Fundamental Values

            Liberals are pacifists who believe that humans are improvable, even perfectible by Liberal institutions; that disarmament is achievable and that war can be eliminated . . . through dialog.  They believe in the welfare state.  They are utopian.  They eschew nationalism and national sovereignty, preferring internationalism and social justice (See above definition.) among nations.  Conservatives are patriotic and nationalistic; and believe individuals should have great freedom to work in their own way  -- succeed, fail, and try again -- all without government intervention either to limit or assist.  They believe that individuals can improve themselves, though only God can perfect them.  Conservatives believe that America is exceptional and to be preserved . . . as designed and envisioned by The Founders.  I’m also indebted for this material thus far to Michael Rosen and his piece in the Denver Post of August 6, 1986.

            The United States Constitution enumerates federal government powers . . . and they are few.  It also proscribes that what is not enumerated is prohibited, and left to individuals and/or states.  Libertarians’ numero uno is liberty (and responsibility) even to the point of ranking sovereignty down in third.  They won’t trade an ounce of personal freedom in the “national interest”.

            If your ranking is liberty–sovereignty-peace – social justice, you’re conflicted between libertarianism and conservatism.  And the Patriot Act gives you fits.  And voting is problematic.

If your ranking is reelection-peace-justice-liberty-sovereignty, you’re a Liberal politician.  If your ranking is reelection-sovereignty-liberty- peace-social justice, you’re a Conservative politician.  If your ranking is reelection-liberty-peace-sovereignty-social justice, you’re a Libertarian politician . . . and lonely (since there are very few of you).   The reasons most Libertarians say that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans (politicians, they mean) are: first, both have the identical numero uno priority; and second, the Libertarians speaking haven’t yet managed to get elected.

            There are only three reasons for any occasion of bipartisanship between a Liberal and a Conservative:  (1) The item on the table is inconsequential and trivial; (2) at least one has completely foregone principle and fundamental values; and/or (3) reelection time is approaching.  There can be, and often is, bipartisanship between “Moderates” and anyone else.  A “Moderate” is someone who, when asked to force-rank the fundamental values above, either cheated by looking at others’ answers or wanted to see the survey results before beginning.  Having no established values, they are usually seen with wetted finger aloft checking wind direction.

            It is, I think, noteworthy that it is liberal democrats who are consistently calling on conservative republicans to be “bipartisan” rather than the other way around.  First, what is meant here by “bipartisan” is the republican coming over to agree with the democrats’ position and view.  Second, it is consistent with the liberals’ view that wayward people are improvable, even perfectible, that disarmament is achievable and that war can be eliminated . . . through dialog.  “Can’t we all just get along . . . by seeing it and doing it my way, the right correct way?”

            It is, I think, also noteworthy that republicans repeatedly believe that being “bipartisan” seems reasonable and sounds like a good thing.  They also seem to believe repeatedly that, if they are “bipartisan”, democrats will respond in kind with cooperation.  But, a liberal is a liberal is a liberal.  They confidently look through liberal lenses, knowing that they are right correct and that republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, are dead wrong and just don’t get it.

            If your ranking is: (1) being accepted and liked by inside-the-beltway-society elites, (2) being invited to Washington parties and the Sunday morning network news shows, (3) reelection, (4) being praised in the New York Times and Washington Post, (5) a tie among liberty, social justice, sovereignty and peace; then you’re a RINO (Republican in name only).  It’s a social disease that inflicts many, even those who arrived with real values and fire in the belly.

            I can’t remember who it was who said something like, if a twenty-one-year-old isn’t a liberal, he has no compassion; if a thirty-something isn’t a conservative, she has no sense.  It’s natural to grow up believing in utopia and peace through compromise.  With age and worldly experience, though, one is supposed to acquire some wisdom.  The problem with youthful liberalism is reality.  Peace, for example, has never been achieved other than following victory.  The nonviolence of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi could never have been sustained without the coercion and threat of force brought by federal marshals and the British Army respectively.  Liberals have always been liberals.  Conservatives used to be.  Stockwell Day once said, “A conservative is a liberal who got mugged by reality.”

            Conservatives can understand how one can be a liberal, but they have trouble understanding why reality doesn’t set in.  I mean, humans are human, not utopian.  Liberals, having always been liberals, however, are absolutely incapable of understanding what could possibly have gone wrong such that a human being actually became a conservative.

            As result of this incredulity by liberals, and of conservatives’ dislike for forced wealth redistribution and love of national security, liberals rant against them and label them “selfish”, “racist”, “homophobic”, “sexist”, “ultra-right-wing”, “extremist”, “uncaring”, and a recent favorite “Nazis”.  The liberals then get really -- I mean really -- upset when conservatives call them “liberal” as opposed to, say, “mainstream” or just “correct”.  They do seem to like “progressive”.

            “Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy responded to the proposal by ultra-right-wing conservative congressman . . .”

This is ubiquitous as a style of “reporting” on the nightly news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc., as well as on their morning shows as well as in the New York Times, Washington Post and almost any other newspaper or weekly magazine except the Washington Times and Fox News.  News media currently label “conservatives” six times as often as “liberals”.  In reality, Kennedy may be to the left of Marx and Engels and the graduates of journalism schools since the 1970s may be 99.9 percent liberals, but these “journalists” see absolutely no bias in this story lead.  And explaining it to them wouldn’t help a bit.  George Will said recently, “For conservatives seeing is believing, but for liberals believing is seeing.”

            There’s another substantial and growing category on the political landscape, the gimmees.  We might also call them the Pauls.  These are individuals who just want what Peters have, as in “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  It’s not that they value social justice as herein defined; it’s not principled.  It’s greed, selfishness, laziness and jealousy.

            Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.”  Seniors say, “I’m old, therefore government should support me.”  Blacks say, “There was slavery, therefore government should provide reparations to me.”  People who’ve been irresponsible and unproductive say, “I’m poor or hungry or homeless or sick or pregnant or etcetera, therefore government should provide welfare or food or housing or free unlimited healthcare or all of the above.”  Obviously this doesn’t apply to all or even nearly all seniors or blacks or “needy”, just lots of them as well as other groups.  More on this in a moment (or paragraph).

            And, of course, government doesn’t have money or food or housing or healthcare.  Government has to take money and housing and food and healthcare by force from the Peters (the people who’ve worked hard and long, sacrificed immediate gratification, made prudent decisions and choices, and been personally responsible and productive).  When one is forced to work for someone else’s benefit (and that’s what this system does), it’s called “slavery”.  And the reason that America’s “founding fathers” didn’t design a democracy (rather than a republic) is that there’ll always be more Pauls than Peters.

            Some “other groups” of gimmees are American sugar producers, steel producers, tobacco farmers, milk producers, all labor unions and many other recipients of “corporate welfare”.  Government takes money from individual Peters to provide price supports and restrict free trade.  “Corporate welfare” works because these organizations give big bucks to politicians, but individual Peters aren’t so motivated, given that it was just an extra dime for the bag of sugar and they don’t see the steel tariff show up in the price of their Ford or Chevy.

            Gimmees and RINOs will act as they do for as long as it works.  Liberals and conservatives will be bipartisan only in the limited circumstances previously stated.  But, otherwise, unless liberals and conservatives are also simultaneously gimmees and/or RINOs, they are and will be inexorably incapable of working together.  That is why there is such rancor in Washington and that is why the president’s nominees for the Supremes were unconstitutionally filibustered and why Speaker Pelosi just turned of the lights and mics and went n vacation, leaving Republicans sans audience and in the dark. 

Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Bolton, Dr./Senator Tom Coburn and Tom DeLay are conservatives who give not a wit about inside-the-beltway social standing, not a tinker’s damn about kudos from the New York Times or Washington Post, and can easily do without face time on the networks.  They are principled, committed, outspoken and straight talking.  What does this get them?  Vilified, never sought as a commencement speaker, brought before an ethics committee, and “Borked”.  Witness the newspaper
cartoons of Condoleeza Rice or the liberal press vilification of Governor Sarah Palin following her veep nomination.

With all the humility I can possibly muster, I offer some recommendations:  To liberals I say grow up and deal with reality.  To RINOs and moderates I say locate your spine and show some backbone . . . and put down that whetted finger.  To gimmees I say look to thine own self and start taking personal responsibility for your life.  To libertarians I say think about the consequences of having liberty (as herein defined) numero uno with respect to achieving numbers, critical mass and a unified voice.  To conservatives I say organize and play to win.  Don’t wimp and don’t equivocate.