Why is it that virtually every conservative viewpoint on governmental policy seems like the same position any average jerk would take? In other words, it seems like if you were to pick Policy X and then evaluate Policy X by the standard of "would a jerk support this policy?", 9 times out of 10, the jerk's view of the policy would line up with the conservative view of the policy.This is a series of good questions, so I wanted to make a full post of it.
Giving debt relief to poor African countries? Naaaaah, not until they meet our requirements.
The environment? I can drive whatever car I want, use whatever energy I want, and create as much trash as I want, the environment be damned.
Crime? Drug problems are no excuse, throw 'em in prison!
Death penalty? Who cares if virtually every other nation in the world doesn't execute juveniles or the mentally retarded, our country should be able to.
International law? Yeah, it's ok, unless it means I can't do something I want to do.
Diplomacy? Only for a little while, then we bomb the #$%! out of 'em.
Nuclear weapons? We gotta have a bunch of 'em...that'll teach other countries to mess with us.
Welfare? Get those lazy, good-for-nothings off the government payroll.
Lawsuits? Who cares if their kid was killed because some idiot ran a stop sign...cap 'em at $250,000.
Minimum wage? $5.15/hour is plenty.
Now, I know conservatives are pretty smart and can come up with some (disingenuous) other reasons (like gotta protect the free market, government regulation hurts everyone, government is inefficient, some foreign leaders are corrupt) to take the views they do, but the bottom line is, it seems like whenever there is an option to cut someone a break, or give someone something for nothing, or grant a little grace to some stupid decision they made, or listen to/consider an opponents/enemies gripes, etc., the conservative view always seems to oppose those opportunities (at least as far as it comes to policy).
I don't think there are many, but I'd love to hear examples of policy positions of conservatives that fall into the cut someone a break, give something for nothing, give grace mold.
First, let's start with the foundation. Based on the comment, I'm guessing the reader is not a conservative. Conservatives believe in smaller government, less government intrusion whenever possible, personal responsibility, and strong defense. Keep that in mind as I answer the questions above, since I'll be coming from that perspective.
First, thanks for the jerk comment. How nice. More on that later.
Aid for African countries...did you even read that post? We're trying to help the people of those poor countries, not the brutal dictators of those countries. Why should we not have requirements? America is the most generous nation in the world, but why should we give money to a dictator who kills or enslaves his own people? Aren't we trying to spread freedom and prosperity around the world? Isn't it better to have our aid money get into the hands of the oppressed people rather than the oppressive leader? Without conditions, there is absolutely no way that will happen (obviously, it's difficult enough to accomplish even with conditions). Every time you get a loan for a car or house, the lending institution does the same thing - in order to get their money, they require certain conditions be met. This isn't being a jerk, it's plain common sense.
Environment...again, the 'proof' that driving cars -- i.e. the use of oil and other fossil fuels -- actually damages the environment is negligible at best. I've posted about that many times, so I suggest you stop listening to wackos like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio (who are not experts at anything, much less advanced science) take some time to look at the facts, evidence, and people who actually know what they're talking about before judging me on what I drive. There's also this little thing I have about freedom and choices that the whole environmental schtick tends to conflict with...
Crime...seriously? Are you seriously advocating the release of criminals based on the excuse that they have a drug problem? What a great idea! So, not only do we release people who have committed crimes, but let's release people who have committed crimes and have a chemical dependency that will most likely cause them to behave in a desperate and/or impaired way that will present an even greater danger to society. Please tell me you're not actually this stupid! The reason we lock up criminals is because they present a danger to society. They have already proven they are not capable of living in civilized society, and they need to be taken out of it before they hurt someone else. You sympathize with the criminal, I sympathize with the public who has to deal with that criminal and his violent actions.
Death penalty...this one is a bit trickier. I think I'll just point out that our system of justice is the fairest one in the world. Does it make mistakes? Sure, people are only human, too, as they say. But, the accused in our country have a chance to defend themselves, confront their accuser, and spend a lot of time in fighting the charges. An execution only occurs after years of fighting and numerous legal battles, but you make it seem like we're a bunch of thugs who simply murder anyone we don't like. Not true. That only happens in dictatorships.
International law...why should we pay attention to international law? We are in America, and the only law that should concern us is our own. Other countries aren't expected to abide by our laws, so why should we be expected to abide by theirs? I don't get your protest on this one. Think about it this way...would it be reasonable for me to expect you to raise your children like I raise mine? No, of course not. That's just stupid.
Diplomacy/bombs...you've got to be kidding me! I'm going to assume you're trotting out the tired mantra about Iraq. Do you have any idea the diplomatic hoops we jumped through before attacking? Congress made a declaration, we went to the U.N., Bush gathered dozens of countries into a coalition, Bush went back to Congress again, we went to the U.N. again, and the entire Security Council agreed. Oh yeah, and there were almost 20 resolutions of condemnation over the course of almost 15 years before that. You don't think that's diplomacy? And, you're forgetting the key thing that differentiates America's war from others in history - we don't keep what we win. We made war on an oppressive, evil regime, took it out, and are now in the process of giving the country back to its own people. Join us in the real world, please.
Nuclear weapons...absolutely! From the dictionary: "military strength or an ability to defend a country or retaliate strongly enough to deter an enemy from attacking" This is very, very simple. The stronger we are (i.e. lots of nukes), the less likely other countries are going to be to attack us in the first place. Who are you more likely to take a swing at: a 5-9, 160-pound scrawny guy, or a 6-8, 260-pound Army Ranger? Exactly.
Welfare...absolutely! There's nothing wrong with welfare or other programs that give money to those in need. But, the point is not to provide a permanent source of revenue so that the person in need becomes reliant on the government for his livelihood. Instead, the point is to help that person get back on his feet so he can rejoin society as a productive American. That's the problem - there are way too many people on welfare who could (and should) be in the work force, contributing the society, and earning a living for themselves and their families. That's the key difference, and it is HUGE! Again, this is a major difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to seek reliance on a big all-powerful government; conservatives tend to seek individual empowerment and responsibility. Nothing shows this philosophical difference like welfare and other entitlement programs.
Lawsuits...I'm not sure where you're getting this one. I've never heard of capping wrongful death lawsuits at $250,000. I'm not a big fan of putting a price tag on a person's life. I do think that trial lawyers and class action lawsuits are more than a little bit over-zealous, though.
Minimum wage...I'm not an economist, so I don't know what it should be compared to inflation and all that, but I don't think the minimum wage is nearly as low as you seem to think. The minimum wage was never intended to be a wage that provided for a person's livelihood and family. It is simply a minimum amount below which people cannot legally be paid. The vast majority of people who earn minimum wage are kids who generally have a home in which to live rent free, very few if any bills, and are simply learning about life in the real world while earning a few bucks. The other part of this that many liberals seem to completely miss is what results from a higher minimum wage: lost jobs and higher costs of products and services. This is already starting to happen as the result of the recent minimum wage increase, and it will only continue. Have you noticed prices at McDonald's have gone up almost a buck per value meal? There you go - minimum wage increase in action.
Your entire diatribe about how conservatives never want to give anyone a break seems to come down to compassion, which means "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering". Here's the thing...these same policies which you think are horrible and evil are actually meant to encourage personal responsibility and productivity, which ultimately alleviate the suffering.
Let's look at welfare as an example. Let's say I lose my job. I find myself in a situation where the only way I can buy food is to use food stamps, and rely on welfare to pay my bills so I don't lose my house. Whew! I'm okay now, but what happens next? Should I stay on food stamps and welfare for the rest of my life because that means I don't have to go out and get a job? No. It means that I stay on food stamps and welfare while I go out and FIND a job. At that point, I rely on my new job, and get off of food stamps and welfare. This is the point of conservatism - help people when they need it, but encourage them to get back on their own feet and succeed themselves.
How about this mortgage crisis? Sure, there are some people who legitimately got hammered by this situation, but not nearly as many as you think. I heard on the radio a couple days ago that 96% of Americans are paying their mortgages on time. That's right, this entire crisis is based on 4% of Americans having difficulties. Many of them are people who were flipping houses or making some other risky investment. That's the definition of sub-prime - they are less than desirable (i.e. more risky) loans. They couldn't afford the loans they were getting, and they got themselves in over their heads at the wrong time. Now, they're dealing with the consequences of their decisions. So should the government bail them out with taxpayer money? No. That would only encourage further bailouts of future mortgage crises, and most likely other industries, too. Look at it this way: if there are no negative consequences for risky behaviors, why should people act responsibly? The logical end to these bailouts is a rash of irresponsible behavior by a lot of people, and we all will suffer real crises in the future.
The reason you seem to think conservatives are jerks is that personal responsibility is difficult. It's a lot harder to get up and go to work every day than it is to sit around all day and cash a welfare check. It's a lot harder to stand on principles of market freedom than to bail out risky investors. It's a lot harder to cut government and get it out of the way than it is to swell the bureaucracy to try to be all things to all people. But, in the long run, individual responsibility will benefit us and the country far more. Just because conservatives encourage choices that aren't easy doesn't mean we are jerks.
If you want some policies that are merciful, how about the freedom that millions of Afghanis and Iraqis now have because of our actions and the sacrifice of our soldiers [and for that matter, how about most of Europe which relied on us to win two wars for them]? How about the fact that it was the Republican-led Congress in the mid-90's that reformed welfare to get millions of people back out into the work force and providing for themselves? How about the fact that conservatives advocate lower taxes, which means you and I get more money out of each paycheck? How about the fact that conservatives are vastly more generous with charitable contributions than liberals? How's that for giving "something for nothing"?
Those are just a couple examples that came immediately to mind, but there are plenty of conservative policies that help people out. Those 'disingenuous' reasons conservatives often cite -- like protecting the free market, government inefficiency, and government regulation -- are not just platitudes. They are real, concrete things that are critical to how conservatives believe America should run. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean they're frivolous.
What's sad is that liberals refuse to acknowledge reality and instead resort to name-calling when they can't win the debate on facts.
There's my two cents.
5 comments:
For the record, I don't think and never said that conservatives are jerks...I hold a number of positions that are in marching step with conservative philosophy. I also agree with the idea of personal responsibility, limited spending, limited taxing, etc. and that gives me pause when considering Obama or Clinton or any liberal politician.
What I DID say, however, is that when it comes down to it, the conservative POLICY POSITIONS almost always seem to be the same policy positions someone would pick if their only goal was to be a jerk (and, for the record, again...I don't think conservatives just want to be jerks...I think they have reasons for their positions, I just think the POSITIONS tend to be more "jerk-like" than liberal positions).
Why is it ok for you to "name call" but not liberals? (Or does calling someone "stupid" or a "wacko" not count?). Just for the record, I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative (my liberal friends probably think I'm conservative and my conservative friends probably think I'm liberal). I think personal responsibility is good...I try to be responsible for my words/actions. I think free markets and small government are generally good, but not valid ends in and of themselves. A strong defense is probably important, but the "walk softly" part in my mind trumps the "big stick" part.
Obviously, you conflate the personal with the policy. I did NOT say that conservatives are jerks. Nor did I say conservatives (as people) cannot be generous (I personally think the evidence you posted a couple weeks ago about charitable contributions from conservatives vs. liberals is very damning for liberals). I DID say that conservative policies often seem like the policies that a jerk would pick, if given the choice between a "conservative" position on Policy X and a "liberal" position on Policy X. So, conservatives are not all jerks. Neither are all liberals. I was only using a somewhat loose standard to consider policy positions...a standard which I think is fairly accurate (much like a standard of "would a hippie support liberal Policy X?" might be to consider liberal viewpoints.)
Now, that said, I don't think you do a very persuasive job of pointing out examples of policies that I thought would be interesting to see as "merciful" and conservative.
1. You say "tax cuts" and I'll give you that one...I think that tends to fall into the "cut someone a break" category (so long as they are not designed to benefit only the rich, corporate world).
2. You also say "welfare reform." I bet there are a lot of people who would dispute whether that was "merciful." I think welfare reform was generally designed to make it harder for people to get/stay on welfare. Is that a good policy decision economically, fiscally, etc.? Very well could be. Was it "merciful"/"cut someone a break"-like? Not much. Anything that makes it harder for people to get help is probably not "merciful." Good economic policy? Perhaps. Merciful? Perhaps not. Mercy is not always (and probably rarely) efficient, economical, practical, etc.
3. You say "conservatives give more money." Agree, but it's not a "policy position" it's a personal position.
4. You say "what about Iraq, Afghanistan, WWI, and WWII?" First, WWI and WWII were not "conservative" or "liberal," they were a united America (remember who was commander-in-chief at the start of WWII...that big-government guy, FDR). Second, Iraq and Afghanistan were not started to liberate, they were started to protect America from terrorists, WMDs, etc. and to retaliate for 9/11. The liberation rationale was trumpeted more AFTER the wars were started, not as rationales BEFORE. Before you disagree, ask yourself this, "what if 9/11 had not happened? would we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq solely to 'liberate' the people?" HIGHLY unlikely (remember what country weaponized and supported both regimes). That said, are Iraqis and Afghanistanis thankful for their freedom, probably so (but I bet the violence in Iraq isn't such a great thing in Iraqi's eyes). So, you came up with tax cuts...congratulations, that's one policy that could be merciful.
Just to set the record straight:
1. I said nothing about the mortgage crisis.
2. I did not say all criminals should be released.
3. I did not say anything about Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio.
4. I did not refuse to acknowledge reality.
5. I did not say personal responsibility was bad.
Bravo! Thank you for your blog. I love it. This entry especially spoke to me. I was posed a similar question a few weeks ago, so I decided to write an entire series about the differences between conservatives and liberals. What I like most about your answer is that you didn't accept the liberal premise that conservatives are jerks! What the interrogator failed to understand (until you told them) was that conservatives are not against cutting people breaks. We're just against cutting breaks to the wrong people (ie: felons, junkies, murderers, dictators, etc.). I would even argue that our support for lower taxes and school vouchers are much more compassionate than liberals' opposition to both! The single mother who had a child out of wedlock and works a menial job to get by shouldn't be taxed incessantly. And if she wants to send her kid to a private school, instead of the neighborhood pre-prison, Republicans are there to help.
I hope the liberal who challenged you responds to your answer. It was well worth reading!
Anonymous,
First, let me offer a sincere thank-you for your comments. It is apparent that you have thought things through and taken some time in composing your responses. I appreciate that you're willing to put that much energy into this!
Now, on to what you said...
You said, "Why is it that virtually every conservative viewpoint on governmental policy seems like the same position any average jerk would take? In other words, it seems like if you were to pick Policy X and then evaluate Policy X by the standard of "would a jerk support this policy?", 9 times out of 10, the jerk's view of the policy would line up with the conservative view of the policy."
Sounds like you're calling conservatives jerks to me, but if I misunderstood you, I apologize. Regardless, let me respond to your response.
I think this boils down to the point I was trying to make that the conservative viewpoint often emphasizes personal responsibility, which is tough. I guess one way to put it is that it's kind of a tough love sort of thing. I'll try to think of a better way to explain it, but that's all I've got at the moment other than what I've already said (we're in the middle of an ongoing medical crisis in our family, so my mental reservoir is lower than normal).
Now, to address your specific points in the other comment...
I said that liberals resort to name-calling when they're losing an argument, which is different than what I'm doing. I'm just poking some good-natured fun (trying to get a rise, if you will), regardless of whether I'm winning the debate or not. As a relative nobody, I have the luxury of doing that. :) However, if you look at the big names and people who appear on national TV shows and such, you'll see a regular pattern of liberals resorting to one of two tactics during a debate on facts, history, and policy: character assassination or name-calling. This is simply an observation of mine (and many other conservatives), and I stand by it.
Good for you, thinking things through. It's too bad more people don't engage in this sort of intelligent debate, isn't it?
Regarding your points:
1. Glad we agree!
2. Again, tough love. Sure, it may have been uncomfortable to get off the steady government check, but I would bet that just about everyone who is now back out in the workforce has a much better self-image and feeling of accomplishment now. A basic human need is to be needed and feel significant, and that ties in here.
3. True. Good point.
4. WWI/II: our allies needed our help, and we gave it. I suppose you may be correct that this isn't 'giving someone a break', but it is certainly an example of helping out. I would also dispute your suggestion that our current actions are only the result of WMDs. That was one of the reasons, yes, but not the sole reason. That is a misnomer that the Democrats and MSM have hammered into the American consciousness since 2003. Another one was, in fact, liberating oppressed peoples from a tyrant. I'm not sure about Afghanistan, but it was only a matter of time until Iraq was invaded again - he'd been violating U.N. sanctions since 1991, but the first person with enough backbone in a position to enforce that was George W. Bush. I'd say Iraq was inevitable.
Record-setting: I never said you said any of those things. Those were examples that I used to try to explain my points. Sorry if that's how you interpreted those points.
I'm kind of curious why you're so hung up on 'give-me-a-break' policies? Why is that important? Is it better to make people feel good and feel like you're cutting them a break, or is it best to do the right thing? Let me present yet another example to help explain my point. I am a parent of young children. My oldest, in particular, hates brushing his teeth. Every morning and every night we battle about whether or not he needs to brush his teeth. Now, if I wanted to cut him a break, I'd let him skip it whenever he wanted to. You tell me - is that what's best for him? No. It'll eventually lead to major dental problems, which will be painful and expensive to fix, not to mention the fact that he will have failed to develop a habit that is important to maintaining one's hygiene (not only from a health perspective, but also from the perspective of presenting himself as a responsible professional someday). By cutting him a break, I'm actually doing him harm.
Again: why are you so hung up on making people feel good? That is irrelevant in most cases. As I said before, conservative philosophy is not about making people feel good, but about implementing the right policies that will empower people to make themselves better...if people step up to the plate. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Conservative policies are big on leading people to water, but the people have to drink themselves. Apparently, that's where you think conservatives sound like jerks.
Hopefully that explains things a bit better.
J. Thomas Hunter - thank you, sir! I'm glad you like my blog! :)
Post a Comment