Something Serious is Happening

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 9/20/09. You can read the newspaper version online here, or check out the print column each week.

Something serious is going on in this country. For the first time in recent memory, Americans are debating the fundamental role of government, the importance of Constitutional precedent, and the nature of foundational American principles. There is a clear dividing line being drawn between liberal and conservative ideology: One believes in large, redistributive government that places moral imperative on equality of outcomes; the other believes in small, limited government, that emphasizes personal liberty and self-reliance. The result of this struggle will define the future and direction of 9.12 Marchthe world’s most powerful nation.

Despite the gravity of our times, however, discourse on both sides has devolved into partisan rhetoric. Consider the following line-up of stories from the past six months, all of which received significant media attention: 1. President Obama is not a U.S. Citizen; 2. Conservatives opposed to President Obama are racists; 3. President Obama is a “secret Muslim” trying to ruin the country; 4. Healthcare town hall attendees are either uneducated, irrational hicks, or rich, white, hired political operatives (a strange dichotomy); 5. Tea party attendees are radical, right-wing extremists that will soon attempt to overthrow the government. I could go on.

The American political landscape has been marred by hyperbolic and irrational rhetoric for far too long, and it comes at the expense of prudent policy discussions. Now, perhaps more than ever, it threatens the legitimacy of fundamental and critical differences between liberals and conservatives.

July was rife with coverage questioning the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship.  So called “birthers” claimed that President Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore ineligible to serve as President. They called for his immediate impeachment, buying into a watered-down conspiracy theory.

A few weeks ago, President Obama announced he would address the nation’s schoolchildren with a message of hard work and perseverance, stressing the importance of education. Parents, talk show hosts, and writers across the country rallied against the airing of the message, claiming they didn’t want their children to be “indoctrinated.” Multiple presidents have addressed the nation’s schoolchildren. Did those opposed also rally against Ronald Reagan’s speech to schoolchildren in 1988? Not to mention all of this occurred during a complex, impactful, and critical debate surrounding the future of America’s health care system.

Now, Democrats like Jimmy Carter and political pundits like Chris Matthews are claiming that opposition to President Obama is a product of racism. It’s a failed and disturbing attempt to delegitimize the swell of philosophical opposition to the President’s radical agenda. It is not only embarrassing, but transparently defensive. Michael Steele, the African-American chair of the RNC put it best: ““Voicing opposition to the president’s policy proposals is not being a racist. It is being an American…Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families does not create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation.”

The problem with such partisan, hyperbolic rhetoric from either side is that it shifts attention away from the vital issues facing the nation. President Bush was constantly attacked as “an evil tyrant,” “right-wing extremist,” and “religious fundamentalist.” It came at the expense of important, lasting discussions of international sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and state security.President Obama

Many simply wrote off conservatism as tried and failed under President Bush, and embraced his successor, a man of sharp liberal policy. But President Bush’s own policies belied true conservative values of small government and fiscal prudence—his administration expanded government programs, deeply widened agency bureaucracy, and spent more than any administration since WWII. Yet these issues were patently ignored.

The same is happening in many circles with regard to President Obama. Saying he is not a United States citizen or comparing his health program to Hitler’s Germany diverts attention away from what is most important. Right now, in a defining time for the direction of our country, we cannot afford sideways energy.

Moreover, when we embrace partisan irrationality, we lose sight of what is best for the country. The irony of President Obama’s “indoctrination speech” to our public schools is that it was a powerfully conservative message of self-reliance, perseverance, and individual responsibility. I would want my children to have seen it. Those at the 9/12 march on Washington, the nationwide tea parties, and healthcare town halls expressed a deep, passionate patriotism firmly rooted in Constitutional values. I would want my national leaders to have been there.

It’s time we recognize that liberalism is a philosophy predicated on moral duty, communal provision, and societal responsibility. Conservatism offers a wholly different view of government—small, limited, and based on individual liberty through personal responsibility. We must learn to debate on the truth of each philosophy, or else we ignore the fundamental thought that shapes our nation. There is an important and stark difference between liberalism and conservatism, a divide which must be addressed if we hope to guide the country to lasting prosperity.

-Matt Benchener is the founder of TruPolitics.net and is the Republican candidate for Newtown Township Supervisor. Learn more at Benchener09.com

4 Responses to Something Serious is Happening

  1. Tyler says:

    The last paragraph phrased everything quite perfectly. The point isn’t merely just policies, but down to the individual philosophies that are held by each side, and each individual on both sides. The debate, in all its essence, is boiled down to who owns the means to the ends, i.e. who controls the production to reach the goals of the country. Is it a social ownership of the means of production in which everyone’s wealth and property is distributed by the government, or is it the private ownership of production and property in which people earn their living by one’s own personal effort? Should the government be in control of passing out certain programs that are paid by and on the backs of every individual, or should people have the freedom to keep the money they have earned and have the choice to do with it as they wish?

    Most people, of course, accept a compromise – they accept the middle of the road – they accept the morally gray existence. However, I see this battle as not being one that any contradiction can be allowed to survive. If people look at history, there are contradictions riddled throughout and, especially, with our own country (and you can see where those have lead us). The battle has to be fought by those with intransigent minds willing to fight without compromise because of guilt, or force. But, how many people are willing?

  2. Daniel says:

    Great article. This article is the exact reason why I enjoy your website so much.

    I don’t think its fair though to say that Jimmy Carter was trying to discredit the opposition by bringing up race. I think he was merely bringing up the point that some of the opposition and much of the fear involved is because of race.

    Much of the public outcry is not fueled by legitimate opposition to actual policies (like people being outraged that Obama appointed a CZAR! how could he be so communist!), so it must be fueled by something. I think its fair to say that some of that is an issue with race.

    Other than that, I think its time we get down to the facts. Actually I would like to start that off by asking a question to anybody that knows the answer.

    A legit claim against the public option is that it will create long lines and waits like in countries with universal healthcare. My question is, what about universal healthcare makes there be a longer wait period? To me it seems like it should be related to the number of facilities and staff. I’ve never heard why, I have only been given the statistics.

  3. jonasfester says:

    Nice post matt.

    I agree with Dan, you cannot compare what Carter said to the irrationality of the deathers, birthers, and conspiracy theorists. You cannot deny some racism here, but we also cannot dwell on it to such an extent that it takes away from the true political debate. Personally, I cannot legitimize the 9/12 march because it was littered with hate speech and ignorance. Yes, they have arguments, but they went about it the wrong way and deserve to be criticized for it. Jimmy Carter is a respected ex-president who knows more about race relations than all of us combined and then some. Comparisons like that can be dangerous.

    The fact that 73% of doctors in the NE journal of medicine want a public option makes me think it’s necessary. They are the brightest of the doctors, and I think they know more then we ever will. The scare tactics of long lines are just a myth.

    You are right though matt, we are really at a crossroads in two completely different political ideologies. It’s time we get away from the craziness and get back to a true debate. Take us to it matt!!

    http://meoutsidethebox.wordpress.com/

  4. Nick V. says:

    Very good article, Matt. You’re a gifted writer with keen insights. You are a fresh voice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.