My American Government textbook defines conservatives as the "defenders of the status quo," who believe in less government involvement especially with the economy, while liberals "seek to change the status quo" to foster development of equality and well-being of individuals.
I am thoroughly confused. Apparently, while they frame all Democrats to be "tax and spend" government-interfering-in-your-private-lives liberals, Republican conservatives are allowed to pick and choose when it is they can slim down or fatten up the federal government.
Continually playing with the American's anxiety around national security and terrorism ever since 9/11, President Bush's surveillance law, and the administration’s recent push to make it permanent for six more years, is a total contradiction of basic conservative political ideology.
It is legitimate, according to the Bush administration, for the executive branch of the government to have practically unlimited spying powers– for good ol’ W. to listen to your phone conversations and check your e-mail. It’s ok for Bush to give legal protection to warrantless-wire-tapping phone companies, a private economic sector.
But, according to the Bushies, growing the government through the implementation of new social programs in the education and public works sectors allows the fed to accrue too much power. Government investment in clean energy technologies and establishment of a cap-and-trade policy for carbon emissions would an unacceptable amount of interference in the economy.
It is hypocrisy for the Bush administration to call themselves conservatives when they O.K. big government if it’s for their own benefit and power-mongering, and at the same time condemn legislation and politicians who are actually trying to better our society by establishing meaningful government programs.
The traditional values of liberals and conservatives have changed over time. Now, for instance, Republicans value national security as a high priority, which the government has to control, whereas it scores lower on the list for liberals, who tend to view individual rights as more important. Republicans don't view it so much as "Big government" because it doesn't interfere in the average American's day-to-day life.
What you need to realize is the Republican party is more based around a newer philosophy that is called Neo-Conservatism. The idea is that the social welfare programs unless they follow the Conservative ideology should not happen and that war, security, and defense should be the most important things on the agenda. I don't want to hurt your feelings on this, but there are a lot of things that liberals do that I think are in poor taste. For instance, I have heard many liberals claim that it is very appropriate for the highest incomes in America to be carrying so much of the tax burden and the lowest earners to pay no taxes. I understand part of the low, but what ends up happening is when there are Democratic Party initiated tax cuts, they generally aim at the middle class who don't pay nearly as much in taxes as the upper class does. I guess the best way to think of it is bar stool economics. I suggest that you read this and take this into consideration. http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2008/01/bar-stool-economics.html
I do not agree with a lot the things that the Republican party does or has done in the last eight years, but the idea that I should have to have my tax dollars given to the poor because they are either unwilling to work, unwilling to go get an education, or are just plain lazy, that is why I am a conservative. I am for as little governmental control as possible and the protection of general rights for the people. Should the government control marriage? No. Abortion? No! But should the government overburden the upperclass? Sure, if you want the upperclass to move on and leave.
I read the blog about taxes and I found it to bring about an excellent point. However, in response to your comment, "the idea that I should have to have my tax dollars given to the poor because they are either unwilling to work, unwilling to go get an education, or are just plain lazy, that is why I am a conservative," I must ask you a question.
Maybe some poor people are "unwilling to work," or "unwilling to get an education." But there are also many people who are trapped in the cycle of poverty who may want to work or want to get an education but their surroundings dictate that they can not and will never be able to do so. For these people, is it not important that the rest of society provide the means to try and help them past this barrier? In the long run, social programs are meant to improve overall society, by working to eliminate patterns of crime, bad education, and poverty (all of which perpetuate each other) that in the short run are a burden to the middle and upper class sectors just as much as they are to the lower class.
I totally see your point there, but being a 4th generation American, my family had no social welfare programs when they came to this country. We had nothing and worked to be where we are now. I think that people should have to work, not be given things on a silver platter. I am not trying to say that social welfare programs all are terrible, but I really feel there is a lot of abuse of the system. Significant reform is something that really is necessary to ensure that this system does not waste American tax payer dollars. I think programs like food stamps are a better idea than welfare checks. When I think of welfare checks, I can only imagine the amount the is spent on dangerous habits (drugs, alcohol, etc). There needs to be a way of measuring that people are attempting to work to improve themselves so the government can reward these people and penalize those who aren't. I don't really have no idea how this could be measured, but I think that there is a lot of reform needed on welfare policy to reduce waste.
In regards to "Conservatives are different today," I do not agree that your tax dollars are going to poor people who are "unwilling to work" or "unwilling to get an education" or poor people who are "just plain lazy." I venture to believe that poverty comes from a simple problem, it has to do with people who dont perpetuate kindness to everything and everyone around them. If everyone gave a littlle to others, they would get a little back and the world would be a better place.
Lets picture a world like yours, where tax dollars do not go to people in need.Think of what the United States would look like. I believe that the "cycle of poverty" starts at a young age. The surroundings of the child give off the notion that they are not good enough. Lets start thinking of ways to boost confidence. In order to fix this problem we as a country should start from the bottom and send these children the message that they ARE worth it!
Just like there is a "cycle of poverty" there is a cycle of love as well, and if given a chance, can change the world. Love comes from with in each and every indevidual. Love is knowing that we are all one, and not to judge others. If you want love in the world be the love of your life and then others will see, listen and ponder...Wow! What is he/she all about?
Love life and love each other
You may find this op-ed interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?pagewanted=all
Don't try and link the two, they're totally different!
The Neo-con position has always seemed to me to create a super-President, one who is practically immune to the traditional American checks and balances. Then to ensure that that person is always Republican. Further using divisive issues to get that 51% majority to control other branches and sections of state governments is an added perk whenever possible.
I don't know how much maliciousness to attribute to them, it changes from time to time. But a group focused on keeping the us vs. them, old vs. new, hawk vs. dove, and even rich vs. poor, etc. fight ongoing deserves a certain amount of disdain.