Saturday, October 29, 2005

Why A Conservative (Part 2)

Why does the conservative movement work? Why, after years and years of socialism, indoctrination, and the fear of change, did the conservative movement overcome all odds to become the mainstream of the United States? Why did it usurp an ideal known as liberalism that was so well in place that many had given up on the ability of it to be removed?

The conservative movement has taken the lead in the United States for one reason. That reason can be simplified down to a single word that has resonated with the heart and mind of not only the United States, but of every single human being on the planet to one degree or another. The word is individual.

As humans, we want to be different from others, though many times we try the exact opposite. We want to be unique, ourselves, to be known and to be recognizable. Though you may argue this, all it takes is to look inside yourself and ask what you would rather be – a person or a number.

The conservative movement is based on the ideal that the individual knows how best to direct his or her life. This ideal is the basis for capitalism, conservatism, and America. The idea that the individual should have control over his or her life is one of the safest ideas that man has ever invented.

The idea of the individual enforces limited government. This is obvious to the honest observer. If the individual has significant authority over his or her life, then the government has no right to intrude when it is unnecessary. Conservatism, therefore, is the natural defender of human rights since it is based on the individual.

If individuals have control over their lives, that means they have control over their accomplishments. It is only right, therefore, for people to have the opportunity to make something of themselves, to improve themselves, and to better their lives for themselves, their families, and generations to come. Of course, this directly results in unequal outcome for everyone. Those who work hard are rewarded; those who do nothing to improve their position receive nothing.

Perhaps the most obvious reason, however, that conservatism is triumphing over liberalism is the fact that the two ideologies coexist in the world.

While conservatism cares for the individual and allows freedom to pursue what the individual believes is right, liberalism refuses this right. Liberalism believes that the government, not the individual, has the final authority over the decisions of the individual. Of course, this is not a surprise, because liberalism believes people are too foolish and uninformed to make the important decisions, so the government and the elites should “instruct” the masses on how to function in life.

Of course, this is why liberals distain the idea of conservatism – they can’t handle the thought of people being able to better themselves. Instead, they dream of a world where the government calls all the shots, and no one is better off than anyone else. In communist/socialist societies, it is the goal of the government elites to have everyone end up equal. Of course, it is difficult to make everyone rich (any economist will tell you it is impossible for reasons I am very aware of but will not discuss here). Therefore, instead of distributing the wealth, liberals distribute misery and poverty.

If you don’t believe me, just look at liberal countries such as the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China (although to some degree China is allowing conservative principles to enter the country, though whether or not it will last remains to be seen), France, Germany, and most of the other European countries (it is a fact that Europe is far below the U.S. in standard of living, happiness, and the ability to get a job).

That is why the conservative movement works. Conservatism believes in the individual rather than the masses, freedom rather than restriction, rewarded effort rather than mediocre equality. Is it any wonder conservatism is winning in the arena of ideas?

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Why A Conservative

Today folks I would like to discuss the topic of conservatism. I have been asked on several occasions why I am a conservative. I would like to address this topic by way of explaining my own personal beliefs. It seems as though all bloggers do a post like this at one point or another; therefore, I believe it is time for me to do the same.

I am a fiscal conservative first, a social conservative second. I would first like to define why I am a fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatism is the belief that budgets should be maintained, and that money should not be wasted. In the context of the government, a fiscal conservative is one who believes in following the budget set for the government. In addition, a fiscal conservative tends to believe in taking the least amount of money away from hard-working Americans as possible, and that government spending should be directed in the most efficient way.

Fiscal conservatism requires several basic beliefs in order to work. Fiscal conservatism by its nature does not strive for a bloated government. This is obvious because fiscal conservatives do not want to steal money from the hard-working public to fund a bloated and inefficient government.

This is tied to the capitalistic ideal that the public, not the government, knows how best to spend their hard-earned money. A small government and public trust then are the two largest pillars in the mind of a fiscal conservative.

I am a die-hard fiscal conservative. To me, there is nothing more important in government than keeping politicians away from our freedoms. We must limit their ability to restrict our freedoms. The easiest way to do that is to keep the government out of institutions that it does not belong in for the most part, such as the business realm, education, and health care. Therefore, it is only natural for me to be a fiscal conservative. Small government means small interference into the workings of the public arena.

Of course, there are others reasons for why I am a fiscal conservative. The government seems to think that it can shake the money tree of the economy endlessly in the form of taxes. This of course is simply not true, which can be obviously seen in the off-shoring phenomenon that we are experiencing (especially, may I add, in non-fiscal conservative states for the most part). The government, in many ways, is simply a leech on the economy; though many times it claims to be the one keeping the economy alive.

The second major conservative school of thought is the social conservative side. This side, while not nearly as powerful as the fiscal conservative school of thought, is nonetheless an influential ideal in the conservative movement.

Social conservatism is the idea that many of our past morals and traditions must be maintained in order for society to function. Many of these ideals are based off of Judeo-Christian values that were much more prevalent in the world at one time.

The largest of these tenants are the belief in the sanctity of life. This tends to be associated with abortion and euthanasia. The social conservative believes that life begins at conception. To most, however, it is not moral to terminate life unless that person is a threat to society.

Therefore to the social conservative, it is amoral to kill babies before they are born (and after they are born for that matter), the elderly, the disabled, etc. Life is valuable regardless of what circumstances you are in or where you may find yourself. While most social conservatives draw the line at the higher level wrongs such as rape and murder, some take it a step farther and believe it is wrong to kill anyone for any reason.

Though it has not been the in the public eye for a long period, another point of interest for social conservatives is gay marriage. To the social conservative, gay marriage is wrong because they believe it violates the institution of marriage. While the source for marriage is debated, most believe it to be from God (I will stay with Christianity/Judaism/Islam for this topic). Therefore, since God has called marriage to be between one man and one woman, gay marriage violates a core value of most social conservatives.

In addition, there are many other ideas that most social conservatives follow, however I will not get into those here because they are smaller issues that need not be discussed in this brief summary.

I am a social conservative, though not to a large degree. The sanctity of life is paramount to me. While I am undecided as to where life begins (I don’t know if it’s at conception or not), I believe it is not up to humans to decide if a defenseless human should be allowed to live or not. This therefore makes me pro-life, both in the sense of abortion and euthanasia. I believe it is wrong to kill babies, for they have no way to defend themselves, a luxury even our most hated and vile public enemies have. To me, death on demand is wrong. I do not believe humans have to right to take their own lives, thus I cannot be in favor or euthanasia in any form.

The death penalty is something I am in favor of because I believe there comes a point where someone must be put to death if they are harming other humans. While many liberals do not seem to understand why, I believe this goes under the category of the sanctity of life. If someone is taking a life for the wrong reasons, it is correct and necessary to stop that attack – the death penalty does a good job with this.

Since I brought it up, I will talk briefly about gay marriage. This issue is one of the few issues I break with the social conservatives. I am pro-gay marriage. I desire for it to be legalized nationally. I am not pro-gay marriage, however, for the typical reasons. While I am neutral as to whether or not the gay lifestyle is correct, I do believe that the idea of denying the right to marry is a dangerous precedent to set.

Simply put, if the government can deny the right to marriage, a right I believe it should not be allowed to grant of deny in the first place, what else could the government deny? Perhaps they will deny the right for Christians to marry, or Jews to marry (anti-Semitism is on the rise in the elite circles of liberalism). In the future, what else could the government deny? The right for certain people to own guns, the right for people to buy food without government issues identification devices?

I believe giving the government the right to deny some rights will begin a slide that will end with American’s losing all their rights. Therefore, though it goes against nearly all my social conservative friends, I am pro-gay marriage on the basis of protecting my future.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is (in addition to being an obscenely large article) a brief summary of what in general is a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. Of course many people are both fiscally and socially conservative, some are only fiscally conservative, some are only socially conservative, some are certain degrees of both. Many of you who are reading this might completely disagree with my take on the two points of view in the conservative movement (oh well). However, that is a brief summary of what I believe the two points of view are, and where I stand in general in the political spectrum.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

They're Coming Out!

September 21st was a day that liberals should have praised. A demographic that does not get much representation was able to express their views, to the dismay of the ruling class that has been oppressing them for years.

Unfortunately, this demographic is vehemently despised by the liberals, who claim to stand up for the rights of all (read liberal) people. This demographic is best known by the name conservative college students. The day was the first National Conservative Coming Out Day. And this event occurred on over 30 campuses, including Indiana State University, Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and Cornell University just to name a few.

Why should we have such a day on college campuses, the centers of tolerance and openness in the world? Because universities (for the most part) are not quite as tolerant as one might expect. In fact, universities are some of the most intolerant, closed-minded, dogmatic institutions in the world (seconded only by the liberal blogosphere in fact).

The president of the Indiana State College Republicans, Jonathan Moore, said "coming out" day was important because conservative students often feel outnumbered and intimidated (I wonder how such tolerant people like liberals could come across that way?). But don’t take my word for it (although you know should); just listen to what others had to say:

"National Conservative Coming Out Day was an excellent opportunity to show the Michigan State University campus that there are conservatives on campus and we are proud of who we are," said Justine Ivanoff.

"Many students are afraid to identify themselves as conservative on campus because the political environment is so hostile to conservative ideas," said national CLP director Steve Stockman in a press release. "Conservative students are often intimidated by the documented liberal bias of professors and administrators."

Odd isn’t it that we never hear from the media about how the views of conservative students in our universities are never heard, but we do hear about how hard it is for liberal students to get their views heard in the Republic of Boulder, Colorado (for those of you outside of the Republic of Boulder, that town is around 90% liberal).

And yet people claim there is no liberal biased media, that universities are centers of free speech, and the usual menu of liberal slogans.