A conservative can be a fiscal conservative, social conservative or both. As I reflect on the future of conservatism in America, especially in the run up to the 2012 elections, it occurs to me that the focus of conservatism needs to be on the fiscal aspect of the movement. Our current economic situation demands greater fiscal responsibility so, out of absolute necessity, this is where the emphasis must be. Only through smaller government and more responsible spending will our nation return to a path toward a strong economy and as an intended consequence, bring back a more traditional, socially conservative America.
While working on this entry, I heard Rush Limbaugh during his commentary last Monday criticize those at last week's CPAC convention who were advocating that the conservative movement give up on social conservatism. Though I am not one of those conservatives, I also disagree with Rush. I strongly feel that we need those of all conservative stripes in the movement but we must chose our strategy carefully. In the arena of ideas, the path toward conservative victory, both fiscal and social conservatism, is via fiscal means. It is the power of the purse strings that will ultimately guide the country back to its conservative roots.
Liberals depend on taxes and government spending to further their agenda and government largess is the lifeblood of their ideology. Without it, their social engineering policies will be starved of the "oxygen" they need to survive. If conservative candidates for office in 2012 focus on limited government and controlling government spending but do so without alienating social conservatives, they will stand a much better chance of being elected. They can do this by campaigning on a platform that calls for limiting the role of government to those functions enumerated in the Constitution which is a far less emotionally charged approach and will make conservative candidates more appealing to a broader swath of American voters.
Running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, conservatives will be able to retake control of the Senate and White House in 2012 and along with their counterparts in the House, will begin passing responsible legislation that will restore America's economic health and by doing so, realign the nation's moral compass - a win-win for both fiscal and social conservatives.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Chris Matthews' Knowledge of US History is PowerPoint Thin
MSNBC's Chris Matthews used Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) address to an Iowa Tea Party group as an opportunity to, not only bash her personally, but to provide the perfect capstone to the Left's several week long campaign mocking the new Republican House majority for their show of reverence for the US Constitution. Matthews called Bachmann a "balloon head" for her assertions that the Founders worked to end slavery and the Constitution gave the nation the ability to eventually do away with its "original great sin." In typical "enlightened" liberal fashion, he pointed to the clause in the Constitution counting Negro slaves as 3/5th of a person as evidence of the racist nature of America and the Civil War as proof of how inadequate the document was for dealing with the problem of slavery. In doing so however, Matthews demonstrated more than just his contempt for Bachmann, the country and its history: he showed his inability to analyze anything beyond the simple facts.
When I was still in the military, we had a phrase we used to describe people like Matthews - those who had limited depth to their knowledge. A typical example was the briefer who could not elaborate beyond his slide presentation. We used to say, "His knowledge of the subject is PowerPoint thin." PowerPoint is the Microsoft program for creating slide show presentations. Of this, Matthews is a perfect example - someone who knows facts but cannot translate them into understanding.
While the examples Matthews cites are in fact true, one cannot overlook the intricate political chess game that was required in order to get our Constitution ratified. Had the Constitution called for the outright abolition of slavery, the southern States, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would never have joined the Union. Furthermore, without the 3/5th apportionment clause, the South would have enjoyed an advantage in representation, that would have made it difficult to prevent the spread of slavery into any new territories. Last and most importantly, had the indirect approach to ending slavery not been taken in our Constitution, the United States as we know it would never have come into being. The more likely outcome would have been another loose and dysfunctional confederation as under the Articles of Confederation or perhaps one country comprised of the northern States and one or more nations formed from the southern States. In either case, it seems highly unlikely that a United States formed solely from the northern States would have ever gone to war against its hypothetical southern neighbor or neighbors to end slavery in their territories and the practice would have undoubtedly continued for much longer.
To be sure, the Civil War was, on the one hand a great national tragedy and on the other, a noble sacrifice to end an even greater one. Far from being flawed for not abolishing slavery, our Constitution is remarkable for providing the mechanism, albeit a costly one, for stamping out slavery throughout the land once and for all and resulted in the most just, prosperous and successful nation in history. It's about time Mr. Matthews and his ilk added some depth to their PowerPoint view of America.
When I was still in the military, we had a phrase we used to describe people like Matthews - those who had limited depth to their knowledge. A typical example was the briefer who could not elaborate beyond his slide presentation. We used to say, "His knowledge of the subject is PowerPoint thin." PowerPoint is the Microsoft program for creating slide show presentations. Of this, Matthews is a perfect example - someone who knows facts but cannot translate them into understanding.
While the examples Matthews cites are in fact true, one cannot overlook the intricate political chess game that was required in order to get our Constitution ratified. Had the Constitution called for the outright abolition of slavery, the southern States, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would never have joined the Union. Furthermore, without the 3/5th apportionment clause, the South would have enjoyed an advantage in representation, that would have made it difficult to prevent the spread of slavery into any new territories. Last and most importantly, had the indirect approach to ending slavery not been taken in our Constitution, the United States as we know it would never have come into being. The more likely outcome would have been another loose and dysfunctional confederation as under the Articles of Confederation or perhaps one country comprised of the northern States and one or more nations formed from the southern States. In either case, it seems highly unlikely that a United States formed solely from the northern States would have ever gone to war against its hypothetical southern neighbor or neighbors to end slavery in their territories and the practice would have undoubtedly continued for much longer.
To be sure, the Civil War was, on the one hand a great national tragedy and on the other, a noble sacrifice to end an even greater one. Far from being flawed for not abolishing slavery, our Constitution is remarkable for providing the mechanism, albeit a costly one, for stamping out slavery throughout the land once and for all and resulted in the most just, prosperous and successful nation in history. It's about time Mr. Matthews and his ilk added some depth to their PowerPoint view of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)