When pondering the absolute control the Democrats (liberals) had over national policy making (this took place during the period before the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy), I mused at all the different policies they could finally pass and implement since the Republicans (conservatives) didn't have enough votes in the Senate to filibuster, not enough votes in the House to get permission to use the washrooms, and, obviously, didn't have the veto pen.
Of course, that state of affairs (the liberals controlling everything), wouldn't (and didn't) last long, but I liked the academic exercise of considering the what if's: what if the D's not only passed and enacted all of their dream policies on domestic and international fronts, but held control long enough to see the programs fully implemented...and their results.
I try to be honest with myself while musing about this possibility, and was reminded of the following Eisenhower statement: "I have so often been through these periods of strain that I have become accustomed to the fact that most of the calamities that we anticipate really never occur."
With that in mind, I wondered if calamity would really befall our nation if the liberal policies were fully implemented. Then I flipped that question, and inverted it: Would everything be fixed if we passed and implemented conservative policies.
And I must admit, no.
"Why", you may gasp, as you question my conservative street cred under your breath?
Because, while I firmly believe conservative governance is more effective than liberal, and therefor would do a better job governing our nation, I think governance models and structures aren't the root problem.
I believe our root problem is a spiritual one. If the people aren't good (in the simplist terms), perfect laws and programs won't work.
Perhaps a few examples to illustrate my point:
Regulatory (criminal laws): cheating on taxes, assaulting other people (physically or otherwise), steeling or breaking into cars, and violating copyright laws (cds, movies, etc), are all, sadly, common crimes in our society. It would not be a stretch to estimate that if you haven't knowlingly broken common sense laws on mutiple occasions, the person living to the right or left of you has - whether or not they've been caught.
Do we intuitively know that cheating, stealing, and killing (etc.) are wrong? Of course we do. If we adhered to that intuitive (or, spiritual) inclination, we wouldn't need those laws, wouldn't need the cops, judges and lawyers, jails, nor would we need to levy taxes to support all of those institutions.
Administrative (government programs): Primarily targeted at "helping" the people who need help. Medicaid, Social Security, and Head Start (early childhood education), are all examples of programs that succeed or fail in varying degrees. They are all designed to help the needy (needy for health care, needy for financial support in old age, needy for extra help in education).
All of which could be taken care of by the assistance, charity, and generosity of family, friends, and neighbors. But do we take care of our brother's health care needs (that he can't manage himself); do we make room in our homes for our old parents and grandparents; do we invite our struggling neighbor's kids over to our home to do homework with our kids? If we were a spiritually strong, we wouldn't need government programs to take care of needs that can otherwise be taken care of by our individual sacrifice and charity.
I do accept that no matter how spiritually strong a society is, there will probably always be at least some need in that society that requires a collective (government) effort to resolve. But, in general, I would suggest that a spiritually strong society would only have a minimal need for government laws and programs.
Both regulatory (law enforcement) and administrative (programs) efforts in our nation are all put in place in varying degrees to fill needs that arise out of a spiritual deficit. The more government laws and programs we have the more spiritually ill we are. In the absolute sense, the necessity for a government to fill all of these needs equates to the end of days because it represents that the people aren't good, and the spiritual death of the people in that society has already occurred.
(Some would suggest that government or collective efforts to help those in need are not a sign of spiritual failure, but simply another way to meet needs. I would respond that by removing the need for individual acts of charity and involvement, one further erodes the spiritual character of the people in that society.)
Why, then, do I staunchly defend and promote the conservative approach to governance, in contrast to the liberal approach? The answer is clear: because it does not hasten our way to the end of days as described above? It seeks to address the needs of laws and programs to fill needs that arise out of the obvious spiritual deficit that our society is plagued with, but does so...conservatively. It seeks to do it as little as can be judged necessary, seeking purposely to avoid hastening the end of days.
That is why I'm conservative. I acknowledge that conservative laws and programs are ultimately lacking when the people aren't "good." But it is the better alternative to accelerating ourselves to the end (government doing everything) that acknowledges our collective spiritual death.
***************************
7/27/2010
I just spotted this statement by Abraham Lincoln: "From this appears that if all men were just, there still would be need for some, but not much, government." So, at least in one respect, I am in concurrence with someone smart.
