What is Conservatism?

Conservatism emphasizes the importance of values which sustain society: religion, authority, family, industriousness, responsibility, and respect for tradition, for instance. Without adherence to them, history shows us, society deteriorates and eventually disintegrates.
Given the objective of a healthy and prosperous society, conservatism’s aim is to recognize and support those characteristics, attitudes, and values which serve that end and oppose those that don’t.

Why are these traits essential to a healthy society? Conservatives know that the answer is rooted in human nature.

Human nature doesn’t change. Envy, pride, and the urge to dominate, for instance, were as much a constant of the nature of the Greeks as they are in people today. And so the lessons of the past bearing on the human condition should be heeded.

History is a laboratory of human experience. What policies contribute to human liberty within the context of a healthy society, for instance? We know that the free enterprise economic system is far superior to alternatives. Why? Adam Smith (“Wealth of Nations”) observed that people are driven by self-interest (another trait of human nature). When that selfish inclination is allowed to work its will in a free economy, prosperity ensues. The businessman seeks profit by providing good and services that others want.  He does so in search of profit.  But both sides benefit.

Another lesson:  why are conservatives such big boosters of two parent families?  Consider the example of children of un-wed mothers. Statistically, they fare markedly less-well than those raised in traditional families (think poverty, crime and unemployment).  That remains true even when comparing sets from the same socio-economic background. Thus, the fact that un-wed motherhood has increased from 5% in 1960 to 40% today is a cause for grave societal concern.

We know, historically, that marriage is a social glue.  Laws, therefore, should make it difficult to dissolve. Private property is essential to a free and prosperous society. It should be protected. The list of appropriate areas of governmental influence in promoting a healthy society goes on, of course.

Society survives and prospers when its culture and government support the strengths and weakness of people as reflected in human nature. Social authority as represented in the culture and in the government has the obligation to aid the former and discourage the latter.

In contrast, leftists throughout history have believed that man can be bent to the will of a social vision.  People should not be greedy or selfish.  Wealth should be distributed “fairly”.  Violence should not exist.  People should only eat what’s good for them… and so forth.  Admirable utopian dreams, all.  

Conservatives, however, realize that it is pointless to argue that man should have drives and inclinations he does not have. Successful societies are built on recognizing human nature. To ignore it results in failure (European Socialism); to attempt to change it leads to tyranny (Communist Russia).

In its essence, conservatism stands for realism. Experience is the best teacher - untested theory is the worst.  Those who are not realists, those who refuse to accept human nature as it is, no matter how good their intentions may be, for that reason alone, are foes of mankind. Excessive taxation deters the entrepreneurs who create jobs.  Expansion of welfare weakens industriousness.  Removal of religion from the public area undercuts a moral societal pillar. 

In reality, the policies of the left are unhealthy for mankind no matter what the intention may be.   

 

What Does Birth Control Have To Do With Health?

Health means well-being.  Measures and procedures aimed at combatting illness, disease or destructive human conditions (obesity, for instance) are all health-related activities. 
The Administration evidently wants to expand that definition by including in its Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) efforts to combat pregnancy as well by requiring employers (with limited religious exceptions) to provide insurance coverage for a variety of birth control activities.

Is it cynical to respond that the White House thinks it has the opportunity to implement an additional element of its social policy dear to the left, Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice) forces?  (Abortion is also made available in the form of the “morning after” pill.)

Americans may dispute how to make genuine health care available to all our people but no one denies the desirability of the objective.

Plainly, the same cannot be said of birth control.  (The Catholic Church hierarchy is certainly not its only foe.)  We disagree among ourselves.  To use or not to use is indeed a right widely recognized.  But if I am in opposition why should I be forced, as an employer, to fund your choice?

So often in modern America, what starts as a right to do something morphs into someone else’s obligation to pay for it. 

How is it that certain segments of our society (liberals all?) have forgotten that America has historically stood for the proposition that liberty means the right to seek… not an entitlement to receive?

What is Libertarianism?

Ron Paul comes to mind.  He preaches that the paramount political virtue is individual liberty displayed as individual choice.  Society has no business dictating those choices whether in the areas of speech, sexual conduct, the use of intoxicants or business activities.  Freedom means absence of any restraint on activities which do not harm others.  Individual rights are what matter.

Man has the right to what is his.  Thus, the power of government to take from him (taxation) is strongly resisted.  People should be able to use their assets (“property”) as they alone -- not others who exercise their will through government’s power to confiscate -- wish.

Libertarians are not anarchists.  They appreciate that government is essential to provide “law and order” to protect the individual’s rights from those who would take them away.  [Thieves and would-be slave masters, for example.]  But they insist that governmental authority be tightly constrained.  Thus, in the American context, libertarians are strict constitutionalists.  The U.S. Constitution, in combination with the Bill of Rights, is a charter of carefully prescribed – and limited – government.  If it’s not in it, it can’t be done.

Accordingly, libertarians oppose U.S. involvement in foreign lands such as Iraq and Afghanistan.  [Ron Paul’s claim that the 9/11 attack on America is a product of our meddling is a peculiar view of his, not libertarianism.] The Constitution’s preamble about providing for “the common defense” is interpreted as authorizing military action only to protect our land from direct attacks.

Libertarianism has always a been a strong strain in American culture, from the Republic’s founders’ appreciation of John Locke and John Stuart Mill, to the early settlers quest to head for the western frontier in search not only of opportunity but space to be left alone. 

Is It Okay to Cut Military Spending?

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has proposed a military budget for next year which is one percent lower than that for 2012. 

Included in the cuts are manpower strength, airplanes and ships.  Spending for drones and submarines, however, will increase.

On its face, such modest changes are not a cause for concern, much less alarm. After all, a stand-down in personnel would seem appropriate considering the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Yet there is cause for worry in what these reductions may portend.

According to Administration projections, defense spending over the next ten years will decline to 2.7% of gross domestic product (a level last reached on the eve of World War II when the military was plainly not ready for what was to come).

In principle, there is certainly nothing wrong with a leaner, more efficient fighting force. That prospect is a strong selling point for the proposed budget. Of course, there is bloated, wasteful spending by the Pentagon. That is true in every governmental entity where the money being spent belongs to the taxpayers, not those spending it. If the money is not yours, there is little incentive to be economical in its expenditure.

Are non-defense agency budgets and so-called entitlement spending programs going to experience this same scrutiny? When one considers the constituencies of President Obama and the Democratic Party, not likely. And therein lies the danger for the future.

The role of the Federal government as set for in the preamble to the U.S. constitution is to

“Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity”.

In one sense, defense is only one of five objectives. But isn’t it really “first among equals”?

If adequate provisions are not made for our defense -- and we are successfully attacked and conquered as a result -- the other achievements will disappear.

There is another aspect to the military budget which is essentially unique.  There needs to be some excess capacity built-in so that we can respond quickly to national security threats.  Think of 9/11.  “Lean” does not necessarily equate with “mean”.

The idea, however, that defense needs should be the federal government’s top priority is a concept which is either uncomprehended or denied by the Administration and liberals in Congress.

Do you remember that Democrats in Washington last fall insisted that there be mandated cuts of $6 billion in military spending if the budget deal failed?  Their “concession” was that such cuts would be matched by $6 billion worth of reductions of all other programs combined.    

Is spending by the Department of Transportation, for instance, really as important as Pentagon outlays?

Welcome to Alice’s Wonderland… would that this account were only a fairy tale.