What is it that divides us?
Much of the liberal/conservative split has as its origin the question of the size and scope of the welfare state. Conservatives are often portrayed as being hard-hearted, unsympathetic and uncharitable. We know that is not the case but it seems to stick because we oppose a welfare state that is clearly out of control. Or is it because we oppose the misuse of funds in support of questionable goals? Or because we oppose spending that enables immoral behavior (remember Sandra Fluke)? Or that we are more rational, realistic (and less emotional) about these topics? Or that we stand on principle, not political pandering and opportunism?
In a follow-up post on his blog (cited in my previous post) Rabbi Pruzansky points out that true charity is a voluntary act, not one to be forced by government. I would add to that idea that government should have no right to pass on our tax dollars to organizations that perform immoral acts (Planned Parenthood), distribute to organizations that don't need it (Big Bird), benefits political friends (Acorn etc.) or is just plain wasted (adding to an unsustainable debt).
Another critical issue that divides us is abortion. Conservatives who are pro-life believe that abortion is immoral, an intrinsic evil that should be opposed. Liberals as well as secularists say conservatives want to deny a woman's "right/freedom" to choose. The charge is perplexing. The very same liberals and secularists have little hesitation in supporting the imposition of health care mandates on religious institutions contrary to the Constitution's clear guarantees of religious freedom.
It is generally agreed, at least among conservatives, that the country's divisions have a strong moral dimension and a constitutional one as well. We have discussed the constitutional issues in prior posts but to summarize I will only say that the federal government, as it currently exists, is a danger to our fundamental freedoms. It is too big, too intrusive and unmanageable with no clear lines of responsibility. If we continue on this path, we not only will be less free, we will also be economically diminished and a second rate international power.
Frankly, I thought that economic considerations coupled with the fact that it was the "right" thing to do would win the day for Romney. The fact that it didn't is partially explained by a bad economy and the existence of a bloated government which fosters a dependency on welfare (folks in fact do want "stuff" as Bill O'Reilly would say). Other factors include fear (Grandma over the cliff), demonizing Romney as a ruthless capitalist (with ties to those scoundrels on Wall St), the image of Republicans as being insensitive to the immigration problem (enforcing our borders and cries for no "amnesty") and the so called Republican "war on women".
Both sides had less total votes than the 2008 election. Romney didn't get as many Republican votes as McCain in 2008 (because he wasn't conservative enough?--talk of cutting off your nose to spite your face--ironic when you think about it). He also lost votes among Hispanics because of the strong Republican stance on border control. For many Hispanics that stance is directed at their family and friends. Once they heard it, they shut out anything else the Republicans/Romney had to say.
Obama' s decrease in total votes from 2008 can in large part be attributable to a decrease in the enthusiasm he previously generated. Whether it was due to the economy, or because Obama is now more familiar or just "buyers remorse" is an open question. It is also apparent that these votes did not go to Romney. Was it because he was "too conservative? Again, another irony. Or was it because he didn't "fire them up" even if we consider that this election had been described as crucial for the country's future? If this portion of the electorate thinks that there is a perfect candidate out there, they will continue to be disappointed.
My conclusion is that enough voters (and non-voters) were short-sighted and ill informed that the results favored Obama. I don't know if "dumb" is the correct description (as Rabbi Pruzansky puts it) but whatever the malady, it exists in abundance on both sides of the aisle.
As usual, your thoughts are right on Norm. This election saw a total disregard for the facts. Obama has a horrible record yet with the help of the media, was pretty much ignored. Dumb may not correctly describe the issue with the so-called intelligentsia. These other wise smart people are simply unable to separate their preferred ideological politician/party from the reality of results and/or how the "plan" will be initiated and funded. And of course, they simply cannot recognize, for example, the long term effects
ReplyDeleteseen from government dependent programs. We are becoming a Nation of fools.
Norm, while I enjoy reading this blog and gaining a greater understanding for how you, and those of similar politics think, it is difficult to read a post that questions the intelligence/morality of myself and many others I know and love, and to then proceed with a discussion. Most people I know would just write such ideas off as conservative craziness and not give it a second thought. I think that is counterproductive in this day and age. If I write you off as crazy and you write me off as crazy, we get nowhere. What you must know is that as many or more (judging by the popular vote and electoral college) people feel as passionately about these issues from the other side, and can't understand how those who oppose them come to their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI don't put myself in that category. I can see very clearly how you have come to these conclusions and feel the way you do. I may not agree with a majority of the views, but I continue to learn a lot about both history and policy.
What I fail to see though is any willingness to place any blame on the candidate/party itself. Writing off the electorate as uninformed, immoral, or lazy is going to leave the party in the same place for many years in the future, or far worse off.
From those who I talk to, they see they Republican party (or at least its current cast of characters) as disingenuous or hypocritical. They rally the socially conservative base through issues like abortion and gay marriage, but I would guess that most couldn't care less about those issues, or in many cases, are closeted homosexuals themselves. You also have congressmen taking anti-abortion stances while arranging abortions for their wife and mistress. No liberal wants any more abortions than their conservative counterparts. My ideal number is 0.
Then, you have a candidate who vowed to protect the pro-choice laws on the books in Massachusetts while running for governor, only to be forced into an aggressive pro-life stance while running for president. He also created a health care law almost identical to what is now called Obamacare, only to rail against it as Socialism and an unnecessary expansion of an already over-sized government.
You can choose to rally against people like Sandra Fluke, but all she did was ask for equality. Men can get Viagra covered by insurance, but women can't get birth control? Independent of the Blunt amendment, it is just good business for insurance companies and employers to cover something that keeps their employees working and keeps their costs down. My premium went up $2/month for this coming year, and it will save me $75/month. The reason that the Catholic vote was not as strong for Conservatives is that only a small portion of Catholics actually feel strongly about these issues. Some ridiculously high percentage use birth control themselves.
I appreciate your desire to see the ideals of the conservative moment carried out in government, but I don't see the rhetoric matching the results. You have Paul Ryan criticizing the stimulus while requesting funds for his district and Ronald Reagan raising taxes for all but the first year he was in office. Our effective tax rates are drastically lower than most other first-tier nations. Lower than they have been in a long time.
Small government and low taxes sounds great, until you have to actually make cuts reducing services. Also, from what I read, traditionally 'red' states take in more government benefits compared to what they pay in taxes compared to 'blue' states. So, if they want to secede, it may better the financial outlook for the nation.
I look forward to continuing this discussion of ideas and policies.