Conservativism

Anonymous

Newt, Gramm, Helms, Buchanan. Do these names strike fear into your heart? Are you sick of hearing their names mentioned in the context of the "Republican revolution?" Join the club. If I hear any more about Republicans' psychopathic plans for our future, I'm going to eviscerate myself.

Seriously, what bugs me are the pretenses under which this conservative revolution has taken advantage of American "anti-government" mindset.

First, look at the hypocrisy implicit in the foundation of the "conservative" revolution. Conservatives espouse fiscal responsibility, a return to more fundamental definitions of family and decreased governmental interference, but the implementation of these moves would be both contradictory and inhumane.

The foundations of fiscal conservatism are reasonable. If we are to ever get out from under our debt, drastic measures need to be taken. I accept that. However, why do we need to give more tax breaks, particularly to large businesses and wealthy families, while we take food from school children and assistance from poor, single parents?

My twisted view of economic responsibility believes it would be smarter to collect the same (or more) taxes while cutting spending to make us all, especially the well-to-do, suck it in. This is not the Republican plan. They want re-election, and pandering to rich interests helps them secure this. 

Republicans believe government has done little right during its tenure. Let people do what they please and keep government out of it. That attitude is the justification for cutting spending and lowering taxes or issuing tax credits.

Fine, but look at the social direction Republicans are leading us. An English-only policy, mandatory Christian prayer in schools and criminalization of abortion don't constitute "laissez-faire" government. Republicans believe government control of social behavior is acceptable, but that is the worst form of interference a state can choose. If they want
government to stay out of our pocketbooks, they should advocate that it stay our of our private lives as well. 

This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg of stupidity. Conservatives feel we need more polluted water, more businesses exploiting the working poor, more control of minds, fewer trees, fewer dollars for the downtrodden and fewer national treasures. When did this become conservative? I always assumed that conservatives should be interested in preservation, not destruction and homogenization.

Conservative is defined as inclined to protect, to prevent from being changed, to protect from degradation or spoilage. To ruin our environment and establish a national language or religion would plainly violate this. We're all dealing with a failure to protect now, thanks to another alleged conservative.

Had Ronald Reagan followed the true tenets of conservatism, he wouldn't have issued the massive spending he did. He would have protected our economy. Conservatives should be sickened by the wastefulness of Reagan's administration and the curse it left the American people. Instead, they ask to be compared to Reagan, and are lauded for these efforts.

Do we have conservatives infesting our government today? No. We have xenophobic, nationalistic finger-pointers. Liberals are the ones interested in the preservation of nature, protections of individual differences and improving the quality of life of America's poor. Conservative sound bites are significantly less useful.

Newt thinks the liberal left was to blame for the murder and the kidnapping of an unborn fetus. Bob Dole thinks he's a more honorable person for refusing campaign money raised by a gay men's group (only later to accept it). Pat Buchanan wants to build a wall around America and return us to the isolationist days of the 1920s. Frank Murkowski thinks increased oil exploration in the Arctic won't devastate the environment. Need I go on?

Here's something to ponder. Fascism is government characterized by rigid one-party rule, forcible suppression of the opposition, belligerent nationalism and racism, contempt for the weak and industrial might superseding social concerns. Without stooping to the level of name calling loved by Republicans today, doesn't this definition seem to fit more closely with the direction this country is being led? Think about it, and be afraid. Be very afraid.

Return to "Articles from Anonymous"