Topic: Election 2008
The Man of Zeal Barack Obama's passion and zeal for serving as our Commander-in-Chief is admirable, but his policies and worldview are dead-wrongby R.J. Moeller
(conservative)
Sunday, September 28, 2008
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)
When I was in 3rd grade my youngest brother poured a glass of milk, thinking it was soap, into my fish tank and proceeded to clean the bowl with a toothbrush. I had lazily neglected to clean the bowl myself for some time and although it was a thoughtful gesture on my brother's part, it resulted in both my fishes (Andre Dawson and John Wayne) being flushed down the toilet. As soon as I got new fish (The Hawk and The Duke) and fresh water that next week, some ground rules were put in to place as to when and how my brother would be able to visit with my pets.
Now obviously I didn't believe he meant the fish any malicious harm. In truth, the very fact that he didn't mean any harm combined with his youthful penchant to confuse milk for soap is what made him all the more of a threat to any unsuspecting little goldfish in the house.
Democrats in Washington today remind me an awful lot of my youngest brother all those years ago. The milky suds of liberalism have, despite the good intentions of those who advocate their usage, been confused for the thorough Irish Spring-like cleansing of conservatism this country's economy, government, and culture has been in need of for many years. Republicans certainly have been negligent in keeping the fish bowl in proper, working order the past 8 years, but it seems clear to me that more milk certainly isn't the answer to our current predicaments.
The problem with liberalism is liberalism. The problem with conservatism is conservatives. The Left chases after an ideology and political philosophy that is inherently flawed. The Right's tenets are more closely aligned with the original intentions of our Founding Fathers, and have the added bonus of common sense and facts hedging those convictions. Unfortunately and unavoidably, they also have just as many fallen human beings running things as the Left does. I've yet to find a political party that has cornered the market on unethical behavior or incompetence. (But then again, the perpetual failures of our federal government are the reasons we as a nation have traditionally been leery of their schemes and prefer the voluntary nature of free markets.)
The difference here is that conservative principles, if actually practiced by our government and used as a political barometer by voters, will provide America with the best possible opportunity to succeed in the future. In short: conservative "things" (like adherence to our Constitution and the Invisible Hand of the free market), if followed correctly, work. Modern Democrats, however, are stuck with the [link edited for length]liberal ideology of LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Nancy Pelosi that cannot work no matter who is running the show.
As the fat swan said to the ugly swan: "I can lose weight, but you're stuck."
Barack Obama and Joe Biden don't care any more or any less for their country than John McCain and Sarah Palin. In fact, the primary problem with the Obama-Biden ticket's ill-advised support for things like increased spending, increased taxes, bloated bureaucracy, and precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not that they don't truly want what is best for America, but that they are so convinced what they propose will work.
On one hand it was sweet that my little bro wanted to do me a "solid" and clean my tank. It's nice to have family members who earnestly seek the good of their siblings. But when his sincerity led to disaster, if I equally cared for him and his development as a person, it was my duty to sympathetically point out the error of his ways and firmly warn him that it cannot happen again. (Flush my fish once, shame on me. Flush my fish twice, you're getting a wedgie.)
Two quick examples of the unreliability exhibited by liberals like Obama and Biden I'm talking about: First, it is a reality that by lowering taxes, government's tax revenues actually go up. During his first term, President Bush and Congress (the ones who authorize any tax cut or spending proposal) cut taxes and since have seen record-setting revenues come in to the U.S. Treasury. The problem of the course was out-of-control spending in Washington. Some blame the War in Iraq, but when the levels of our GDP we spend on national defense are at historic lows (even for times of peace); the answer to the deficit is not found in Baghdad. When taxes are cut, in conjunction with curtailed spending, revenues go up and the deficit goes down.
Obama's plan? More than $750 billion per year in increased spending projects and a $1 trillion dollar tax hike on that same 3% who already are paying more than their "fair share." In a time of economic turmoil, largely caused by the implosion of lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two big-government liberal institutions that Democrats like Obama took campaign money from but did nothing to heed warnings of their inevitable collapse), the man who blames Bush's plans and mocks McCain's has decided to do more of the thing Bush got wrong (over-spend) and none of what McCain has consistently been right about (across-the-board tax cuts).
What is a responsible, thinking, informed adult suppose to think of such thoughtlessness? Because he says he means well and "cares" more than the other guy, I'm to trust Senator Obama with the reigns of an economy he clearly doesn't believe in (because he is a far-Left Socialist when it comes to economics)? Republicans have made mistakes, and McCain is no economic guru, but this is madness.........
The views expressed in this
article are those of R.J. Moeller only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. R.J. Moeller 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.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-09-28 11:38:49
Dear RJ Moeller,
OK..... but are you insinuating that McCain-Palin is any better? Last I saw of Palin, Katie Couric and Charles Gibson ripped her to pieces and left her for the birds.
You refer a lot to 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' in your article, I was wondering if you could define what those terms mean to you.
Come on, let's add a little depth to your insinuations. To say that the trouble with Liberalism is Liberalism is about as weak as saying that the only thing wrong with Bush is Bush. That just ain't so!
This whole "original intent" stuff that conservative Republicans have been trying to pass off on us is about as nausiating as watching reruns of "That 70's Show"! (Although RJ probably likes that show because the farther we can go back in reality, the better he likes it.)
The original framers lived at a time when there wasn't an American government ~ they were just forming one, and it was mostly a lot of compromise and suspicion. Blacks and women weren't even recognized in any laws or decisions that were made. And, there certainly weren't any of the tremendous contributions of government in the form of roads, highways, courts, jails, water and sewage systems, police, fire, schools, hospitals, transportation, and many other things that we have today. To go back to thinking AT THAT TIME means to go back to the white, wealthy, aristocratic bigots who set up the framework that now must be adjusted. This conservative lament for "the good old days" is a disguise for bigotry, discrimination, sexism, regarding property rights, guns, voting eligibility, speech (think they ever heard of "gays" or "abortion" back in those days?), and ignores all the technological changes that have made our economy so much different than these old geisers ever envisioned.
A better word for CONSERVATIVE is STATUS QUO, and that's what John McCain has in store for us ~ no change. More Bush.
This whole bluster about tax revenues going up when tax rates come down is as much jibberish as Lucy used to give Ricky when she wanted to get him to go along with one of her schemes. These are BULK numbers, not individual quantities. To say that the total amount of taxes collected went UP in the same year that tax rates were lowered has as much cause and effect as saying that automobile accidents went down when manufacturers sold more red cars. THERE IS NO DIRECT CORRELATION. This is more of the Republican Reagan-Bush Fairy Tales that they try to promulgate. It was not the tax cuts the first year of Bush that pushed total revenues up, but the robust economy that Clinton had put in place. Bush killed it off with his terrorist hysteria and his obsession with being the next Charlemagne or Napoleon. McCain will do the same.
Don't waste a vote on someone who's as old as the hills and thinks like them, too. Vote Obama. He'll make friends with other nations, give us a national healthcare system (we're the ONLY country in the world without one), and he'll see that we don't become the military gestapo that Bush has turned us into.
Thanks for taking the time to read my piece. In a short amount of space it is often difficult to each time out define fully words like liberalism that are complex and full of nuance. I believe that Barack Obama's policies embody modern liberalism. Increased spending. Higher taxes. More govt control and regulation (broadly speaking because certainly everyone is for some level of regulation in different areas). Treating the War on Terror almost entirely like a criminal matter that can be fought better with judges/courts/law enforcement than any and all military force. Pro-choice. Stricter gun control (or complete disdain for the 2nd Ammendment). Tends to be secular-progressive in their cultural views on things like gay-marriage, the enviornment, etc. In the pockets of unions (i.e. teachers).
I know where you are leading your question...you are hoping that I am some simpleton mini-Sean Hannity who doesn't know what the word liberal means. And that I think conservatism is whatever Rush Limbaugh says. I assume this if the first piece you've read of mine, and while I am a young, aspiring writer who is trying to hone his craft in a spirited, engaging enviornment such as Nolan Chart, I have written many columns on the subject of the conflicting worldview the Left and Right tend to have. I hope you'll go back and look through some on my site. Two you might find interesting are entitled "Beguiling Simplicity of the Left" and "Collectivism De-bunked". I wont go more in to the defining of liberalism's tenets here for the sake of time...but again I thank you for even reading my article.
Oh and as far as me insinuating that McCain-Palin are better than Barack Obama and Joe Biden....in case I was unclear...that is EXACTLY what I am saying. I assume you are likely a libertarian (if I'm wrong, I apologize) and I have much in common with you if you do. But I am also a realist who knows that come election time these will be the two sets of candidates vying for control of the White House. It CANNOT be Obama who wins if we hope to make many of the changes you and I would agree need to be made. I have been furious with Bush on many things, most of all spending. I know Palin wasnt the BEST choice possible (check out my thoughts on her on my blog called "Here's to Lipstick"). She isn't Ron Paul so you wouldnt have been happy regardless. What matters is that we hold ground with who is in the White House, and more importantly, start grass-root efforts to elect fiscally responsible members of Congress in our home states. THAT is what changes things. But if it is going to be a DEmocratic Congress and White House, changes will be made that might forever and fatally move this nation towards European Socialism. I know Bush and the GOP have made mistakes. They are inexcusable. But, to even compare McCain to Obama is insane. It simply isnt true. McCain is the better choice. You can throw your vote away for a 3rd Party candidate that will ensure Obama's victory, or you can vote McCain and work to change this Party and ideology from within.
Then again, you might be a liberal and all of this means nothing to you and more spending and higher taxes on those evil "rich" sounds delightful. Who knows...
Wow. Thats alot of interesting stuff you had to say there. I bet the other condescending guys at the Starbucks you sit at your laptop with loved it all.
I'm more upset that you suggested I liked That 70's Show than anything else. That show is rubbish (like your post). If this was the first article of mine you've ever read, than your comments make sense. I know sometimes people only get one shot with a "valued" reader like you to make a good impression, and if I failed in doing that, I am deeply saddened. The problem with liberalism is liberalism. The problem with it, is everything about it. Conservatism works, but is carried out by fallen men and women who make mistakes and often (as in the case of Bush and many GOP-er's the last 8 years) do things like over-spend (like liberals). I dont know how you missed that insightful point, unless you are a liberal and disagree with it.
Let me give you another example of the logic I am using....I am a theist. I believe in God. To me, someone who doesnt believe in God isnt a horrible person, they are simply wrong. No matter what they do in their life, even if its done with good intentions, will (again, in my opinion) eventually lead to nothing because they wont get to reap the rewards of their efforts with eternal life in Heaven. (I am not making a case for Christianity, simply making a similar style of argument to show you why you're wrong about "The problem with liberalism is liberalism" being lame.) Spiritually speaking, the problem with paganism (or atheism) is paganism. In my estimation, they are pursuing a fundamentally (and eternally) flawed ideology and worldview. It doesnt work.
I'm sure I'll hear back from you calling me a religious nut for even using that example, but oh well.
As far as clinging to the past goes....I dont know if you were trying to mock me, but I take it a compliment that you saw that I value and cherish the wisdom of people who came before iPods. I know its wild and crazy and close-minded of me. You're right, slaves and women didnt have full rights when we were founded. I say let's throw out the whole Constitution and do whatever Joe Biden says. You sir are the perfect example of what is wrong with the average product of public education today. You've been raised to hate and resent your own country and think that only progress is success. There is no wisdom to be found in the past. Today and tomorrow take place for you in a vaccum. It's selfish and short-sighted beyond description to live and think like this. Of course I am only saying this because I am selfish and want everyone to get in to flying time machines with Doc Brown and head back to the 18th century. (It was the one before the century your hero, K. Marx, did his best work.) Obama is Jimmy Carter. I'd rather have Bush 3 than Carter 2. Millions agree with me, millions dont. Things will be settled in a little over a month.
You gave examples of things we have now that those "geezers" could never have imagined. That's an awesome line of argumentation. Because they couldnt predict things we have now, they arent worth listening to. Gotcha. And you add the icing on the painfully self-absorbed and deeply misguided cake by accusing conservatives of bigotry and racism because of our alleged fondness of the "good old days." That is quite a leap intellectually. You read my piece, attacked me for making some admittedly broad generalizations about liberals (i.e. its not that they dont care, they are just wrong about their policies) and returned the favor by accusing me of sexism, racism, bigorty, etc. You sir, are a delight.
Everyone reads these articles and seems to have their attack formulated before they even clicked to open the page. You werent going to hear any of my thoughts to begin with so you read in to them what you wanted to say all along. You obviously know less than you've accused me of knowing about economics. I cant respond to some of the things you said about Clinton being the reason our economy had 25 consecutive quarters of growth under Bush because they are not factually true and if you believe they are we dont just have a difference in opinions, but in reality. That is fine, and good luck with yours. Obama will definitely stimulate the economy and a Democratic congress (see:last two years) has things pretty much under control so I think the rest of us can just check out and get ready for 50 and 60% tax rates. I for one will spend my time day-dreaming about all the slaves I could have owned, women I could have dominated, tobacco I could've raised and smoked, leeches I could have used to heal my ailments, and powdered wigs I could've donned if I had only lived in the good old days of yore. (For those of you without a sense of humor...liberals....that last sentence was a joke.)
I also appreciate you reading my piece, but am disheartened any time I am reminded there are really people who think like you.
I’m certainly no master myself, but hopefully that doesn’t disqualify me from analyzing your points one by one.
1. “The trouble with liberalism is liberalism” is a generality meant to highlight many of the flawed ideals and policies that the Left espouses.Your comment about it being “as weak as saying that the only thing wrong with Bush is Bush” is both a non sequitur and intellectually vapid.If anything, your logic suggests that there are MORE things wrong with liberalism than just liberalism alone.I agree, and I’d love to join you in pointing them out.
2. Calling the support of original intent “as nauseating as watching reruns of ‘That 70's Show’” is both narcissistic and entirely typical of liberal thought.The idea that the wisdom of people who lived before us should be discredited solely on the grounds that they lived before us is one of the most dangerous, ill-considered notions that pervades the modern mind.If society operated on this principle we would have no laws, no science, no morality, no technology, no medicine, and certainly no democracy.We would constantly be tearing things down only to start over rebuilding the exact same things we destroyed, without any regard for whether those ‘things’ were good or bad.Time and good ideas are mutually exclusive.Ideas don’t necessarily get better over time.If they did this world would be a far better place.Both you and I know this is not the case.
3.Your contempt for people of the past is quite apparent.I would simply ask that you refrain from projecting the things you find wrong about that time period onto today’s conservatives.I promise not to do the same with yesterday’s liberals.Of course slavery is wrong, discrimination is wrong, bigotry is wrong, etc.This does not mean that everyone who lived in that era (and anyone who agrees with many of their ideas) is a horrible person who hasn’t “caught up with the times.”We measure people by the sum total of the good they do in this world; not by whether they ever did anything wrong.If we used that standard there would be no good people on this earth.
4. Our job as conservatives is not to keep the status quo.It’s to make the status quo a status quo worth keeping.In 2008 this means change.Not change in the form of ‘progress’ towards a Socialist, hebetudinous society; but change BACK to what made this country great: small government, less taxation, private enterprise, personal responsibility, strong morality, etc.Both of us want change.We are merely debating what TYPE of change we want.I believe Obama’s change will be ruinous for America.I don’t believe McCain’s will be perfect by any means, but it is a far better vision for this country.
5. To say there is no direct correlation between tax rates and tax revenues is not only inaccurate, it’s also meaningless.This is like saying there’s no correlation between how much McDonald’s charges for a hamburger and how much money it makes in a year.The price of a burger may not be the sole determining factor in the company’s profitability, but to argue that it has no effect whatsoever represents a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most basic tenets of economics. I honestly don’t know what to debate on this point because you’ve already ruled out the possibility that there is anything worth debating.
6. What robust economy did Clinton put in place?If you’re referring to the technology boom, this was mostly a matter of good timing on his part.And of course it was largely the result of a free market spurned on by American innovation (I don’t have to remind you how much conservatives advocate free markets).
7.By “terrorist hysteria,” do you mean the commercial jetliners that Islamic extremists crashed into the Trade Towers in New York City which killed thousands of Americans?Or do you mean the one they smashed into the Pentagon?Or was it the one they had aimed at another target which was miraculously brought down by heroic US citizens?Or do you mean the radical Jihadists that slaughter innocent people and believe they’re doing God’s work?Or do you mean the bombings, murders, “honor killings,” shootings, genocides, and other violent massacres that go on throughout the world on a daily basis?If you’re content to reduce all that to ‘hysteria’ then I’m not sure we’re on the same page, let alone the same library.Real evil exists.You may call it what you like but you cannot deny its existence.
8.The notion that “being as old as the hills” is a bad thing is simply another slice of the intellectually distorted pie that the cultural Left has convinced you to consume.Perhaps your parents, grandparents and great-grandparents would like to hear your opinions on the relationship between old age and poor thinking.Let me know how those discussions go.
9.I like making friends just as much as the next guy.Unfortunately our goal as a nation is to do good; not to become everyone’s “best bud.”If other countries want to do good as well, then of course we’ll be ‘friends.’But remember: choosing your friends is far more important than simply making them.Bad friends are worse than no friends at all.
10. National/socialized healthcare will be a disaster for this country.We don’t have time in these comments to discuss it fully, but I’d be happy to converse with you in the future.Just know that being the “ONLY country” without something does not mean that that ‘something’ is good.If every other country is run by Communism should we become Communist?
11. Lastly, please don’t use the word “Gestapo” in that fashion.It dramatically cheapens the real evils that took place under the Nazi regime, and it is utterly out of place in this context.When you call decent people evil, what will you call the truly evil?
I think that what RJ is trying to say when he says "the only problem with liberalism is liberalism" is that the only thing handicapts liberals from attaining their goals (less unemployment, help for the poor, better overall economy) are the policies they push to help get them there. The problem with liberalism is liberalism is just a simplified way of saying it.
Here are some examples
To help reduce unemployment, liberals want to make it more difficult for business to exist.
In order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, liberals want to either keep producing the same amount of domestic oil, or maybe even produce less, while simultaneously raising operating costs and removing profits (research dollars) from the very companies who are equipped to find alternate sources of energy, ExxonMobil at the top of that list. Somehow, liberals still consider alternative sources of energy to be priority number one.
In order to increase the caliber of teaching in the public schools, liberals want to give more money to teachers regardless of their productivity, which not only encourages bad teachers to continue doing bad, it discourages good teachers from doing good. The only thing holding liberals back from seeing this is the fact that they are liberals, which says ignore the results and focus on what seems right, regardless of its history of being wrong.
The trouble with liberalism is liberalism.
In this regard, I would agree with you that the only problem with Bush isn't Bush, I would say the only problem with Bush is liberalism. Bush massively overspent while in office, something liberals want and conservatives don't. The only other thing that Bush is criticized for that I can think of is his war policy. If Bush had just gone into Iraq full force, and surged like McCain had suggested a long time ago, I believe we'd probably be in and out already.
You obviously slept through economics 101 in school....
IT IS A REBATE CHECK!!! It is NOT a tax cut. A tax cut is not sending money you make to Washington. A rebate is people sending their money to have it then re-distributed (also known as welfare). How am I mis-representing this? If you mean that I am explaining what Obama seems unwilling to about his own plans, then yes I am and I'm proud to do so.
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.
