This post is going to be a little different than what I normally write. Instead of writing about my life, I think instead I’m going to write about some of my beliefs.
People often ask me where I lie on a political spectrum. Where do my core values lie? Who am I supporting for president? Well, I’m goign to try and explain just why I consider myself a conservative.
To start it off, I’m going to include a tidbit I read on CNN by political commentator Glenn Beck. Before I begin, note that I do not listen to Beck, and from what I hear a lot of his foreign policy and national security stances are very neo-conservative, which I do not agree with. However, this excerpt is domestic policy, and it’s pretty sound.
“A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.
A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.
A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.
A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.
A conservative believes that real compassion can’t be found in any government program.
A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.
A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it’s not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family’s needs than some faceless, soulless government program.
A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else’s throat.
A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.
A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.
A conservative believes that a child’s education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.
A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.”
(Glenn Beck, Political Commentator for CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html)
I want to start with the things I don’t agree with in excerpt.
We must define what the pursuit of happiness entails. As a good friend of mine put it, the pursuit of happiness is defined by the liberty to do what we want and the property rights to accomplish that goal. This is a fair definition, and one I agree with.
One other thing I disagree with was his quip about movies and church and being preached to. Just as everyone has the right to seek and understand the god of their understanding (or lack thereof) they also have the right to view any material they may agree or disagree with, so long as it’s not criminal.
Other than that, most of Becks list on conservative values is pretty spot on. However, it must be noted that these are pretty domestic policies. So I’ll elaborate a little on the rest of the domestics before I move on to foreign policy.
I believe in property rights. I don’t agree that those who gain more property than others in life should be penalized for it. This is in reference to taxes. Those that make more in life should not be penalized to give back to the poor. That property is theirs, regardless of whether it was given to them or they earned it. The same principal applies to healthcare. I don’t believe that those who can afford privatized healthcare should have to pay for those who cannot afford healthcare. Why is that fair? The flaws in healthcare aren’t due to income inequality but because of the various market failures that have been induced by government (if you want to know what failures those are, ask me about them), and all government would end up doing is make it worse.
This also goes into various other government handouts and my beliefs about them. I believe that MOST government handouts only encourage laziness and discourage personal accountability. Government provided welfare, in it’s current state, is proven to be ineffective. This goes along with government housing. These things have done nothing to prevent crime, instead they just perpetuate it. As an individual who lived under a welfare and government housing roof for the first 8 years of existance, I can speak to this from first hand experience. The projects are a joke. Most people on welfare with kids only use the kids as an excuse for more money to go out and feed their addictions… my biological mother was no exception. This leaves the kids without, encouraging them to steal and rob to survive. Giving them housing only provides a safe haven for this activity.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t those with legitimate needs who are struggling to make it out of poverty. However, I think that private charities, organizations, and businesses are more capable of giving to those who really do wish to get out of poverty than the government. In addition, the government’s need for red tape to prevent free riders only provides inefficiencies.
I agree with privatized social security. I believe that most Americans would profit from this, and only the bottom 10% would turn out worst from this plan. As it currently stands, most Americans overpay in FICA taxes only to receive marginally what they paid in. More and more Americans are setting up trust funds in order to secure a lifestyle after retirement. In effect, they are privatising their own funds in addition to paying FICA taxes for minimal returns so they can fund the well being of the bottom 10%. This is wrong. Your retirement should be based EXACTLY on how much you accomplished in life, the better off you do, the better off you should retire.
I do however agree with two government programs, meant for those who are truly helpless. Orphans should 100% be supported by American tax payer money. They have no control over the situations they were presented, and they do not prossess the ability to escape that situation. They are entirely dependent on others for support. I also agree with those who are disabled and cannot work. As American’s, who have NO ability whatsoever to provide for themselves, it is the duty of all Americans to help. I probably stray from conservatism on this issue, but it’s what I believe is morally right.
I believe in liberty. I believe that people are capable of making decisions for themselves. I believe that any attempt by government to inhibit the individual decision making of individuals (beyond preventing crime) in the name of the greater good is both unjust ineffective. Who is to say that government, a single entity, is more capable of making decisions than private individuals? People should be allowed to worship (or not) in the way they choose (so long as it does not harm society, i.e. human sacrifice), should be allowed to love who they want (this is a true conservative ideal, fundamentalist neo-cons are the ones who believe that gay marriage corrupts our society), spend money, own property, and live life without the interference of government. I believe that businesses should be able to conduct business as they see fit (as long as its fair; I do agree with anti-trust legislation). This leads into the governments role in the economy.
The government should not support either Keynesian or supply side economics. Both extremes only hinder the business cycle and inhibit economic growth to its fullest extent. Government should support both consumer and business choices through supply and demand. Increasing/Decreasing taxes for one side and not the other throws the entire curve off balance. Government should also accept the business cycle. Actions by the federal reserve only perpetuate future problems (the housing crisis of today is a direct result of messing with the interest rates for the past 30 years). Sometimes the market fails, and it is the individual consumers and businesses responsibilities to fix it. A federal minimum wage is also garbage. As is proven time and time again, people cannot live off of a minimum wage job. People have never been able to live off of minimum wage. The reason for this is very simple. Everytime you raise the minimum requirements to live, you raise the minimum prices for essential goods and services. On top of this, when you raise the minimum wage, you make it more expensive for individual families who make above the minimum wage. Those who make more than the minimum wage are being paid at a market price, that is, what the market deems necessary for your work (this is determined through normal supply and demand, the supply of laborers vs. the demand of laborers). Because of this, they don’t get raises when minimum wage increases; therefore they endure the increase in essential goods and services. The largest determinant of wage increases and living standards in the United States is productivity. We became incredibly productive in what we do, therefore our wages rose. Minimum wage is not that reason.
The one exception to all of this is environmental and safety standards regulation. Although I don’t believe in government mandated recycling programs (like my good city Seattle has) or government mandated emissions caps, I do believe in endangered species protection and the national park service. I think that, for the most part, consumers are disconnected with the fact that many of our forests and natural areas are being over-exploited, and as co-habitants of these areas, it’s our responsibility to preserve them for other denizens. However, I also believe that it is possible to extract resources from these areas with minimal impact. It is for that reason that I agree with off-shore drilling. I don’t believe in drilling in ANWR, but not because of the environmental impact but for the economical one. However, I also believe it should be a decision left to consumers and businesses, not the government. As far as health safety standards, I believe in regulating water safety, however for the most part I believe that the FDA is extremely outdated and inefficient, and that the market can do a better job of regulating our food and drugs, especially in this day and age of high research and dissemination of information.
I believe in family. Even though I myself was orphaned at a young age, I think that family is the most important aspect of human social life. I believe it’s what drives many Americans to do well in life. I also believe that government has no business in the affairs of a family, and that there is no right way to conduct familial business (although there is certainly a wrong way).
Education is the responsibility of the parent. I don’t disagree with public schooling, because it is important that American children receive an education, however I believe that public schooling should be unbiased in nature without political agenda. I believe that should a parent not wish their child to take part in the public schooling system, that is their right and they should be able to allocate that childs education money the government provides to whatever other educational institution that parent wishes, including home schooling. Higher education should also be the responsibility of the parent. I believe that private corporations and charities could fill in the role of helping financially troubled families from putting students through school. Again, the exception to this is orphaned children who have the potential for higher education, in which the government should help through school as they obviously have no resources of their own when they come of age (maybe this is because I was orphaned and the government does help me through school… although I still have personal responsibility in the loans I’ve had to take out).
We should not stick our noses into everyone elses business. Yes, as a nation we should strive for diplomacy and friendly relationships with other countries, but we don’t need to be the world police department. If others ask for our help and it’s in America’s best interests to help, then yes, that’s one thing. But pre-emptive invasions are a totally different story. Our responsibility to the world as the lone superpower is to provide leadership and advice to those who seek it.
I believe the government should respect privacy and discourage torture. It is one thing to defend the nation against foreign threats. However, invading the privacy of our own citizens and torturing others for discredible information is not only wrong, but ineffective. It’s not that I, as a citizen, have anything to hide. It’s the idea that the government should not have so much power as to be able to spy on me and know what I had for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Now I will attempt to define the role I believe government SHOULD have in our lives.
In the simplest of terms, it is governments responsibility to protect the people from foreign and domestic influences, to provide basic economic infrastructure to stimulate growth, and represent the American people beyond our borders. It is the governments responsibility to settle disputes between parties through a fair written code, again adhering to the protection of privacy and property. Last but not least, it is the governments responsibility to respect individuals private and property rights in the context of a 21st century economy. All of these responsibilities are clearly outlined within the U.S. Constitution and as such is the basis for which America must conduct politics.
The government should create basic infrastructure so as to encourage and stimulate economic activity (building roads, maintaining working water pipes, sanitation systems, and drainage, and creating standards for other stimulants to the economy (such as the standardization of railway gauges in the United States). It’s this argument that I’m beginning to warm up to net neutrality… however I have a lot of issues as it is currently being proposed now). The government should print money. I believe that the market should determine the value of the dollar, not the Fed (as it stands, the Fed can increase/decrease the supply of U.S. dollars in the market which affects the value of it). I believe it is the governments responsibility to maintain a modern and powerful standing army to protect the U.S. from foreign influences both domestic and abroad (note: Defense, not invade). I also believe it is the governments responsibility to provide law enforcement and emergency services to promote law and order. The federal government should encourage states rights and allow states more freedom in their criminal justice systems, economic development, education, and other issues, so long as they are not unconstitutional. The federal government should encourage free trade amongst the world as comparative advantage benefits more people than it harms. Perhaps most importantly, the government should act within the confines the United States Constitution grants it. This is what most people call a “strict constructionalist” of the constitution.
As such, I don’t believe that judges should legislate from the bench and instead provide the most unbiased interpretation of legal code. An example of this is the California Supreme Court decision to make it illegal to discriminate same-sex couples for marriage. Although I agree with gay marriage, I believe that the California State Supreme Court acted unlawfully as they made a decision that had no provisions whatsoever in their constitution(I say this loosely of course because I don’t know California Constitutional Law, but everything I’ve read on the case seems to suggest this.) Instead, it should have been legislated by the California legislator (like it originally was, although Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it… however he would be out of office shortly). As such, I also oppose any amendment to the constituion defining marriage. I can’t see how ANYONE considering themselves a conservative could support this as this is perhaps the MOST unconservative thing anyone can do. It is basically creating another avenue for which government can have more control into the private lives of American citizens.
Of course, in the end there are exceptions to some of these and I acknowledge those. I don’t believe it is black and white, and should be a case by case basis. However, as a general overall viewpoint on government, this is a pretty accurate description of how I view politics. As for who I’m voting for in 2008, I am voting for Barack Obama. I don’t agree with his economic policies nor do I agree with his ideas of expanding government power, but I do believe that he will restore a lot of the rights and liberties that have been robbed of us by the current neo-conservative government. I also believe he will do much more for us in terms of foreign policy than the current administration. As for McCain, I also don’t agree with his economic policies, nor do I agree with his foreign ones. The neo-conservative government has done nothing but to expand the role of government within our lives, and McCain is no different.
