Change: What Type Lasts? What Doesn’t?

There is a conviction on the left that conservative are opposed to change. But that is a comforting liberal myth. To be sure, conservatives do believe that change as such is not necessarily “good.” It is merely an alteration of things or conditions as they were. In that sense, changes in governmental policy or social mores may be good or bad, wise or foolish. It depends.

For example, 20^th century Communist governments brought massive changes to societies upon which they were imposed. But Communist theory (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”) is contrary to human nature and could be sustained only by massive coercion. That change, obviously, was bad.

President Woodrow Wilson, 90 years ago, sought to make the world safe for democracy. In the 1960s, most European nations gave up their African colonies, supposedly leaving behind newly-formed democracies. And in the last decade, President Bush sought to birth a dawning of self-government in the Middle East.

The first two efforts were colossal failures. Europe saw the rise of fascism and Nazism. Africa saw, usually, “one man, one vote, one-time” (those elected considered that they had received a life-time appointment).

The final result on America’s efforts to bring liberal democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan are not in yet, of course. But signs of longevity are not abundant.

In retrospect those failed – or failing - efforts at political change seem more foolish than bad.

But good intentions cannot excuse an unwillingness to accept human nature.

As humans we prefer the known. We have adjusted to it. The consequences of change are not fully known and, thus, are unsettling. Traditions and old ways are comforting for that reason. There is security in acting in conformity with the way things are.

Of course, change can be for the best. But those pursuing it must recognize that resistance is truly natural.  To overcome such reluctance requires that people recognize the value of the change.  Culture is the key.

Take self-government. It is certainly an essential fabric of Western Society. This was, of course, not always the case. Remember that for much of the last thousand years, the “divine right of kings,” reinforced by the religious hierarchy, was the operative political philosophy. The change to liberal democracy evolved over the centuries. The culture changed.

Do the African and Arab worlds have the same history? No.

Is it foolish to expect values of self-government and respect for individual rights to be warmly received in those parts of the world? Yes.

Politicians ignore human nature at their - and our - peril.

Are Conservatives and Libertarians Opposed to Each Other?

Conservatives, to simplify the label, are primarily concerned with sustaining values such as family, belief in God and respect for authority which are believed to underpin a healthy society. 

Libertarians, on the other hand, focus on the primacy of the individual:   protect his right to be free of governmental restraint. 

In popular terminology, proponents of both political philosophies are on the Right.  And, in reality, proponents rarely hold exclusively one perspective but, rather, believe in a combination of the two.  (Ron Paul, for one, is a likely exception.)

Take me, for example.  While in college, I was a fervent libertarian.  My right to do what I wanted (but not harming anyone by so doing) was my guiding principle.  I was an individualist.

But, with age and maturity, I came to appreciate that man is very much a social animal.  Without society and its wise traditions and sanctioned virtues, he will not long survive.  This was hardly a unique realization on my part.  It was put more poetically by John Donne in the 17^th century who noted “that no man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main… Any man’s death diminishes me for I am involved with mankind”.

And so I came to recognize that preserving -- in modern day America, restoring -- a healthy society and culture is also a political objective.  We have responsibilities, too.

After all, what rights will survive if our free society collapses?

Memo to Conservatives: Stop Taking the Media Bait

The national media, seemingly in step with President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, has launched a blistering attack on conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for his comments about a young law school student who supports mandated contraceptive coverage.

Limbaugh used sexually vulgar terms to describe her.  Unfortunately, the effect of the language was to obscure the substance of his criticism.  His words were indeed offensive and have no place in public discourse.

But the statements were Limbaugh’s alone.  So why did Mitt Romney, New Gingrich and House Speaker John Boehner feel compelled to respond to media questions about them?  To comment suggests that the person has some responsibility for what someone else said.  That would be a reasonable inference in any organization where a leader might be asked  whether he endorses or denounces a controversial statement by a subordinate.

Note what didn’t happen last October, when leading liberal Democrat, and Minority Leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi castigated Republicans who opposed abortions funded by Obamacare.  She said they were going to vote “to say that women can die on the floor”. 

Wouldn’t it have been appropriate for the media to inquire of President Obama (by benefit of his office, head of his party) whether he would denounce her?

The national media did not ask, of course.  So why do conservatives feel compelled to answer such questions?

Whatever one thinks of Newt Gingrich, one can certainly applaud his willingness to challenge ideologically-motivated media queries.

We must learn to stop taking the bait – there’s always a hook in it.

Free Contraceptives for Unmarried College Girls are a Right

That’s a joke, isn’t it?  Certainly not to President Obama and his allies.

How else can one explain why Congressional Democrats invited a Washington, D.C. law student, a single woman, to testify in favor of Obamacare’s requirement that insurers be required to provide contraceptives at no cost?  Sandra Fluke, attending Georgetown Law Center (my alma mater, I must confess), stated that contraceptives should be free, essentially, so that she could engage in sexual activities.

Leave aside the moral and religious freedom concerns that some may have for mandated “pill” coverage.  When reliable contraceptives first became available fifty years ago, “family planning” was the primary selling point.  Not exactly coincidentally, its general availability coincided with the advent of the sexual revolution. 

Plainly, certain influential and powerful interests in America now believe (as a matter of health!), along with Sandra Fluke, that a person should be able to pursue sexual pleasure without fear of biological consequences or financial cost.  Huh?

Ok, if pleasure is an insurable goal, why stop at sex?  Bungee jumping, perhaps?  Or how about binge drinking?  Risk taking among the young is common on and off college campuses.  Why not have society, through our mandated Obamacare health insurance, pay for it all?

Absurdity to some is sound policy to others.  Just ask a liberal you know.