Sunday, November 6, 2011

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 7

Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. This is the primary reason conservatives clash with environmental groups.  To be clear ... conservatives don't want dirty air, dirty water, or a polluted ecosystem. I mean, we have to live on this planet too. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.  Let's make one more point here: Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and PETA are socialist organizations whose agenda is to do away with private ownership of property. These organizations would have us return to the days before the horse and buggy.  Yes, their propaganda looks and sounds sweet, but at their very core is what Mark Levin and others calls Statism; a call to socialism and a Utopian society.
Ownership is stewardship. Give a man ... or woman ... the right to own something, and they will take care of it. Give ownership to the village and no one will take responsibility.  Let me encourage the reader to study the cultural, social and economic situations on America's Indian reservations. They offer a series of case studies in government's effectiveness as caretaker. In case you want to skip the research and reading, I'll offer you a one sentence summary. Government intervention has  miserably failed the Native American population in every conceivable form and fashion. Conservatives understand that the more widespread  the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is that commonwealth.

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

Saturday, November 5, 2011

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 6

Conservatives understand that people are not perfect, never have been perfect and never will be perfect.  In the liberal mind, perfection is possible if the right people and policies are in place. Problem is ... at no time in all of recorded history has this occurred. "But," the liberal will contend "we must always strive for perfection."  Okay. I'll go there, but first you'll have to give me a definition of perfection, and the definition I hear from the left is not sustainable or even one that I like: Government control over commerce, redistribution of wealth, and regulations on fundamental freedoms like speech, property ownership, and thought.  No thank you. I'll live with my imperfect world and keep my God given freedoms if you don't mind.  

Conservatives understand that human perfection is a pipe dream, and that human attempts to create a perfect order are naturally flawed by the simple fact that humans are imperfect. "The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell." Russell Kirk No, the best we can do is strive for excellence, and the best environment for that to occur is in an environment ripe with freedoms; freedoms Americans have enjoyed since the signing of the constitution. 

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

Saturday, October 29, 2011

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 5

Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety, and embrace inequality as a healthy and necessary factor in societal development. Let us be clear. Conservatives are not insensitive to inequality! Rather, they embrace philosophies and strategies that offer a reasonable management of the reality. One of those strategies is called competition. Competition necessarily and predictably causes inequality ... not for the purpose of subjugation, humiliation or domination, but for the purpose of advancing excellence. To quote Russell Kirk. "For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation."  

The Utopian dream of social justice is just that; a dream. Of course we recognize that social justice is just code for the redistribution of wealth. Social Justice sounds like a great idea, but it's unsustainable, because it violates the law of productivity:
  • People will be productive when properly rewarded
  • People will prosper in an environment that fosters creative expression, productivity and autonomy
  • People want to keep the proceeds of their labor and the freedom to distribute it according to their self interests
  • People will resist productivity when not adequately rewarded
  • People will resist productivity when rewarded for another persons labor
Humans are born unequal and die unequal. It is this reality of inequality that, in part, feeds the human need to seek significance. Those misguided individuals and organizations who seek to take earned resources from the productive members of our society and distribute those resources to the non productive members of that society are wrong on two levels: On the first level, redistribution is unsustainable. On the second level, there must be a system in place for redistribution, and that system, however noble the effort, will not and cannot be equitable in its organization, methodology or outcomes.

Conservatives embrace variety, accept the reality that inequality will always exist, and submit that"... attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation."  Russell Kirk


The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

Monday, July 18, 2011

On Message

The Republicans aren't doing a very good job right now ... at least not on the PR level.  A recent CBS poll has offered us an opportunity to see just how uninformed and easily misled the American public can be. According to the poll, no one is doing a good job in handling the current debt debate ... Obama, the Dems and especially the Republicans.  So what is it that the Republicans are doing, or not doing that have Americans so disenfranchised? Could it be that they aren't offering specifics as to what needs to be done? No, I don't think that's it. The Republicans are the only players in this triad that have offered anything that resembles a plan to move us out of the debt crisis. Could it be that they aren't doing something. Ah .. I think we're closer to truth with this one. What they are not doing is compromising. And why should they?  Americans have extremely short memories. Did we forget what the 2010 election was about? It was about the out of control spending of the current administration. My question is this: "Why should Republicans compromise?" I mean, we wouldn't even be having a discussion had they not won an election last November.  I'm left with the thought that the Republicans just aren't doing a very good job of relating their message. Obama has won that battle and it is an important one.

The Blame Game

Today, I heard a  party strategist for the current politburo defend the President's position on the debt crisis. Funny that in the 5 minutes of discussion the only specific idea he attributed to the President was "tax those who make above $250K."  The rest of his comments amounted to a list of who to blame. He blamed the Bush tax cuts. Steee-rike one.  He blamed the Republicans in the House. Stee-rike two. Then he had the audacity to indict the Tea Party as being responsible if congress and the President can't resolve the impasse. I hear a Steee-rike three!"

I think most of us are tired of the blame game, and looking for some answers to the crisis, and believe me, we are facing a real financial crisis.  Don't take my word for it. Do some homework. Here are some keywords to assist you: Obama Debt Crisis, S&P downgrades US debt outlook, Moody's Investors Service.

If we don't do something about the current level of spending in D.C. WE WILL suffer immediate as well as long-term consequences. We can very well expect hyper-inflation, higher interest rates, higher taxes, much higher gas prices, fewer public services, the bankruptcy of Social Security, Mediare, and Medicade ... not to mention unemployment to rival the Great Depression. So back to the President's plan to get our economy back on the road to recovery.  Find me an economist that believes that our crisis can be solved by taxing those who make  more than $250K, and repealing the Bush Tax cuts, and I'll show you an economist that is on the payroll of the DNC.

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 4 of 10

 After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:
  1. My efforts have been largely futile.
  2. Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
  3. Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.
In light of these revelations, I’ve decided that my efforts might be better invested in discussing the virtues of conservative thought, as opposed to pointing out the blatant fallacies of liberal thinking. Now, this does not mean that I will refrain from comparison and contrast, it simply means that I will attempt to couch my words in non demeaning ways in my observations. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal thinker in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts.This being part 2 of the discussion.
The fourth virtue of conservatism is that of prudence. Conservatives believe that any decision ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity or expedience. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. 
Conservatives opposed Obama-care, in no small part, due to the imprudence of the idea. It increases the national debt. It redistributes power from the private sector to the government sector, effectively creating an entirely new entitlement program. At a time when government spending and irresponsibility was at an all-time high, the Dems resorted to back-room deals and shady legislative tricks to push the measure to the president's desk. No one can convince me that prudence was practiced in passing a law which virtually no congressman had read or understood. Obama-care was, and still is, a reckless measure, failing the test of  prudence. 

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

The Debt Ceiling Debate

If the last election wasn't about the size and scope of the government, what was it about? The House Republicans are simply doing what they were elected to do ... "Hold The Line." So far, in the current debate, the President has told us his plan is to tax the rich. Do the numbers ... that plan doesn't even begin to address the crisis.
  • The real rate of inflation is 13%
  • The real unemployment number is closer to 16% than 9%
  • The dollar has lost 20% of its value in the last two years
  • 47% of American households pay NO federal income tax
  • 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
  • The National debt increased 60% under Nancy Pelosi 
Let's be clear ... the current debate is about holding the President responsible ... something he has avoided for 2 1/2 years.

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 3 of 10

 After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:
  1. My efforts have been largely futile.
  2. Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
  3. Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.
In light of these revelations, I’ve decided that my efforts might be better invested in discussing the virtues of conservative thought, as opposed to pointing out the blatant fallacies of liberal thinking. Now, this does not mean that I will refrain from comparison and contrast, it simply means that I will attempt to couch my words in non demeaning ways in my observations. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal thinker in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts.This being part 2 of the discussion.
 Virtue three in this series deals with the principle of prescription.  In short, conservatives are students of history and typically embrace caution when moving down paths that history has shown to be dangerous or at best fraught with obstacles. Prescription also entails gleaning from history tried and proven customs and mores. "The individual is foolish, but the species is wise," Edmond Burke declared. Conservatives believe the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality or what might be politically correct or expedient. 
Some salient examples come to mind when we look for ways to applying the principle of prescription. History has shown us that over taxation and over-spending ruin economies. History has shown us that to discourage an activity, the best way to do that is to tax it.  History has shown us that spending more money than is actually in the bank, results in creditors inflicting much pain and suffering until debts are paid.
I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news lately, but some members of congress and the president are in a heated debate over taxation and spending. The conservatives are holding to the principle of prescription, while the president is hell bent on continuing the out-of-control spending.  In fact, had the conservatives not won the House of Representatives in November, they would not even be having the debate. It became apparent to the American public that the policies of the Obama administration were taking us in a direction we did not want to travel. How the Senate escaped the fury of the American voters is beyond me. Be that as it may ... the House republicans were called upon to hold the line in Washington. They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. 
Can we be honest? Why is it that the President and the House of Reps are arguing over the debt ceiling and federal spending? Because Republicans took majority of the House of Representatives in January. Had they not ... we would still be increasing the national debt by 1.5 trillion per year .... the debt ceiling would already be elevated to 105% of GDP, and we would be one step closer to an entitlement state.  I find it interesting that the liberals who call for raising taxes on the rich, as a matter of fairness, neglect to call for  those who pay no taxes start doing so. The principle of prescription; learning from history, shows us that other people's money eventually runs out.
From where I stand, unless we hold to the virtue of prescription, we will be forced to face some perilous and uncomfortable years.

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 2 of 10

 After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:
  1. My efforts have been largely futile.
  2. Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
  3. Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.
In light of these revelations, I’ve decided that my efforts might be better invested in discussing the virtues of conservative thought, as opposed to pointing out the blatant fallacies of liberal thinking. Now, this does not mean that I will refrain from comparison and contrast, it simply means that I will attempt to couch my words in non demeaning ways in my observations. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal thinker in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts.This being part 2 of the discussion.

The second virtue is that  the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. Among these customs, conventions and continuity is the long established institution of marriage. Conservatives understand and believe that the re-defining of marriage is a dangerous step toward the break down of the society at large. The arguments that conservatives make are not strictly philosophical. They are indeed practical as well.  Let's analyze the concept of redefining marriage. We must first ask obvious, but surprisingly overlooked questions. Why do we have marriage in the first place?  Where did it start? Who benefits from the custom, convention and continuity of marriage?  If we honestly and accurately answer these questions, we must intellectually arrive at the conclusion that the health of a culture can be largely measured in the resolve of that societies adherence to a strict definition of marriage. Marriage was not, is not, and should not ever be about individuals, but the advancement of a civil and ordered society.

It seems marriage was established in the earliest known forms of civilization, to establish a structure for the rearing of children, to ensure they grow up to be  responsible and productive, and to assist in the daily struggle of survival.  It was families that formed clans, villages and ultimately cultures. If we take the redefinition of marriage to its logical end ... i.e. androgyny, we lose the very fabric of our culture. Maybe that's what some people want. Conservatives think that's not a good idea.  

Last I checked, it takes a male and female to make babies. Most, but not all, babies grow up to be adults who ultimately pay taxes, influence society and contribute to its betterment. So it follows that the society at large benefits from the institution of marriage. You'll have a hard time showing me a culture that has thrived outside of the institution of marriage. To redefine marriage is to dismiss the practical evidence of its importance.

By definition, conservatives wish to maintain those systems, institutions and values that have proven effective. Marriage is at the foundational level of those institutions which conservatives wish to "conserve."  Conservatives can point to history and demonstrate not only the relevance but the necessity for maintaining marriage as a sacred institution. To redefine marriage is to dismiss the wisdom of the ages and pursue a degree of narcissism known only to the most decadent of societies. You see marriage isn't about the needs of the individual ... those can be fulfilled outside of marriage. Marriage is about the needs of society and should be nurtured if that society wishes to survive. Conservatives should stand strong on this issue, for it is foundational to defining our values.

Conservative adhere to custom because it provides a framework for passing along values. Conservative adhere to convention because it provides a structure for making sense of the world, and how best to live within it. Conservative adhere to continuity because it provides the best chance for the survival of the society.  Marriage is the institution that wonderfully exemplifies these three concepts. In the conservative's mind, if you change marriage, you change everything. So, for you liberals who are still reading ... understand we're not going to roll over on this issue. Redefining marriage cannot help our society, so why do it?

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

Sunday, January 2, 2011

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 1 of 10

After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:
  1. My efforts have been largely futile.
  2. Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
  3. Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.
In light of these revelations, I’ve decided that my efforts might be better invested in discussing the virtues of conservative thought, as opposed to pointing out the blatant fallacies of liberal thinking. Now, this does not mean that I will refrain from comparison and contrast, it simply means that I will attempt to couch my words in non demeaning ways in my observations. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal thinker in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts. This is part one.

Virtue One
The cornerstone of conservative thought is the belief in moral order … that there are indeed absolutes. In fact, moral order depends upon adherence to and conformity to certain absolutes. These absolutes are readily apparent, but too often ignored by the non-conservative thinker. I’ll list a few of the most obvious here:

1. There are consequences to behavior, and bad behavior will result in bad consequences. We have evidence of this absolute in our day-to-day existence; drug abuse, theft, murder, etc. Adherence to a moral order attempts to define and defy bad behavior and thereby avoid the bad consequences altogether. Conservatives will be quick to point out that individuals are responsible for their choices and behavior. Spending more money than you earn will eventually result in bad consequences. Ordering hot coffee and then spilling it on your pants is not the fault of the company that sold you the hot coffee. It is a decidedly liberal idea that one can sue the company that sold you what you wanted, but which you improperly handled. The 111th Congress, decidedly liberal, increased the national debt 10 fold in the four years that they held the purse strings. There will be consequences for the out-of-control spending of this liberal group of politicians. Dare I mention abortion; a decidedly liberal doctrine? Killing un-born babies for the last 30 years has certainly had, and will continue to have, an impact on society, whether or not the liberals want to admit it. Behavior has consequences. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

2. Humans will act in ways to insure that their self interests are realized. A moral order is necessary to both restrain their potential indulgences and promote their productivity. Left to their own devices, men would have another man’s property, another man’s money and another man’s wife. It is a moral order that bridals men from engaging in behavior resulting in these outcomes. At the same time a moral order allows men/women to pursue their passions, remain productive and ensure the survival of society. The very rules that inhibit the passions of men are the same rules that promote his productivity and serve to sustain a viable society. Conservatives believe that self determination is superior to communism, where communism forces men to abandon their self interests and work, either in part or in whole, in the interests of others. We will behave in ways that will promote our self interests, This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute. 

3. An inherent sense of justice exists in all rational individuals. A moral order is, in part, a result of men agreeing that individual justice must prevail to ensure a productive society. A sustained and predetermined pattern of injustice corrupts the moral order and can cause men to act irrationally. Conservatives hold that justice is realized when men are rewarded for their honest and forthright use of their time, effort and resources. If a man justly prospers, he should not be penalized for his prosperity. Moral order is violated when men engage in class warfare, embrace racism as a means of advancing personal agendas, or unjustly demonize individuals, organizations or companies. The moral order is violated when governments impose burdensome taxes upon the productive members of its society. The conservative’s interpretation of justice begins with the individual. Social justice is nothing more than a misnomer when the resources of hard working individuals are being confiscated and unwisely distributed. Liberals labeled the TEA party as racists, radicals and bigots, when in truth the members of the movement were simply vocalizing their perception that individual justice was being violated by the Obama administration and the 111th Congress. A sense of justice exists in all men. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

  1. Humans are born consumers and consume until the day they die. This absolute presents the individual three options: 1. Earn the means for consumption. 2. Be gifted the means for consumption. 3. Steal the means for consumption. Conservatives hold that a moral order requires individuals to start earning the means of their consumption at an early date in their personal development. They also understand that children and the handicapped must be gifted their means of their consumption. A moral order also requires punishment for those that would steal their means of consumption. A closer look at this absolute will assist the reader in understanding conservative thinking. In conservative thought, gifting is an individual choice, not one that is imposed upon him. Government has no business determining who is and who is not gifted their means of consumption. If rightly upheld, the moral order will consequently identify those that need gifting and provision for the needy will be rightly administered. Humans are born consumers and consume until the day they die. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

  2. Humans are born with the desire to explore their individualism. Rob individuals of this sense of uniqueness and you rob them of their souls. Conservatives embrace practices, strategies and behaviors that promote this axiom. For example, conservatives encourage competition at a variety of levels; academically, physically, even socially. Conservatives understand that competition is a mechanism which encourages individuals to excel. Yes, there will be winners and losers, because that's the way the world works.  It is liberal thought that systematically eliminated competition from the school playgrounds and Saturday community activities. Conservatives understand that there are inherent risks associated with the practice of individualism; the risk of failure, the risk of rejection, and the risk of being violated or misunderstood. We are born unique individuals, with the capacity to develop different skills, talents and abilities. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

An enduring moral order depends upon societies recognizing and embracing the concept of absolutes. Without absolutes we are left with relativism, which by definition, says that all behavior can be justified.  Conservatives simply adhere to the natural laws that define absolutes, and attempt to live in harmony with them. The liberal thinker does not necessarily reject the existence of absolutes, but will reject their application. For the liberal, equality of outcome is paramount to the success of their agenda. The recognition and adherence to a moral order, defined by absolutes, runs counter to their agenda. In a society ordered by absolutes, some individuals will necessarily be more successful than others. In a society ordered by absolutes, some will necessarily go hungry, remain homeless, be forced to take responsibility for their behavior, and be denied their selfish desires.

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/