Topic: Conservatism
Where does Conservatism stand? As someone who's always described himself as a conservative, I evaluate my definition of conservatism in each social, foreign and economic policy.by Mr. 1up
(Libertarian)
Thursday, February 7, 2008
I , in the future, will use this as my guide in the voting process. Whoever closest adheres to MY definition of conservatism lies. This is, by no means, conservatism from a proffesional perspective.
But as the Republican Party has splintered off into factions, it took bits and pieces of Conservatism with it in each area. None really strictly applying conservative principles.
Matters of Economics
Monetary Policy Article 1, Section 10 clearly states that gold and silver coin are permitted as payments of debts. The declining value of a currency can be directly contributed to a fiat monetary system. Currently, the dollar is backed by nothing. The lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve have put America's economic future in jeopardy. The Federal Reserve should be torn down and the power to coin money given back to congress as directed in Article , Section 8 of the Constitution. In order to increase the value of the dollar and allow Americans to save and spend accordingly, gold and silver coin can and should be introduced as a competing currency to the American Dollar. Ultimately, the goal is to tie the American dollar back to the standards permitted in the Constitution.
Taxes Taxes serve the need of the government, and not the people they represent. taxes have brought the American people to a place of servitude; dedicating nearly half of their earnings to their state and federal government. Increasing minimum wage only serves to put more money in he government's pocket and the overtaxation of business has driven many businesses to outsource for cheap labor. It should be the sincere hope of the true conservative, to lower federal taxes as low as possible. This means the abolition of the IRS. Ending taxes on social security benefits, tips, estates, savings, dividends and capital gains. The 16th amendment would be repealed and progress toward an amendment to the Constitution should be made in order to ensure an 'income tax' may not be levied against the people of the people of the United States, again. Foreign Economic Policy Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Federal Government has no right to abdicate or transfer its power to regulate commerce. Therefore, trade agreements, unions and organizations that are not specifically designated by Congress, should be abolished. The United States of America subtly undermines its sovereignty with each international agreement. Tariffs should be set by congress; not any trade organization, international or domestic.
Status amongst foreign nations should be altogether abolished (Favored nation status, etc). Doing so imposes restrictions on trading with foreign nations. Embargoes and trade sanctions are aggressive acts and should only be placed with congresses approval.
Government Debt The current deficit suffered by the Federal Government has been unjustly hung over the American people and their children. Children grow up in a pool of debt, leaving the poor unable to financially take care of themselves and the middle class struggling to maintain their standards of living. A constitutional "Balanced Budget" Amendment should be passed. In this amendment, congressional earmarks and "pork-barrel" spending would be naturally abolished, for there would be no means for which to fund such projects. Congress would not be allowed to spend more than what it earns in that fiscal year. Doing this will allow the Federal Government to pay off its debts, and keep the United States debt free, in the future.
Corporate Welfare/Subsidies The subsidizing of government programs and big business must come to an end. Subsidies provide the privileged business with an unfair advantage over competitors, thereby creating an artificial monopoly and minimizing competition. However, Government has no right to limit the gains of a business or corporation. A single business or corporation should be able to compete against each other and those who provide better services shall win a natural monopoly. The cost of goods will be determined in a free-market that be strengthened by a strong American dollar. Laws enacted against business should be limited to transparency. If corporate greed is to become known to the American public through a transparent process, the people are free to choose to not use their services at anytime, such is the advantage of competition without direct government interference.
Matters of Civil Liberties
Abortion It is no right of the federal government to instruct women on how to behave. In order to affirm this, the federal government should discontinue funding of both abstinence programs and organizations such as "Planned Parenthood". States or local governments should be left in charge of the abortion issue as this would give the people the ability to vote on such issues.
Gay Rights The ability of the Federal Government to recognize 'married' or civil unionized couples, should be abolished. State and/or local governments should handle the issue accordingly. This provides the opportunity for the American people to hold a vote in their state or through other local elections to determine such matters. It is also a State's right to determine the status of a homosexual couple, not married under their jurisdiction.
The Military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be abolished. Classifying gays as 'disruptive' in the military is government sanctioned bigotry. Disruptive behavior occurs just as much from a heterosexual standpoint, if not more so. Sexual disruption should be taken in equal measure.
Affirmative Action The intended nature of this was to provide 'equal' opportunity to different races and genders. This policy, however, has caused great resentment amongst the minorities it was attempting to protect. Positions in business and scholarships should be filled by those best qualified. By giving minorities these sorts of privalages, it undermines the principle that those who work hard will be justly rewarded. Furthermore, it places minorities in collective 'bubbles' further diminishing the equality they richly deserve.
Patriot Act/Habeus Corpus Habeus corpus was installed to protect the right of the individual. So what is left to protect the individual when habeus corpus is not in effect, much like the standards in the so-called "Patriot Act". Its obvious, unconstitutionality is aberrant and should be done away with immediately through the congressional process.
Internet The internet remains a wealth of free ideas, not only in the U.S., but across the globe. Restricting its use would be in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment. Gun Ownership A national registry of guns should be kept, however, the Federal government has no right to take the right of an individual to protect himself, away. Whether he be convicted of a crime or be found even mildly-insane. The registry on guns would allow for those who commit crimes with those firearms, to be pursued for questioning. A ban on certain firearms only serves the individual committing the crime as he will not be bound to the same rules to that of a would be assailant. Stem-Cell Research Stem-Cell Research should not be subsidized by the government. Instead, research should be financed by private investors who may benefit from its discoveries.
Drugs Just like the prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs, fails. Instead, it creates a profitable business in crime that thrives and draws individuals to the wrong side of the law whom would usually not be inclined to do so. Furthermore, municipal drug users suffer the consequence of this over bearing 'drug-war'. State laws should be respected and upheld. This is not a federal matter.
Healthcare The U.S. needs to work on returning to a principled, free market healthcare system. Medicare and Medicaid should be ultimately phased out, however, it is impossible to accomplish this without reform.
- Let users of Medicaid and Medicare shift to private insurers once prices fall below that of medicare and medicaid prices. It is imperative to not force those on government programs to change to private companies. - Allow consumers to set aside tax-free, health related savings accounts. States may offer there own incentives. - Allow charity and 'faith-based' clinics to operate without government interference.
Environment It is a conservative principle, as people, to show at least modest concern over pollution levels. However, the Federal Government has no right to impede on business' rights, just as business' have no right to impede on individuals. States may enact their own laws regarding pollution and forestry.
Education The federal government has no place in the educational system. It is important that parents have a large say in what their child learns; and that can not happen at the federal level. The public school system should be supported at the state and local levels, continuing to provide schooling for the majority of the populous. However, a higher education can be achieved when parents have the ability to "shop" for a school that best fits their child's needs. Private and home schooling should also be encouraged through tax breaks. Parents who choose to free up classroom space in public schools and strive to attain a higher education for their children should be rewarded for their efforts, not discouraged. Abolition of the Department of Education should be worked for.
Illegal Immigration This a issue at the heart of America. America was built by immigrants who eventually helped fuse the culture we have today. Immigration is not at the heart f the debate, however. Illegal immigrants have come in droves to escape fledgling economies from their homeland and in hope of a better life. Surely we can sympathize with their want for something more...something better. However, just as a poor, American citizen feels the need to rob a convenience store in order to provide income for themselves, there is someone who is negatively effected because of their illegal actions.
There are those who would enter this country from the south, and do harm. However, the majority of them will likely never commit another crime, other than being here illegally, while in the U.S.A. That said, there are laws in this country that would benefit these illegal immigrants and give them opportunities that everyday American can not afford. This welfare mentality only encourages more illegal immigration and with the promise of amnesty that was given twice over already they have no reason to believe that we'll actively pursue them.
First thing is first, a secure border is imperative in discovering those who would enter this country illegally. A secure and reliable border fence (double wide or otherwise) is ideal. It is also important that our border guards be armed and allowed to defend themselves against those who would do harm against them.
Employers who hire undocumented workers, should be penalized percentages of their quarterly earnings. It is important to ensure that the laws of this nation be respected by those who wish to enter this country and especially by those who invest in our nation.
The 14th amendment has been interpreted to say that if you are born in the U.S. than you are a citizen of the U.S. The interpretation many conservatives have, however, feel that because illegal aliens do not fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. than neither are their children. Birthright citizenship needs to come to an end in order to discourage those who would enter this illegally.
Medicare and Drivers licensees should not be handed out to those here illegally. However, in line with compassionate conservative, those here illegally should not be denied medical aid when needed, at any time. However, when their need for aid has ended, police should be notified and the individual deported.
National ID The privacy of the American citizen is paramount to a free society. While it is technically not enforced upon the states to accept REAL ID, the restrictions placed on the people of these states that do not comply are not constitutional. The federal government has no right to mandate national ID cards and they are unconstitutional in any form.
Eminent Domain It's unjust use by the government has ruined many by underpaying the value of the business. This unfair practice needs to be halted.
Foreign Policy
Defense National defense is of the upmost importance to this nation. It is the federal government's role to protect its citizens from foreign threats. Securing borders and small, but strong national intelligence agency to keep us informed of the worlds perils are what this country need. Instead, an over reaching bureaucracy is seemingly better at spying on its on people, rather than on other nations. And our border remain weak enough for 20 million illegal immigrants to settle in the U.S.A.
Trade Trade should be encouraged amongst all nations. And not trading with countries, simply because we disagree with their government leadership should end. For many years we have not traded with Cuba, and they still remain under a firm, communist grip. Perhaps, through trade and example, we can show them our system works better...rather than through brute force.
Alliances While friendship and trade amongst nations should be encouraged and practiced, alliances can provide obligation that simply can not be met. That is not to say, that if a nation who appeals to us for military aid wants it, they can not have it. But the only way for that aid to be sent, would be through congressional declaration. It is important to remember that WW1 was started purely from entangling alliances. Let us learn from history. Trade/World Organizations Supposed free trade deals and peace agreements only serve to undermine our national sovereignty. One day, NATO may pass a bill requiring the U.S.A. to ignore a plain rule in its Constitution (Not that we follow it closely, anyways). Do we serve the people, or the alliance? I fear that we hold our alliances more dearly and it cost us dearly, in Korea.
As I examine these views, I should point out that these opinions are strictly at the federal level.
P.S. - For instance, I find it hard to consider yourself a conservative if you are pro-choice in your personal life. And at the state level, I could not choose anyone I knew to be pro-choice. Much the same to some of the other social issues.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Mr. 1up only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Mr. 1up is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
On the surface it sounds reasonable to leave the issue of marriage or civil unions for Gay couples up the states; but the fact remains that the federal government has a vested interest in what constitutes a marriage for the purposes of tax law and Social Security benefits. From the federal government's standpoint, it simply wouldn't do for a couple to be considered "married" in one state, then magically "UN-married" once they move somewhere else. If the Libertarian position is that the federal government has no business being involved in things like income taxes and Social Security, then you'll have to start by dismantling those insitutions.
There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what's more important, the word "marriage" or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.
Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1100 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1100 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.
At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
