About Me

Name: voice_of_reason
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Happy Birthday, America

On this, our 231st birthday, it is appropriate to consider the reasons for our success. In such discussions, one hears many people say that America is successful because it was based on Christian principles. Others say that we are successful because we function as a Democracy. Let's examine those positions:

Let me begin by saying that Judeo-Christian principles and Democracy provide a great starting point for any country. And, countries that don't have a good starting point usually don't get very far! 

But there is nothing axiomatic in Christianity that causes a Christian nation to be successful in economic terms. Sidebar: some may question whether economic metrics define 'success' -- but that is a subject worthy of a separate discussion!

Quoting from "The United States of .. Consistency?"
"Many of our laws derived from Judeo-Christian principles - but does that make America a Christian country? If that were true, then we are conveniently forgetting that similar principles also exist in other religions - some of which are also prevalent in 'failed' states. And, yes, there are quite a few fervently Christian countries that fall in the category of 'failed' states.

As an example, consider the Christian countries in Europe that our Founding Fathers fled.

A mathematician could write that equation as:

Christianity + Feudal System = Failure "

Clearly, if Christianity was the silver bullet that some believe it to be, it would've overcome the drag of the Feudal Systems and helped the countries of Old Europe succeed.

So, with a full appreciation of the virtues of Judeo-Christian principles, the question is: what are the next steps after embracing those principles that give us a good starting point. Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to stand firm against contemporary religiosity while retaining and extrapolating the virtues and ethics in a mostly consistent manner. They accomplished this while keeping individual freedom consistently at the forefront. And, in areas that they were not consistent (e.g. Slavery), America paid a price in later years.

Consider the following examples of the extraordinary foresight of our Founding Fathers:

* It would've been easier for them to have extrapolated Christian charity into some form of a benevolent state - but they didn't.

* as a Christian majority, it would have been quite acceptable and convenient for our Founding Fathers to have made Christianity a State religion - but they didn't.

With clarity and prescience, perhaps based on their examination of failed Christian countries, they took steps that ensured our success for centuries.

Incidentally, the same logic applies to Democracy (yes, I'm aware that we are a Republic). There is nothing inherent in a Democracy that leads to success. It is the next series of consistent steps that make-or-break a nation.

* Do they create institutions that interfere with or abridge the rights of their citizens (usually in the name of some 'common good')?

* Is the Govt constrained to do only that which it is allowed (by the consent of the governed)?

* Are the people free to do anything except that which is expressly forbidden (by the consent of the governed)?

The absence of interference, aka  economic freedom, defines Capitalism, which we can thank for our success.

Note: We often miss the point that it is the lack of Govt interference that leads to Capitalism. Our Founding Fathers didn't create Capitalism, they had the sense to 'step out of the way'. Capitalism is the natural order that ensues when free people trade with each other.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that Judeo-Christian concepts and Democracy provided great starting points at the birth of our nation. However, we should be eternally thankful that our Founding Fathers ensured that our country made the correct steps beyond those starting points..
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Limousine Liberals and Hybrid Conservatives

Confession: I am politically conservative and I drive a Hybrid. Since I don't necessarily want to 'plug' a particularly brand of Hybrid automobiles, I will not reveal its identity - except to say that its name rhymes with Boy Yoda Tree Us.

Imagine my surprise when I am treated to smiles from the tie-dyed, pony-tailed and liberally tattooed crowd!

Sometimes it is cute college coeds, with flowers in their hair, who gaze at me approvingly while swaying seductively to the music from their iPods (OK, this is probably just the wishful thinking of a middle-aged male). More often, I get the hail-fellow-well-met nods from aging hippies with bumper stickers that proclaim No blood for Oil and exhibit an inexplicable antipathy for the letter "W" on their Volkswagens. Given my age bracket and dress code, I get the strongest approvals from unwashed, pot-smoking, and sometimes pot-bellied tree-huggers who seem to thrive in the blue-enclave-within-a-red-state that I call home.

Why can't these cats dig it? I am a conservative, and I drive a Tree Us because .. I am .. a technophile! I happen to think that Boy Yoda did a fine job with this new fangled technology.

So, how do conservatives react? Not very well either, I'm sorry to say. Since I don't have any conservative bumper stickers on my Tree Us (or any of my other cars), they jump to the conclusion that I must be an ACLU charter member. One patriot struck up a nonchalant conversation with me the other day in a parking lot, casually soliciting my opinions on various topics including nuking Iran (or Iraq, he wasn't feeling very picky that day) into the Stone Ages. Presumably, he hoped that he could metaphorically "tear me a new one", once I copped to my blue-ness. He seemed either puzzled or disappointed when he found that my views were slightly to the Right of his! With his preconceptions in tatters, he slunk off into the fading sunset.

Can't I just enjoy the Sounds of Silence when my Tree Us automatically shuts off the gas in stop-and-go traffic while on my way to drop my kids off at school? Hey, don't hate me because I don't fit the mold as a conventional Tree Us driver. I'm driving my kids to the private school in which they are enrolled. I vote with my good, conservative feet (and dollars) away from Public Education, something that should be anathema to all conservatives in our mostly Capitalist country.
 
Then there are those who proclaim loudly that they would like to take their aptly named Expedurban SUVs and grind a Tree Us into the Japanese beer cans from whence it came! Personally, I think that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of gas-guzzlers. But does that right make the drivers of gas-guzzlers any more patriotic or conservative than a techno-geek like me who likes his Tree Us?

When did conservatism become synonymous with anti-environmentalism? For the record, I don't believe in the so-called solutions that Leftist environmentalists propose. Nor do I have to believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is drowning polar bears to drive a Hybrid when gas is $3/gallon!

A few years of this and I may start to develop some empathy for those poor, mis-understood Limousine Liberals, some of whom also enroll their kids at Private Schools while extolling the virtues of Public Education for everyone else! Nah, that will never happen, I have nothing in common with those hypocrites ..
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Free will, selflessness & Ju-jitsu (huh?)

Disclosure: I was tempted to title this post "Free Willy", but refrained from doing so. I didn't want to attract a disproportionate number of animal lovers or pornography seekers -- not that there is anything wrong with those weirdos, of course!

We are given free will, and simultaneously told about the unlimited virtues of selflessness and sacrifice.

This sets us up for a contradiction, which is usually resolved by saying that "we should be selfless by our own volitional choice, otherwise it doesn't count".

That, unfortunately, is the first step towards accepting a philosophy of self-sacrifice.

Socialism's biggest victory (albeit a Pyrrhic one) has been the voluntary acceptance of the producers that they should live for the sake of their parasites.

In America, many hardworking people who are not of the looter / moocher persuasion routinely vote for entitlements, or for politicians who support ever-expanding programs such as Universal Health Care, Public Education and Welfare.

Those benevolent souls are convinced that they are 'doing the right thing' and 'levelling the playing field' by their charity - hey, if it's voluntary then it must be a good, charitable impulse, and who are we to argue? In fact, they would argue that it is the baser nature of conservatives that makes us oppose such impulses!

So, can American conservatives ever turn the tide against Leftists?

Not without eliminating the jujitsu of Leftist rhetoric. The first step is to recognize that Leftists are using the concept of altruism (which many conservatives revere) against us - that is the very essence of jujitsu. Once the terms are identified, we can do battle, armed with the proper intellectual and ideological ammunition.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are all Leftists "Godless Commies"?

It is important to understand the effect that religious beliefs can have on the American Public's acceptance of certain aspects of Socialism.

A recent survey showed that 91% of Americans believe in some form of religion. Therefore, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that there are religious people on both sides of the political spectrum. Many conservatives dismiss ALL leftists as "godless commies", as though all leftists are the hardcore ACLU-types.

My contention is that for every one of those 'secular leftists' there are many more who lean towards the 'progressive' side of the spectrum because of their religious beliefs. In most cases, it is due to their seemingly logical but misguided application of religion-inspired altruism.

No doubt there are also those who deliberately take advantage of this grayness in our moral code. Whether they happen to be parasitic recipients who live off their productive neighbors - or politicians who pose as modern day Robin Hoods - their nature cannot be revealed until we identify the weakness in our own political/moral code.

Conservatives who fail to grasp this have a limited understanding of what predisposes many decent people towards the left. 

But why is this a big deal?

In my opinion, we conservatives could use this understanding to widen the appeal of our positions. For example, some Religious Leftists will grasp the fact that altruism becomes malignant when it crosses over from the private space to the public arena (see previous article titled: Altruism causes .. Cancer?).

Also, conservatives should be able to attract some moderate Leftists by the strength of our economic ideas. Of course, that would require a consistent focus on American self-interest and  laissez-faire economics on the part of conservatives. Recent trends have not shown that consistency, but one can only hope ..

Finally, it is interesting to look at the social issues that seem to take center-stage in our political psyche! It is a given that many on the Religious Right vote (R) because of their social stance. But how many votes are lost in the process? I'm referring to voters who believe in American self-interest and laissez-faire economics but are socially liberal.

Clearly, it would be useful to identify the lead issues that make people decide to vote (R) or (D). Could it be that there is a large proportion of (D) voters who might be persuaded to vote for an (R) platform if social issues were not in the mix? Similarly, do a majority of (R) voters assign a higher priority to social or economic issues?

So, here are two $64 questions. If you choose to respond, please consider each question to be independent of the other:

Q1) If the (R) party adopted a neutral stance on social issues, but strengthened its stance on American self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, would you vote (R) or (D)?

Q2) If the (D) party abandoned its current stance on social issues, but strengthened its existing stance on the environment and on re-distributing affluence in America and the world, would you vote (R) or (D)?

For the purposes of each one of these questions (independently), let's assume that the other party remained unchanged. Examples of 'social' issues are gay rights, abortion, etc. Also, let's assume that there is no (I) or 3rd party position.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Altruism causes .. Cancer?

Sorry about the provocative title -- but, now that I have your attention, please consider the following questions:

* Why is it that we Americans are conditioned to look down on the source of our affluence and fall for the double-fraud of socialism? Note: it is a double-fraud because we have to pretend that
(a) it is the ideal condition of man to live for others
(b) we consistently (and willingly) practice the above 'ideal'

* Why is Bill Gates hated for his well-earned wealth, but praised for his philanthropy? The reality is that he has 'given' so much more to the world while 'selfishly' pursuing his self-interest!

* Why do we conservatives have difficulty in expressing our principles in terms of self-interest?

* Why do the synonyms for self-interest almost always have negative connotations in our culture?

Most conservatives would agree that when the 'germ' of altruism crosses over from the voluntary / personal space to the coercive / public space, it metastasizes into Socialism.

In fact, that is what I mean by the Trojan Horse in a previous article. Many of our 'good' values derive from religion, and can cross the private/public boundary without a problem. For example, religious exhortations against murder, rape and arson can cross over into our politics without any problem

But altruism cannot be extrapolated across that boundary without becoming malignant!

If we identify this phenomena unequivocally, there is hope that conservatives will regain the ideological higher ground, adding strength to the pragmatic defense of our positions against Socialism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A free lunch program - with productive Americans as the entrée

After 11/9 (the fall of the Berlin Wall),  a few left-leaning countries such as China and India got the message. In their own anemic way, they have started privatizing their nationalized industries.

We Americans, however, have continued to slouch Leftward, despite the proven success of Capitalism as an ideology. Our two dominant political parties seek to push new entitlement schemes down our throats. And we seem to accept the inevitability of this process. A majority of Americans either (a) don't believe in our own successful model, or (b) simply don't understand it.

On this blog I try to analyze the reasons for this disconnect. Others do a fine job in enumerating the mistakes of those who believe in Socialism. I try to identify the lapses in our thinking process that predispose us to incorrectly believe in the goodness of Socialism.

Consider the following:

* the free lunch syndrome explains the predisposition of the beneficiaries (I call them the parasites) towards Govt largesse.

* obviously, most 'parasites' don't spend a lot of time thinking about the immorality of their actions. However, if any of them felt the slightest twinge of moral compunction, it could be easily assuaged by using the glory of victimhood. But, what is the source of the moral code that allows them to claim that mantle?

* how do we explain the acquiescence of the producers (victims)? Why would they sign onto a 'free lunch plan' with themselves as the entrée?

* without the acquiescence (tacit or otherwise) of the producers, there would be no loot for the Govt to give away.

* politicians of both sides (but more often the Leftists) understand that they can benefit both from the 'free lunch syndrome' of the parasites and the guilt of the producers.

* It's a double win for politicians - encourage the victimhood of the parasites by means of the funds extorted from guilt-ridden producers; collect votes from both sides everytime they pass GO (which is every 2 or 4 yrs)!

* many of the 'producers' have a moral code based on the virtues of sacrifice, altruism & charity. As a result, they are susceptible to politicians who subvert the producers' moral code - forcing them to accept an unearned guilt for their well-deserved success.

* many who disagree with my viewpoint make a lot out of the voluntary aspect of charity vs. the confiscatory aspect of Socialism. They suggest that it makes all the difference in the world - and maybe they have a point in some spiritual context! But, in the political context, it does pre-condition us to accept the premise that producers exist for the sake of non-producers.

* once it is accepted that producers exist for the sake of their parasites, the rest are just mechanical details of noble-sounding but destructive redistributive economics!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Free enterprise education

Our K-12 system shortchanges all students, irrespective of ability. Like most Statist systems, it purports to eliminate the inequity of opportunity. But the result is a low-quality, high-cost system for all!

A common complaint that one hears about free enterprise education - or even about vouchers (which I consider a step in the right direction) - is that such a system would cater to bright kids, but leave behind below average kids as well as those with learning or physical disabilities. Such complaints are usually voiced as follows: "who would want those below average or disabled kids?"

Free enterprise education would satisfy the demands of bright kids, below-average kids as well as those with learning/physical disabilities. Parents will provide the demand for services commensurate with their kids' needs and abilities, and the market will provide the supply at a price that provides access for all. If a safety net is required for some extreme hardship cases, there could be some level of Govt aid.

So, who wants the below-average kids and those with disabilities? Answer: Private schools that specialize in those niches of the education market would seek out and actively market their services to parents whose kids need special attention. Are those schools likely to cost more? Yes. But probably not significantly more than the present average for all kids.

The most important result will be that with higher quality education there will actually be fewer below-average kids!

This is the point that eludes most supporters of Statist programs. Note: I don't mean that the availability of higher quality education will necessarily have a near-term positive effect on the IQ distribution. However, there will be a better match between the needs/abilities and the supply. As in all other cases, free market capitalism provides the best utilization of scarce resources.

If you disagree with the above: consider the American market for food, which remains mostly in the free-enterprise arena (notwithstanding agricultural subsidies, food stamps etc). Are there any significant problems with the production, delivery or access? No. If anything, there is an oversupply .. and some bad choices made by individuals that lead to overconsumption and obesity!

Without the 'benefit' of Govt control, Americans happily deal with food choices that bewilder visitors from countries with planned economies. To many fresh-off-the-boat visitors, a trip to an American grocery store is like a trip to Disneyworld!

Let's see if we can build on the education: food analogy by looking at the demand and supply. Of course, since there is choice in the system, parents can choose the type of program that meets the needs of their child and their budget.

* bright kids : consumers of gourmet foods [moderately expensive]
* average kids : the mass market, with the most choices, ranging from high-quality food and junk food [average cost, determined by parental choice]
* below average kids : specialty foods [moderately expensive]
* kids with disabilities and/or special needs : specialty foods, nutritional supplements [more expensive]
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Slouching Leftward in America

What is ruining America - making us slouch Leftward with every passing generation - is our moral predisposition towards altruism. What remains of our intellect leads us to laissez-faire capitalism and freedom. But our moral code extols sacrifice, so we lack ideological ammunition against the illogic of welfare statism or any other Leftist concept.

Many conservatives assume that conservatives are immune from the weakness that is brought about by the lack of moral ammunition against welfare statism. However, there is plenty of proof that Republicans too, have slouched to the left over the past few decades. It is well worth our while to examine the reasons for this.

Consider this: despite all evidence to the contrary, why do so many Americans moisten up when a politician (of either side) makes a generous campaign promise - with public money?

Whether the issue is Universal Health Care, Public Education, Global Warming, Illegal Immigration or Welfare, good intentions (and sincere-sounding, heart-string-tugging sound bites) seem to be the currency du jour with voters.

Arguments based on American self-interest just don't seem to cut it with voters any more! When asked why our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is more important than, say Darfur, we flinch from saying "because American self-interest is involved in the former, not the latter". Since that would lead to a chorus of "Blood for Oil" and "selfish Americans", we have to couch our responses in smarmy political rhetoric such as "we're fighting for a better Iraq".

Similarly, when asked why conservatives oppose Universal Health Care, we flinch from saying that it is morally obscene because it makes parasites of one segment of our population and victims of the other. Hmm .. perhaps those are the Two Americas, that Senator Edwards conjures up?

Sure, we can oppose every new entitlement scheme with the plaintive cry "it doesn't work as intended". And we would be right - with plenty of factual and anecdotal evidence.

But, unless we attack the cause of the American public's support for such policies, this will be a losing battle.

I have taken the position (not particularly popular at TH) that religion-inspired altruism is the root cause of this predisposition. While that may be a sweeping generalization, it does seem to be a resonant ideological thread in our country.

I hold out hope for an electorate that would put economic issues and American self-interest before social issues. Otherwise, we will continue to muddle through ideologically and be robbed blind .. as we slouch Leftward.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe Lieberman's article (from WSJ)

"Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.
The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces would not only throw open large parts of Iraq to domination by the radical regime in Tehran, it would also send an unmistakable message to the entire Middle East--from Lebanon to Gaza to the Persian Gulf where Iranian agents are threatening our allies--that Iran is ascendant there, and America is in retreat. One Arab leader told me during my trip that he is extremely concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but that he doubted America's staying power in the region and our political will to protect his country from Iranian retaliation over the long term. Abandoning Iraq now would substantiate precisely these gathering fears across the Middle East that the U.S. is becoming an unreliable ally.

That is why--as terrible as the continuing human cost of fighting this war in Iraq is--the human cost of losing it would be even greater. "

VoR: Kudos to Joe Lieberman!

To read the entire article, click here.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Trojan horses sneak in, along with Judeo-Christian values

America was built on many good Judeo-Christian values .. but a couple of Trojan Horses snuck in along with all those 'good' values and forever affected our thinking on political issues.

Case in point: our religion-inspired predisposition to revere altruism sets us up to favor the 'have-nots'. Whatever else illegal immigrants might be, they definitely fit the description of 'have-nots'.

For the record: I happen to agree with the 'mainstream' conservative opinion that:
* we should enforce our laws,
* illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty,
* we should build a wall and secure our borders for all the right reasons.

I weigh in on the topic of illegal immigration only to illustrate that it is difficult (and inconsistent) to take an anti-illegal-immigration stance while still adhering to the tenets of charity and sacrifice as 'virtues'. A politician who articulates such positions can be demagogued to death for his seeming insensitivity and lack of compassion.

Note: I don't claim to understand the ideological motivation or political calculus behind President Bush's support for this Immigration bill. Can any TH pundit explain if it is just plain foolishness, or is there some grand triangulation or strategery being attempted? 

That said, let's return to the subject of those darn Trojan Horses!

Our moral code extols altruism, so we lack moral ammunition against the illogic of illegal immigration. Although it is the right thing to say, it just sounds so mean-spirited and selfish to sit here, surrounded by our well-earned affluence, and say "send 'em all back to their Socialist cesspools. Let them take a couple of centuries to create a Capitalist society in their countries, if they want to succeed like us". 

Politicians use our religion-inspired predisposition towards altruism against us. If a politician can couch his support for Illegal Immigration in charitable terms - and enough of us buy into this nonsense - then the Trojan Horse has been successfully deployed. Of course, this applies on both sides of the political spectrum.

The Left has made compassionate conservative an oxymoron; and now the Right is skewering President Bush for being compassionate (but stupid). Observe the strenuous back-pedalling of Religious Conservatives away from President Bush once he showed his compassionate support for illegal immigration. Many Religious Conservatives voted for President Bush because he passed their social litmus tests. But now that he failed them on illegal immigration (an issue that involves economics and American self-interest), they are bitterly disappointed.

Sorry folks, but its that altruistic Trojan Horse that got us into this!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rejoice, compassionate conservatives ..

.. our chickens are coming home to roost.

We elected a conservative, whose ideology is based on:

* faith
* generosity & charity (with taxpayer money, a la the Prescription Drug Program)

Why does it surprise us that our champion is generous when it comes to opening our borders. Whether it is a cynical vote-grab (the position of the Democrat party) or misplaced compassion, the results are the same.

Next time, let's elect a conservative whose ideology is based on:

* reason
* American self-interest

Instead of obsessing about candidates' positions on social issues like gay rights, lets focus on our their positions on economic issues (yes, illegal immigration is an economic issue).

Our politicians can do more damage to our pocketbooks than to our sex lives. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Capitalism self-limiting?

Capitalism IS self-limiting -- but only in a MIXED economy.

It is also limited when people take for granted that the affluence it produces (the effect) will magically survive all attempts to subvert capitalism (the cause).

Capitalism flourishes when there is the absence of Govt interference. In fact, if there is no enforced collective action, if you leave people alone, the result will be an evolving form of Capitalism! Therefore, Capitalism can be seen as the logical extension of personal freedom - in the economic arena. Unfortunately, it is that absence of interference that is encroached upon in all modern-day Capitalist countries, leading to the prevailing mixture.

With mostly good intentions, many of which lend themselves to good sound bites (e.g. "a chicken in every pot .."), we undermine the cause of Capitalism, while expecting it's effects to continue forever.

Of course, Capitalism is no panacea - it does not promise a successful outcome for everyone. There are those who complain that it is too harsh, and would create a gritty, unpleasant reality. The results, however, indicate that it is socialism, the antithesis of capitalism, that perpetuates dependence and poverty. Witness the gritty reality of countries such as North Korea and Cuba. What Capitalism does better than any othe system is to ensure the best utilization of scarce resources.

If affluence is de-linked from freedom (and Capitalism) by the citizens of a prosperous, capitalist country, they tend to opt for an ever increasing welfare state.

The question that we should ask ourselves is "Why do so many Americans (who benefit everyday from the affluence of Capitalism) fail to understand the causal relationship involved?"

My answer (and not a very popular one in this forum): we carry the germ of socialism in the form of our Judeo-Christian moral code that celebrates sacrifice.  While embracing the positive contributions of America's Judeo-Christian code, we should also be aware that the factors that limit our implementation of Capitalism are also borne by the same religious code.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Illegal immigration & Good Samaritans

The topic of illegal immigration is a glaring example of the logical inconsistency of Religious Conservatives.

Clarification: I make a distinction between Religious Conservatives - those whose political positions are driven by their Religious beliefs - and Conservatives who may be religious in their personal lives.

Notice how Religious Conservatives have to 'dance on the head of a pin' to defend their position because of their religious bias towards charity, sacrifice, altruism etc.

The anti-illegal-immigration points of Religious Conservatives can be summarized into:

* enforced charity (bad) is not the same as voluntary charity (good)
* its against the law - and laws are derived from and supported by Religious scripture
* despite the good intentions, it impoverishes regular Americans

Compare the above subjective statements with the following objective arguments put forward by Secular Conservatives, who do not have to reconcile their position with religious convictions:

* abolish the welfare state because it is immoral in principle AND in its implementation
* enforce our borders, to further our self-interest

Isn't it curious that Religious Conservatives fall back upon the Secular Conservative position while debating - but are forced to stretch greatly to justify the religious basis for those positions?

Similar problems of consistency exist with respect to the Religious Conservative positions on:
* Public Education
* Universal Health Care
* Minumum wage

Since the above entitlements affect regular Americans and not those foreigners (illegal aliens), Religious Conservatives will find it harder to refute those on moral grounds.

So, they are forced to a weaker pragmatic defense -- i.e. Universal Health Care doesn't work, so it is bad.

Religious people claim to have an altruistic philosophy - and they do - but their hypocrisy is exposed when they are forced to make subjective statements such as "sure, we would't mind supporting them with charity, but not inside our country"!

Or, "they broke the law" and laws (and govts) are acceptable because there are scriptures that support them! Those laws are definitely man-made, as are the borders between countries.

I happen to agree with most Religious Conservatives on the subject of illegal immigration; no amnesty, enforce the law, etc. However, I approach politics from a secular viewpoint - keeping any religious sentiments private.

I weigh in on this debate only to show that the lack of consistency of people who try to support the conservative position while simultaneously advocating a religious basis for political thought. I also maintain that it is this dichotomy that causes many religious people to break ranks with conservatives, especially in their younger years.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Frogs were being boiled (slowly), until ..

.. the prospect of Islamic terror raised the temperature a tad too fast!

You know the urban legend: "The boiling frog story states that a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out."

Socialist leaders know exactly how to play this game. By 'giving' unearned benefits to the electorate while raising taxes to pay for their generosity, they raise the temperature of the water gradually. 

As long as it gets them re-elected, Socialists don't really worry about the effects of their policy. When faced with a failing economy and a loss of competitiveness in Global terms, French politicians reduced the mandated work week, raised the minimum wage and passed legislation that 'protects' workers from ever being fired. Deluded French voters kept re-electing leaders who 'gave' them such benefits, despite the fact that they were leading France towards lower economic standards. Does any of this sound familiar?

So, what happened? Why couldn't the Socialists keep their shell game going forever?

In Chirac-istan, the combination of a weak immigration policy and a 'strong' welfare state attracted the worst kind of immigrants. Bewildered, left-leaning Frenchmen watched the demographic tide that had swept up on their shores. They could catch a glimpse, a sneak preview, of the dismal future that their Leftist politicians had brought upon them.

When the prospect of a violent, un-assimilated, un-employable Islamic underclass was added to the mix - the 'temperature' of the water rose abruptly, and the Frog jumped. 

Irrational exuberance, n'est-ce pas?

Despite my joy in seeing the French electorate lean (somewhat) to the Right, my optimism is tempered by the fact that the French have been indoctrinated for so long in the 'goodness' of welfare-statism that their changes are likely to be incremental, not structural. After decades of damage it would take several quantum leaps for them to realize any significant benefits.

Lacking the huevos to opt for quantum changes, they are likely to enact some feeble 'reforms' which will be trumpeted as "American style Capitalism, with a dash of French flavor". Those reforms will inevitably cause some pain among the indolent, who are used to being hand-fed. Their answer will then be - Capitalism doesn't work mon ami, let's go marching back to the glory days of socialism while the band plays "La Marseillaise" triumphantly in the background.

Parallels may be found in our own society. Public Education - which should have been anathema in 'free-enterprise' America - is here to stay. We may see some incremental changes (e.g. vouchers) that are touted as great steps towards a free market. But those limited, short-lived experiments will never generate broad based results and we will continue to slouch leftwards.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Leftist clouds gather over Latin America .. but is there a silver lining in Europe?

Supporters of laissez-faire capitalism have seen the cloud of communism descending upon Latin America over the past year. The following links show an inexorable trend:

May 1, 2006: Bolivian President Seizes Gas Industry (from washingtonpost.com)

Feb 20, 2007: Venezuela Nationalizes Its Largest Power Firm (from npr.org)

May 1, 2007: Chavez takes control of oil giants (from cnn.com)

No doubt these news items bring joy to socialists everywhere. Unfortunately, the results of this trend are all too predictable. We can expect poverty levels to rise in countries whose leaders enforce their command by these steps. On the global market for commodities such as oil, we can predict shortages due to reduced production, leading to higher prices.

Amidst all this doom-and-gloom, there may be some good news!

May 7, 2007: France Elects U.S.-Friendly Conservative (from cbsnews.com)

Of all the gin joints in all the world, the electorate in France has signalled it's disgust with big-Govt Socialism. While it is too early to tell, there may be hope for France after all ..
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive