Conservatism Revisited

“Conservatism” seems to be a word that is not very respectable, lately; it has degenerated into the realm of what lots of people consider to be lacking in compassion. But I would beg to resurrect the word and the concept. Conservatism is not just a plea to change nothing. I think it is a philosophy of government that seeks to retain things that have worked in the past while, at the same time, looking for changes that need to be made in order to make things work better in the present. There is no warrant for thinking that conservatives are just a bunch of reactionary do-nothings that have no new ideas, no innovations, and no compassion in government and societal matters.

We need to get a better look at the term, “compassionate." Compassion for the poor and underserved must not be measured by how much we spend on it, but how many people we help, and certainly not by how many programs the government creates to attain it. Conservatives have always maintained that conservative ideas—of government, the economy, society, the family—are based on sound MORAL principles.

It is true that in the late 19^th Century, when Adam Smith was writing his Wealth of Nations, merchants and manufacturers were living by the maxim, “all for ourselves, and nothing for other people,” as Smith observed. I am sure that left completely unbridled, present day entrepreneurs and capitalists might degenerate into the same mindset. And it is right here that government regulation of business and finance has shown its value. Such government acts as the Sherman Antitrust Act and child labor laws have greatly mitigated the “mean rapacity” of unfair and uncompassionate employment practices.

Being a medical person, I will point out another good effect of government regulation on business and manufacturing. In recent decades, laws have been instituted outlawing the use of lead in gasoline. This regulation has resulted in falling blood lead levels in all Americans and less brain morbidity among children as a result.

In discussing the evils of Obamacare, one of my son-in-laws, David, has reminded me of the many benefits of the law, such as sharable medical records that will prevent a lot of test repetition and, thereby, a lot of excess expense. There are many other benefits of Obamacare, too; but I am still wary of government control of businesses—and especially of health care. I think the government has overstepped its reach.

In sum, I believe that the individual is better off where he is free to better himself by working for his needs. Earned money is much more valuable than money that is given to him in the form of government entitlements. Self-help nurtures a spirit of independence rather than fostering the dependency that is too often the result of misguided entitlements. True compassion finds expression and fulfillment in civil society more often than in government. This is not to deny the validity or utility of safety nets and entitlements in principle, only to define and limit them in practice. Nor is it to deny any role to government, only, again, to define that role more precisely and to limit it more severely.

Here is a quote from a Civil War veteran, Robert Ingersoll: “I will now give you my ideas about finance. In the first place the Government does not support the people, the people support the Government.

“The Government is a perpetual pauper. It passes round the hat, and solicits contributions; but then you must remember that the Government has a musket behind the hat. The Government produces nothing. It does not plow the land, it does not sow corn it does not grow trees. The Government is a perpetual consumer.

“We support the Government. Now, the idea that the Government can make money for you and me to live on—why, it is the same as though my hired man should issue certificates of my indebtedness to him for me to live on.”  

We need to mix some common sense with the race to control everything and every need of our society by means of government intervention.  

 

 

 

 

What Did We Learn From the War of 1812?

The War of 1812 found America woefully weak militarily. Our shipping on the high seas was being raided by both the British and the French; our sailors were being impressed into the British navy. Thomas Jefferson had thought that our country could deal and negotiate with these foreign powers as gentlemen at a table of diplomacy. The result was a disaster—his policy resulted in British soldiers marching into Washington, D.C. and burning the White House.

After the war, America seemed to have waked up. The military was built up and for decades afterward, any nation that treated with the United States knew that we had a strong military to back up our words.

I guess we need to learn that lesson over, again. Today, we have an administration that tries to reason with our enemies and to deal with them by means of sanctions instead of arms. Our military is being withdrawn from Afghanistan before the primary goal of war is accomplished, i.e., VICTORY.

There is certainly a place to save money in our present-day situation; but I doubt that it is by cutting off money from the Pentagon. Let’s not back out of Afghanistan before the job is done. We have lost a lot of American lives there; and if we leave too soon, we will have wasted the whole investment—money and soldiers.

The Hope of the Disconsolate

When gathering clouds around I view,

And days are dark and friends are few,

On him I lean who, not in vain,

Experienced every human pain;

He sees my wants, allays my fears,

And counts and treasures up my tears.

If aught should tempt my soul to stray

From heavenly virtue’s narrow way,

To flee the good I would pursue,

Or do the sin I would not do,--

Still he who felt temptation’s power,

Shall guard me in that dangerous hour.

When vexing thoughts within me rise,

And sore dismayed my spirit dies,

Yet he who once vouchsafed to bear

The sickening anguish of despair

Shall sweetly soothe, shall gently dry,

The throbbing heart, the streaming eye.

When sorrowing o’er some stone I bend,

Which covers all that was a friend,

And from his voice, his hand, his smile,

Divides me for a little while,

Thou, Savior, seest the tears I shed,

For thou didst weep o’er Lazarus dead.

And oh when I have safely passed

Through every conflict but the last,

Still, still unchanging, watch beside

My painful bed, for thou has died;

Then point to realms of cloudless day,

And wipe the latest tear away.

Responsible Conservatism

“Conservatism needs to recover its ability to speak to our deep perennial need for solidarity. The economic freedom that encourages individuals to be productive and independent certainly needs to be promoted. We need more robust economic growth, and there is an inherent dignity in earning a living and providing for oneself and one’s family, which why…we value earned success much more highly than benefits that are given to us. It’s a false philanthropy that constructs programs and policies that seduce people into habits of dependency that diminish the opportunities and incentives for earned success.

“All that needs to be said, and said frequently. The problem is that today’s Republican party says little more. Economic vulnerability and moral disorientation are the defining political and social challenges of our time, and economic freedom, however important for a vibrant economy and healthy society does not address these problems.” (It does address the desirability of constructive entrepreneurism.)

“Moreover, middle-class culture is falling apart because of the equally stunning triumph of lifestyle freedom, and this puts ordinary people at a disadvantage as well. Progressive elites who often preach lifestyle freedom have regrouped. They raise their children in segregated communities and schools, guiding them toward lives as well-disciplined competitors in the new society,” which is based on outstanding merit in various fields….These upper class dictators of relativism insulate themselves from social and moral excesses. “Make healthy choices,” they tell their children. “Meanwhile, the rest of America slides toward moral disorientation. In a world of tattoos and piercings, serial cohabitation and out-of-wedlock children, all saturated by a crude culture, it’s not clear anymore what makes someone and honorable, respectable, adult.”

(The preceding quotations were taken from First Things, February 2013, pages 3 and 4.)

To my way of thinking, the answer to these ubiquitous problems is that we, Americans, absolutely must find ways to stabilize the family in all its aspects. We also must find ways to communicate the principles of basic Christianity to our people. Until we do these things, we are accomplished, we are doomed to further deterioration in our society.

Cohabitation

I have become increasingly aware of the growing problem of cohabitation between unmarried young men and women lately. The Census Bureau reports that cohabitation has become the fastest growing family configuration over the past two decades, increasing at an astonishing rate of 700% since 1970.

The “sexual revolution,” brought on by the invention of the birth control pill, has uncoupled the triad of sex, marriage, and babies that has held the family together for thousands of years. Now, young people do not see the point of getting married in order to have sex. They see living together as a viable alternative to the way things were before. They see marriage as an encumbrance to their desired style of living—this attitude is especially prevalent in young men, who shy away from taking the responsibility of caring for a wife and child. Both men and women seek self-expression and fulfillment; and they see marriage and family as a roadblock to attaining those goals.

 Young adults have devised two different ways of rationalizing the use of cohabitation in their lives: They see a high road and a low road to justify breaking away from the old ways of the Bible and classical family structure.

The high road says, “Marriage is such an important thing in life that I do not want to make any mistakes by marrying the wrong person. So…I will make sure of our compatibility by living together for a time; if we prove to be compatible, we will certainly get married. If we do not like one another after living together, then we will just split; and nobody will be hurt by all the well-known pain of a divorce. It’s just as simple as that!”

People on the low road of rationalism say, “There is nothing about a piece of paper that should obligate us to stay together. If we love one another, then we will live together in just the same way as if we had been married in front of a church altar. Cohabitation will allow the warmth of love, not cold legalities to regulate our relationship to one another.”

There is a myth afoot that cohabitation before marriage decreases the divorce rate. Studies in Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United States show that those who cohabit before marriage have substantially higher divorce rates than those who do not. In fact, the recorded differences range from 50-100% higher. Sociologists have found that cohabitation is associated with greater marital conflict and poorer communication. Their studies showed that the longer the premarital cohabitation, the more likely will divorce follow marriage. Studies at the University of Nebraska in a nationally representative sample found that “cohabitation is not related to marital happiness, but it is related to lower levels of marital interaction, higher levels of marital disagreement and marital instability.” In other words, cohabiters tend to fight a lot and do not frequently have a lasting relationship with one another.  A joint study conducted by three Canadian universities found that of all couples married less than ten years, 31% of those who cohabited before marriage divorced, compared to a divorce rate of 14% for those who did not cohabit before marriage. It has been observed that those who cohabited before marriage and later divorce are more likely to move back into a cohabitational situation after their marriage dissolves—nearly extinguishing their chances for a more successful subsequent relationship.

Many young women think that if they have sex with a boyfriend, he will marry them in the near future. Sadly, this is usually not true. Young men who can get sex from a woman without assuming the responsibility of marriage very often will not marry her.

Cohabitation flies in the face of biblical admonitions. Nothing is more clear in the Bible than the fact that having sex with a person to whom one is not married is adultery and punishable by loss of one’s eternal life in Christ. (Rev 21:8; Heb 13:4)

 

 

 

How Bad Is This Debt Crisis

You may be tired of hearing about the debt crisis; but I am increasingly scared to death about it. Right now, every family in America owes $139,000 to pay off the debt of our national government. We are going into debt at a rate of $6 billion every day; that is $4 million every hour. All that money is borrowed. For every dollar of revenue the federal government takes in, it spends $2.06. How long can that go on??!!

46% of our national debt is owned by foreigners; and the largest share is owned by China; the second largest owner is Japan. It is reported in the Wall Street Journal that China is quietly decreasing its intake of U.S. treasury bonds. That’s understandable; they can see that our nation will soon be unable to pay the interest on those bonds. Of course, a lot of the ownership of treasuries is with the Federal Reserve Board, which only has to print money in order to buy the “securities.” 

I would like to see any Democrat who reads this post respond by telling me how this can go on forever. Just how can we continue spending much, much, more than we take in and produce?

Guns and Schools

The country is rightly very upset by the school shooting in Newtown, CT. It is more than a shame that parents in the United States cannot send their children to a public school without fearing that some maniac might shoot them dead in their classroom. But…that’s the situation these days.

We have seen these school and public-place shootings escalate in recent years. At Columbine High School in Colorado two students shot 12 others several years ago. Last year in Norway, a country with tight gun-control and licensing regulations, Anders Breivik methodically gunned down 69 people, mostly teenagers on the island of Utoya. This year, James Holmes shot 12 people in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater. College-student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University.

These senseless killings look much like copycat acts. We are told on BBC World News that several persons have called the police claiming to be the gunman who killed all the people at Newtown. It seems that some people crave the notoriety of senselessly killing other people. With claims like this, it is likely that one or more of these false claimants to this horrible crime will someday try to repeat it in some other venue.

I think it is very understandable that many families across America are opting to educate their children at home rather than exposing them to gun violence in the public schools. To me, that seems like a very reasonable solution to the problem if there is facility at home for a home-school program.

The problem of gun violence depends on three factors, i.e., the gun, the perpetrator, and the societal influences which prepare violent people to do such things.

In America, we only hear talk about how to influence the incidence of gun-violence by dealing with the gun situation. This would seem difficult in a country that has 200 million guns in a population of 311 million persons. Furthermore, there is data from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that point out the fact that in areas where firearm ownership is large, violent crime is less prevalent than in areas where there is a smaller ownership level of guns.

I think that gun-violence might be addressed more effectively by addressing the societal factors that encourage people to carry out violent acts with guns. Decreasing the portrayal of gun and other types of violence in TV and movies would seem to be fertile ground for addressing this problem.