tslrf: Conservative speak
theotherryan at Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest observed that liberal-social-agenda-proponents, what the drive-by media calls “liberals”, have an advantage in an argument.
I was listening to the radio on the ride home this morning and something popped out at me. Liberals win most discussions before they even begin. .. They speak in vague open ended and idealistic terms. Few people will argue with “everyone should have health care” or “hard working people deserve a chance at the American dream (home ownership)”. .. Even better is that it makes conservatives come off as stumbling and worried about “small things” like how a program will get paid for.
Perhaps we look at the equation backwards.
On homes, should we say, “would you sell to a buyer that cannot afford the house/business?”
Or, “Do you want your bank to go broke, lending money to people that cannot repay the loan?”
Or, “What can we do to make health insurance affordable to people making lower wages?”
Or, “Sure, we can raise the amount that the law calls ‘minimum wage.’ But that doesn’t mean that a business owner will have enough payroll money to offer as many jobs.”
“We have to stimulate the economy. We need to increase the amount of money businesses have for payroll, so they can hire more people. One way is to drop business taxes to about 1%, just enough to keep a close eye on reasonable business practices.”
“We can increase the tax on companies, and regulate how much money people make. But we cannot make them stay in jobs that don’t pay as much, at least, not the talented people, and we cannot keep them from moving overseas. And we cannot prevent, entirely, organized crime, foreign nations, and other black markets from taking advantage of the opportunities that tight regulations create.”
“We can spend more money than we take in. At some point, though, the bank will call the loan in, the power company will shut off the lights, and the phone company will cut us off.”
“China and Europe already own a *lot* of what we overspent before. What happens when they decide we cannot be trusted to pay them back? What would the mob, or a good businessman, do?”
“Today the American dream is for food, shelter, work and income, and a reasonable expectation that changes are our choice, not the effects of government regulation or business climate changes.”
“I want my kids to go to school, to learn enough to be a good citizen.”
“Family values are about raising healthy children, that will respect and honor the culture and beliefs of their parents. We won’t get that by making skirt-chasing ads and ‘entertainment’ the mainstay of our national culture.”
“Earn the respect of those around you, of your family and friends.”
“There is no humor without pain. Instead, appreciate joy and honor.”
The American Dream.
Calling “home ownership” the American dream is as artificial as equating breast enhancement with love and happiness, or any of the sex-sells industries – sports cars, cosmetics, fashion and intimate apparel, etc. These are the dream of the decadent wealthy. The American dream, is about being wealthy, about having control over your life, over your finances, over who you deal with, and when and how.
Those that aren’t wealthy understand about jobs evaporating, because someone’s brother in law wants a job. The non-wealthy are familiar with “Oh, we changed our policy, so you don’t get paid for as many hours anymore.” Or a change in taxes means your kid can’t afford school clothes, or you can’t afford to repair a car.
Liberal is a term coigned from an old seating plan in the French legislature. On the left side of the room were people with a liberal philopsophy, interested in making changes to improve things. On the right side were conservative people that wanted to keep things as they were, to make small adjustments rather than changes in concept. At the very far right were the ‘reactionaries’ that opposed any change at all, in the middle were moderates that didn’t mind change, especially, but didn’t want change just because it was different.
In America, the liberal and conservative labels have come to mean something different. Usually they refer to a “liberal social agenda” – the concept that the proper task of government is to care for people, to protect against unfair treatment, poor food, housing, etc. The countervailing “conservative agenda” is less social, and allows that people generally work out their issues, given enough opportunity.
The dark side of the liberal agenda is big government, intrusion of government into daily life of law-abiding citizens, and general poverty of the nation. The dark side of the conservative agenda is that there is a gap, a delay, between the time businesses grow and create jobs, and the poorest and least trained and skilled will benefit.
Much of the advantage, to the citizens of America and to the nation, are indirect. While conservatives favor a strong economy and encouraging business ventures and activities, they often privately support institutions like the Salvation Army, churches, and other civic activities with proven records of helping those in need.
The Democratic Party, following the liberal agenda, profits by tying their “assistance” programs to votes. Recipients understand that they wouldn’t receive money from the government if they don’t keep their Democratic benefactors in power. Government assistance programs are frequently worded and implemented to assure recipients understand that they receive assistance from, and owe allegiance to, the Democratic party.
Neither social agenda is a good way to go. Compromise, sometimes one way, sometimes the other, is the most effective way to keep America strong, to keep Americans healthy and well fed and productive.
Because President Barack Hussein Obama appears to have missed one important lesson from history, and from biology. Grow or die. While Obama and the Congress blacken the names of businessmen and industries, the American economy slows, and grows smaller again with the prolific over-spending of the “stimulus” package. And this invites armies from around the world to prepare for war. Rich nations seldom get involved in war, except wars of conquest. Poor nations, nations where business and job opportunities suffer, are often embroiled in war.
If we as a nation are distracted, worrying about whether our job is about to go away, if our money in the bank or the stock market is about to dwindle away – if we will have to take a loan at 30% interest to pay next month’s utility bill – we will be unable to respond to an armed attack.
Look at how the Great Depression brought about Hitler’s attempt to conquer Europe, and Japan’s attempt to capture the Pacific region, and Pearl Harbor.
I consider Obama’s lack of concern for the economy to be the greatest threat to our national security, even greater than North Korea and Iran using nuclear weapons. We need the wealth of big business, of wealthy people, and the wealth of a working America, to afford to stand vigilant to protect ourselves and those in the world that need our protection.
We could build our way to a peaceful, secure world. We can only tax ourselves into poverty and conflict.
In my opinion. What do you think?
Recent Comments