Last night, I poured my thoughts and feelings about Israel and Iran onto the pages of this blog, understanding that this would not be the end of the story. Little did I know that while I was writing that post, so-called Conservative Republicans were finalizing a letter, spearheaded by former veteran and first-time SenatorTom Cotton, that aimed to destroy any chance at peace between the United States, Israel and Iran. This letter, sent to Iranian legislators, sent a clear message: do as we tell you or face the consequences. And what would those consequences be by any chance? Why, bombings and the beginning of a new war.
Once again I feel the need to reiterate that the United States Diplomatic Corps is in Tehran right now trying to finalize a peace deal that would ensure that Iran would reduce the refinement of nuclear materials to the amount needed only to power their plants in order to provide energy to the Iranian people. It would be too easy to say that this letter's (which was signed by 48 Republicans, including my Senator Ted Cruz, don't get me started there) aims were treasonous. That these legislators were aiming to create destabilization in the region in order to push to war. But I don't think that was their aim. This letter came a week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed up at the Capitol building and lectured these same Republicans, his goal was to break down peace talks and prepare the way for an attack on Iran. Republicans, as you can see from the many videos showing the response, seemed rather open to such an idea.
I can't help but be reminded of how Republicans responded to 9/11 nearly fourteen years ago. How important it appeared to have an immediate response, something decisive over something tactical. Bear in mind that Republicans didn't militarily respond immediately and in fact it could be said they gave Osama Bin Laden the opportunity to escape in their hesitancy. But that wasn't what they did first. The first thing they did was tighten up security not just by creating new protocols that secured potential weaponized vehicles, but also create a system of invasive intelligence gathering. This letter to Iran was the Republican way of responding to what they consider an immediate threat. They consider it so immediate that they deemed President Obama complicit and acted yet again out of protocol.
And like 9/11, I can't help but think how these so-called Conservative Republicans would have responded if a group of Democrats came out against President Bush and offered their own agenda. In fact, we don't even have to imagine as any Democrat who didn't support the president's response was immediately ostracized and marginalized for not backing the executive branch in a time of crisis. And in a way, I can understand. But it appears that the Republicans have attempted to delegitimize the presidency throughout these events. And what's worse, it appears that the president's approach was getting results, therefore making this letter and those who sponsored it look petty.
And exactly how could Congress possibly back up this overzealous threat anyways? The power to declare war, as stated in the Constitution lies solely with the president. Congress' war powers only allow them them finance it. Considering that Obama has never allowed himself to be backed into corners by his opposition in regards to foreign policy, why would they think that this letter would cause President Obama to authorize war? Unless they knew that this letter was nothing more than a cheap ploy at gaining political points with their constituants, which would be not just be condemnable, but also a sign of inability to perform the job given to them by the voters of their districts.
My 11-year-old son gets angry when I won't allow him to play certain violent video games or act inappropriately. He has seen his friends and cousins get to do these things without getting into trouble and feels that it is unfair that he is held to a higher standard. Conservative Republicans hold themselves to a higher standard in many ways; they are the ones who support marriage and pro-life, the ones that proclaim a higher authority was involved in their political rise, the ones that judge those of different political ilk as inferior both logically and morally. But then they want to use the underhanded tactics and cheap shots that they proclaim their enemies use (and in many cases, that's not the case to begin with). Republicans can't fight fire with fire while complaining of arson. Either play by the rules set for themselves or cede the high ground. The Republicans are trying to have it both ways, which makes them look like cynical hypocrites and cheapens their brand to new voters.
The peace negotiations are not off the table as of right now nor does it mean that this letter was the reason that it didn't work. There was always a slim chance that this could work, but this letter makes it easier to blame Republicans for this and lay any future war and its cost at the their feet. But by that point, what does it matter? War still would've been waged, soldiers and innocents would die, the house of cards in the Middle East would've toppled. Blame at that point would be moot.
I only hope that Senator Cotton, upon the declaration of war, will have the good sense to resign and return to active duty. Allow him to drop the first bomb in a war that he helped, even inadvertently, to start.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
American Conservatism, Israel and the Apocalypse
Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by the invitation of American Republican Leaders, was allowed to address Congress. He did so without the formal blessing of the White House, just weeks before his bid for reelection, during a time in which the American Diplomatic Corps is in the delicate stages of brokering a peace deal with Israel's rival country Iran that is designed to ensure Iran can power their cities through nuclear power without the possibility of creating nuclear weapons, something that Mr. Netanyahu is quite upset about. After being greeted with nearly ten minutes of standing ovation by a nearly-packed house of Republican, he spent the bulk of his speech chastising his host country's attempt at seeking peace while claiming that Iran is in striking distance of creating a nuclear weapon (a claim that Israeli Intelligence debunked a couple of years ago) and making the case that America should strike now against Iran and start a new war in the Middle East on behalf of our ally. Anyone who has followed enough of Mr. Netanyahu's career knows that this is not new from him. Iran as been "within striking distance" of nuclear weapons since the Clinton Administration. That's not the issue. The issue was that during the entire speech, Republicans broke into fervant standing ovations that by Rand Paul's account numbered around fifty times with an average for four minutes per ovation.
Israel has been a staunch ally for America for many decades. That said, Israel has been known to cause America more headaches than not. The Jewish homeland is built in the epicenter of world of Islam, which wasn't much of a problem at first until there was a dispute between them and Palestine concerning the two peoples sharing land and Israel expanding their nation to the detriment of their neighbor. Historically speaking, Jews and Muslims have never had much love lost between them, but they have been able to work out their differences. But then that was before Israel took over Jerusalem. Constantly slapping the face of a fellow Islamic nation doesn't help relations with the rest that are ostensibly their neighbors as well.
The only thing keeping the weight of the Islamic world tearing Israel apart is the massive amounts of money and resources American spends. America spends billions a year to keep them safe. We send them the most advanced weaponry (mainly defensive weapons now), we bribe certain nations to shut up and take it such as Egypt, and we threaten war on any nation that even thinks about touching them. And that's where it gets tricky. Such threats only work against nations, not individuals. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah normally don't have to answer to a nation or its peoples. They can strike within a crowd of innocent Muslims and dare Israel the retaliate, something Israel is only too happy to comply.
Especially under the hard-right leadership of Netanyahu, Israel has refused to broker peace because they don't believe that peace will end the attacks. It is their belief that the only way peace can be brokered is by breaking the will of the Islamic nations, to hit them so hard, that they won't dare hit them again. There are many flaws in this mentality, but consider that this little nation is attacked on a regular basis for decades, where bombs and rockets are regular occurrences, it's not too hard to understand where they are coming from. But that doesn't make them right, either.
And then there are Israeli counterattacks on Palestinians. This is where things get even messier. In order to after the terrorists bombarding their nation with assaults, Israeli forces go into Palestinian territory and start attacking anyone they deem is involved with these attacks. The problem is that Israel isn't exactly known for surgical strikes with limited collateral damage. In fact, frustrated soldiers tend to lash out and murder civilians under the guise they were harboring terrorists. Children, infants and the elderly aren't ruled out. By openly killing with little regard to the population, they create animosity if they're lucky, new potential terrorist if they're not.
So why is America still allies with such an unruly and possibly criminally hostile nation? Part of it is because of America's attempt to recompense the Jewish peoples for the atrocities laid against them during World War II, possibly atoning our own horrible past of antisemitism. Part of it is because we like backing an underdog and if Israel is anything, it's an underdog story. But over the past two or three decades, there has been a new reason why the American public, not just politicians, firmly support Israel. That reason is Armageddon.
In the book of Revelation found in the Bible, prophesies were announced that have been taken as signposts for the "end of days", when the God removes His chosen followers to Heaven and send the rest to eternal damnation. One of the prominent signs of the coming end times was that Israel would lay claim to Jerusalem. Now there is much more to this than just that, but when Israel took Jerusalem, the evangelical Christian religious base took it upon themselves to support Israel's claim to keep them there. The irony is that in the Christian belief, only those who accept Jesus Christ as Lord would be accepted into heaven, something that Jews have denied from the beginning. They are helping Jews to condemn themselves (though not without trying to convert them). The double irony is that it's clear the Israeli government knows that this is why they have Christian support and use it to further their own agenda.
So what does this have to do with conservatism? The problem is that when a conservative wants to support the Israeli people but criticize the flagrant attrocities of their government, it is taken as attack on the nation as a whole. The critic is dismissed as an enemy is Israel if not antisemitic. This would be unacceptable from any other country in the world, but Israel, who does not aid in America's security or prosperity, is allowed to brand Americans as bigots, but allowed to stand in our institutions and look down on us like a dog who just messed on the carpet. And then gets over an hour in applause doing so.
I can't help but think of Martin Scorsese's Mean Streets when I think about Israel, specifically the character of Robert DeNiro's character Johnny Boy. Johnny Boy's carelessness and bravado didn't just get himself into serious trouble, it also got the good friend who kept bailing him out in trouble, too.
Israel has been a staunch ally for America for many decades. That said, Israel has been known to cause America more headaches than not. The Jewish homeland is built in the epicenter of world of Islam, which wasn't much of a problem at first until there was a dispute between them and Palestine concerning the two peoples sharing land and Israel expanding their nation to the detriment of their neighbor. Historically speaking, Jews and Muslims have never had much love lost between them, but they have been able to work out their differences. But then that was before Israel took over Jerusalem. Constantly slapping the face of a fellow Islamic nation doesn't help relations with the rest that are ostensibly their neighbors as well.
The only thing keeping the weight of the Islamic world tearing Israel apart is the massive amounts of money and resources American spends. America spends billions a year to keep them safe. We send them the most advanced weaponry (mainly defensive weapons now), we bribe certain nations to shut up and take it such as Egypt, and we threaten war on any nation that even thinks about touching them. And that's where it gets tricky. Such threats only work against nations, not individuals. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah normally don't have to answer to a nation or its peoples. They can strike within a crowd of innocent Muslims and dare Israel the retaliate, something Israel is only too happy to comply.
Especially under the hard-right leadership of Netanyahu, Israel has refused to broker peace because they don't believe that peace will end the attacks. It is their belief that the only way peace can be brokered is by breaking the will of the Islamic nations, to hit them so hard, that they won't dare hit them again. There are many flaws in this mentality, but consider that this little nation is attacked on a regular basis for decades, where bombs and rockets are regular occurrences, it's not too hard to understand where they are coming from. But that doesn't make them right, either.
And then there are Israeli counterattacks on Palestinians. This is where things get even messier. In order to after the terrorists bombarding their nation with assaults, Israeli forces go into Palestinian territory and start attacking anyone they deem is involved with these attacks. The problem is that Israel isn't exactly known for surgical strikes with limited collateral damage. In fact, frustrated soldiers tend to lash out and murder civilians under the guise they were harboring terrorists. Children, infants and the elderly aren't ruled out. By openly killing with little regard to the population, they create animosity if they're lucky, new potential terrorist if they're not.
So why is America still allies with such an unruly and possibly criminally hostile nation? Part of it is because of America's attempt to recompense the Jewish peoples for the atrocities laid against them during World War II, possibly atoning our own horrible past of antisemitism. Part of it is because we like backing an underdog and if Israel is anything, it's an underdog story. But over the past two or three decades, there has been a new reason why the American public, not just politicians, firmly support Israel. That reason is Armageddon.
In the book of Revelation found in the Bible, prophesies were announced that have been taken as signposts for the "end of days", when the God removes His chosen followers to Heaven and send the rest to eternal damnation. One of the prominent signs of the coming end times was that Israel would lay claim to Jerusalem. Now there is much more to this than just that, but when Israel took Jerusalem, the evangelical Christian religious base took it upon themselves to support Israel's claim to keep them there. The irony is that in the Christian belief, only those who accept Jesus Christ as Lord would be accepted into heaven, something that Jews have denied from the beginning. They are helping Jews to condemn themselves (though not without trying to convert them). The double irony is that it's clear the Israeli government knows that this is why they have Christian support and use it to further their own agenda.
So what does this have to do with conservatism? The problem is that when a conservative wants to support the Israeli people but criticize the flagrant attrocities of their government, it is taken as attack on the nation as a whole. The critic is dismissed as an enemy is Israel if not antisemitic. This would be unacceptable from any other country in the world, but Israel, who does not aid in America's security or prosperity, is allowed to brand Americans as bigots, but allowed to stand in our institutions and look down on us like a dog who just messed on the carpet. And then gets over an hour in applause doing so.
I can't help but think of Martin Scorsese's Mean Streets when I think about Israel, specifically the character of Robert DeNiro's character Johnny Boy. Johnny Boy's carelessness and bravado didn't just get himself into serious trouble, it also got the good friend who kept bailing him out in trouble, too.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Conservatism and the Media
My family has always been staunchly Republican. A big reason for that is because they are of the fundamentalist Christian faith that Richard Nixon played on in 1968 to win the Presidency, now known as the Southern Strategy. Nixon played upon the nostalgia of Southern voters that were in the midst of social revolution at the time, laying the reason for their turmoils at the feet of the Democratic Party. Life-long conservative Democrats switched parties. In doing so, he created a consolidation of voters that were resistant to social changes and upset about anything remotely progressive. During his presidency, as failures in Vietnam and the Watergate scandal kept slapping him in the face, he would lay the blame for all his problems at the feet of "the media" who refused to give him an inch. His voters, who connected very closely to him through his charisma and sly political prowess, watched as their conservative champion got raked through the coals, whether he deserved it or not beside the point. The fact is that conservative voters never forgot and sure as hell wouldn't forgive "the media" for his downfall.
There's a reason that I quotation marks around "the media". During these ordeals, conservatives were furious about the fact that few if any major news organizations gave him the benefit of the doubt. Bear in mind that Nixon was the first Republican in office since the '50s and the media had swooned over The Kennedy dynasty and were for the most part patient with Johnson. And yet it was Nixon that was criticized. It's not hard to believe that there was bias in the media against Nixon, especially when it seemed the hits just kept on coming. It also didn't help that Nixon himself wasn't very good at taking criticism and even worse at deflecting it. So his base supporters turned their ire against all the news organizations that brought him down in total under the auspice that they were out to get him because they were against him politically. It was at that point "the media" became "the LIBERAL media". It doesn't matter than there were pro-conservative magazines and conservative journalists in the New York Times and on the networks.
Remember that Nixon's followers weren't just the elderly or red-state. Nixon made fans in colleges as well. As the counterculture became more prominent and accepted, the new outlaws were College Republicans, children of affluent families, of middle class nuclear households, of households who saw ruin in progressive liberalism. In Nixon they found a champion as well. They learned from him, worked with the Republican party on his behalf. They would use his tactics to create a fervor in Red State America over the next two decades and unleash their vision in 1994. And the one thing that they never forgot was their greatest enemy wasn't the Liberals, it was the media.
All of this is important for me to explain the complex and curious relationship that both conservative leaders and voters have with the media and why conservative media is so frustrating. Politicians need the media in order to promote both themselves and their policies to general public. News outlets get the message out, but in most cases, they have to create context as well. It is this context that sells the news source. CNN and NBC can report the same event, but the each reporter might have a different context that attracts a certain viewer. This also determines which reporters and outlets the politician speaks to and how they respond to better get their message out.
Now, in general, the media isn't really liberal, despite popular beliefs. News, in the age of advertising, feeds upon sensation, a change in the status quo. If someone goes about putting pants on horses, that's news because it is a break from the status quo. Conservatives, by definition, are hesitant to change. The status quo is default in Conservatism. Liberals embrace change. The news feeds on the prospect of changes. But the media also loves to find different angles on stories. If a Conservative wants to cut funding for welfare, the media will want to find someone that this will directly affect in order to get the human story. This irritates the right because such a move might influence the mood against their policy. Should this irritate them? In a way, yes. Soundbites make for great television but they also don't allow for nuance. The media's job is to prolong the story in order to keep viewers coming back. But this isn't always against conservatives. In fact, conservatives over the last two decades have used this practice to their advantage.
Let's take the Bill Clinton sex scandal for example. Clinton had sex outside of marriage with a staffer in the White House. He lied about it. Conservatives created an atmosphere of conspiracy around it in order to keep media interest in it. They kept this story in circulation for years as they tried him and impeached him with the knowledge that they wouldn't remove him from office or that he would serve any time (as infidelity wasn't a criminal offense). But that wasn't the point. The point of the entire exercise was to show that the Republicans in congress were more powerful than the president. This show of power might have been just enough to help their presidential candidate gain enough votes to win (we'll discuss Bush v. Gore another day).
During the last fifteen years, conservatives have declared war on and yet frequently use the media. The media doesn't care if these politicians hate them or not as long as they get something that they can show on their respective channels to keep viewers interested. The politicians don't care if the media asks a question that they look badly answering because they have their backup, a virtual safe haven where they can field easy questions and say whatever they want.
Conservative media might have started out in periodicals, but by the 80s, they found a new format that allowed for interactivity and solidarity on a level never seen before. Talk radio allowed for passionate rants against the powers that be, arguments against enemies where total control was given to the host, and the ability to give voice to political communities both local and national. The modern conservative wasn't interested in a debate, instead they were looking for a show. During the 90s, talk radio became the place to find like-minded conservatives to lick political wounds and celebrate victories. The only problem is that because they only really spoke individuals that they approved of, it created a bubble reality. This would be compounded with the founding of Fox News Network, the first pro-conservative cable channel dedicated to news events and interpreting them through the politically conservative lens.
The bubble reality created by this gave its participants the impression of a country within a country. That those who didn't agree with them are somehow either inferior or an enemy. Because dissent isn't tolerated, those whose political beliefs are different were heretics trying to ruin the country. They have become the thing they believed "the media" was back then.
For the most part, I believe that most conservative politicians only feel a partial hatred towards "the liberal media" that they let on. They like the feeling of legitimacy that comes with having a CBS microphone in their face, a cushy spot on "Meet the Press". But they are quick to remind themselves that those outlets will mercilessly crush them if given the chance. They're right, but it's not just conservatives.
Conservative media consumers, on the other hand, are encouraged to not just mistrust the media, but to hate them. They politicize non-political news in order to maintain solidarity with their preferred sources. They accept only the news that the bubble gives and refuse to corroborate it with other information. This last part is the most terrifying. It should be standard practice for anyone who reads the news to verify important information through different news media. Don't just accept one source, find another that has a reliable source of its own. Knowledge should be a cornerstone of American political thought, given how our political choices affect the world.
A look on Facebook shows me that my grandmother sides with the Israeli Prime Minister on Iran, linking an article from Breitbart. My cousin thinks the liberals snubbed American Sniper because of politics (I've seen all eight movies, American Sniper was the worst of the lot, politics aside). Everybody is entitled with their opinion, of course. And with their preference as to where they get their information.
There's a reason that I quotation marks around "the media". During these ordeals, conservatives were furious about the fact that few if any major news organizations gave him the benefit of the doubt. Bear in mind that Nixon was the first Republican in office since the '50s and the media had swooned over The Kennedy dynasty and were for the most part patient with Johnson. And yet it was Nixon that was criticized. It's not hard to believe that there was bias in the media against Nixon, especially when it seemed the hits just kept on coming. It also didn't help that Nixon himself wasn't very good at taking criticism and even worse at deflecting it. So his base supporters turned their ire against all the news organizations that brought him down in total under the auspice that they were out to get him because they were against him politically. It was at that point "the media" became "the LIBERAL media". It doesn't matter than there were pro-conservative magazines and conservative journalists in the New York Times and on the networks.
Remember that Nixon's followers weren't just the elderly or red-state. Nixon made fans in colleges as well. As the counterculture became more prominent and accepted, the new outlaws were College Republicans, children of affluent families, of middle class nuclear households, of households who saw ruin in progressive liberalism. In Nixon they found a champion as well. They learned from him, worked with the Republican party on his behalf. They would use his tactics to create a fervor in Red State America over the next two decades and unleash their vision in 1994. And the one thing that they never forgot was their greatest enemy wasn't the Liberals, it was the media.
All of this is important for me to explain the complex and curious relationship that both conservative leaders and voters have with the media and why conservative media is so frustrating. Politicians need the media in order to promote both themselves and their policies to general public. News outlets get the message out, but in most cases, they have to create context as well. It is this context that sells the news source. CNN and NBC can report the same event, but the each reporter might have a different context that attracts a certain viewer. This also determines which reporters and outlets the politician speaks to and how they respond to better get their message out.
Now, in general, the media isn't really liberal, despite popular beliefs. News, in the age of advertising, feeds upon sensation, a change in the status quo. If someone goes about putting pants on horses, that's news because it is a break from the status quo. Conservatives, by definition, are hesitant to change. The status quo is default in Conservatism. Liberals embrace change. The news feeds on the prospect of changes. But the media also loves to find different angles on stories. If a Conservative wants to cut funding for welfare, the media will want to find someone that this will directly affect in order to get the human story. This irritates the right because such a move might influence the mood against their policy. Should this irritate them? In a way, yes. Soundbites make for great television but they also don't allow for nuance. The media's job is to prolong the story in order to keep viewers coming back. But this isn't always against conservatives. In fact, conservatives over the last two decades have used this practice to their advantage.
Let's take the Bill Clinton sex scandal for example. Clinton had sex outside of marriage with a staffer in the White House. He lied about it. Conservatives created an atmosphere of conspiracy around it in order to keep media interest in it. They kept this story in circulation for years as they tried him and impeached him with the knowledge that they wouldn't remove him from office or that he would serve any time (as infidelity wasn't a criminal offense). But that wasn't the point. The point of the entire exercise was to show that the Republicans in congress were more powerful than the president. This show of power might have been just enough to help their presidential candidate gain enough votes to win (we'll discuss Bush v. Gore another day).
During the last fifteen years, conservatives have declared war on and yet frequently use the media. The media doesn't care if these politicians hate them or not as long as they get something that they can show on their respective channels to keep viewers interested. The politicians don't care if the media asks a question that they look badly answering because they have their backup, a virtual safe haven where they can field easy questions and say whatever they want.
Conservative media might have started out in periodicals, but by the 80s, they found a new format that allowed for interactivity and solidarity on a level never seen before. Talk radio allowed for passionate rants against the powers that be, arguments against enemies where total control was given to the host, and the ability to give voice to political communities both local and national. The modern conservative wasn't interested in a debate, instead they were looking for a show. During the 90s, talk radio became the place to find like-minded conservatives to lick political wounds and celebrate victories. The only problem is that because they only really spoke individuals that they approved of, it created a bubble reality. This would be compounded with the founding of Fox News Network, the first pro-conservative cable channel dedicated to news events and interpreting them through the politically conservative lens.
The bubble reality created by this gave its participants the impression of a country within a country. That those who didn't agree with them are somehow either inferior or an enemy. Because dissent isn't tolerated, those whose political beliefs are different were heretics trying to ruin the country. They have become the thing they believed "the media" was back then.
For the most part, I believe that most conservative politicians only feel a partial hatred towards "the liberal media" that they let on. They like the feeling of legitimacy that comes with having a CBS microphone in their face, a cushy spot on "Meet the Press". But they are quick to remind themselves that those outlets will mercilessly crush them if given the chance. They're right, but it's not just conservatives.
Conservative media consumers, on the other hand, are encouraged to not just mistrust the media, but to hate them. They politicize non-political news in order to maintain solidarity with their preferred sources. They accept only the news that the bubble gives and refuse to corroborate it with other information. This last part is the most terrifying. It should be standard practice for anyone who reads the news to verify important information through different news media. Don't just accept one source, find another that has a reliable source of its own. Knowledge should be a cornerstone of American political thought, given how our political choices affect the world.
A look on Facebook shows me that my grandmother sides with the Israeli Prime Minister on Iran, linking an article from Breitbart. My cousin thinks the liberals snubbed American Sniper because of politics (I've seen all eight movies, American Sniper was the worst of the lot, politics aside). Everybody is entitled with their opinion, of course. And with their preference as to where they get their information.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Why I Consider Myself A Conservative
Conservatism has rarely had a good name in popular culture. Historically it drags up images of fat, rich, white businessmen, smoking cigars around a board room as they decide the fate of the world, a duty that cannot be left to the common folk. More recently, it has become synonymous with uneducated, ignorant, hate-spewing fear-mongerors who want to make the world into the image of their interpretation of the Bible. The sad thing is that I can't blame people for having such negative views on it. Conservative leaders have shown to put their beliefs over the needs of others. They have been hypocrites about their faith. They have sold themselves as being financially responsible, then going about blowing money worse than their opposition. The only reason so-called Conservatives hold power is because they have embraced the aggressive combative style of playing one group of people against another.
So why do I consider myself a Conservative? Conservatism, at it's core, is about restraint. It's about thinking before leaping and saying "no" when it feels so easy to say "yes". It takes courage to go against the tide of populism. Conservatives should be the voice of caution, not the voice of the obstinate. I don't agree with a lot that modern Conservatives believe, but that's because they have twisted the ideology to something it was never meant to be. Just like most Christians don't simply stop believing because people like the Westboro Baptist Church give their faith a black eye. But like those Christians, it is my responsibility to defend the political values of genuine Conservatism from the poisoning it has gone through over the course of the last two decades, specifically.
I was brought into Conservatism by my father when I was in my teens. I won't lie, I listened to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and red-state talk radio. In Texas, my home state, Conservative has always been synonymous with righteous and Liberal as outright evil. I fell into that trap. The problem was that I had a hard time connecting those ideals to my Christian beliefs, which in itself are quite unique. So I looked towards the Left, towards Libertarianism, towards other political systems.
When 9/11 occurred, I firmly believed that the Republicans would be able to show restraint and clear-headed thinking. I was proven wrong almost immediately. The first nail in my disillusionment of the Republican Party came from the Patriot Act, which I saw as an immediate threat to civil liberties as well as a gateway to increasing the powers of the government. From there it got worse. When they started talking about Iraq, I listened but hesitant. The proof wasn't on their side. But then Colin Powell, one of my most respected individuals, sold me on the war. When that showed to be untrue, I could no longer be a part of this ruse. When I said as much, my Republican friends were quick to kick me out.
The consolidation of Conservative voices through places like Fox News and talk radio started to take a very creepy vibe at that point. Dissent was tantamount to treason. Dissenters, not just me, were all being thrown off the bus. One of those voices was Andrew Sullivan, who showed me that Conservatism isn't a label that others get to put on you, but one that you can label yourself. That even people from other ideology could be right, that Conservatism isn't a restrictive creed, but a fluid and ever-changing ideology that while shows restraint in flowing is still moving forward. That those who refuse to move aren't Conservative at all.
So what are my beliefs? I believe that states are better positioned to understand the needs of their territory better than the federal government, but that the federal government is important in ensuring equality in justice for all. I believe in a limited effective government presence in the lives of citizens, that the public sector have the responsibility to protect and promote the public trust, the bond between citizens and their government. That the private sector has a responsibility to remain engaged in public policy and to elect representatives that will take their jobs seriously. That citizens don't get to pick and choose the laws they want to follow, even if they don't personally agree with it. If you don't like a law, change it! All things are not all equal, but that we must make the law more effective to create equality. I don't believe in redistribution, but with wealth comes responsibility. I believe in reasonable taxation depending on the needs of the country. Morality is not synonymous with religion. Facts do matter. Science is real. American History is exceptional, but it's not without a great deal of pain and regretful actions. Americans are not a race. America is a global ideal and we should embrace it and those who believe that are not us.
I'm not interested in talking about the way America should be. I'm not out to put our nation down either. I want to think about us as a nation. I want to contemplate our actions and what options we have. I will criticize both parties, but especially the Republicans because I believe in them more and I believe that they are capable of being better. I will try to keep from talking smack, instead trying to be more constructive. Those who interfere with that constructive dialogue will be put on notice.
So if you're interested in following along, here we go!
So why do I consider myself a Conservative? Conservatism, at it's core, is about restraint. It's about thinking before leaping and saying "no" when it feels so easy to say "yes". It takes courage to go against the tide of populism. Conservatives should be the voice of caution, not the voice of the obstinate. I don't agree with a lot that modern Conservatives believe, but that's because they have twisted the ideology to something it was never meant to be. Just like most Christians don't simply stop believing because people like the Westboro Baptist Church give their faith a black eye. But like those Christians, it is my responsibility to defend the political values of genuine Conservatism from the poisoning it has gone through over the course of the last two decades, specifically.
I was brought into Conservatism by my father when I was in my teens. I won't lie, I listened to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and red-state talk radio. In Texas, my home state, Conservative has always been synonymous with righteous and Liberal as outright evil. I fell into that trap. The problem was that I had a hard time connecting those ideals to my Christian beliefs, which in itself are quite unique. So I looked towards the Left, towards Libertarianism, towards other political systems.
When 9/11 occurred, I firmly believed that the Republicans would be able to show restraint and clear-headed thinking. I was proven wrong almost immediately. The first nail in my disillusionment of the Republican Party came from the Patriot Act, which I saw as an immediate threat to civil liberties as well as a gateway to increasing the powers of the government. From there it got worse. When they started talking about Iraq, I listened but hesitant. The proof wasn't on their side. But then Colin Powell, one of my most respected individuals, sold me on the war. When that showed to be untrue, I could no longer be a part of this ruse. When I said as much, my Republican friends were quick to kick me out.
The consolidation of Conservative voices through places like Fox News and talk radio started to take a very creepy vibe at that point. Dissent was tantamount to treason. Dissenters, not just me, were all being thrown off the bus. One of those voices was Andrew Sullivan, who showed me that Conservatism isn't a label that others get to put on you, but one that you can label yourself. That even people from other ideology could be right, that Conservatism isn't a restrictive creed, but a fluid and ever-changing ideology that while shows restraint in flowing is still moving forward. That those who refuse to move aren't Conservative at all.
So what are my beliefs? I believe that states are better positioned to understand the needs of their territory better than the federal government, but that the federal government is important in ensuring equality in justice for all. I believe in a limited effective government presence in the lives of citizens, that the public sector have the responsibility to protect and promote the public trust, the bond between citizens and their government. That the private sector has a responsibility to remain engaged in public policy and to elect representatives that will take their jobs seriously. That citizens don't get to pick and choose the laws they want to follow, even if they don't personally agree with it. If you don't like a law, change it! All things are not all equal, but that we must make the law more effective to create equality. I don't believe in redistribution, but with wealth comes responsibility. I believe in reasonable taxation depending on the needs of the country. Morality is not synonymous with religion. Facts do matter. Science is real. American History is exceptional, but it's not without a great deal of pain and regretful actions. Americans are not a race. America is a global ideal and we should embrace it and those who believe that are not us.
I'm not interested in talking about the way America should be. I'm not out to put our nation down either. I want to think about us as a nation. I want to contemplate our actions and what options we have. I will criticize both parties, but especially the Republicans because I believe in them more and I believe that they are capable of being better. I will try to keep from talking smack, instead trying to be more constructive. Those who interfere with that constructive dialogue will be put on notice.
So if you're interested in following along, here we go!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)