Penn & Teller go to an environmental rally to see if they can get some leftists to sign a petition to ban a dangerous chemical known as Di-hydrogen Monoxide (that's H20, or water, to those of us who went to high school). Hilarity ensues.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
You Know, We Will Eventually Run Out of Money...
Another bailout is on the horizon. This time, we the people will be expected to foot the bill for the so-called "Big Three" automakers - Ford, GM, and Chrysler.
Frankly, I am so sick of these bailouts that I don't feel that it is necessary to take the time to outline all the reasons why these companies are in trouble (a perfect storm of failing to invest in a product that can compete and ruinous union contracts) and why the taxpayers should not be required to pay to keep them afloat.
Government bailouts for struggling companies are a recipe for economic disaster. Please contact your Representatives and encourage them to oppose the automaker bailout by clicking here.
Frankly, I am so sick of these bailouts that I don't feel that it is necessary to take the time to outline all the reasons why these companies are in trouble (a perfect storm of failing to invest in a product that can compete and ruinous union contracts) and why the taxpayers should not be required to pay to keep them afloat.
Government bailouts for struggling companies are a recipe for economic disaster. Please contact your Representatives and encourage them to oppose the automaker bailout by clicking here.
Friday, November 7, 2008
A Conservative Without A Home
NOTE: The following post has been in the works for the past couple months as I have taken time to evaluate not only my own beliefs, but also where we stand as a nation. Over the past few days I have heard a wide range of reactions to the election of Sen. Obama. Some are jubilant, while others are angry and despondent. Personally, I allowed myself one day to "grieve" over the results, and then resolved to move forward. While we, as a conservative movement, may have lost the election, we have not lost our voice. The conservative movement must find itself once again and get back to the principles that we know will change this country for the better.
Over the past few years, I have begun to evaluate some of my long-standing political beliefs. A majority of this evaluation has come over the past year as I have had the opportunity to get more “hands-on” experience with policy-making. Although I still predominantly vote Republican, I find myself more disconnected with the hard “party-line” than in years past. As I have struggled with my evolving political identity, I have had the opportunity to have deep discussions of political philosophy with intelligent people of many different ideologies from mainstream conservatives to liberals, to libertarians, and even a “Christian anarchist” (a mixture of Christian theology with anarchist political philosophy that I still don’t quite understand).
Recently, a close friend and I were having a conversation about this subject and I mentioned to her that I often feel like a conservative without a home. I, like many other young conservatives, came to the party as a result of our upbringing and, as we were better able to understand the issues and develop our own opinions, a belief in free markets and limited government. For years, the Republican Party was the standard bearer for this philosophy under the leadership of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. However, as we have grown and become more engaged in the world, we have noticed that the party has substantially drifted from its roots. We now have a Republican Party that outspends than the Democrats and is increasingly aligned with evangelical “social conservatives” – a formula that yields anything but a commitment to free markets and limited government. Since the Republican Party continues to claim that it stands for these principles (indeed, many members of the party still do), it seems necessary to outline my understanding of them in order to better illustrate why I feel like a “conservative without a home.”
Free market conservatism is one area where I feel that the Republican Party has not drifted too far and stands a chance of rediscovering its principles. The best and most concise way that I have heard this principle explained is in the axiom, “the freer the markets, the freer the people.” As a free market conservative, I believe that there should be minimal government intervention in the economy. Anything beyond basic regulations to ensure the safety of consumers and prevent abuses of the market, I believe is beyond the scope of the government’s Constitutional authority. Now, I do not have any illusions that we will be able to reverse the effects of the New Deal and other government interventions that have essentially become entrenched into societal expectations. I do hold out hope, however, that we can scale back the scope of government intervention that has grown out of control in recent years. This out of control intervention is best illustrated by the massive and irresponsible transfers of wealth made through the Congressional practice of earmarking. Under this system, members of Congress are able to allocate funding for “pet projects” back in their home states with little to no oversight. Often, these earmarks have nothing to do with the overall goal of the bill that they are being attached to, and, I would argue, are an abuse (if not an outright violation) of Congress’ Constitutional authority to make the law. Government intervention, however, has not been confined to the area of funding abuses; it extends to nearly every aspect of the economy from taxes to over-regulation of the private sector. The laws of economics suggest that the best way to promote freedom and prosperity is to cut taxes to individuals and business and by scaling back regulations that have increased the cost of doing business. The Republican Party, to its credit, has remained true to the principle of cutting taxes. However, it has failed to cut spending and has increased, rather than decreased, regulations on business.
As opposed to economic freedom, I feel the most strain with the mainstream of the Republican Party on issues of individual liberty. Over the past two decades, the modern Republican Party has been taken over by the so-called “religious right,” which seeks to increase government regulation of the private lives of the citizenry. This has become apparent with the rise in power of evangelical political factions led by political/religious demigods such as Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. At this point, I feel a brief clarification is in order. I am in no way questioning the faith of these men. Rather, my disagreement with them is in the way they have injected faith into government.
Our Declaration of Independence holds that all people have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The social conservative movement, however, has endeavored to use their power in government to impose their own moral standards through the mechanisms of government. My personal belief is that the proper role of government is limited to those aspects outlined in the preamble of the Constitution: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The brilliance of our Constitution is the same thing that leaves it open to abuse by those in power – its vagueness. The Founding Fathers laid out a foundation for a free society and a limited government with very few specifics. While this decision to leave out specifics underscores the decentralized nature of American democracy, it also allows those in power to read their own beliefs into the Constitution and dramatically distort its meaning. For example, the phrase, “promote the general Welfare,” is one of the most abused portions of the preamble of the Constitution. As the years have passed since the ratification of the Constitution, American policy has progressed further from the original intent of this clause. Especially during the 20th century, “promote the general Welfare” has been used to justify the massive expansion of government programs and social engineering. The left has used the clause to justify social welfare programs that result in massive redistributions of wealth. On the right, the clause has been used to justify government intervention in issues of personal morality such as prohibition and, more recently, the definition of marriage. The idea, from the social conservative movement, is that the government should regulate moral issues in order to protect the welfare of children and “traditional family values.” However, both sides have distorted the true intent of this clause. In Federalist 41, James Madison writes that the preamble of the Constitution was never intended to amount to “an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” Rather, the preamble of the Constitution, according to Madison, should be understood in the context of the entire document which stresses the limited and enumerated powers of government. Thus, the role of government is not to do whatever it finds necessary to promote the “general Welfare” of the country, but only that which it has been empowered to do. Currently, I can find no political party that fully aligns behind this ideal. The mainstream of the Republican Party (mostly social conservatives and neocons), as I have said, attempts to use the power of government to regulate many issues of personal liberty, and the left attempts to use the power of government to forcibly mold all aspects of society into what it views as a “fair” or “utopian” model.
Now, because of these objections, many would suggest finding shelter under the tent of Libertarianism. While I do admit to possessing strong libertarian tendencies, I also possess disagreements with the mainstream libertarian positions towards issues of law and order (esp. as it relates to drug policy and enforcement) as well as the proper role and scope of powers possessed by the U.S. military and intelligence communities. I am also uncomfortable with libertarianism because of its recent public image as reflected in the attention given to the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul this election cycle. Due to Rep. Paul’s success and his incessant (infuriating) claims that he was a “true Constitutionalist,” libertarian ideology has become increasingly attached to his beliefs, many of which I find to be antithetical to sound reason and good Constitutional scholarship. As an admitted Constitutional nerd, I have spent and continue to spend much of my time studying the founding period. Over the course of this study, it seems clear to me that it is a futile endeavor to attempt to narrowly define the beliefs of the Founding Fathers to a neat and tidy set of core principles. Yes, liberty is the cornerstone on which the nation was founded and the oracle to which we should look in all matters. However, this nation was also founded amidst both military and political conflict, which has established a tradition of debate and dissent in our policy making process. Indeed, much of the legacy of Washington’s administration was forged by the intense disagreement between Alexander Hamilton’s political ideology of “power and responsibility” (as I called it in my thesis on Hamilton’s democratic theory) and Thomas Jefferson’s more populist beliefs. For Rep. Paul to define himself as a “true Constitutionalist” and thus suggest that his personal ideology is in lockstep with that of the Founding Fathers, then, is both disingenuous and highly arrogant.
Admittedly, I am still in the process of learning about libertarian ideology and, thus, my beliefs on the matter are constantly evolving. It is also important to note that there is much less uniformity within the libertarian community as to specific beliefs than within the two major political parties. Libertarianism, then, seems to be a much more free-form species of political ideology, which is one of its major strengths.
While the development of my political beliefs has left me feeling like a conservative without a home, I feel that this may not be a bad thing. The pressure exerted on the American public by the major political parties and the media to “choose sides” in the battle for the future of American democracy is a false pretence based on a desire to simplify what should be a complex struggle. I am reminded of my time spent working for a local branch of the Republican Party during which we distributed bumper stickers that read: “A True Republican Votes Straight Republican.” The intent was to build the party by encouraging people to vote for every candidate that had an “R” next to his or her name. This slogan, while effective for party building, simply encouraged people to take the easy way out and not consider the beliefs of each individual candidate and how those beliefs aligned with their own opinions on the role of government. It’s time that the American people woke up and realized this simple truth: democracy is hard. Self-government is not something we can delegate to political parties and our elected officials. Rather, we must be ever vigilant in maintaining it. After the Constitutional Convention’s final day of deliberation in 1787, a woman approached Dr. Benjamin Franklin as he was leaving Independence Hall and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin responded simply, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Over the past few years, I have begun to evaluate some of my long-standing political beliefs. A majority of this evaluation has come over the past year as I have had the opportunity to get more “hands-on” experience with policy-making. Although I still predominantly vote Republican, I find myself more disconnected with the hard “party-line” than in years past. As I have struggled with my evolving political identity, I have had the opportunity to have deep discussions of political philosophy with intelligent people of many different ideologies from mainstream conservatives to liberals, to libertarians, and even a “Christian anarchist” (a mixture of Christian theology with anarchist political philosophy that I still don’t quite understand).
Recently, a close friend and I were having a conversation about this subject and I mentioned to her that I often feel like a conservative without a home. I, like many other young conservatives, came to the party as a result of our upbringing and, as we were better able to understand the issues and develop our own opinions, a belief in free markets and limited government. For years, the Republican Party was the standard bearer for this philosophy under the leadership of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. However, as we have grown and become more engaged in the world, we have noticed that the party has substantially drifted from its roots. We now have a Republican Party that outspends than the Democrats and is increasingly aligned with evangelical “social conservatives” – a formula that yields anything but a commitment to free markets and limited government. Since the Republican Party continues to claim that it stands for these principles (indeed, many members of the party still do), it seems necessary to outline my understanding of them in order to better illustrate why I feel like a “conservative without a home.”
Free market conservatism is one area where I feel that the Republican Party has not drifted too far and stands a chance of rediscovering its principles. The best and most concise way that I have heard this principle explained is in the axiom, “the freer the markets, the freer the people.” As a free market conservative, I believe that there should be minimal government intervention in the economy. Anything beyond basic regulations to ensure the safety of consumers and prevent abuses of the market, I believe is beyond the scope of the government’s Constitutional authority. Now, I do not have any illusions that we will be able to reverse the effects of the New Deal and other government interventions that have essentially become entrenched into societal expectations. I do hold out hope, however, that we can scale back the scope of government intervention that has grown out of control in recent years. This out of control intervention is best illustrated by the massive and irresponsible transfers of wealth made through the Congressional practice of earmarking. Under this system, members of Congress are able to allocate funding for “pet projects” back in their home states with little to no oversight. Often, these earmarks have nothing to do with the overall goal of the bill that they are being attached to, and, I would argue, are an abuse (if not an outright violation) of Congress’ Constitutional authority to make the law. Government intervention, however, has not been confined to the area of funding abuses; it extends to nearly every aspect of the economy from taxes to over-regulation of the private sector. The laws of economics suggest that the best way to promote freedom and prosperity is to cut taxes to individuals and business and by scaling back regulations that have increased the cost of doing business. The Republican Party, to its credit, has remained true to the principle of cutting taxes. However, it has failed to cut spending and has increased, rather than decreased, regulations on business.
As opposed to economic freedom, I feel the most strain with the mainstream of the Republican Party on issues of individual liberty. Over the past two decades, the modern Republican Party has been taken over by the so-called “religious right,” which seeks to increase government regulation of the private lives of the citizenry. This has become apparent with the rise in power of evangelical political factions led by political/religious demigods such as Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. At this point, I feel a brief clarification is in order. I am in no way questioning the faith of these men. Rather, my disagreement with them is in the way they have injected faith into government.
Our Declaration of Independence holds that all people have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The social conservative movement, however, has endeavored to use their power in government to impose their own moral standards through the mechanisms of government. My personal belief is that the proper role of government is limited to those aspects outlined in the preamble of the Constitution: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The brilliance of our Constitution is the same thing that leaves it open to abuse by those in power – its vagueness. The Founding Fathers laid out a foundation for a free society and a limited government with very few specifics. While this decision to leave out specifics underscores the decentralized nature of American democracy, it also allows those in power to read their own beliefs into the Constitution and dramatically distort its meaning. For example, the phrase, “promote the general Welfare,” is one of the most abused portions of the preamble of the Constitution. As the years have passed since the ratification of the Constitution, American policy has progressed further from the original intent of this clause. Especially during the 20th century, “promote the general Welfare” has been used to justify the massive expansion of government programs and social engineering. The left has used the clause to justify social welfare programs that result in massive redistributions of wealth. On the right, the clause has been used to justify government intervention in issues of personal morality such as prohibition and, more recently, the definition of marriage. The idea, from the social conservative movement, is that the government should regulate moral issues in order to protect the welfare of children and “traditional family values.” However, both sides have distorted the true intent of this clause. In Federalist 41, James Madison writes that the preamble of the Constitution was never intended to amount to “an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” Rather, the preamble of the Constitution, according to Madison, should be understood in the context of the entire document which stresses the limited and enumerated powers of government. Thus, the role of government is not to do whatever it finds necessary to promote the “general Welfare” of the country, but only that which it has been empowered to do. Currently, I can find no political party that fully aligns behind this ideal. The mainstream of the Republican Party (mostly social conservatives and neocons), as I have said, attempts to use the power of government to regulate many issues of personal liberty, and the left attempts to use the power of government to forcibly mold all aspects of society into what it views as a “fair” or “utopian” model.
Now, because of these objections, many would suggest finding shelter under the tent of Libertarianism. While I do admit to possessing strong libertarian tendencies, I also possess disagreements with the mainstream libertarian positions towards issues of law and order (esp. as it relates to drug policy and enforcement) as well as the proper role and scope of powers possessed by the U.S. military and intelligence communities. I am also uncomfortable with libertarianism because of its recent public image as reflected in the attention given to the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul this election cycle. Due to Rep. Paul’s success and his incessant (infuriating) claims that he was a “true Constitutionalist,” libertarian ideology has become increasingly attached to his beliefs, many of which I find to be antithetical to sound reason and good Constitutional scholarship. As an admitted Constitutional nerd, I have spent and continue to spend much of my time studying the founding period. Over the course of this study, it seems clear to me that it is a futile endeavor to attempt to narrowly define the beliefs of the Founding Fathers to a neat and tidy set of core principles. Yes, liberty is the cornerstone on which the nation was founded and the oracle to which we should look in all matters. However, this nation was also founded amidst both military and political conflict, which has established a tradition of debate and dissent in our policy making process. Indeed, much of the legacy of Washington’s administration was forged by the intense disagreement between Alexander Hamilton’s political ideology of “power and responsibility” (as I called it in my thesis on Hamilton’s democratic theory) and Thomas Jefferson’s more populist beliefs. For Rep. Paul to define himself as a “true Constitutionalist” and thus suggest that his personal ideology is in lockstep with that of the Founding Fathers, then, is both disingenuous and highly arrogant.
Admittedly, I am still in the process of learning about libertarian ideology and, thus, my beliefs on the matter are constantly evolving. It is also important to note that there is much less uniformity within the libertarian community as to specific beliefs than within the two major political parties. Libertarianism, then, seems to be a much more free-form species of political ideology, which is one of its major strengths.
While the development of my political beliefs has left me feeling like a conservative without a home, I feel that this may not be a bad thing. The pressure exerted on the American public by the major political parties and the media to “choose sides” in the battle for the future of American democracy is a false pretence based on a desire to simplify what should be a complex struggle. I am reminded of my time spent working for a local branch of the Republican Party during which we distributed bumper stickers that read: “A True Republican Votes Straight Republican.” The intent was to build the party by encouraging people to vote for every candidate that had an “R” next to his or her name. This slogan, while effective for party building, simply encouraged people to take the easy way out and not consider the beliefs of each individual candidate and how those beliefs aligned with their own opinions on the role of government. It’s time that the American people woke up and realized this simple truth: democracy is hard. Self-government is not something we can delegate to political parties and our elected officials. Rather, we must be ever vigilant in maintaining it. After the Constitutional Convention’s final day of deliberation in 1787, a woman approached Dr. Benjamin Franklin as he was leaving Independence Hall and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin responded simply, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)