Conservatism « TruPolitics

A Redistribution Parable: Casey at the Bat

April 15, 2009 4 Comments

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 4/16/09. Read the online newspaper version here or check out the print column every Thursday or Friday.

Growing up, Casey was by far the best baseball player among his friends. He was born with talent, size, and strength, and had a father who was a former professional baseball player. As a result, he had expert coaching and guidance to go along with incredible hand-eye coordination and power. When he reached high school, Casey realized his talent and skill might afford him the opportunity to pursue every child’s dream: To play professional baseball. So, he became the hardest worker on the team, lifting weights, eating right, and tirelessly working on his swing. casey-at-the-bat

By the time Casey was a senior, he had already broken the county home run record, been named to the all-state team, and was being closely watched by professional scouts. Then something strange happened. Every time Casey stepped to the plate his senior year, umpires immediately called two strikes on him-before he even saw a pitch. Instead of starting with an 0-0 count like everyone else, he now started down 0-2; everyone else got three strikes, Casey only got one.

League officials and umpires had gotten together in the offseason to discuss Casey’s dominance. They decided that it was unfair to all of the other players in the league for Casey to be so much better-they had to level the playing field. Shouldn’t everyone have the opportunity to play professional baseball? Shouldn’t everyone be guaranteed the same level of success? When Casey hit a home run, weren’t the other, less talented, less privileged players suffering because of his success? In sports, after all, one person’s victory also means one person’s loss. The only way to make things fair, they determined, was to give the pitchers an advantage over Casey before he got up to bat.

As the season progressed, Casey began to complain to league officials. So they sat him down and explained their thought process: 1. He was born with more talent than the other players-that was unfair; 2. His father was an ex-major leaguer who could give him special coaching-that was unfair; 3. His parents had more money than other parents in the league, so he was able to use advanced training equipment and eat better food-that was unfair; 4. Yes he worked hard, but that hard work only enhanced his abilities beyond the other players’-that was unfair. If he really cared about his community, he wouldn’t have a problem sacrificing his success for the success of others.

League officials were happy with their work, but soon realized more needed to be done. Casey was now just an average player in the league, but what about the other good players? Not everyone was the same just yet. So, the league developed a complex statistical measurement system that ensured players below the average got an advantage (they could start with anywhere from a 1-0 to a 3-0 count), and players above the average would be treated like Casey. Of course, to support the system, they formed a Bureau of Fairness Control to oversee each test case and matchup. Now everything would be fair.

But wait, some teams were winning games and others were losing. All games now ended in a tie. And what about the players who got cut during tryouts? Now anyone who tried out would make the team, no matter their ability, work ethic, or experience. It had to be fair.

But soon, baseball lost its appeal. There was no motivation to work hard or succeed, and the competition the game was founded on had evaporated. League officials didn’t understand. Shouldn’t the players want everyone to be happy? Besides, the league was guaranteeing success for everyone. And of course, it was fair.

Casey’s story does not stray far from the foundational philosophy of many of today’s liberal thinkers. Far reaching social policies like welfare, universal healthcare, extreme progressive tax rates, and mortgage bailouts simply put up a façade of fairness and equality. They couch themselves in eloquent rhetoric like, “All Americans have a right to be healthy,” and “We have the responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves.”

The arguments evoke emotion and compassion, and stir up masses of people placing their faith in government as the answer. In many ways, this façade led to the election of our current President, whose philosophy of government has yielded a pork-laden stimulus and budget heavy on spending in liberal social initiatives.

But justice is not found in forceful redistribution, nor is prosperity bred from failed attempts at equality. True justice is, as our founders so masterfully stated, found in life, liberty, and the pursuit, not the forceful guarantee, of happiness.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with Conservatism, Liberalism, News, Obama Budget, Obama Stimulus, Politics, Redistribution, Socialism, TruPolitics, Universal healthcare

GM – An Identity Crisis

April 1, 2009 Leave a comment

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 4/3/2009. Read the newspaper version here.

General Motors Let’s play a game – Name That Country. Round I: This country fought in the Cold War, restricts private enterprise, and threatens companies with the withholding of federal funds. Your answer…Russia? Yes! The United States? Yes! Round II: This country calls itself ‘democratic,’ assigns government officials to run specific industries, and directly appoints management for many of its domestic companies. Your answer…The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea? Yes! The United States? Yes! Round III: This country has the color red in its flag, nationalizes banks, explicitly plans sectors of its economy, and takes over failing companies. Your answer…China? Yes! The United States? Yes!

Earlier this week, my wife called me and half jokingly said, “Have you heard what’s going on with GM? You have to write about this – I feel like I’m living in China.” I laughed, and then thought about it for a minute. Maybe this is more serious than the General Motors situation-maybe my wife’s tongue in cheek comment had a bit of truth to it.

What, after all, distinguishes the United States from the rest of the world? In many ways, it is our undying commitment to democracy, freedom, capitalism, limited government, and Constitutional rights. No other country has defended these principles as fervently and consistently as the United States. Behind them, we became the most powerful country in the world, the standard bearer of freedom, capital development, and human rights. Admittedly, our history is wrought with mistakes and departures from each of these essential elements. But we have always returned, because we have always recognized that what makes America distinct is what makes America successful.

So, when the government takes control of a hallmark American company like GM, and then proceeds to oust its CEO, it should be disconcerting. It started back in December, when GM and Chrysler received a total of $17.4 billion in government loans, and taxpayers absorbed the huge risk of failure for both of these companies. The normal investment structure, in which shareholders choose to take on investment risk in return for the possibility of profit, was turned on its head. American taxpayers had no choice-we took on the risk of investment and would not directly profit from any returns. At best, there was the indirect promise of overall economic growth and success if GM and Chrysler prevailed. At worst, our entire investment would be burned up by a pair of dying companies, representing one of the largest explicit wastes of taxpayer money in recent memory.

Similar to the bailout of AIG, it is important to note that investors would never choose to assume such heavy risk for so little return. Now, as these companies progress toward bankruptcy, this money may be lost altogether. The companies’ recent request of another $22 billion in aid would only further leverage this public risk.

This is first infringement on the American identity: Government choosing where its citizens’ money is invested and exposing them to risk without choice. Essentially, the government is saying that they know what to do with your money better than you do. Rick Wagoner

The second great infringement comes with the forceful exit of Rick Wagoner, GM’s now former CEO. You shouldn’t feel bad for Mr. Wagoner, as he will collect an estimated $23 million in pension payouts from GM, and his performance at the helm of GM was hardly successful (GM’s shares dropped from $70 a share to $3.62 during his tenure). You could easily make the case, and many have, that Mr. Wagoner’s departure will benefit the company in the long run.

That, however, does not validate the government’s intervention in GM’s management structure. When the plan was initially proposed by the Bush Administration, it was meant as a structured loan. GM was supposed to come up with a plan to remake itself, and the government would review the plans and consider additional loans. The Obama Administration took it a step further, forcing out Mr. Wagoner by threatening a restriction of additional funds, forming a special planning committee to regulate all decision points at GM, and increasing the burden of environmental and CAFE standards.

The Obama Administration, as it has demonstrated time and time again, wants tight control over society, industry, and private capital. Combined with the pork-laden stimulus and liberal budget proposal, President Obama’s actions chart a classic course of socialism and government control. The GM situation is simply the latest notch in the President’s belt.

If this continues, we risk losing the identity that makes us American. But if our history holds its course, the American people will recognize this departure. We will rise together to elect new leaders who understand that what makes the United States different is what makes it great.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with Bailouts, Financial Crisis, General Motors, GM, News, Obama, Politics, Rick Wagoner

The President’s Budget – A Defining Moment

March 26, 2009 1 Comment

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/26/09. See the newspaper version here.

“The practical implication of this is bankruptcy for the United States.”

-Senator Judd Gregg on President Obama’s Budget Proposal

Imagine that you are thirty years old, have a steady job, a house you worked to afford, and a beautiful family to support. Now imagine that your father comes to you and asks if he can take your children out for ice cream. You agree, but you don’t want him to feel burdened to pay for your children, so you give him your no limit American Express Centurion Card. President Obama Defends His Budget

A few hours later, your father returns with your children. “How was the ice cream?” you ask. “Fantastic,” he answers. “Oh, and while we were out I used your card to pay for $10,000 in medical treatments for a man who couldn’t pay for himself-he really needed the help. And I bought a $300,000 house for a lady who had wanted a house all her life. Doesn’t everyone deserve to own a house?” His voice begins to quiver with excitement. “And then there was a poor student who said he couldn’t quite pay for his college education. No one should have to take out a loan just to learn, right? So, I paid his tuition up front in full-it was only $90,000. Isn’t that wonderful?! Besides, you make a lot of money; why not help some other people out?”

Sure it’s wonderful; medical treatments, housing, and education are all admirable and important for society. But your father just spent $400,000 of your money on someone else. That was money you worked for and were saving for your children. Now, you are saddled with debt that will take decades to repay.

Last week, President Obama began the defense of his landmark budget proposal, taking a West Coast trip that began with two town halls and finished with an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. When he returned, he was the feature interview on 60 Minutes. His tour culminated Tuesday night, where he held his second prime-time news conference in the last two months (President Bush and President Clinton held only four each during their entire Presidencies). It is clear President Obama knows he’s in for a tough fight. Obama's Budget Breakdown

And justifiably so. Over the next decade, the Obama budget proposal increases spending by over $1 trillion, raises aggregate taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion, and doubles the publicly held national debt to $15 trillion. These are unprecedented numbers, extending the burden on American taxpayers, encouraging hyper-inflation through debt, increasing foreign leverage in our financial markets, and pulling money out of the private economy and into government bureaucracy. Said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, “[Obama's budget] may be the most irresponsible piece of legislation I’ve seen in my legislative career.” John McCain famously called the budget a form of “generational theft,” as we trade pet projects and policy initiatives now for massive debt for our children later.

What has the President’s response been to the criticism? First, as he said Tuesday, he deserves an excuse from the criticism because of the debt he inherited: “I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit.” Nobody disputes that point-President Bush was hardly a fiscal conservative, and his liberal Congress spent wildly. But that does not excuse President Obama from prudent governance. We are already seeing the damages of such a wide deficit, and now he simply wants to double down? That is akin to saying that since your wife spent $5,000 on a new dress, sending you deep into consumer debt, you should then spend $5,000 on new golf clubs even though you can’t afford it.

President Obama’s second, and perhaps more indicting response, has been that he is spending on things that Americans need and deserve. This includes a $634 billion move toward socialized healthcare, as well as billions more in promises to finance student debt, expand welfare, lower mortgage payments, and fund an environmentalist cap-and-trade program. To pay for this expansion, President Obama says he will hike taxes on the wealthy (including thousands of small businesses), up the cost of investment through capital gains taxes, reduce key defense initiatives, and increase our debt to foreign nations.

Like the grandfather who thought he was justified in spending his son’s money on other people, President Obama wants to put the debt for his social programs on the American taxpayer. He wants to redistribute wealth, and force Americans who earn money to pay for those who do not. And what we cannot pay for now, we will simply pass onto our children in the form of exorbitant national debt. In many ways, his budget proposal closely mirrors his stimulus package: Billions in pet projects, social policy initiatives, and government expansion.

At a time when we desperately need fiscal conservatism and economic answers, this budget speaks only of partisan politics. This may be a defining moment in American history. Will we set the stage for a socialized America for the next decade?

I sure hope that ice cream was worth it.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism, Economy/Fiscal Issues Tagged with Budget, Budget Proposal, Deficit, Economy/Fiscal Issues, Financial Crisis, News, Obama Budget, Politics, TruPolitics.net

The Bush Paradox

March 16, 2009 Leave a comment

Budget Increase per Presidential Term

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/20/09. See the newspaper print version here (go to pg. 22).

When President Obama was on the campaign trail, his message was simple and clear: Hope and change. But no one ever asked him, “Change from what?” The answer from most liberal circles, which persists with venom today, was that we needed to depart from the hated Bush Administration and its conservative ideology. Now, as debate over President Obama’s radical agenda rages, supporters of his agenda dismiss conservatism as tried and failed under the Bush Administration. The argument goes as follows: If President Bush embodied conservatism, and the majority of the country wanted him out of office, then surely we ought to try liberalism. If conservatism failed, then its opposite must succeed. But did conservatism really fail under President Bush? Was President Bush even truly conservative?

During the Bush Administration, something very strange happened to conservatism: It became inextricably linked with President Bush and the whole of his policies. Conservatism came to mean pro-war, anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, pro-guns, anti-environment, anti-global warming, anti-Europe, anti-science, pro-God (and only the evangelical version), pro-big oil companies, pro-wealthy Americans/anti-poor Americans and minorities, and pro-Israel. To most Americans, this is what made a conservative a conservative. And with the incredible polarization of the last eight years, you had to either support or hate each facet of the ‘conservative’ agenda. If you were conservative, it was unthinkable to believe global warming might be a legitimate problem, or that the Iraq War was possibly founded on faulty ideology. If you were liberal, it was necessary to bash President Bush, and the thought of tax cuts or welfare reform was supposed to make you cringe. As often happens in politics, conservatism was dismissed along with its headline leader as a failed and unpopular ideology. It was time for a change, it seemed, and in came President Obama with an agenda sharply departed from his predecessor’s.

One of the great political tragedies of recent memory is the demonization and polarization of conservatism in its tie with President Bush. Issues that have little or no relevancy to conservatism, such as climate change or the Iraq War, now color an ideology that has bred success in our country since its founding. The sad irony of the situation is that President Bush, while he accomplished many great things–national security and strong judicial nominations, to name a few–was not a true conservative. He expanded government programs, deeply widened agency bureaucracy, and spent more than any President since WWII. He came into office with a surplus, and left with a gaping deficit. President Bush was a part-time conservative, cutting taxes while spending heavily. In conservatism, tax cuts are the result of small government, not the driver. Small government means less government spending; less government spending means less need for tax revenue; less need for tax revenue means lower taxes. President Bush, however, widened government while still cutting taxes. What does that do? It creates the type of inflation and instability that debunks efficient markets.

It is even more troubling that people look back on Bill Clinton and hail him as proof of liberalism’s success. Clinton was one of the most fiscally conservative presidents in our nation’s history (many argue the most), slashing budgets and restoring prudent spending to Congress. He left President Bush with a $120 billion surplus by keeping spending low and government relatively small. His restraint was indeed helped by a strong Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich, but you cannot ignore the bottom line results. At least in fiscal matters, Clinton was indisputably more conservative than Bush.

This all leads to two important points: 1. Conservatism should not be tied with the Bush Administration’s practice of “neo-conservatism”; 2. When practiced correctly, conservatism drives growth, liberty, and prosperity. Consider the four simple principles of Reagan-era conservatism: 1. Small government; 2. Low taxes; 3. Personal responsibility; 4. Strong national defense. These ideals brought the country roaring back under President Reagan, reinvigorating a stalled economy and downtrodden public spirit following the sharply liberal Carter era. Besides, who can’t stand behind low taxes and strong national defense? Who doesn’t want people to take responsibility for their actions, and for government to resist wasteful handouts? Who doesn’t want money to be in the hands of the efficient consumer and marketplace? Who doesn’t support individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Conservatism was never meant to be tied with a controversial Iraq War, Creationism, Christianity, or big oil. Those issues all have merit, but are not debated here. Conservatism was never meant to be polarizing or divisive, or even political. Rather, conservatism is meant to be the unifying answer to the undying question of government’s proper role in society. For conservatives, that answer is simple: Small and limited. And that type of government has never failed–it is the underpinning of what has differentiated our great nation since its founding.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with Bush Budget, Bush spending, Conservatism, Economy/Fiscal Issues, News, Obama, Politics, TruPolitics, TruPolitics.net

Cramer’s Revelation

March 9, 2009 6 Comments

CNBC's Jim Cramer

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia area newspaper) on 3/12/09, and in the Bucks County Courier Times on 4/6/09. See The Bulletin version here.

“I favored Obama over McCain because I thought Obama to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat, exactly the kind I have supported all my adult life.”

-Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money

A little over two years ago, then-Senator Barack Obama stormed onto the American political landscape as a breath of fresh air in a tired partisan environment. Democrats vowed to oust a Republican Party led by an unpopular president, while Republicans scrambled to defend their quickly fading majority. Emerging behind the scenes was a new voice, a powerful and charismatic orator named Barack Obama. As the Democratic primary edged closer, most commentators wrote off Obama as too young and inexperienced to be a serious contender in 2008. Popular wisdom penned him as the rising star of the party, who would likely be ready in 2016. But with Republican strategists and pundits focusing the entirety of their firepower on the larger perceived threat of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama brought his dazzling message to the national scene as the beloved underdog, ready to make history and promising hope.

The rest, of course, is history. Senator Obama soon became President Obama, and carried with him feelings of good will and hope for prosperity reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s Camelot. He had more political capital than any president in recent memory, wielding the weapons of anti-Bush sentiment, powerful rhetoric, and far-reaching promises. Some hoped he would be a savior of sorts, paying off mortgages and rescuing the poor. Most, however, viewed him as a brilliant and historic leader, a Clinton-JFK hybrid that would mend the domestic divide, rebuild international diplomacy, and move away from a now-demonized Bush Administration.

Like much of America, that is what Jim Cramer thought about Barack Obama. Cramer, a respected financial commentator for TheStreet.com, and famous energetic host of CNBC’s Mad Money, has been a Democrat all his life. He admits to millions of dollars in donations to the party, and gave his full backing to President Obama in the recent election. Now, however, like many others, Cramer is starting to have acute buyer’s remorse. In a recent and now very famous article (Cramer: My Response to the White House), Cramer expressed his dismay at President Obama’s recent policy initiatives:

“Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world’s morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.”

Obama 2008 Financial Meltdown Cramer would later note that he thought Obama would be like Clinton, a centrist Democrat who wanted a balanced budget, with a mix of social and environmental programs, all under an umbrella of prudent governance. Instead, said Cramer, President Obama is unwisely pushing a far left agenda at a time of economic crisis.

The middle-of-the-road Clinton-JFK hybrid was not to be; instead we have a politician with a far left agenda, bordering on a type of European socialism not yet seen in this country. President Obama has made it clear that he wants to fundamentally change our nation, to move away from the ideals of capitalism, small government, and American opportunism that have defined us for centuries. He wants to redistribute wealth, raise taxes, and spend at unprecedented levels. He wants to pull back on defense spending, widen welfare, and nationalize the health care industry. He wants tight government control and regulation of the free market, strict environmentalist policy, and liberal judicial governance. America is no longer to be the land of opportunity, but is instead to be the land of equal results ensured by the government. America is no longer to be about the pursuit happiness, but instead about the government guarantee of happiness.

And maybe you’re okay with that. There are many Americans who believe in socialism, and believe that the government has the right answers and should control societal results. That is not today’s debate. Rather, it is vitally important to see what people like Jim Cramer are now seeing: President Obama is a man of extreme liberal policy. He wants to fundamentally change America–he is not John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton; he is not even Jimmy Carter. It is telling that David Brooks, a famous columnist for the New York Times and staunch Obama supporter recently wrote, “Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.” As you watch his incredible speeches, rich with intelligent prose and brilliant rhetoric, look past the style and to the substance. Read his stimulus package and budget, and carefully study each executive order. He made it clear in the Senate, when his voting record was the most liberal in the history of Congress, and he is making it clear now–he promised change, and that is indeed what we are getting.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism, Politics Tagged with Clinton, Economy/Fiscal Issues, Jim Cramer, News, Obama, Politics, Socialism, The Bulletin, TruPolitics, TruPolitics.net

Conservatism vs. Liberalism Part II: Conservatism (by guest author Maker from The Daily Switch)

February 27, 2009 Leave a comment

This is the second in the two part series Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Forming the underpinning of our two most prominent political parties, the ideological debate over Conservatism and Liberalism is as old as our nation’s founding. Now, with a new administration in office, this debate has been reinvigorated. Part II features guest author Maker from The Daily Switch, offering an overview of Conservatism.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending to small a degree of it.”

-Thomas Jefferson

As a young man, I remember listening to my father as he spoke of the world, man, and how things worked, with a fascinated reverence for this thing called Conservatism. Awe would tighten his voice as he told of the seamless way that this ideology worked with and through the strengths and weaknesses of man. What my dad grasped, and passed on to me, is that conservatism is the only line of thinking that allows for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the only way for us to connect with and uphold that which the Founders had in mind. Conservatism is a deep breath. It is a pause to consider what we can glean from history and how best to apply these lessons to the situations and dilemmas facing us today. Where liberalism demands action, and action now, conservatism prescribes a tempered consideration of the past, present and the potential futures, before acting.

Liberty is at the core of conservatism. A love and defense of liberty fuels the entire philosophy. You won’t hear liberals speak of liberty very often, and for good reason. Liberty sits in direct opposition to the policies of the left. For the ideals of liberalism to be implemented, the people must willingly or unwittingly surrender an increasingly large portion of their liberty. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of liberal ‘accomplishments’ are demonstrable attacks on liberty in the name of growing a ‘benevolent’ government. You see, from the left’s vantage point, you don’t and can’t know what is best for your life, so you need government to intervene on your behalf. Conservatism says that government can never know the best interests of its citizenry, or provide for them, nearly as well as an unencumbered free people can for themselves.

The fundamental differences between liberalism and conservatism pertain to the preferred size of government. Liberals: the bigger the better. Conservatives: less is more. These views have a direct causal relationship with the amount of liberty the citizens are afforded. Conservatism recognizes and encourages the goodness that man can achieve without placing faith in the mythical idea of man being inherently good. Where liberalism seeks to control and stifle people for their own good, conservatism seeks to set free and embolden people to pursue their best interests autonomously.

Conservatism looks to free market capitalism as the only historically viable economic environment for freedom, while liberalism stubbornly places its faith in systems proved fatally flawed by history. Conservatism seeks in all things to preserve the framers intent for this country to limit the size and scope of government while ensuring the freedom of the common man. The Constitution was developed to this end, and has shaped our nation into the greatest the world has ever known. Conservatism views this greatness as something to be preserved and defended against the eroding effect of liberalism’s continual creep towards socialism.

Practically, what better time than now to look at the issue of taxes? Conservatism and liberalism line up reliably as supportive of lower taxes and higher taxes, respectively. More and more, liberals are admitting that their desire to tax the wealthy is less focused on government revenue than it is on ‘fairness’ or ‘leveling the playing field.’ Conservatives advocate lowering taxes across the board, and especially encouraging small and large business growth through lowered corporate tax rates. Liberals want to exponentially raise taxes on the top two tax brackets in an attempt to, as President Obama famously said, “spread the wealth around.” But, as Dr. Adrian Rogers said, “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom… [y]ou cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” The inconvenient truth here is that, historically, government revenues increase as tax rates decrease and decrease as they increase. If you continue to raise taxes on these individuals, you discourage growth, job creation, and investment. If you cut corporate tax rates, you create an environment of productivity for a flourish of businesses that provide the jobs and products that Americans depend on. In this way conservatism embraces logic, the laws of economics, and liberty in a free market society.

There are countless ways that conservatism opposes the ill-formed and damaging ideas of the left and seeks to preserve what is right and good; that which we value most, by proposing time-tested solutions that honor the laws of nature and man. Conservatism perseveres despite the disadvantages of a Republican Party that has become more betrayer than advocate, a seemingly endless barrage of mischaracterizations by a hostile press, and an increasingly entitlement-friendly society. The place in a person that takes pride in hard work, relishes freedom and demands equal justice under the law is, on some level, inexorably drawn to conservatism.

Consider Jefferson’s notion above. This is the choice between left and right, liberal and conservative, tyranny and liberty.

-Guest author Maker (from The Daily Switch) on TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with Conservatism, Liberalism, News, Politics, Taxes, TruPolitics, TruPolitics.net

Conservatism vs. Liberalism Part I: A Proud Liberal (by guest author Saylor Smith)

February 27, 2009 12 Comments

elephant-vs-donkey-boxing This is the first in the two part series Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Forming the underpinning of our two most prominent political parties, the ideological debate over Conservatism and Liberalism is as old as our nation’s founding. Now, with a new administration in office, this debate has been reinvigorated. Part I features guest author Saylor Smith, offering a summary of Liberalism.

As a lifelong liberal, I look askance at the ascendance over the past two-and-a-half decades of the conservative political cause. President Ronald Reagan gave conservatism legitimacy in the 1980′s after its nearly two decades of decline. How, in recent years, did “liberal” become a pejorative hurled by conservative or moderate politicians at their left-leaning opponents? Why do liberals themselves now even run from the characterization, hiding behind the less specific and presumably safer “progressive”?

As I recall, liberals gave us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights and women’s rights legislation, farm subsidies, labor union rights laws, the minimum wage, FDIC, FCC, FHA and the Federal Reserve system, among many others, virtually all of which were consistently opposed by conservatives.

A liberal believes the government can and should solve many of society’s problems. A conservative believes big business should be granted the unregulated power to operate in society – corporate scandals of the past several years, the Wall Street meltdown and the banking crisis of the past few weeks certainly help to contradict that theory. Clearly, it is a whole lot easier to remove a government official who has to answer to the voters than it is to battle the powerful influences of millionaire corporate heads of such multi-nationals as Enron, Halliburton, Mobil and the insurance, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, many of which operate, thanks to the conservative movement, with fewer governmental regulations.

It is “liberal” to favor environmental laws for the protection of our air and water; it is “conservative” to support the “rights” of oil, tobacco and coal companies to operate free of regulations. It is “liberal” to argue for reduced taxes for citizens with lower and middle incomes; it is “conservative” to argue for lower taxes for the richest corporations and for citizens with the highest incomes. It is “liberal” to favor reasonable gun control legislation, including laws that outlaw the sale and ownership of assault weapons; it is “conservative” to support every citizen’s right to own and use guns. It is “liberal” to favor laws that grant equal rights to all American citizens; it is “conservative” to oppose equal rights for those individuals deemed “unworthy.” It is “liberal” to insist that a wealthy, civilized nation such as ours should provide health insurance for all of its citizens; it is “conservative” to insist that every man or woman should shift for him- or herself. It is “liberal” to argue that taxpayers should support – even with their pocketbooks – strong, safe public schools; it is “conservative” to insist that public education can get by on less. Liberals fight for First Amendment rights, especially the constitutional guarantees of a free press and free speech; conservatives fight for the Second Amendment guarantee that, as they see it, a citizen may carry a gun at any and all times and places. Liberals fight for an Equal Rights Amendment to expand rights of citizenship; conservatives fight for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, thereby denying rights of citizenship to a certain group.

The governmental concept of liberalism is, I believe, responsible for developing and strengthening one of the greatest forces for good in our society, protection of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority,” an often overlooked hazard in a democratic society. Without that protection, groups such as African-Americans, Latino-Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Muslims, Jewish Americans, women and seniors might never have gained their rightful standing as full-fledged citizens. Gay and lesbian Americans continue the fight.

Liberalism is defined in “Webster’s Dictionary” as “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” Conservatism is defined as “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.” Neither political philosophy is “correct,” but it seems fair to argue that over the past seventy-five years the unique form of liberalism that developed in the United States has been the most powerful and consistent force for good on the face of the earth.

I, for one, am proud to add my name to the bottom of a list of American liberals that includes Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John, Robert and Ted Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Martin Luther King, Jr. and, yes, Barack Obama.

-Guest author Saylor Smith on TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with Conservatism, Liberalism, News, Politics, TruPolitics, TruPolitics.net

It Is Time to Believe Again

February 23, 2009 7 Comments

“The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”

-John F. Kennedy

We are a nation of pioneers, of revolutionaries, and of dreamers. A people who seize opportunity, work hard to build better lives for our families, and let nothing short of excellence satisfy us. Our heritage is rich with the courageous, and marked by people who have overcome. We were born out of Revolution, when people desiring freedom and opportunity won the most improbable war against the world’s foremost superpower. We subdued a wild continent, ventured West, and were both pioneers and pilgrims. We overcame a brutal Civil War, defeated the dark forces of Nazism, and brought about the beauty of civil rights to a nation long overdue. We emerged from The Great Depression to lead the world economy, became the standard bearer of democracy and freedom, and rose as one from the shadow of September 11^th. gadsdenflag This is the Land of Opportunity, of “Go West, young man,” “I have a dream,” and “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This is our heritage; it is the lifeblood of who we are. We have always believed that the future will be better than the present, and that there is nothing we cannot overcome. Courage, passion, optimism, and dogged patriotism are woven into the fabric of our nation. But where are they now?

Too quickly we are letting the difficulty of the times cloud our judgment. Today’s headlines are wrought with stories of Wall Street’s downturn, an economy in turmoil, and millions of jobs lost. And where have we turned for safety? Where have we looked for rescue? The government. We now believe that a bailout is tantamount to the market, and that government handouts trump personal responsibility. The cloud has darkened so much that we think the only way out is for the government to nationalize private industry, pay off sinking mortgages, and buy up toxic assets. Our President, who promised hope and change, and brought the mantra of “Yes, we can,” has since turned to call this an uncontainable crisis, that “we may not be able to reverse,” and will quickly become equivalent to the Great Depression. And now, despite our heritage, we are being told we need to change everything. The free market and private industry that have driven us to the greatest standard of living in the world suddenly must be thrown away. The values of personal responsibility and persistence have quickly been replaced by a victim mentality clamoring for handouts. The American Dream that became reality for so many, that anyone can become anything through personal industry and perseverance, suddenly is just a dream. What changed?

On the one hand, this persistent doom and gloom is a product of both political and media opportunism. Fear and sensationalism sell newspapers. Nobody wants to read about the sunny and safe day at Disneyland-it is the broken roller coaster that zooms off the tracks that gets headlines. The murderers make news, not Joe Average who spent a simple day at work and came home to his family. Politically, fear is an incredibly powerful tool. It allows you to accomplish things you otherwise would not be able to accomplish (see The Obama Stimulus: A need for sober judgment). If the American people believe that they will sink into The Second Great Depression if they do not pass an $800 billion stimulus bill, they will pass the bill no matter how much waste is in it. A crisis environment drives and justifies action because the status quo becomes patently unacceptable. And if you paint a dark enough picture early on, you cannot be blamed when things do not improve. It is the classic case of under promise, over deliver. If things don’t work out, it wasn’t your fault anyway.

But it is time to push political and media opportunism aside, and to return to the roots of this great country. Great leaders inspire those who follow them, and motivate belief in the ability to overcome. What we have right now is not a crisis of economy or of the financial markets, but a crisis of confidence. We have lost the identity that makes us American. And since the markets are fundamentally predicated on the confidence of consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs, crushing this confidence only accelerates the downturn.

More government control means less faith in the people. What we need right now is less bailout, less handout, and less government. Cut taxes to spur growth and place faith in the people to produce and consume out of the crisis. Move out of the way of private enterprise, and encourage fresh industry. Most importantly, demonstrate belief and inspire confidence in the citizens of this great nation. It is time to regain confidence and remember who we have always been: Pioneers; pilgrims; revolutionaries; entrepreneurs; dreamers; patriots–Americans.

The foundation of our country was fastened with individual liberty, opportunity, responsibility, and courage. We have never been a people dependent on our government, or doubting in the future. We faced down Soviet Russia, reached the moon, and became pioneers of science and titans of industry. We are a nation that proudly waved the Gadsden “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, not the white flag of surrender. It is time for our country to remember its heritage, and for our leaders to renew their belief in our people. It is time to believe again.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with Belief, Economy/Fiscal Issues, Financial Crisis, News, Obama, Politics, TruPolitcs.net, TruPolitics

The Curious Case of Nadya Suleman

February 14, 2009 2 Comments

A few weeks ago, Nadya Suleman made national headlines for successfully giving birth to octuplets. While the medical nature of her case is astounding, it is the content of her actions that is most important politically. Consider the context: First, Ms. Suleman already has six children, three of whom are disabled, and yet chose to pursue in-vitro pregnancy. Second, given the health of her children and her own poor financial state, Ms. Suleman receives nearly $500 a month in food stamps, and thousands more in child disability and general welfare payments. This begs the question of how a woman on welfare and food stamps could afford a $15,000 elective in-vitro pregnancy, take masters classes at a local college, and have her own personal publicist. Asked this question in a recent interview with NBC, Ms. Suleman said that she had saved some of the more than $165,000 in disability welfare payments she received after being injured in a 1999 riot at a state mental hospital where she worked. Add to these costs the estimated $1.2 million hospital bill from the recent birth of her eight children, a bill which she will not be able to pay due to inadequate insurance, and there are serious questions about the integrity of the welfare system.

Nadya Suleman

Where does the money come from to pay for Ms. Suleman’s food stamps? You and me. Where does Ms. Suleman’s monthly disability check for her children come from? You and me. Where did the $165,000 in personal disability payments come from that she adimitedly used for masters classes, a personal publicist, and an in-vitro pregnancy? You and me. Where will the residual of the $1.2 million in hospital bill be passed? To the state, and then to you and me. Where will the hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional welfare to support her eight new children come from? You and me.

Ms. Suleman’s case throws light onto the politically protected arena of welfare payments and the ideology that forms its underpinning. Most politicians shy away from criticizing the welfare system because they are afraid of seeming uncompassionate toward the poor. But this trivializes an important ideological debate: The liberal view of government believes that government is the answer for society’s problems, and should also level the playing field for all; conservatism holds that individuals should take responsibility for their actions, and that the government’s essential role is to protect personal and property rights. As such, liberalism forms the foundation for welfare, as government payments and handouts are seen as the support needed to provide for the poor and make ‘fair’ a society tilted away from the underprivileged.

“In her view these are just payments made for people with legitimate needs…She just believes that there are programs for people with needs and she and her children qualify for some of them.”

-Michael Furtney, Ms. Suleman’s personal publicist.

However, as seen in Ms. Suleman’s case, this type of support not only encourages abuse of the system, but also inefficiently and indiscriminately allocates taxpayer dollars. The statistics are staggering: Unemployment welfare rates and the unemployment rate have an almost 1:1 correlation, meaning that the more the government pays in welfare to the unemployed, the higher the unemployment rate rises. Why? Workers simply lose the incentive to return to work if they are paid not to work. This effect multiplies as the welfare rate multiplies. Then there is the wide spread case of so called “welfare queens,” or single mothers who choose to stay on welfare rather than return to work. Why? Because once a single mother gets a job, she loses her welfare payments. Even once she begins working, her welfare payments decrease as her wages increase. As a result, unless she can make over the tax free average of $750 a month, there is often no reason to find work. So who pays her bills? You and me.

Of course, there are millions of single mothers who work extremely hard to find a job and are legitimately aided by welfare, and they should be praised for their dedication to their children. The problem, however, is that cases like Ms. Suleman’s are entirely too prevalent. And, since welfare is fully funded by taxpayer dollars, it is literally our money being wasted each time a case like this arises. Wouldn’t you be upset if Ms. Suleman stole $15,000 from you to pay for her in-vitro procedure despite the fact that she already had 6 children? The problem is that welfare is spread so thinly through society, and is then redirected through the government, that the cost seems distant and impersonal. That is why Ms. Suleman’s case is so important–it brings to light the misuse and inefficiency inherent in social welfare programs and large government philosophy.

This does not mean that we should ignore the poor or turn away the downtrodden. Rather, practically, any welfare program should be directed only to those who cannot physically work. Ideologically, we must recognize that personal responsibility should always trump government support, and that indiscriminate spending of taxpayer dollars represents a fundamental violation of private property and individual rights. Otherwise, Ms. Suleman’s poor choices will continue to cost you and me.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net