11/13/2006

HOW ABOUT THIS? TROOPS ON THE MEXICAN BORDER WHO WILL SHOOT UNARMED CIVILIANS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR WORK

Those of you who have been reading me for a while know that while I am a Republican and consider myself conservative, I hold much of the so-called conservative movement in near contempt. Why? Because it is in essence a negative movement. A movement that is mostly composed of people who want to play defense; to stop the other guy, never is it focused on helping society, on helping people. Nowhere do you find a comprehensive set of ideas designed to help the American Middle class or to directly enable the poverty class into the middle class. Most importantly it offers nothing that might make the quality of our lives better for everyone. And I might add to the above--all of it right now.

The bullshit you read like "Stop Hillary," stop socialism, stop gay marriage, stop abortion, stop this, and stop that are by definition destined for nothing more than holding the opposition to three yards per carry with an occasional run back of a pass interception, or to stretch an analogy---a kickoff return that appears to usher in a "new day." This "plan" is an acknowledgment that the three yards and a cloud of dust will eventually prevail; all we are doing is to slow down the eventual defeat. OK, we've run a few kickoffs back but ask yourselves this: since the 1982 election have we gone further down the road to big government, big government spending, and more intrusion into the private lives of people, or less? Did the great conservative Ronald Reagan run up the largest deficit ever or not? I started writing this piece on Wednesday, the day after the "calamity" we call the Democratic takeover of Congress. I knew I was taking a position I hadn't heard anyone else taking. But today, Joseph Farah of WND has begun a two part series that takes up the same cause:

With all due respect to my conservative friends, this is the kind of thinking that will take them the way of the Whigs.

Don't get me wrong. I love conservatives. Some of my best friends are conservatives. But being "conservative" is not a bold vision for the future. Being "conservative" will never inspire Americans to reject socialism and immorality. Banking on this word, this wholly inadequate, timid ideology is, instead, a sure-fire recipe for political defeat for the foreseeable future.

There is something inherently inadequate with the conservative vision. the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people using the cultural institutions of the press, the entertainment industry, the foundations, the corporations, even the churches.
Every time I read that we "have to stop the government from growing," I yawn. Whenever I hear of someone demanding a strong military (which always means a ton more money) I see another case of some dope with ten dollars in his pocket setting off a $5 IED that destroys a ten million dollar vehicle and kills a couple of the best trained and best educated guys on the earth. And all talk of reducing the deficit is not only a blatant lie but fails to tell us precisely how reducing the deficit will make my life better this year, not ten years from now.

The Democrats are clearly for the implementation of a Welfare State with a huge government bureaucracy that tells us what we can do and when we can do it, just like the EU is doing. Their theory is that capitalism isn't fair. What alternative to Welfare State socialism with all its dictatorial trappings do we offer that will give people a better deal than they have right now? If we actually care about ordinary people bettering themselves we better come up with better ideas.

We are told we are for free trade when the implementation of this concept has resulted in the loss of millions of well paid middle class jobs, jobs that WOULD improve the lives of Americans right now, if only those jobs were here instead of in some Third World dictatorship.

We are told that "open borders" is great for us because it grants employers lower costs, hence cheaper products and lower inflation for the rest of us and we should be happy as clams that money saved by paying "illegals" shit paying jobs raises our standard of living. These are all jobs performed by people who don't have health insurance, educations to uplift themselves, or an interest in actually becoming Americans. Keep in mind that every time one of this "cheap labor" class gets sick they are taken care of by our government supported "emergency" hospitals. Or we hear that "open borders" are bad for us because this "cheap labor" takes jobs away from Americans. Never do conservatives offer a clear solution to a problem that cannot really be solved without a military on the Mexican border willing to shoot and kill unarmed civilians of all ages who are just looking for work. Would you be willing to go down there and kill women and children? Day after day? For the rest of your life?

We must have a set of principals and ideas that will guide "conservative" philosophy to a better "right now" as well as a better future. And we must prove that we are interested in more than the next trillionaire who has set himself up to earn 400 times what he is willing to pay his employees. How does "conservatism" address this obvious disparity? How can we have people in New York paying rents of $20,000 per month while the ordinary workers can't make ends meet? Many of our best and brightest are buying apartments for ten million dollars (or more) while their employees have to live far out of town in order to afford roofs over their heads. How can conservatives address the insane cost of a college education that 90% of us cannot afford without putting our kids into hock with "student loans;" loans that at least half of them will need twenty years or more to pay off? What can we offer the people who are educated in the sciences or mathematics; who are in research and development, or people with other expertise that all of us want to take advantage of---museums, art galleries, large symphony orchestras and so on---how can they exist without government grants, outright subsidization by government, or PBS types of begathons that may or may not work? How does conservatism address these "quality of life" diversions or necessary facilities that are desired by most people?

We better come up with something or it's Welfare State City, with all its ills. The start of a solution? Easy. Force the Congress to view AND PUBLISH how each proposed piece of legislation will help middle class Americans RIGHT NOW. That means every earmark, every appropriation, and every new bureaucratic implimentation of a policy. Building a bridge to nowhere? How does it better the lives of most of the middle class in Alaska? Funding some left leaning art gallery in New Mexico? How precisely does this benefit the middle class with tangible long term benefits?

I have other ideas but they involve mayhem, guns, and fucking. Legalizing pot is also a great start.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post. We do need to articulate our beliefs and show how and why Capitalism is much better than socialism.

Anonymous said...

Let people free and they improve their situation. I'm sorry that it is not good enough for you (got to prevent some cEO from making 400 times what a grunt worker makes), but it is the most utilitarian and also the most moral arrangement.

Anonymous said...

New York rents and the cost of higher education are two of the most regulated, government mandate infused areas of our lives. Maybe 10 per sent of NYC apartemts are free market rents. Computer manufacturing, software production, the Internet and local coffee shops are some of the least regulated areas. Which gives the public better value for their dollar.

Health care is almost totally planned, the reason your doctor "codes" your illness instead of sets a price for his services is because some Harvard guy designed the reimbursement system based on standard codes for illnesses. another area of total consumer dissatisfaction.

If they regulated shoes the way they regulate NYC apartments because after all shoes are required to live and work, we would have only sneakers designed in 1954 and have to borrow to buy a pair.

God what an economic child.

Anonymous said...

Howard to do what you propose involves dismantling a great portion of government at all levels. Realistically that is not going to happen. But if we are going to start with the fantasy let start with this: limit the vote to taxpayers and eliminate the payroll tax except for the portion to cover debt service, pensions and social security. Eliminate all tax deductions and tax all revenue at one low flat rate. No cap gains, muni tax exempt or tax deferred revenue dollars of any kind. Every buck no matter the source gets taxed the same. And eliminate the entire tax exempt non profit world. Let Harvard pay it's taxes as well. Once the players are the payers and the check has to be made monthly we will see how government people really want. And once we remove the direct and indirect subsidies we will see just how much redistribution people are willing to accept.

As for the Mexicans, the reason to control the flow over the border is not just the effect it has on jobs, wages and social costs on us. It ultimately is to force the corrupt Mexican State to reform or explode in revolution. A reformed Mexico will have an economy that will grow enough to have it's people want to stay at home. And a major example to the rest of Latin America to reform as well.

As for the deficit, what matters is the amount as percentage of GDP and the debt service as the percent of GDP. Sort of like a mortgage. A 2 million mortgage is quite doable on a 1 million dollar income. On the other hand fatal if your income drops to 200 hundred grand.