A Comparison

If you have read “Fundamentals” (a previous blog posting) you are aware that the United States is a unique country, a constitutional republic established with the fundamental understanding that all rights are given by God to all the people. This is quite different from the European model. In 21st Century terms, Conservatives, in a very general sense, represent the constitutional republic model. This is characterized by individual liberty and responsibility with a small central government having limited involvement in the day-to-day lives of the citizenry. Progressives, on the other hand, seek a large and powerful central government whose job it is to manage the lives of a people who it feels lack the wherewithal to manage their own lives. This is, indeed, a controversial point because most progressives would not describe themselves in this way. This is certainly true of many who call themselves liberal but do not knowingly subscribe to the progressive model. They would see the roll of government as “taking care” of the people who otherwise could not take care of themselves and ensuring that social and economic “justice” are provided for all.

Let me present a simple comparison of these two approaches to government. (I had a very nice little table set up here in three columns comparing conservative and progressive views on specific issues. I could not get it to convert to html, so here is the best I could do.)

Conservatives

Authority: God is supreme

Standards/Values: Fixed -- Set by God

Justice: Rule of Law -- Firm/Fixed

View of Mankind: Human Dignity (Success with effort)

Level of Liberty: Personal liberty/choice

Living Condition: Liberty

Progressives

Authority: Man is supreme

Standards/Values: Relative -- Man can change them

Justice: Rule of Man -- variable

View of Mankind: Human inferiority (Success only with gov't help)

Level of Liberty: Limited liberty/gov’t chooses

Living Condition: Tyranny

The conservative approach to government is based on unchanging moral and philosophical principles. It recognizes the power of individual striving and personal responsibility. Progressivism is based on the Marxist philosophy of class struggle and the need for a government to regulate society in order to create a utopia or a “heaven on earth,” but without God. Let’s look at the relationships above one at a time.

Authority. Conservatives believe we are endowed by our creator with certain rights. These come from God, not from a king or any other form of government. The progressive approach sees government as a group of elite intellectuals who possess expertise which will allows them to make “correct” decisions about your life. Man (not mankind but select people called experts), through his education and expertise, has accumulated a knowledge that gives him the ability to perceive what is best for the masses. Government is, therefore, in a position to dole out rights according to the needs of individuals and groups.

Standards. If standards and values are fixed and unchangeable, the law is blind. If the law is blind it must be the same law for individuals and for government. Our Constitution is the baseline for our laws. It established the rule of law in the United States. Conservatives are great believers in the wisdom and efficacy of our Constitution. Progressives see the Constitution as a stumbling block to their agenda. It gives specific and limited powers to the central government. It states that all other powers are reserved to the States and to the people. In order for a progressive government to expand to achieve its goal of building a manmade utopia, it must ignore the Constitution and see the law of the land as flexible.

Justice. If someone asks if you are for social justice or economic justice, your first reaction may be to say, “Of course I am.” Justice is a good thing. Conservatives root justice in the rule of law as proclaimed in the Constitution. Progressives have been using the terms social and economic justice as “code words” for redistribution of the wealth. Put another way, their idea of justice is to take from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. You and I may say, “That’s not fair.” But, even the definition of fairness is variable in the progressive model. If you work hard to make $80,000 a year, a progressive might say, “That’s not fair.” There is someone else out there making $35,000 a year and he works hard, too. You need to give up some of your income to help him. It’s only fair. This is the progressive concept of justice. The Constitution says “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Progressives believe that if the government takes your property (for the benefit of the masses) it is fair. That is progressive justice.

View of Mankind. Americans used to be proud to say, “I have pulled myself up by my own boot straps.” It meant that, in spite of adversity, a person took responsibility for himself and his family and made the most of his life. Conservatives would say this is a matter of personal dignity and self-worth. Our Constitution provides equality of opportunity and it is up to the individual to make the most of it. One of my favorite examples of this is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He pulled himself up from abject poverty to become a well-educated, responsible and successful citizen. Progressives believe this is an anomaly and that most people can not achieve even moderate success without government assistance and guidance. Some have called this the welfare state or the nanny state. It reveals a view of people that says, unless you are part of the government elite, you can not make it on your own. You must have a benevolent government there to provide for you.

Liberty. What does that word mean? Autonomy, independence, freedom? What is the value of liberty? How important is the freedom to choose? This includes the freedom to make even bad choices. As parents we want our children to make good choices. We teach them, tutor them and if necessary we punish them in an effort to teach them that their decisions have consequences. Ultimately, however, we must send them out on their own. Progressives do not want you to have that sort of liberty. They see each citizen as incapable of making good, reasonable personal decisions. They believe that government experts are in a better position to decide what is best for you. Do you eat too many trans-fats? Are you over weight? The government can regulate that. Have you not saved for retirement? The government can fix that. Yes, the government has all the solutions. It will only cost you your liberty.

Of course, there is actually more to it than that. If the progressives could really establish heaven on earth and make everyone healthy, safe, prosperous and happy it would, indeed, be tempting. That, however, is not the case. Progressivism, Marxist socialism -- call it what you will, has never been successful anywhere on this planet. Cuba is certainly not an example of a socialist/communist Utopia. China only began to become an economically viable nation when it started to depart form communism and inject capitalism into its economy.

The progressive model is a sham. It is smoke and mirrors. Some smart guy once said, “Socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.” Eventually, the hard working people become convinced that they are being penalized for their hard work, so they reduce their efforts. For progressives there is no good or evil; there is only gaining power for government and those who are part of it. Progressives thrive on crises. Rahm Emanuel, the current White House Chief of Staff has said, “You never want a good crisis to go to waste.” When crises occur the government has a solution. It may not work but it looks good. There are many thousands of Americans who truly believe that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal saved us from the depression. It did not, but since the government was “doing something” it gave the appearance of success. The truth is that WWII and the recovery following it are what got us out of the depression. People want to believe that government has the answer to all of our problems. Progressives continue to promote that belief.

Fundamentals

Over two hundred years ago our brave forefathers revolted against a king and the concept of European government. Today there are those in our nation who want to send us back there. They want us to be more like Europeans. Could it be that they do not understand what that rebellion was all about?

The United States did not become the greatest nation on the face of the earth in less than 200 years by accident. The founders were very familiar with European history. They had read Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu. We might call the founding of our nation “The Great Experiment.” The founders were aware of and critical of how governments operated in Europe. Powerful people, sometimes called kings, gained control and doled out rights to the people. The power was in the hands of a few. Men like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams recognized that certain rights are unalienable. They come from God and are granted by him to all people. Hence, The Great Experiment.

In his book, The Five Thousand Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen explains how our founding fathers created a fundamental change in the way governments are established. For the first time in history God was recognized as the Creator by whom all rights are granted. Those rights are granted directly to the people. It is not the place of the king or any other governmental authority to grant rights. They are God given and unalienable. And, just as God is unchangeable, his values and his laws are unchangeable. The founders knew this and wrote our foundational documents with this in mind. They intended for these documents to reflect this fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between people and government.

The founders did have the benefit of a series of changes in the relationship between people and governments that provided a springboard for their great experiment. In 1215 AD The Magna Carta brought the King of England under the law. This was an important crack in the wall of unlimited royal power. The Mayflower Compact of 1620 and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) further establish the need for the people to govern themselves. In 1689 The English Bill of Rights enumerated certain rights to which subjects of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled. These documents, among others, provided our founders with evidence of a slow but definite change in the way people perceived government.

This focus on the rights of people and from whence these rights come suggested some very significant observations about government. First, government was expected to be limited and not absolute. People were not to be constrained by conditions of their birth. They had the right of self-determination. By reducing the power and purpose of government, they implied increased personal responsibility. Second, government was not expected to “take care” of the citizenry (nobles oblige), but rather to stay out of their way and to ensure that all had equal opportunity. The Declaration of Independence states, “that they (the people) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Note that is does not say they have the right to be rich or to be successful or to own a house or to have a free education. The rights guaranteed are much more fundamental than that. In short, the people have the right to expect government to provide an environment where equal opportunity is a given. It is not expected to provide equal outcomes. The results are a function of individual effort and determination.

The genius of the founding fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution is that of a new and improved relationship between the people and the government. The Constitution stipulates that government should “provide” for the common defense, but “promote” the general welfare. The word, promote means to support or encourage. It does not stipulate that the government should supply or bestow on the citizens any benefits for which they are capable of working and acquiring through individual effort. This establishes a requirement -- an expectation, of a small government. To keep the government small, the Constitution specifies those things for which it is responsible and clearly indicates those things for which it is not responsible. See the Tenth Amendment. Since all rights are given by God to the people, our Constitution, ratified by the several states for the people, limits government.

This Great Experiment has worked for two centuries. People from around the world flock to the United States because it is considered “the land of opportunity.” Why would anyone who understands that our strength as a nation lies in our founding documents want to change it to resemble the twisted, elitist model from which we fled over 200 years ago?

Why start a blog?

I have been writing letters to the editor for our local newspaper for some time. Although the feedback I get from friends and acquaintances has been positive, the exposure via newspaper circulation has been minimal. Someone suggested starting a blog to overcome this. She said it would increase exposure and, if I wanted, I could get comments from readers. Frankly, I don’t know if I am ready for that. I enjoy a spirited discussion and even an occasional argument, but I really don’t relish an ongoing defense of my opinions.

I have found that most people with liberal or “progressive” leanings don’t read conservative writing. Most of the liberals I know want me to read Obama’s books but they don’t want to read Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity -- much less Glenn Beck. So, writing a blog would most likely be like preaching to the choir. On the other hand, there may be that occasional truly liberal person willing to at least listen to the other side of the debate. After all, the true definition of a liberal is one who is open to all aspects of an idea without peremptorily discarding any view. Based on that hope, I felt slightly more open to the idea of writing a blog.

Then, there is the familial consideration. I have four children. Two I would consider conservative or at least leaning in that direction. The other two, I would tend to classify as more liberal. Now, that has gotten me in trouble from time to time, because there are several definitions of liberal. Many liberals say they are patriotic while others say that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I will concede that it may be possible for a liberal to be truly patriotic. I suppose that has something to do with how one defines liberal. The term that I have begun to use in place of liberal is “progressive.” This classification, I believe, is more restrictive in that it describes a person who subscribes to the politics of 20th Century progressives beginning with Woodrow Wilson and his cohorts and includes Margaret Sanger, Walter Lipmann and even Franklin Roosevelt. I choose at this point not to name those current personalities whom I would include in the latest generation of progressives. Obviously, some of the things I would say in a blog would ruffle the feathers of one or more of my children. This is a risk, but then I would hope that all of this is an exercise in idea-sharing rather than calling out individuals because of their beliefs. This assumes that either of my two more liberal children will actually read my musings.

A note on my mindset. I am an unabashed conservative and a Constitutionalist. I also consider myself a patriot. I do not consider myself to be a “mindless” conservative or patriot. Not everything labeled conservative is good and not all labeled liberal is bad. On the other hand, I tend to group things progressive as being insidious, deceptive and essentially evil. This is an important distinction. The definition of progressive politics or progressive policies must be clarified. I have certainly not pulled my understanding or definitions out of some dark cavity where the sun never shines. I am not particularly creative. I do read a bit and I am opinionated. Hopefully, those who are patient enough to read my postings over time will come to understand the historical basis for my opinions.

A final thought on writing a blog. Over a year ago, I attended my first TEA Party. I was convicted then and there that grousing and complaining about the state of our nation and its current direction was unproductive. At least this applies to the kind of grousing and complaining I was doing. It was over coffee or a glass of wine or talking with likeminded people after church. I began writing letters to the editor because I wanted to do more than complain. Next, I joined a TEA Party group. (It is a grassroots movement, not a political party.) My involvement has been significant and somewhat rewarding; however, I think that by writing out my opinions and comments I might be able to touch more people. So, here I am taking the first step in creating a blog. What should I post? Who will read it? What difference will it make? I have no answers to these questions, but I want to do something and for right now this seems to be the thing to do.