politics Archives | Page 2 of 2

previous ten entries | 1 2 |

Friday, May 28, 2004

Politics (ack! run away! run away!)

I got the following comment from Paula after posting an earlier entry:

Nosy question: What does "politically conservative" mean to you? I mean, it seems to be a fairly broad term. There are conservatives who seem to use ideology as a kneejerk excuse to not care about or make fun of others (Limbaugh springs to mind), but then there are those like John McCain or Bill Whittle (of Eject!Eject!Eject!) who have carefully thought out their viewpoints. And then there are those who simply don't want government to legislate how they spend their money. There are conservative hunters who don't like GWB because his environmental policies tear into their hunting grounds. There are people who want to legislate moral issues and people who don't because they believe in limited government, and on and on. And they all stand under the "conservative" banner. (The term "liberal" is every bit as vague, or more so. I'm not crazy about labels, in general.) Anyway, just curious, and of course you can tell me to mind my own business.

I've always been kind of a blog-lite kind of person, where I write more about amusing and stupid things I do than about issues that occupy my more serious thoughts. But Paula asks a good question here, and I think I'll answer it. Feel free to move on elsewhere (or read my scintillating essay on why all plants ever in my possession will die) if you aren't interested in reading this. Or feel free to discuss (nicely!).

The short answer is, I wholeheartedly agree that "conservative" and "liberal" as labels leave a lot to be desired when it comes to really pinning down what a person thinks. I don't have a standard line that I draw, and a person is "liberal" on one side or "conservative" on the other. I mean, there are belief sets that I would definitely say are liberal, and on the other end there are those I would definitely say are conservative (and frankly, I am pretty solidly in the conservative camp), but there's a lot of space in between where someone may lean one way or the other, but not far, and where it takes five hundred lines of text to define their positions. Which is as it should be; humans are varied and so are our viewpoints and priorities. And as long as we can agree to disagree agreeably, I can be friends with someone pretty much regardless of his or her political views.

Here are my comments on some of the more specific issues raised:

What does "politically conservative" mean to you? I mean, it seems to be a fairly broad term. There are conservatives who seem to use ideology as a kneejerk excuse to not care about or make fun of others (Limbaugh springs to mind)...

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh regularly in quite a while (not because I don't like him but because I don't generally have the radio on at that time, and I usually have kids with me), so I can't speak for how he is now, but back when I was a loyal fan, I came to realize that:

a) He grandstands a lot and overdoes a lot of his own arrogance for theatrical reasons -- i.e. he doesn't really believe that he is as totally awesome as he says he is -- although he really should tone that down. When it comes down to it (and Rush says this himself), he's not a journalist. He's a commentator and an entertainer. He's under no obligation to behave in a journalistic manner, and I've heard him jump on people on his show who call him a journalist.

b) He's not as mean-spirited as his detractors say. Speaking of knee-jerk reactions, a LOT of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum throw out that phrase to conservatives, when really (and hey, I am one, and I know a lot of them, so I know) we're no more likely to be uncaring than anyone else. But then I don't think it's uncaring to expect people (and allow them!) to pull their own weight rather than rely on social programs -- which I think a lot of people on the social left disagree with. Back to Rush: I've read both of his early books, years ago (my husband, who wasn't yet my husband at that point, lent them to me; he's been listening to Rush since before he was syndicated, when he was just on Sacramento radio), and I saw logic in them (along with theatrics), but not true mean-spiritedness. Making fun, I can definitely see (there's that entertainer thing again). And while I do my fair share of laughing at various aspects of liberalness among my like-minded family and friends, I certainly wouldn't do that on nationally syndicated radio, but hey, if people want to listen to it, he has a right to say it. (BTW, I think Bush-bashers are far, far more mean-spirited in their attacks than Limbaugh ever is. My GAW, the poor man can't open an Internet browser or walk into a bookstore without seeing someone making fun of him. Whereas Bill Clinton, thanks to all his philandering and Arkansas roots, got a favorable rating as "just a regular guy", a President who doesn't talk like a smooth-selling Rhodes scholar gets labeled "stupid". Whatever. I'd like to hear all the people who throw that label around get up and give an internationally televised speech.)

...but then there are those like John McCain or Bill Whittle (of Eject!Eject!Eject!) who have carefully thought out their viewpoints...

I definitely think Rush has thought out his viewpoints, by the way. :) (and I LOVE Bill Whittle, not so crazy about McCain, but that's neither here nor there.)

And then there are those who simply don't want government to legislate how they spend their money. There are conservative hunters who don't like GWB because his environmental policies tear into their hunting grounds. There are people who want to legislate moral issues and people who don't because they believe in limited government, and on and on. And they all stand under the "conservative" banner.

Well, I didn't start out here thinking I'd just give my stand on each of these issues, but as a way of defining what I meant about myself being politically conservative, I guess that would be a good start. I am fiscally conservative, in that I would rather the government realize that the people's money IS their money, and let as much of it be spent privately as possible. In fact I lean toward the libertarian side of things as far as the role of government is concerned. I am opposed to gun control, think environmental issues have been given FAR too much precedence over personal freedoms, have a strong distrust of government educational systems (and of government in general, really), and just overall I think the government is WAY too big and needs to be trimmed down and let people live their own lives a bit more. But on the ever-present moral issues we differ a bit. Of course the main #1 thing that most people refer to when they mention "legislating moral issues" is abortion -- and I am wholeheartedly opposed to abortion. IMO It's as important to legislate on this particular issue as it is to legislate about any other form of murder. Babies in utero are living human beings who can't protect themselves and hence they are direly in need of governmental protection. I like to say that I am completely pro-choice -- and that choice comes BEFORE sex. I am totally opposed to any woman being forced to become pregnant against her will. Anyone who has sex knows what can happen, even with birth control, and if you are absolutely unable to handle carrying a baby for nine months, then for crying out loud, either have yourself sterilized or keep your clothes on; don't think you can just kill the innocent person you've created if things go wrong. And as far as rape, well, the person who's taken away the woman's choice as to whether or not she should have a child should be punished to the fullest extent of the law -- which should be more extensive than it is, in my opinion. I don't see this as a "women's issue" -- it's a humanity issue. A culture which condones killing its most innocent members for reasons of convenience has some serious problems.

As far as other moral issues, I'm conflicted. My civil libertarian side differs with my moral side. I really do think that legalizing illicit drugs would be harmful to society, but exactly how much the needs of "society" should be put above those of the individual is an age-old question and one I've never found a solid answer to in this area, although I confess that generally I lean toward the "keeping them illegal" camp. And homosexuality is another mental conflict for me -- on the one hand, even though I personally disagree with their lifestyle choices, they have a civil right to live as they wish, and I think even marry, as long as they don't hurt anyone else, just like the rest of us. I can see both sides of that. A lot of Christians say that homosexual marriage devalues marriage, but let's face it, marriage has been devalued for a decade or two, ever since divorce got so easy and living together without marrying became so prevalent. Marriage means a lot to me. It means a lot to most people who marry, and it always will. But with divorce so easy, and the alternative completely without censure, it doesn't mean much to the culture at large, and I doubt homosexual marriage can make that any more true than it already is. On the other -- as a Christian, I know that a nation which embraces those things that God abhors will lose His blessing. Which frankly I think has already happened. But again, the civil libertarian side argues with the "America was founded by Christians on Christian principles" side... and I don't like the battle, and neither side is ever on top for long.

I'm staunchly patriotic (even though our country has a lot of flaws, I still think it rocks); would vote with the Constitution Party (and do on occasion, especially in California elections where frequently there's no discernable difference between the two main parties) except that our flawed two-party system is what we have to work with and until that changes I generally find the Republican candidates closer to my views than the Democrats; am in favor of cleaning house in Iraq (I could do a whole paragraph about this; instead I'll refer you to Bill Whittle's excellent and long Strength essay -- in two parts), but I think we could be doing a better job, especially if we weren't hampered by a media that portrays only the negative stuff we're doing and none of the positive and hence turns the public against what we're doing; am in favor of the death penalty where DNA has found the person undeniably guilty; think the U.S. should get out of the neutered and politicized U.N; and I will fight for the freedom to bring my children up as our family sees fit. No Hillarian global village for me, thankyouverymuch.

Whew! I so totally didn't mean to go into all that. But there it is; discuss at will.