So I was thinking, what is a conservative anyway? I'll try to outline the basics of what I think a conservative is that makes them different than liberals. Obviously, not everyone who is conservative agree on issues, so I'll try to avoid talking about specific issues (such as gun control), they can be addressed at another time.
The way I see conservatism is:
1. A strict interpretation of the constitution
2. Fiscal responsibility, low taxes, the people can spend their money better than the government can
3. Smaller government, government is not the solution to a whole host of problems and shouldn't be involved in them
4. Patriotism, admitting that the US has its faults and mistakes, but isn't to be blamed for everything wrong in the world, and is seen as the greatest nation (including current and historic nations) on the planet
5. Traditional values based on a Judeo-Christian worldview, specifically the 10 commandments
6. Tend to be more hawkish, not a desire for war, but knowing that there are times when wars must be fought, and when they are that we must prevail
7. Capitalism, while not a perfect system it allows for the success of all individuals than any other system
8. Equality of all people, true equality, the inherent worth in each of us as granted by our Creator, any person's wealth or social status doesn't make them any better than anyone else
9. The betterment of all people
Let me flesh out the last one more since a friend brought up the topic today. Liberals are more likely to help, say the poor, through government systems. This results in handouts, and in the long-run results in a dependent class. Whereas, I think conservatives would much rather help the person get out of poverty instead of throwing money at the problem. Tough love sounds harsh, but is better for the person in the long run. It is much easier to give a person $5 when they are in need then to create systems that will eliminate the need. Arthur C Brooks recently wrote a book called "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism" in which he discovers that conservatives give more in time, money, and resources than liberals do. There is often a conception of conservatives that they are harsh and don't care for the poor. However, that is a mistaken conception, especially as it violates the Judeo-Christian values we also hold dear. The best way I can think to sum it up is the old phrase "you can feed a man today, or you can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime". I believe the conservative perspective is teaching the man to fish, and the liberal one giving him the fish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting, this does help me understand 'you lot' better ;-)
When reading this, it makes me think about the conservative stereotype that I've assimilated. For me, comparing your points to my stereotype, I found that many of the points fit how I'd stereotyped conservatives, but at the same time, you clarified your position.
Points 4 & 7 jumped out at me, for christian reasons. Firstly, I believe, despite how strongly I identify myself as an Englishman, that my spiritual home is not on this world (1 Peter 1:1) and that I believe in some form of socialism (Acts 2:44-45). On the last note, I should probably be called a hypocrite because I'm nowhere as actively socialist as the early church was.
Finally, I respect that conservatives do believe in a tough love system, of giving people a chance to feed themselves for life. Yet, why does poverty persist in the richest and most powerful nation on earth? Do you have any statistics on this? Capitalism has to have an upper limit.
I have an oppinion on this issue of poverty. Especially growing up in a small town where poverty wasn't really seen too much but it always lurked in the shadows of a bigger town, I grew up not really knowing that other people on the earth went without the same food that I enjoyed every night. As an adult, I've watched several documentaries, movies, and etc. on the issue of poverty in America.
My conclusion is that sometimes, people are "born," if you will, to be in poverty. I watched a documentary that was shown on the Oprah show once and found the results absolutly facinating. They gave a homeless man 100,000 dollars in cash. He was given the opportunity to change his life, to no longer live on the street. He was also given the opportunity to accept help in learning how to manage his finances and earn an education. In the end, the once homeless person blew all the money he was given. Hence, even if you give a "poverty stricken person" all the help you possible can, and give him every chance to survive and change, he'll still end up back on the streets. So that leads me to beleive that there are certain people that can not function like the rest of society, no matter how much help they are given.
A perfect scripture verse that exemplifies this is when Jesus says "You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me." Sorry, but I don't exactly remember the right address for that verse, and I hate taking things out of context, but the point I was trying to make is that I think we're always going to have poverty. I also happen to agree with my husband in this reguard that we live in a fallen world. It's not perfect, and it's never going to be until Christ comes again. If this world was perfect, and there was no hunger, then what are Christians doing here? If the world was perfect, what would our purpose for being on this earth be then? God gives us difficult people to deal with, and difficult situations to exemplify his Glory, and to show the world His Glory. If the world was perfect, then what do we do now?
Another example that I'm lead to add is a lot of times what happens with people that are on welfare is that instead of getting a job and making money to survive on their own two feet, they play the "system," if you will, and rely on the rest of society to pay them for doing nothing. You can't help people who don't and WON'T help them selves.
As a closing to my ramblings here. I would just like to say that these are only my oppinions and they really aren't going to change by anything any one else is going to say. So if you aren't going to agree with what I have to say, then don't bother talking. You think my husband is stubborn, well I'm worse.
Let me ask a question first, what do you mean by capitalism has to have an upper limit?
Secondly, I think Ashley's point is what I would say about why we still have poor/poverty among us. We live in a fallen world, until the return of Christ we will not have perfection in society or in ourselves. We will have poverty until Christ's kingdom is established. That is not an arguement to avoid dealing with the problem. Quite the reverse, Jesus ministered to the poor and calls us to do the same.
Next point, I want to clarify the term socialism. Socialism is a form of government. When Christ came he did not bring an earthly kingdom, in spite of his disciples wishes he do so. He brought a spiritual one. In acts the early christians were sharing their wealth voluntarily in community. Socialism as a form of government redistributes wealth unvoluntarily. I belive the gospel has a social component, helping the poor, bringing about social justice, displaying Christ's glory and freedom in all situations. But, that is different from socialism. And in my observations, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. It takes away the freedoms of the people, it creates dependent people, and it stratifies society much more into haves and have nots than capitalism does.
Post a Comment