Writing in The Politico, a Washington paper, Peter Berkowitz of George Mason University School of Law asks:
Is conservatism, as led by a tax-cutting, crime-fighting, socially liberal big-city blue-state mayor, about to remake itself by reclaiming the center of American politics? Or is it about to collapse from the combined force of its internal contradictions...?
That, of course, is one of the big question posed by the Giuliani campaign.
Berkowitz continues, providing some political theory context:
Modern conservatism derives above all from Edmund Burke, the great 18th-century Anglo-Irish orator and statesman. Burke was a lover of liberty and tradition who saw a great threat to liberty in the tradition-overthrowing forces unleashed by the French Revolution. He was solicitous of established ways but acutely aware that the preservation of liberty required "prudent innovation" in response to the constantly changing circumstances of political life....
[But] There is no settled recipe, and there are no fixed proportions, for determining the prudent innovations that balance liberty and tradition.
In a nutshell, then, the challenge is to increase liberty without falling prey to the left's siren call of "remaking society" by pursing utopian social engineering that leads, in fact, to nightmarish dystopias.
Berkowitz concludes: "The competition and conflict that is developing among the leading conservative candidates should prove invigorating, not only for conservatism in America but for the nation as a whole." We shall see if the Republican party is capable of supporting a conservatism that prudently expands the scope of individual liberty, or falls back on rigid defense of traditional social norms that exclude recognizing legal equality for gay people.
33 Comments for “Conservatism at the Cross Roads.”
posted by thom on
Today, at Townhall.com, I think I saw the answer to Mr. Miller’s question about the future of the Republican Party. Bruce Bartlett posted an article lamenting Ann Coulter’s recent “faggot” outburst. (He also attacked liberals for their outrageous conduct as well.)
In response, the vast majority of the commentators ripped him a new one. After several essentially said that there was nothing wrong with calling a spade a ?spade,? or in this case, a faggot a ?faggot,? a gay conservative attempted to reason with them. Suffice it to say that he made no headway with the commentators, who probably represent the “base” of the Republican Party, and so-called conservatives.
My hypothesis is this: the intellectual elite of ?conservatives? are not interested in attacking us; but the base of “conservatism” and the Republican Party, despise us, especially our attempts to “shove homosexuality in their faces,” such as by holding hands in public. Watching the fray in Townhall.com, I was reminded of a scene from “Gladiator,” in which a Roman Senator acknowledges the brilliance of the Emperor’s decision to bring back the gladiators, because “the beating heart of Rome is not the senate, but the mob.” After the last few years of Rove-driven politics, I fear that we have become the slaves meant for the lions in the arena, as far as the Republican base is concerned.
To me, that?s tragic, because there are conservatives and Republicans who have great ideas, but their need to pander to the base?s blood-lust for gay-bashing clouds their message for gays. Because I would like to be able to ?hear? the ideas of conservatives and Republicans, I can only hope that the Republican Party takes note of the latest polling data from the PEW Research Center, which shows that in response to years of Rove-Bush, Americans have become more tolerant of gays, and less Republican. Apparently, encouraging the mob to hate us, doesn?t help in the long term.
posted by Avee on
Yes, the social conservative GOP base is going to be the last bastion of homophobia. But party bases have and do change. Southern social conservatives were Democrats prior to the civil rights movement. The hope is that, in the 21st century, the many independent voters who are suspicious of big-govenrment boondogles can be brought into the GOP by someone like Giuliani, thus diminishing the sway of hardcore social conservatives. It’s by no means certain, but not impossible.
posted by Alex on
I’ve always felt that I could support a conservatism that reaches a balance between protecting individual liberty and promoting community responsibility.
Unfortunately, the modern conservative movment seems to be more interested in using scare tactics to motivate social conservatives. The commies are gone, so the fag’s take their place. A case of politics replacing principle.
Also, modern conservatism promotes the ideas that “greed is good” and “to the victor go the spoils, to the defeated go nothing.” Values I’m cannot support, as they operate against the best interest of a community.
posted by Brian Miller on
I never fail to be persistently amused by conservative schizophrenia. Here’s Mr. Guiliani’s prescription for “increasing liberty”:
We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
So in Guiliani’s mind, freedom isn’t doing what you want, and being whatever you want to be. Rather, it’s surrendering those decisions to Republicans, who sit in “lawful authority” and believe they have a right to arbitration over our individual liberties.
The quote from Guiliani is a long-standing one — and so is the pattern of the Republican party and the conservatives who seek its presidential nomination.
From Homeland Security, to oppressive anti-protest measures, to police brutality, to “secret wiretaps,” to illegal detentions, to anti-gay marriage laws, every single one of the declared Republican nominees has shown nothing but contempt for our Constitution and our individual liberties.
None of them deserve the time of day, let alone the support of thoughtful people concerned about individual freedom.
posted by Jordan on
Give me a break. 15 years ago it was “Is conservatism about to remake itself by reclaiming the radical right of American politics?”
As if the current set of democrats aren’t the most central to see the inside of the Capital for 12 years. The only way most of them got elected is because they’re centrists.
Howabout we stop talking about politics in these archaic labels? Republicans are “conservative” with their social values. But they can’t claim the “right” anymore. Democrats are “liberal” with their social values. But they can’t claim the “left” anymore. It’s all a bunch of word-games.
posted by The Gay Species on
Burke may be one among many different conservatives, but Maistre, Schmitt, Strauss, MacIntyre, Oakeshott, and Unger are conservatives, too. Conservatives esteem History, Traditions, and Institutions to preserve the status quo or impose some theocratic impulse. In the traditional sense, George W. Bush is among the most conservative presidents the U.S. has ever had.
The Founders, who established the first free, open, and democratic society were LIBERALS, the modern exponents of which are Hayek, Mises, Macedo, Lomasky, and Holmes. Liberty, freedom, equality, autonomy, free exchange, self-rule, democracy, tolerance, pluralism, reason, diffusion of power, are LIBERAL principles that hail from the Age of Enlightenment against the impulses of conservatives and rationalist social planners and utopian schemes.
If one likes Bush, one is a conservative. If one likes Reagan, Clinton, Eisenhower, FDR, Lincoln, then one is a liberal. If one likes Lenin, Stalin, Fabian, Mao, Pol-Pot, McGovern, Dukakis, one is a “progressive.” The Atwater demagoguery against liberals seems to have colored many against the very liberal principles enshrined in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Liberalism may have been eclipsed by conservatism and progressivism, but only to threatem liberty, freedom, equality, etc.
posted by Brian Miller on
Howabout we stop talking about politics in these archaic labels? Republicans are “conservative” with their social values. But they can’t claim the “right” anymore. Democrats are “liberal” with their social values. But they can’t claim the “left” anymore. It’s all a bunch of word-games.
I’m inclined to agree. Why don’t we judge both parties’ politicians on the basis of the results of their policies?
Then both fit neatly into the bucket entitled “failures.” 😉
posted by Alex on
I’m sure this has been posted here before…but it’s always wortha look.
The Political Compass The old one-dimensional categories of ‘right’ and ‘left’, are overly simplistic for today’s complex political landscape. For example, who are the ‘conservatives’ in today’s Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It’s not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can’t explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as ‘right-wingers’, yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook
A different way of thinking about the political “spectrum.” Up & down (economics) as well as left-right (gov’t authority).
posted by Bobby on
“So in Guiliani’s mind, freedom isn’t doing what you want, and being whatever you want to”
—And liberals do? They want to ban vending machines in schools, ban trans fats, ban fois gras (they already did in Chicago), ban smoking not only in public but in your own car, and in your own apartment.
In Germany, a court put a child in a foster home because she was being homeschooled and the german judge didn’t like that. And Germany is a big liberal big government country.
So if I have to choose between conservative homophobia and liberal idioticy, I’ll take the homophobia. At least I’ll have more freedom.
posted by Jordan on
“So if I have to choose between conservative homophobia and liberal idioticy, I’ll take the homophobia. At least I’ll have more freedom.”
Yes — that is until someone beats the shit out of you with a pipe while calling you a faggot, and the government can’t add hate crime enhancements to your case because, OOPS!, the conservatives who you were standing behind got rid of those silly hate-crime legislations.
Need I also mention the recent ballyhoo in Arkansas, where a REPUBLICAN state senator, backed by the Family Research Council, introduced a bill the anti-gay foster/adoption bill? The bill would ban any unmarried co-habitating couple from adopting or fostering a child unless they were related to the child. EXCEPT in the case of GLBT people — they weren’t allowed to foster/adopt at all. AND, to boot, the bill explicitly went against the wishes of the parents in that even if you, in your will, said that your children should be cared for by your gay brother and his partner if something would happen to you, the state would actually step in and confiscate your children before allowing your brother to adopt them.
This street goes both ways, Bobby. Don’t be fooled into thinking that it’s liberals who are the only ones who want to take your personal rights away. The rub here is that conservatives are more than happy to throw away every and all tenants conservativism, including a limit of big government (hah!), if it suits their “moral agenda.”
posted by Chris Fox on
Someone has been listening to Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of liberalism. Try mine: liberals waste money; conservatives murder people.
Those who crow and hoot about the glory of freedom are just cultists; ask an Iraqi what freedom is worth when your physical safety is at peril. Sheesh.
And Bobby you need to learn the difference between tyranny and regulation. When states ban harmful food additives it isn’t to enslave people but to protect them from the unscrupulous practices of businesses that will misbehave to the point of killing their customers — ask a smoker — if they are not regulated from doing so. Sheesh.
The funniest thing about views like Bobby’s is the head on train wreck collision between his self-interest and his politics .. while at the same time he’s doubtless championing self-interest as some sort of elan vital.
posted by Bobby on
I don’t need the state to protect me from myself. Nobody does. It’s liberals who think peole are too stupid and need to be told what they can or can’t do.
“Yes — that is until someone beats the shit out of you with a pipe while calling you a faggot, and the government can’t add hate crime enhancements to your case”
—If I can carry a gun, I can shoot that bastard so I won’t need any hate crime laws. And by the way, if I’m dead or deformed for life, hate crime laws won’t do much good for me.
But of course, that answer is too simplistic for a liberal.
posted by Timothy on
Also, modern conservatism promotes the ideas that “greed is good” and “to the victor go the spoils, to the defeated go nothing.” Values I’m cannot support, as they operate against the best interest of a community.
Sadly, that certainly seems to be the methods of the current administration.
In an ideal world, each side would fight for the ideas that best govern all people. Conservatives in power would use that power to advance conservative policies that they believed best served all the citizens and liberals would advance liberal policies designed to benefit all citizens.
Unfortunately, instead with have constituency bases and culture war. Whoever gains power uses it to benefit their allies and to punish their enemies. Politicians no longer see their duty as being all their constituents but only to their supporters.
And as soon as a politician seeks to find a middle road and serve all, they are derided and reviled by those who wanted to see them destroy the other party.
A classic example is Gov. Schwarzenegger. As a reward for his efforts to find compromise and forge a functional government, “conservatives” have declared that he “isn’t a real Republican”. They would be satisfied with nothing less than the chaos of all-out political war.
I fear Guilianni would find the same fate. Were he to be elected, “real” Republicans would demand that he only appoint conservative Republicans to his cabinet, that he change his social policies, that he never work with the Democrats but only at cross purposes. When he didn’t do so, he would be “not a real Republican” and he would get only one term.
And the Democrats are no better. If Hillary is elected, you can count on her to invoke war on all things Republican.
I’m not too optimistic. But I will continue to hold out hope.
posted by Chris Fox on
>—If I can carry a gun, I can shoot that bastard so I won’t >need any hate crime laws. And by the way, if I’m dead or >deformed for life, hate crime laws won’t do much good for me.
>But of course, that answer is too simplistic for a liberal.
Yes Bobby so many of the world’s problems would go away if everyone was packing heat. Polite society.
The problem here has nothing to do with liberal fatuousness but rather with your own intellectual and emotional shortcomings, which are vast.
posted by Jordan on
“Yes Bobby so many of the world’s problems would go away if everyone was packing heat. Polite society.
“The problem here has nothing to do with liberal fatuousness but rather with your own intellectual and emotional shortcomings, which are vast.”
Well said.
posted by Brian Miller on
that is until someone beats the shit out of you with a pipe while calling you a faggot, and the government can’t add hate crime enhancements to your case because, OOPS!, the conservatives who you were standing behind got rid of those silly hate-crime legislations
If someone beats the shit out of me with a pipe, and the government catches him, I want him to do hard time regardless of whether he beat me because I’m gay or beat me because he didn’t like what jacket I was wearing.
Incidentally, I’m even better served if, rather than that silly leftist hate crime stuff, I have my right to keep and bear arms preserved and I can plug him if he attacks me (after giving him fair warning first that if he takes a step closer he’ll be plugged). Then I’m OK and the criminal is either gone (by fleeing) or the one on the ground in pain.
Too radical a concept for most old-party sorts I guess. 😛
posted by Jordan on
Don’t act like allowing you to bear arms is the only thing that’s going to stop these kinds of attacks. It’s not. And not everyone, despite the foolish fantasies of the right, plans on wearing a holster for the rest of their life just to feel safe in the street. While that is the solution for you, it’s not the solution to everyone.
posted by Brian Miller on
Don’t act like allowing you to bear arms is the only thing that’s going to stop these kinds of attacks. It’s not.
Oh, I know the old liberal canard about how to best protect ourselves.
When gaybashers attack, hand them an educational pamphlet warning them that their attack has deleterious effects on society. Cite the latest educational campaign that Susan Sarandon has launched, and then finally, warn them that if they’re one of the 4% of violent criminals who is caught and convicted, they could get extra jail time.
Under no circumstances should you take any steps to protect your own safety — that’s the government’s job, through educational campaigns. Or something like that.
Sorry, boys and girls, I trust my own ability to defend myself quite a bit more than John Kerry’s ability to “protect” me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, Mr. Miller, you might also add the irony that the people who argue that increased penalties for hate crimes will deter said crimes…..are invariably the ones who oppose mandatory sentencing, the death penalty, and other measures that increase penalty for crimes as being ineffective.
posted by Brian Miller on
Noted, and I agree with you. I also happen to agree that “increased sentencing requirements” rarely deter crime, as the failure of “mandatory minimum sentencing” to reverse the surge in violent crime clearly indicates.
I happen to believe the punishment should be for the actual crime itself, not the motivation for it. If you assault me as a result, I’m a paraplegic, the person who assaults me shouldn’t get less time if his motivation was “only” robbery rather than homophobic assault.
Effectively, it argues that some violent crime resulting in serious injury isn’t as “serious” as other violent crime resulting in injury. A very frightening thought, really.
posted by Bobby on
I’m glad I’m not the only conservative in this blog, Brian.
Only liberals who have faced gay bashers have a more realistic outlook, some of them even become conservatives afterwards.
“”Yes Bobby so many of the world’s problems would go away if everyone was packing heat. Polite society.”
—I’m not interested in the world’s problems, I just want to protect my life. Society is polite when there are consequences for your actions.
But in the liberal world, we see criminals suing the people that shot them, teenagers misbehaving in public, sympathy for convicted cop killers, and now RINO Bloomberg wants to offer cash rewards to people who get out of welfare.
Sorry comrade, but I’m gonna stay with my conservative world. Some of my ideological fellow travellers may not be too practical about sex, but they’re practical about pretty much everything else.
posted by Chris Fox on
“Bobby” wrote
>I’m glad I’m not the only conservative in this blog, Brian.
You’re not a conservative, Bobby, you’re just another inarticulate and angry nobody latching onto a bunch of tough-talking losers even as they’re machine-gunning off their own feet. You have no clear positions, only bluster and rage. You should leave blogging to people who have a use for their minds, not just their adrenal glands.
posted by Jordan on
Well, seems like we’re at the old conservative crossroads again: the corner of Black and White. There’s no gray area here. It’s not possible to deter hate crimes without carrying around a gun. If education hasn’t worked for EVERYONE, then it must not work for ANYONE. Let’s just give up any and all attempts at making society as a whole a better place, and instead just worry about ourselves. Because, after all, that’s what Jesus taught, wasn’t it? Look out for #1?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Society becomes a better place when there are meaningful consequences for one’s bad behavior, Jordan.
Is it meaningful that crimes should be treated and punished differently based on the victim’s skin color or sexual orientation?
Is it meaningful that the gay community continues to insist that a “hate crime” was committed when it appears that, in fact, the “victim” was not attacked at all?
The Anthos case was extraordinarily instructive in such matters. Police could not find anyone who had actually seen it happen. The “witness” didn’t actually see it happen. The sketch the “witness” produced was almost laughably stereotypical — a young black man in a stocking cap. The county medical examiner states clearly that the injuries were not consistent with what was described. And yet gay groups are sitting there foaming at the mouth insisting that this was a “hate crime” and that laws need to be changed to “punish perpetrators”.
The main reason crimes against gays are on the increase in San Francisco, for one, is because crimes against EVERYONE are. That’s because our leftist city government, initiating the demands of the Democrat Party, has a 1)Board of Supervisors that does everything in its power to hamstring the police, 2) Mayor who is so frightened of the PERCEPTION of racial bias, true or not, that he’s demanding that the police department act as if it were racially profiling and hamstring itself further, and a 3)District Attorney who brags that she doesn’t prosecute anything much below homicide.
posted by grendel on
Brian Miller said: “I happen to believe the punishment should be for the actual crime itself, not the motivation for it. If you assault me as a result, I’m a paraplegic, the person who assaults me shouldn’t get less time if his motivation was “only” robbery rather than homophobic assault.”
I understand what you are saying, but we punish motivation all the time. What’s the difference between murder and manslaughter. What’s the difference between criminal destruction of property and sedition? Criminal trespass and burglary? Nothing but intent.
personally, though I think “hate crime” laws are way overrated, I can see a justification.
One of the purposes of the criminal code is protect society as a whole. Crimes which harm the fabric of society more are punished more severely than crimes that harm it less. Battery to a police officer is punished far more severely than simple battery. Why? It is judged that violence directed at police officers threatens the very effectiveness of the law enforcement system. It’s not a question of the “worth” of the victims. I do not claim that the life of a police officer is worth more than the life of a civilian. But killing an officer who is performing his duties harms society more than (most) other homicides.
The same logic applies to hate crimes. Painting swastikas on a synagogue is a more serious offence than spraying “I love Celine Dion” on a brick wall somewhere. And it is because the effect of the former is far more harmful than the effect of the later. The former serves to intimate an entire class of persons who have been historically subject to violence and discrimination — and thus threaten their full and open participation in society. A democratic society is harmed whenever some members of it are denied equal participation. Certain crimes, frequently mislabelled “hate crimes” have the effect of chilling the full participation of certain discrete elements of society, and it is normal for those crimes to be punished more severely than similar crimes which do not that the same effect.
posted by Brian Miller on
Painting swastikas on a synagogue is a more serious offence than spraying “I love Celine Dion” on a brick wall somewhere
No it’s not. Both are property damage.
The sentiment behind the swastika is contemptible, but people have the right to believe whatever they wish — including contemptible things. Their personal beliefs or politics shouldn’t influence the penalty in any way.
Incidentally, it’s always interesting how hate crime discussions stray from violent crime to “speech and expression” crime like “spraypainting.” It indicates the thinking behind the core motivation, which is regulating speech and thought, rather than punishing actual crimes that have real victims.
we punish motivation all the time. What’s the difference between murder and manslaughter
Murder is killing with intent. It doesn’t examine the causes behind the intent, nor does it attempt to do what hate crimes laws do — effectively argue that some intent for murder (kill that guy for his jacket) are less bad than other intents (kill that guy since he’s gay).
Incidentally, I’m opposed to “murder 1, murder 2,” etc. Murder is murder. One crime, one penalty for all perpetrators.
It’s not possible to deter hate crimes without carrying around a gun.
Who is saying that?
I’m simply saying I trust my ability to defend myself far more than I trust the ability of yet another “education program” to protect me.
I’m not trying to remove your ability to “educate,” but you are oftentimes trying to remove the ability of others to protect themselves with firearms. The situation between your position and mine (which incidentally isn’t “conservative”) is that you want to force me to accept a degree of risk that you calculate. . . while I believe in letting each individual person calculate his own degree of risk and act accordingly to protect himself.
Let’s just give up any and all attempts at making society as a whole a better place
That’s one of the other canards that statists throw out — if we reject their latest centrally planned, expensive schemes, than we’ve “given up on making society better.”
Let’s face the facts — every single one of the so-called big government attempts to “make society better” has failed. Every single one of them. Crime is going up, poverty is on the rise, and violent crime is increasing nationally.
If those programs were going to work, they would have worked long ago. And as no less a thinker than Einstein noted, insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Finally, isn’t it conceited to assume that making the world a better place by necessity requires government to come in and disarm law-abiding citizens in the face of increasing violent crime rates? I daresay that anything that results in a proven reduction of anti-gay crime — including self-defense, a proven fact — helps make society a better place.
posted by Jordan on
Brian, do you have numbers and sources to back up those doom-and-gloom “everything is getting worse” statistics?
posted by Jordan on
And, as a sidenote (sorry for the second post), I never said that I wanted to disarm citizens. What I said was that not everyone wants to carry around a gun to protect themselves. Nor should “law abiding” citizens in a civil society HAVE to carry around a gun to protect themselves.
I never said you need to remove the right to bear arms. I see no problem with having the option to defend yourself. I just don’t want to have to do that, when I believe my government should have some hand in enforcing civil peace — that’s what I pay taxes for.
posted by grendel on
If motivation for a crime doesn’t matter, why take intent into account at all? If harm directly done to the victim is the only thing that matters, whether that harm was done intentionally, recklessly, or negligently should not matter. Funny though, in the real world, those distinctions matter a great deal when assessing blameworthiness of conduct.
“Let’s face the facts — every single one of the so-called big government attempts to “make society better” has failed. Every single one of them. Crime is going up, poverty is on the rise, and violent crime is increasing nationally.”
Actually, I’m pretty sure crime is going down, especially violent crime, so I’m not sure of the factual basis for your premise, but I’d like to make a broader point.
There actually is a very good correlation between government spending for the general good and quality of life. Check out the widely cited recent article, “The Social Benefits and Economic Costs of Taxation: A Comparison of High and Low-tax Countries” http://www.law.ucla.edu/docs/final_-_benefits_and_costs_of_taxation.pdf
The results really don’t surprise me. Pick almost any social measure — life expectancy, crime rate, infant mortality rate, literacy rate, education level, income, divorce, births out of wedlock (got to love that phrase) and a high tax high service (and liberal) state like Minnesota will beat out a low tax low service (conservative) state like Mississippi. The same is true internationally. Canada, with a higher tax rate consistently outperforms the US in virtually every quality of life indicator (I grant incomes are a bit lower in Canada than in the US — but in virtually every other measure, Canada tops the US (including health care measures like life expectancy, infant mortality, heart rate and cancer survival rates, amount of GNP devoted to health care(ok the last one is not a quality of life measure). Year after year, in surveys of which countries are the best places to live, Western Europe, especially Scandinavia, and Canada come out on top. Why? might it be that a commitment to the public good does actually bear fruits? Just a thought (and a thought I suspect that is not going to be too popular here.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why? might it be that a commitment to the public good does actually bear fruits?
Why is it that countries like China are always left out of that comparison?
And here’s a thought; let us impose the same rules on illegal immigrants as does a country like Finland, for example, in which it is virtually impossible for one to find work without proper documentation and where noncitizens are not eligible for ANY social services, and we’ll see what happens. Indeed, being an illegal immigrant in Finland is a criminal act, with fines and imprisonment for up to one year possible (it used to be four).
Liberals whine and cry that public education should not be compared to private schools because (they allege) private schools have barriers to entry and can keep only the desirables, while public schools must accept everyone. Yet they insist on comparing the United States, in which they block criminalization of illegal immigration and demand that illegal immigrants receive free healthcare, education, and welfare benefits regardless of whether they pay taxes, to countries where illegal immigrants are arrested and imprisoned, denied access to any such benefits, and unlikely in the first place because of their geographic isolation.
In short, the United States looks like it does because we allow everyone in, we do nothing to stop them, and we give free access to our welfare system — at the expense of those already living and working here.
posted by Bobby on
“I believe my government should have some hand in enforcing civil peace — that’s what I pay taxes for.”
—Wrong, you pay taxes because you’re forced to pay taxes, and the government can do whatever they like. Cops don’t have to respond a 911 call in 5 minutes, they’ll come when they can, in one case it took them 18 hours to come. By that time the 3 women in a Washington DC apartment had been raped and terrorized repeatedly. They later sued big brother and the courts ruled there’s no constitutional right to be protected.
This is exactly why conservatives hate high taxes, social programs, and anything from the government other than the military. They suck at everything else. The government can’t do shit, they’re useless, worthless, the only reason people like me vote republican is to prevent things from getting worse.
posted by grendel on
“This is exactly why conservatives hate high taxes, social programs, and anything from the government other than the military. They suck at everything else. The government can’t do shit, they’re useless, worthless, the only reason people like me vote republican is to prevent things from getting worse.”
But the data really doesn’t support this conclusion. Why is the quality of life in high tax/high service jurisdictions almost invariably better than the quality of life in low tax/low service ones?
and — better everyone pounces on me for me being a “liberal” (whatever that word means any more) — I’m not. I own guns. I believe in individual responsibility. But it’s not an either or proposition. It’s not like the only choices are absolute collectivism or individualism. There’s plenty of room in the middle.
posted by Jordan on
Bobby, your reasoning is what sucks around here. You continually point out singular instances to make broad points while failing to provide any context, sources, or actual statistical data to back up what you’re saying. Moreover, you seem content to jump from one accusation to another as soon as someone has legitimately discounted your last statements.
Whether the government “forces” me to pay taxes or not, the fact the remains that I do, in fact, pay taxes. My choice, alternatively, is to move to another country where I do not have to pay taxes to the U.S. government. As such, because I pay taxes, I expect them to be utilized to protect my quality of life whenever possible. Your sole valid point — albeit one that you have only made peripherally — is that citizens should not rely solely on the government to provide for them. Indeed, people must, at times, take their own personal safety into their own hands. Nonetheless, it is still the responsibility of our government to provide services in return for the forced-taxes that they collect from us. As such, while you are more than welcome to carry around a gun and spout nonsense about our “liberal government” (despite being helmed by one of the most conservative and fool-hardy Presidents in recent memory), the government must still provide protection against, and punishment for, violent crimes.
Continuing on that point, just because the police didn’t show up for a 911 call for 18 hours does not mean that, in general, 911 is not a necessary and useful service. For every 1 person that was not saved by 911, there are a hundred-thousand that were. Similarly, just because there are still criminals in society does not mean that social programs to avoid crime, or rehabilitate criminals, are useless.
The point you seem to be missing is that there WILL be flaws with any system. No doubt about that. But that’s no reason to get rid of the system altogether. There are benefits to a system of government that fails some, as long as it is there for most.
We cannot expect our government to operate at 100% efficiency — it simply won’t happen. What you need to learn is that we have to seek a balance between no government, and big government. And between a nanny state, and an absent state. Simply: you can have the option to carry a gun, but hope to never use it.