They Cut Quarterbacks, Don't They

I'm familiar with a team that has a beloved QB. He was highly recruited and especially admired by enthusiastic new fans, people who didn't know the game and  even the referees. The front office thought for sure this man was the one who would bring their struggling team back to the place it had been for many many seasons ... #1. Alas, after several seasons some in the front office began to have their doubts. The team wasn't winning, and the truth of the matter is the team was just getting stomped on a regular basis. This QB would hand off when he should have  passed and he would pass when he should have run with the ball himself.  Seldom would he even get the team close enough to kick a field goal.  Between games, he wouldn't communicate with his team mates, and when he did, it was often at his own convenience and in vague or misleading terms. The perception of some in the front office was that he would rather play golf than be in a team meeting. He was often seen fraternizing with rival team members, and was even overheard giving assurances to one rival team that he was going to help them win in the next season. I mentioned before that the refs really liked this guy ... often ignoring his flagrant rule violations.

Well, in about 50 days,  the front office has to make a choice; renew his contract or cut him from the team. I'm praying that the front office has enough insight and where-with-all to cut Barak H. Obama from the team. Like an old familiar actor recently said ...and I'm paraphrasing ... We own this team, and  If somebody can't do the job ... you have to let them go.

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 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 and observations in non-demeaning ways. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal ideologue in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts. This is the last in the series.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 10

The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.  As Russell Kirk writes:  "The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate."  

Conservatives, therefore are not hostile toward progression, but instead hostile to progression that would ultimately destroy stability and continuity. May I mention just two here? Marriage and family. Conservatives come by their label for a good reason ... they seek to conserve certain ideas, institutions and practices, not for the sake of simply conserving them, but for the sake of the stability and continuity they provide the individual and society.  During my life-time I have witnessed the liberal left's assault on everything virtuous about the United States; The Boy Scouts, The Traditional Family, The Church,  Unborn Children, Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution, The Free Market System, Private Education, Stay at Home Mothers, Successful Businesses, and indeed Men. Reform?  Progress? ... I'm all for it, as long as prudence and wisdom prevails. Now tell me ... what government program or liberal idea can you name that fits that formula? 

The virtues of the conservative are far superior to any affability the left can drag to the arena of ideas, and it is simple to understand why. The left has no principled position, and without principles their ideas are empty shells. A few examples if I might: Social Security was a failed program from the day it was written into law. The liberals knew it was unsustainable, but strapped future generations with the massive amount of debt it would incur. The war on poverty rages on after 40 years and trillions of redistributed dollars. Guess what? We still have poverty in America, and it's not because we haven't spent enough money on it. It's because some people just wont' work if not required to do so. Medicare and other entitlements have driven our national debt into unforgivable and unsustainable heights. Legalized abortion has now taken the lives of 50 million babies. In a population that big, we surely snuffed the lives of some really remarkable people that never got a chance to demonstrate it.  No one can tell me that conservatives were responsible for these things. I'm old enough to know that these problems were born out of "Progressive" periods in our history...particularly the 60's and 70's, where anything new was superior to anything old. Prudence and wisdom were considered over-rated and decidedly in the way of the leftist concepts of compassion, and political correctness. So excuse my vomiting when I hear how conservatives are responsible for all the ills of the world.

Kirk writes: "The conservative favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose minions believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old. Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body ...The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."  Those who fit the latter description are those I call CONSERVATIVES!

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 Virtues of Conservatism - Part 8

Conservatives uphold voluntary community and at the same time oppose involuntary collectivism. Conservatives believe that most challenges faced by families and individuals should be addressed at the lowest level of governance possible, that tax dollars collected from them should be used first at the community level,  then at the State level, and finally the national level.  A careful reading of the constitution will bring the reader to one conclusion. Congress is authorized to tax the citizenry for very limited purposes, the single most important being national defense.   
Conservatives hold that  local institutions, churches, synagogs, and the like, are best suited for the purposes of charity, health care, and education ...to name a few. Centralized control of these functions, at the State or national level, offer inviting opportunities for fraud, corruption, and incompetence. In light of current events, do any of those words seem to ring true?  Conservatives maintain that communities understand the challenges of their citizens much better than a distant centralized system, and should consequently be afforded the opportunity and resources to meet those challenges. 
Conservatives vociferously oppose involuntary collectivism, for a host of reasons.
1. Involuntary collectivism shifts responsibility from individuals and communities to a centralized system. Inevitably, the centralized system becomes laden with bureaucracy and inefficiency, leading to the unmet needs of the community and individuals.
2. Underneath involuntary collectivism is the principle of wealth redistribution. This principle presupposes that men and women are perfect, equal in skills/abilities, and share a common sense of justice. We know from history, and from our own experience, that no one is perfect, that we are not equal in our skills/abilities, and what one man make think just, another  may think cruel.  Involuntary collectivism has failed everywhere and every time it has been tried. The early settlers in America tried it, but quickly abandoned it, once realizing its many flaws.
3. Involuntary collectivism steals the dignity from what would be self reliant individuals. 
4. Involuntary collectivism preys upon societies'  talented, successful, and hard working individuals to subsidize, support, or nurture the lazy and irresponsible members of the society.  
5. Involuntary collectivism leads to class envy, discourages entrepreneurship, inhibits workplace creativity, and ultimately destroys economies.  We have only to look at the last 100 years of history to realize this fact. 
6. Involuntary collectivism limits the individual his/her right to pursue happiness, in that the system determines the worth of individuals, and artificially imposes limitations upon them. 
In conclusion, "A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity."  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/

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/