Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Common Ground for Conservatives
The Intercollegiate Review recently republished Frank S. Meyer's "What All Conservatives Can Agree On". This is from an analysis of the 1964 book What Is Conservatism? which is a collection of essays by Conservative thinkers and which Meyer edited.
He lists the following, though he goes into much more detail in the article:
1. An objective moral order
2. The human person as the center of political and social thought
3. A distaste for the use of state power to enforce ideological patterns upon human beings
4. A rejection of social engineering, or the "planned" society
5. The spirit of the Constitution of the United States as originally conceived, especially the division of powers between state and federal governments and between the three branches of the federal government
6. A devotion to Western civilization and an awareness of the need to defend it
Meyer claims the differences within Conservatism are primarily matters of emphasis. This does seem a good summary to me. Any thoughts?
He lists the following, though he goes into much more detail in the article:
1. An objective moral order
2. The human person as the center of political and social thought
3. A distaste for the use of state power to enforce ideological patterns upon human beings
4. A rejection of social engineering, or the "planned" society
5. The spirit of the Constitution of the United States as originally conceived, especially the division of powers between state and federal governments and between the three branches of the federal government
6. A devotion to Western civilization and an awareness of the need to defend it
Meyer claims the differences within Conservatism are primarily matters of emphasis. This does seem a good summary to me. Any thoughts?
GEORGE WILL, ENEMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
GEORGE WILL, ENEMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
George Will has written an article decrying the bureaucratic abuses of government officials in Pinal County, AZ. It appears that grasping county supervisors want to fine the owner of a Western themed steakhouse and saloon $5,000 every day that anyone dances in the saloon’s outside dance area. Apparently there is a statute that requires dancing to be done in an enclosed structure.
The aforementioned fine, as well as other nitpicking harassments from the county supervisors, has drawn Mr. Will’s ire. I agree with Mr. Will that the government officials in question appear to have acted in a harassing manner. I will even go so far as say that in this case the law is an ass. However, I can’t go along with Mr. Will in his broad indictment of local government and promotion of judicial activism. Since Ed Whelan over at National Review online has adequately addressed Mr. Will’s comments on judicial activism I will address his indictment of local government.
Mr. Will states that “governments closest to the people are — never mind what sentimentalists say — often the worst. This is because elected tyrants can most easily become entrenched where rival factions are few.” Whereas there is some truth in these statements they are only half truths and, therefore, not complete. The other side of the argument is that governments closest to the people are, due to their proximity, easier to petition than governments situated in distant capitals. It is also easier to participate in such governments. If the local politicians are tyrants then it is easier to leave and relocate because such jurisdictions are local and smaller in size.
As a conservative I understand that, human nature being what it is, man cannot create a perfect system of government. There is always be grasping politicians that seek to abuse their power for all sorts of illegitimate reasons. Since we can’t create heaven on earth we must be guided by sound principles that will help us make the best arrangement possible. One of those principles is that political power should be situated as close as possible to the people upon which it will be exercised. Under such an arrangement it is, as stated above, easier to petition and participate in government affairs. Furthermore, it is easier to escape the tyrants of small local governments than it is to escape tyrants at the state or national levels. Relocating to another county is far easier than relocating to another state, let alone another country.
By separating and diffusing power between the local, state, and national government you prevent the centralization of power. It is precisely the centralization of power at the larger ends of the jurisdictional spectrum (state and national) that creates the greatest risk of abuse by the sort of petty bureaucrats Mr. Will describes.
It is true that local governments are just as able to produce bureaucratic bullies as the national government. However, there is nothing magical that occurs to politicians when they achieve federal office that makes them more high minded or more concerned about individual citizens. To the contrary, the further a politician is removed from his constituents and the larger his jurisdiction the less inclined he or she is concerned with the mundane everyday issues of individual citizens. Whereas the Washington based Senator or Representative may only make infrequent visits back to his home state or district the local politician is just as likely to be your neighbor or someone you see at the store. Consequently, if I have to deal with a politician I would rather deal with one that might have to face me at my kid’s little league games. Hat tip to Southern Appeal.
George Will has written an article decrying the bureaucratic abuses of government officials in Pinal County, AZ. It appears that grasping county supervisors want to fine the owner of a Western themed steakhouse and saloon $5,000 every day that anyone dances in the saloon’s outside dance area. Apparently there is a statute that requires dancing to be done in an enclosed structure.
The aforementioned fine, as well as other nitpicking harassments from the county supervisors, has drawn Mr. Will’s ire. I agree with Mr. Will that the government officials in question appear to have acted in a harassing manner. I will even go so far as say that in this case the law is an ass. However, I can’t go along with Mr. Will in his broad indictment of local government and promotion of judicial activism. Since Ed Whelan over at National Review online has adequately addressed Mr. Will’s comments on judicial activism I will address his indictment of local government.
Mr. Will states that “governments closest to the people are — never mind what sentimentalists say — often the worst. This is because elected tyrants can most easily become entrenched where rival factions are few.” Whereas there is some truth in these statements they are only half truths and, therefore, not complete. The other side of the argument is that governments closest to the people are, due to their proximity, easier to petition than governments situated in distant capitals. It is also easier to participate in such governments. If the local politicians are tyrants then it is easier to leave and relocate because such jurisdictions are local and smaller in size.
As a conservative I understand that, human nature being what it is, man cannot create a perfect system of government. There is always be grasping politicians that seek to abuse their power for all sorts of illegitimate reasons. Since we can’t create heaven on earth we must be guided by sound principles that will help us make the best arrangement possible. One of those principles is that political power should be situated as close as possible to the people upon which it will be exercised. Under such an arrangement it is, as stated above, easier to petition and participate in government affairs. Furthermore, it is easier to escape the tyrants of small local governments than it is to escape tyrants at the state or national levels. Relocating to another county is far easier than relocating to another state, let alone another country.
By separating and diffusing power between the local, state, and national government you prevent the centralization of power. It is precisely the centralization of power at the larger ends of the jurisdictional spectrum (state and national) that creates the greatest risk of abuse by the sort of petty bureaucrats Mr. Will describes.
It is true that local governments are just as able to produce bureaucratic bullies as the national government. However, there is nothing magical that occurs to politicians when they achieve federal office that makes them more high minded or more concerned about individual citizens. To the contrary, the further a politician is removed from his constituents and the larger his jurisdiction the less inclined he or she is concerned with the mundane everyday issues of individual citizens. Whereas the Washington based Senator or Representative may only make infrequent visits back to his home state or district the local politician is just as likely to be your neighbor or someone you see at the store. Consequently, if I have to deal with a politician I would rather deal with one that might have to face me at my kid’s little league games. Hat tip to Southern Appeal.
THE MORALITY OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
THE MORALITY OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
Brad Lips & Carrie Lukas have written a very serious article about the morality of government aid. You can read it here. This is an issue that our country needs to discuss seriously. Increasingly, the popular attitude concerning government aid is an unquestioning assumption that, as President Bush said, “When people hurt, government must move.” Our country needs a serious discussion about this assumption and conservatives must lead that discussion before the law of unintended consequences lead us down The Road to Serfdom.
Brad Lips & Carrie Lukas have written a very serious article about the morality of government aid. You can read it here. This is an issue that our country needs to discuss seriously. Increasingly, the popular attitude concerning government aid is an unquestioning assumption that, as President Bush said, “When people hurt, government must move.” Our country needs a serious discussion about this assumption and conservatives must lead that discussion before the law of unintended consequences lead us down The Road to Serfdom.
SANS CONSERVATISM!
SANS CONSERVATISM!
The last Republican candidate’s debate took place at the Reagan Library last night. For those of you with better things to do than follow these things let me summarize last night’s performance by the candidates: PATHETIC!
I have lost any shred of patience that I may have had with these ridiculous so called “debates.” To begin with I am sick and tired of these candidates carrying on about who is the most conservative or most like Reagan. Allow me to resolve this issue. NEITHER MCCAIN NOR ROMNEY IS CONSERVATIVE AND THEY BEAR NO RESEMBLANCE TO REAGAN!!!!!!!!!
Let me be very clear, American conservatism has historically been defined by its commitment to preserving the limited role of the federal government established in the Constitution. Part and parcel of this commitment to limited government has been an insistence on both a proper balance between state and federal power as well as a respect for the separation of powers between the different government branches. Limited government has been the first principal of American conservative thought from the beginning. Consequently, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Ronald Reagan constantly emphasized his commitment to limited government and state’s rights throughout his political career. However, neither McCain nor Romney ever mentions limited government and you can find no reference to this first principle of conservatism on either of their web pages.
To be sure, these two candidates will go on an on about lower taxes and reduced spending. While lower taxes and debt reduction are a good start they represent nothing more than temporary relief from the symptoms endemic to the metastasizing cancer of bloated government. Taxes and debt can, and almost certainly will, be raised by subsequent administrations as the size and scope of government increases. Look not to promises of lower taxes and debt reduction to provide a lasting defense to government intrusion. Those so called champions will ultimately fail.
Between Romney and McCain it is probably McCain that is most clueless on the issue of limited government. I say clueless because if he truly understands the implications of his campaign finance reform crusade to get money and influence out of politics he is intentionally flirting with fascism. Does that sound a little strong? Look at it this way: a cursory glance at the encyclopedic size of our tax code, let alone the ever-growing volumes of other federal regulations, provides a startling look at the way the federal government touches almost every aspect of our daily lives. This should come as no surprise since the government uses tax policy for social engineering purposes to affect desired outcomes. Consequently, groups of citizens from every walk of life regularly come together to petition government in order to protect themselves or benefit from this growing government intrusion. These groups of citizens are what McCain derisively refers to as “special interests” and whose voice he wants to muffle. However, these “special interests” include everyone from artists to zoologists.
Everyone has an interest that needs protection or influence from government that is special to them. There are no “special interests,” there are just interests. Since the government created this situation by extending its tentacles into every nook and cranny of our national life you can’t blame these groups or their lobbyists for trying to influence the outcome to their benefit. Nevertheless, this me-first power scramble and the influence peddling that results is hardly a positive development. However, the way to deal with this problem is not to clamp down on the citizen’s right to make his voice heard but rather to restrain the government intrusions that make such lobbying necessary in the first place. If the federal government did less then fewer people would waste time and money lobbying it. What McCain’s campaign finance law seeks to do is restrict the citizen’s ability to make his/her voice heard on these matters while doing nothing to restrain government reach and power. Consequently, power is dramatically shifted to the government (and incumbent politicians) at the expense of the citizenry. Political Schemes that strengthen the power of the government and weaken the 1st Amendment rights of citizens is anything but conservative.
I want to like McCain. I admire his heroic service as well as the courageous position he took in supporting the surge when so many weak-kneed Republicans were more interested in seeking political cover. However, I can’t help but be turned off when he advocates restricting speech without saying one word about shrinking government power and influence. The remarkably deaf ear that he turned to the public outcry against his illegal immigrant amnesty plan only deepens my concern regarding his demeaning attitude towards citizen speech.
I miss Fred Thompson!!!
The last Republican candidate’s debate took place at the Reagan Library last night. For those of you with better things to do than follow these things let me summarize last night’s performance by the candidates: PATHETIC!
I have lost any shred of patience that I may have had with these ridiculous so called “debates.” To begin with I am sick and tired of these candidates carrying on about who is the most conservative or most like Reagan. Allow me to resolve this issue. NEITHER MCCAIN NOR ROMNEY IS CONSERVATIVE AND THEY BEAR NO RESEMBLANCE TO REAGAN!!!!!!!!!
Let me be very clear, American conservatism has historically been defined by its commitment to preserving the limited role of the federal government established in the Constitution. Part and parcel of this commitment to limited government has been an insistence on both a proper balance between state and federal power as well as a respect for the separation of powers between the different government branches. Limited government has been the first principal of American conservative thought from the beginning. Consequently, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Ronald Reagan constantly emphasized his commitment to limited government and state’s rights throughout his political career. However, neither McCain nor Romney ever mentions limited government and you can find no reference to this first principle of conservatism on either of their web pages.
To be sure, these two candidates will go on an on about lower taxes and reduced spending. While lower taxes and debt reduction are a good start they represent nothing more than temporary relief from the symptoms endemic to the metastasizing cancer of bloated government. Taxes and debt can, and almost certainly will, be raised by subsequent administrations as the size and scope of government increases. Look not to promises of lower taxes and debt reduction to provide a lasting defense to government intrusion. Those so called champions will ultimately fail.
Between Romney and McCain it is probably McCain that is most clueless on the issue of limited government. I say clueless because if he truly understands the implications of his campaign finance reform crusade to get money and influence out of politics he is intentionally flirting with fascism. Does that sound a little strong? Look at it this way: a cursory glance at the encyclopedic size of our tax code, let alone the ever-growing volumes of other federal regulations, provides a startling look at the way the federal government touches almost every aspect of our daily lives. This should come as no surprise since the government uses tax policy for social engineering purposes to affect desired outcomes. Consequently, groups of citizens from every walk of life regularly come together to petition government in order to protect themselves or benefit from this growing government intrusion. These groups of citizens are what McCain derisively refers to as “special interests” and whose voice he wants to muffle. However, these “special interests” include everyone from artists to zoologists.
Everyone has an interest that needs protection or influence from government that is special to them. There are no “special interests,” there are just interests. Since the government created this situation by extending its tentacles into every nook and cranny of our national life you can’t blame these groups or their lobbyists for trying to influence the outcome to their benefit. Nevertheless, this me-first power scramble and the influence peddling that results is hardly a positive development. However, the way to deal with this problem is not to clamp down on the citizen’s right to make his voice heard but rather to restrain the government intrusions that make such lobbying necessary in the first place. If the federal government did less then fewer people would waste time and money lobbying it. What McCain’s campaign finance law seeks to do is restrict the citizen’s ability to make his/her voice heard on these matters while doing nothing to restrain government reach and power. Consequently, power is dramatically shifted to the government (and incumbent politicians) at the expense of the citizenry. Political Schemes that strengthen the power of the government and weaken the 1st Amendment rights of citizens is anything but conservative.
I want to like McCain. I admire his heroic service as well as the courageous position he took in supporting the surge when so many weak-kneed Republicans were more interested in seeking political cover. However, I can’t help but be turned off when he advocates restricting speech without saying one word about shrinking government power and influence. The remarkably deaf ear that he turned to the public outcry against his illegal immigrant amnesty plan only deepens my concern regarding his demeaning attitude towards citizen speech.
I miss Fred Thompson!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)