Wow. I just realized I’ve spent so much time giving you bits and pieces of my conservative views, that I’ve not actually given you a post just dedicated to why I believe it. That will be fixed with this post, and it will most certainly be a long one. The reason I am writing this is because today I read a blog post that questioned the basis of conservativism, and the basis of liberalism, and compared and contrasted them. The video on the blog post had a man, Adam Strange, who, in summary, stated that conservativism is based on a moral order system, God above man, man above earth, men above women, whites above blacks, straights above gays, Christians above non-Christians, America above all other countries, and rich above poor. On the other hand, Strange suspected, liberalism was for equality. That every man should be given a fair and equal opportunity to succeed. Here’s the video, though I will warn you, there is some language.
Now these are absolutely the differences between conservatives and liberals, but I suggest that Mr. Strange has them in the wrong order. I am going to enjoy responding to this, not just by defending my belief system per se, but because this political debate, that of values and whatnot, is one of my all-time favorite subjects.
First of all, I would very highly disagree with the argument Adam made about the moral order. Here’s a very interesting point that I truly need you to understand, that will probably blow your mind. Are you ready? Here it is. True conservatives should not be against gay rights on a federal level.
Now, I know, you’re probably thinking, “Wow, did he just mean what I thought he said?” Yes. I am not against gay rights on a federal level. I am absolutely 100% AGAINST homosexuality on a moral level, but why shouldn’t they have human rights, they are as much humans as you are, right? Here’s the deal. The federal government is there to protect rights. It’s quite brilliant how this country was constructed. The federal government comes from the following principle, found in the declaration of independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
So the government is there to secure rights, but specifically, unalienable rights. The most important thing that God gave us, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is our Life. Life is purposeless without Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness automatically comes with Liberty, and Liberty is secured through Property, and there’s a lot more theory behind all of these, but I’ll leave it at that for now. That is what federal government is for, to secure our basic rights.
Now back to my example of gay rights. Gay rights does not violate any of the unalienable rights, though you should know there are more unalienable rights then just those I mentioned. So why do so many people vote against gay rights? Because many people misunderstand what conservativism is. There’s a lot I could say that the liberals have done to violate the federal government’s purpose.
Take, for example, the abortion issue. Whether or not it’s life now (I don’t want to argue all day about something that may always be debated), it directly takes away that child’s right to Life, which the federal government should legislate against. Health care is not, the people have made choices that have gotten there in the first place, and though there are those people who are truly in a stuck situation, where they truly want to get out of the hand that fate (or God, as I believe) has dealt them, the people around them can fix that, because it’s not the federal government’s job to fix Life, or even to save Life, only to end direct removal of (directly violate) a person’s right to Life.
Anyway, sorry to get off on that path, but I’ll rein this back on track for a minute. So we tell Congress to get rid of unnecessary legislation. But then something happens. The people kind of feel weird that there’s this weird gap where lots of legislation used to be, and now it almost feels like something should be there. So, because many conservatives are Christians of some kind, they start legislating morality, such as homosexuality, thus becoming the monster that they were trying to get rid of.
Many conservatives (Many times my brothers in Christ), think that this is a battle of our respective religious morals, against the foes and evil which would seek to destroy us. Some (very few, don’t misread this) liberals act with evil desires, and heck, so do some conservatives, but most liberals probably have very good morals too, I know many Christian liberals. It’s not a battle of good vs. evil, it’s mainly what to do with the morals that we have as a country so to use them in the safest way possible, so to not make it a theocracy for us Christians, but to be able to use the gifts that God has given.
The true idea of conservativism is that federal government should be dedicated only to the securitization of rights, that “void” of legislation – that many believe should be filled – is actually healthy, because the federal government is not there for the purpose of legislating morality. Morality will depend on your religion, and will be debated until the end of time. Instead, by putting your emphasis on something that is solid and necessary, that will keep everyone basically protected. The ways that the Founders laid out how to secure the inalienable rights were laid out in the Constitution.
So then, how does anything smaller than wars, instances of legal justice, etc. get done? By the states! In fact, that’s one of the most genius things about the way the country was set up. You want to legislate morality in Texas? I really don’t have too much of a problem with that on the state level, though it’s still a bad idea. You want local free health care in the state of Illinois? Go right ahead. I still don’t think it’s an effective way to operate, but the people who don’t like it can move to another state. (Just an example, no offence to readers in Texas or Illinois.)
There’s a little bit of stability testing, finding what system works best in whatever you live. If Rhode Island has more people in it than Indiana, maybe Indiana needs to change the way they operate, since it’s driving so many people away. See what I mean? I just want to keep choice (but not so much that the people can step on each other’s rights, such as being pro-choice as far as the abortion issue goes) a very big part of America.
Now for the other part of America: Equality.
First, let me go into what I believe about issues such as men above women and whites above non-whites: the prejudice of things that people can’t control. Now, many liberals want to legislate (on the federal level) that black men, for example, be given more benefits, to “apologize” for our ancestors enslaving their ancestors and so forth, and because many are in a sticky situation nowadays. Aren’t we all.
But such legislation has actually hurt many black communities. For example, black men who have children in pretty bad situations are given certain benefits. So what do the men do? They try to get as many children as possible, by going from woman to woman, having more and more children. Understand that this is not a racist comment, by the way, this is something that men of all races (though no more than one race exists, everyone came from Adam and Eve) would do if given an opportunity. Anyway, because of these reckless men, children are born without fathers, they are taught to raise themselves, and look for a father figure in gangs. They grow up as men without moral character or a respect for the law, and continue to vote for the party that gets them “free” (paid for by taxpayers) stuff. The government gets involved again, and the cycle starts all over again. Not to mention the fact that the feds shouldn’t be involved in class redistribution of wealth anyway, but I’ll get into that in a minute.
Why not do what the true conservatives want, and say that people are people, and give them equal rights? Promising things to only certain people based on the color of their skin is the epitome of racism. How are we the racists? How are we the ones suppressing women? Just give the people equality already, rather than favoring he (or she) who was once expected to not succeed, and ended up being just as talented, smart, and capable as the rest of the world.
As far as homosexuality goes, homosexual nature is, well, nature, to some people. I know that it is wrong to act on that desire, though. It is a choice you make to act on that nature, making it slightly different from sexism or racism.
Should homosexuality be legislated by the federal government? Of course not. Should the state governments ban being gay? No, that’s a nature, something you can’t control (though I honestly don’t think that the majority of people were born with that nature, but still, the point remains). Now, should the acts associated with being homosexual be banned on the state level? That’s a really tough question, and since I can’t really find a solid answer, I think I’ll leave that up to each state, rather than making the ultimate decision on it.
Christians above non-Christians: I recommend you meet a true Christian or two.
Another dumb one: America above all other nations. That’s brilliant, I love how he tries to say that we are unfair because we believe that making the right decisions will lead to a prosperous country, and because other countries don’t do that, we shouldn’t either. Jump off of your friends’ cliffs much, do ya, Adam? Maybe we could be an example. Not that we want to affect the world in a positive way, that might be offensive. Just a thought though, and I apologize that honor is such an outdated concept, and somehow makes us as a party 200 years too late for this century. Who needs morals these days, right?
And now, for the all-time best thing that he said: That we favor the rich above the poor. But unless you were listening very closely, you may have missed that he proposed the answer to be a viciously hated (by liberals) conservative idea.
He said that liberals were for equality, that all people, no matter what, should have an equal opportunity to succeed. That’s right, the equality of opportunity. I hasten to note that many liberals have chewed me out for expressing such an idea too many times to count, because this is, indeed, a conservative viewpoint. If liberals are for equality of opportunity, then I must be completely uninformed. No, the majority of progressives I know are for the equality of outcome on a federal level. Meaning that whether I contribute to society to work or not, I should get the same pay in the end as the man who has worked all his life and gave the world a lot. Which, of course, is unfair. Not to mention it creates a society where everyone depends on each other to support them, leading to an inevitable destruction of the nation.
Now, many liberals don’t want total equality of outcome, only a vague “sharing” of wealth. But this isn’t sharing, this is stealing. Other people don’t deserve my money, and the feds certainly shouldn’t be the agent of the violation of one’s right to Property. Not that taxes are bad, but please do it at the same equal rate. Progressive taxes have different rates for different classes of people; isn’t that favoring one group over another, the underdog, as it were?
The other thing that many want to say, when the “save the poor” tactic doesn’t work, is that they are trying to “level the playing field,” saying that makes it equal. Needless to say, liberal chess would suck. You’d kill my queen in chess, and I’d get to just knock your queen off the board to keep us equal. If I knew I couldn’t be victorious, I’d stop playing, and then how does the economy grow?
Now I know that life isn’t always like chess. You may be born in a poor family, or you may be the spoiled son or daughter of a multimillionaire. But either way, you usually still have enough for at least a basic education, and an equal opportunity to move in the same upward movement. And chances are, that spoiled child will probably squander his money when he gets out into the real world, and will have to learn either very good financial choices or get a job just like the rest of us. And yes, an employer will hire a poor man if he has dedicated himself to being the best that he can be at whatever job that he chooses, and a passion for it certainly helps, too. That is fairness, and that is equality. The opportunity that no matter where you start, you can always work hard and earn a greater and greater living for yourself.
One final thing before I close: A quick nature clip that is played several times throughout the course of the video, whenever conservativism is brought up, is very misleading. There is a video of a lion chasing a zebra down in the jungle and eating it, and it is a sad video, which grips at your emotions and makes you think of conservativism as the rich chasing down the poor and defeating them, which is a misconception. As I said before, the working poor can make whatever adjustments they need to, whether it be reading books to better educate themselves on good job strategies, making good business decisions, working harder and faster, etc.
It’s competition. All of America should be made up of all equal lions chasing after the same zebra, the same goals, the same drive to make them run faster and faster, until the ones who want it most and push their legs fastest get first dibs. And what should the ones who don’t get there in time do? Go find another zebra, and try harder next time!