (arbitrarily) by government or
other small groups, by any means necessary, regardless of what such actions
will do to those things which make us great. When you get to the heart of it,
the real meat and potatoes of either side, what it boils down to is this:
conservatives believe a great nation is built by empowering the individual,
while liberals believe that perfection can be achieved by empowering
government. We can all argue about the specifics of all the issues- about where
we stand on gun control or abortion or taxes or marriage, but the end game is
always the same. True liberals, or progressives as we sometimes call them
(there are "conservative" progressives too) want government to solve
the problem, and true conservatives want the people whom government serves to
solve the problem.
I know better than government what is best for me and my family. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. I can't trust government to take my specific circumstances, my ambitions or my needs, nor those of my family, into account when they make a decision. Therefore, I believe wholeheartedly in empowering individuals and accomplishing as many of our goals as possible without government. Even when government is "needed," it's far more effective to localize solutions at the city, county or state level than it is to make sweeping legislative moves at the federal level. In general, the only time we need the federal government to step in is for matters such as national defense, coining money, interstate commerce and so forth as the enumerated powers in the Constitution detail. In most cases, local government is better informed and equipped for the circumstances at hand, and in every case it's more accountable to the people.
There are viable, effective methods of solving a lot of our problems that don't have to involve government, like helping the poor and needy in our communities. You don't need government to do it. Private, local entities like churches, charities and not for profits should be supported by all who are able. And I mean by choice, not by law, and only insofar as to empower them to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and rehabilitate those who've made terrible choices in life. There is a difference between compelling citizens to donate to these causes and asking them to fund a bible study or promote a specific religion or doctrine. Most businesses are more than happy to contribute as well, and they do so in astounding numbers (Wal-mart donating over $1 billion in cash and products in 2012, and they’re among companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Goldman Sachs and Google as some of the most charitable companies in America according to Forbes). Back to my point, we can help people, especially those who truly need it, by enlisting the assistance of individuals, businesses and private charitable entities, and they do a much better job than the federal government. I know I feel more comfortable giving to a charity than to government, because you can research and vet the organization, choose the one you believe will do the most good, and follow up on what they do. With government, you never know where your money will end up, and you have NO choice in whether to give or where it’s going to go. They even spend taxpayer money on things that most Americans don’t want the public paying for (i.e. planned parenthood abortions). In these cases, government, specifically local government, would be a better tool for promoting the morality of helping others of your own free will than a tool for actually imparting help to those in need. Think about it: if we taught people from a young age that society functions much smoother and people live much better lives when we all CHOOSE to help those who need it, whenever we are able to, and we continued that teaching throughout elementary school, middle school and high school, then by the time we get one generation from diapers to diplomas we would have a massive swing in the number of people who CHOOSE to help their fellow man rather than wait for the government to force them to do it. Charity has zero moral value and does nothing to change society for the better if we “serve” others solely because the government threatens us into compliance. The value lies in CHOOSING to help your fellow man. It makes society better for everyone, and that choice means the difference between resentment of those whom you’re forced to support, and empathy for those whom you choose to help. It just makes sense. Unfortunately, our government would rather hold a gun to our heads, take what they feel we don’t need, and put it to whatever political use they see fit. That solves nothing, and breeds anger and frustration rather than love and compassion. Bottom line: government is NOT the best or only solution for taking care of those in need, and the same is true for most of our nation’s problems.
I happen to believe that most of our problems, particularly those which lead to screaming matches in bars, college classrooms and the studios of cable TV networks, can be solved by limiting the amount of legislation aimed at “fixing” the problem, maximizing the amount of awareness about the problem, letting people make their own choices, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make (there are a few issues where I feel there are extenuating circumstances where certain rights trump others, such as the right to life trumping the right to an abortion, which is why I consider myself a Conservatarian, but I digress…). We need to empower individuals to make their own decisions and teach them to take responsibility for the decisions they make, while ensuring equal opportunity and equal protection under the law for everyone. Liberty and justice for all. The freedom to buy, the freedom to try, AND the freedom to fail (and start from the beginning again). We DO NOT need to dictate or legislate their wants and needs to them, nor coddle them from cradle to grave. When you localize government solutions, it has the same benefits as empowering individuals. Competition breeds better solutions, and localities have the freedom to try things their own way, implementing policies and programs tuned to the specific needs of their city, county or state. Again, government may be needed to help solve some of our biggest problems, but state and local governments are innately better at dealing with those problems than the federal government. They know their demographics, their trades, their resources, their economies, their ecosystems and, most importantly, they know their people. They are closer to the people, geographically and politically, and that enables local government to make smarter, more effective decisions. The federal government has very little direct accountability to the people, even in the House of Representatives (Can you say gerrymandering?), and they have absolutely no accountability to the states (thanks in large part to the 17th amendment making U.S. Senators elected by citizens rather than state legislatures, thereby eviscerating the ability of states to hold the federal government accountable to its citizens). At this point, the odds of correcting the lack of accountability are slim to none, so it makes more sense now than ever to empower state and local governments to solve problems, in conjunction with private individuals, businesses and community organizations. If there’s anything we’ve learned from the last century of American politics, it’s that growing the federal government and taking power from the states and the people solves nothing, and creates exponentially more problems. Just look around, and consider the amount of lasting “good” accomplished by Congresses and Presidents of the last hundred years. Don’t worry, it won’t take long…
I know better than government what is best for me and my family. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. I can't trust government to take my specific circumstances, my ambitions or my needs, nor those of my family, into account when they make a decision. Therefore, I believe wholeheartedly in empowering individuals and accomplishing as many of our goals as possible without government. Even when government is "needed," it's far more effective to localize solutions at the city, county or state level than it is to make sweeping legislative moves at the federal level. In general, the only time we need the federal government to step in is for matters such as national defense, coining money, interstate commerce and so forth as the enumerated powers in the Constitution detail. In most cases, local government is better informed and equipped for the circumstances at hand, and in every case it's more accountable to the people.
There are viable, effective methods of solving a lot of our problems that don't have to involve government, like helping the poor and needy in our communities. You don't need government to do it. Private, local entities like churches, charities and not for profits should be supported by all who are able. And I mean by choice, not by law, and only insofar as to empower them to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and rehabilitate those who've made terrible choices in life. There is a difference between compelling citizens to donate to these causes and asking them to fund a bible study or promote a specific religion or doctrine. Most businesses are more than happy to contribute as well, and they do so in astounding numbers (Wal-mart donating over $1 billion in cash and products in 2012, and they’re among companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Goldman Sachs and Google as some of the most charitable companies in America according to Forbes). Back to my point, we can help people, especially those who truly need it, by enlisting the assistance of individuals, businesses and private charitable entities, and they do a much better job than the federal government. I know I feel more comfortable giving to a charity than to government, because you can research and vet the organization, choose the one you believe will do the most good, and follow up on what they do. With government, you never know where your money will end up, and you have NO choice in whether to give or where it’s going to go. They even spend taxpayer money on things that most Americans don’t want the public paying for (i.e. planned parenthood abortions). In these cases, government, specifically local government, would be a better tool for promoting the morality of helping others of your own free will than a tool for actually imparting help to those in need. Think about it: if we taught people from a young age that society functions much smoother and people live much better lives when we all CHOOSE to help those who need it, whenever we are able to, and we continued that teaching throughout elementary school, middle school and high school, then by the time we get one generation from diapers to diplomas we would have a massive swing in the number of people who CHOOSE to help their fellow man rather than wait for the government to force them to do it. Charity has zero moral value and does nothing to change society for the better if we “serve” others solely because the government threatens us into compliance. The value lies in CHOOSING to help your fellow man. It makes society better for everyone, and that choice means the difference between resentment of those whom you’re forced to support, and empathy for those whom you choose to help. It just makes sense. Unfortunately, our government would rather hold a gun to our heads, take what they feel we don’t need, and put it to whatever political use they see fit. That solves nothing, and breeds anger and frustration rather than love and compassion. Bottom line: government is NOT the best or only solution for taking care of those in need, and the same is true for most of our nation’s problems.
I happen to believe that most of our problems, particularly those which lead to screaming matches in bars, college classrooms and the studios of cable TV networks, can be solved by limiting the amount of legislation aimed at “fixing” the problem, maximizing the amount of awareness about the problem, letting people make their own choices, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make (there are a few issues where I feel there are extenuating circumstances where certain rights trump others, such as the right to life trumping the right to an abortion, which is why I consider myself a Conservatarian, but I digress…). We need to empower individuals to make their own decisions and teach them to take responsibility for the decisions they make, while ensuring equal opportunity and equal protection under the law for everyone. Liberty and justice for all. The freedom to buy, the freedom to try, AND the freedom to fail (and start from the beginning again). We DO NOT need to dictate or legislate their wants and needs to them, nor coddle them from cradle to grave. When you localize government solutions, it has the same benefits as empowering individuals. Competition breeds better solutions, and localities have the freedom to try things their own way, implementing policies and programs tuned to the specific needs of their city, county or state. Again, government may be needed to help solve some of our biggest problems, but state and local governments are innately better at dealing with those problems than the federal government. They know their demographics, their trades, their resources, their economies, their ecosystems and, most importantly, they know their people. They are closer to the people, geographically and politically, and that enables local government to make smarter, more effective decisions. The federal government has very little direct accountability to the people, even in the House of Representatives (Can you say gerrymandering?), and they have absolutely no accountability to the states (thanks in large part to the 17th amendment making U.S. Senators elected by citizens rather than state legislatures, thereby eviscerating the ability of states to hold the federal government accountable to its citizens). At this point, the odds of correcting the lack of accountability are slim to none, so it makes more sense now than ever to empower state and local governments to solve problems, in conjunction with private individuals, businesses and community organizations. If there’s anything we’ve learned from the last century of American politics, it’s that growing the federal government and taking power from the states and the people solves nothing, and creates exponentially more problems. Just look around, and consider the amount of lasting “good” accomplished by Congresses and Presidents of the last hundred years. Don’t worry, it won’t take long…
Government is
rarely a good solution, and even more seldom the best one. To refuse to pursue
solutions that don’t include government is just plain stupid. Let me explain
with a historical reference:
During a time when women were widely considered property, the philosopher Plato decided, in imagining his republic, that it would make absolutely no sense to exclude women from the rigorous physical and mental tests that he envisioned would yield the best and brightest to lead the nation (I disagree with Plato quite often, but not on this point). He realized that arbitrarily eliminating women from contention would instantaneously cripple the odds of developing great leaders. Think of it this way, if you took a freshman class of med students and cut out everyone with brown eyes (or the blondes, those over 30 or all the Republicans, or what have you), you're eliminating a giant number of potentially great doctors for no reason at all. THAT is why none of our problems can be solved by relying solely on government, because it automatically excludes potentially great solutions, for no reason at all. Being open to all possibilities is just common sense.
During a time when women were widely considered property, the philosopher Plato decided, in imagining his republic, that it would make absolutely no sense to exclude women from the rigorous physical and mental tests that he envisioned would yield the best and brightest to lead the nation (I disagree with Plato quite often, but not on this point). He realized that arbitrarily eliminating women from contention would instantaneously cripple the odds of developing great leaders. Think of it this way, if you took a freshman class of med students and cut out everyone with brown eyes (or the blondes, those over 30 or all the Republicans, or what have you), you're eliminating a giant number of potentially great doctors for no reason at all. THAT is why none of our problems can be solved by relying solely on government, because it automatically excludes potentially great solutions, for no reason at all. Being open to all possibilities is just common sense.
It is utterly
counterproductive to choose to arbitrarily eliminate viable options for making
America better. When you choose, as liberals do, to dismiss all solutions that
originate in the private sector, you choose to severely handicap your chances
for success. The same goes for conservatives who refuse to let government do
anything at all. We can't fix a problem by looking solely for either a
government solution or a private sector solution. We have to look for the right
solution, the solution that works for all involved and maximizes liberty. We
have to plan for everything and foresee the unintended consequences, but we
also have to account for human nature, and the fact that we could be wrong.
History must be considered, and we must look further into the future than one
day, one crisis or one election. Sometimes we're going to fail, because
perfection is out of reach. But as a Conservative, I can tell you that if we
err on the side of the individual, get the government and bureaucracy out of
the way, and look for answers that protect life, liberty, private property and
the pursuit of happiness, wherever that solution may come from, more often than
not we're going to fix the problem, and more importantly, it's going to STAY
fixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment