Why am I a Conservative?

A good friend of mine asked me some very interesting questions that stemmed from a post regarding President Obama’s respect or lack thereof for the Oval Office (dated Jan. 31^st “A Contrast in Symbolism"). I recommend checking it out if you haven’t yet read it or the comments that followed.

I wanted to share these questions that were e-mailed to me and my thoughts with those that read my blog. This wasn’t easy for me or my personality. I had to figure out how to approach this. Do I take a Biblical approach, where my personal foundational views stem from? Not everyone (including conservatives/republicans) agrees or believes the Bible as truth. So should I try to approach it in a way that leaves those types of arguments out? Then to top it all off my instinct and obsessive nature wanted to back up each statement of mine with sources, specific research, quotes, etc.

Then I got a grip, and realized I am making this far too complicated. So I will attempt to take each issue and just answer it simply. If my thoughts need expanding after that, I have no doubt someone will inquire at that point. This should be very interesting since there is no “simple” answer to these issues. And especially when you are addressing people that come from all kinds of different philosophical and religious viewpoints.

First is the statement or question that was posed to me and then my response.

1) “Did you wear a suit when you went to the Oval Office?”

I was only at the doorway of the Oval Office (it was roped off) but yes, actually I did.

2) “And how did you so quickly jump to more serious infractions from that? That's a little extreme considering he hasn't done anything else that is down that line.”

Aside from it being symbolically offensive to many, I was simply drawing a concern that this could be a slippery slope. Showing a lack of respect in this way could be a symptom that may lead to more severe issues or expose serious character flaws. If I tell little “white lies” to my husband it will eventually lead to me telling bigger ones, and it will become easier and easier. President Obama may not agree with the tradition and perhaps there is nothing more to it. But it was still a good discussion and something to ponder in my opinion. The character of a man is extremely important and this “change” was disappointing (and potentially concerning) to many people. I’m just going to leave it at that.

3) “I mean, would you be satisfied if he wore a tuxedo and worked 20 hours a day?”

The tuxedo is extreme so I’m assuming you were being sarcastic here. I’m sure there are many 20 hour days for a lot of people. Just putting in the hours or putting on the suit isn’t the point. It’s about appropriate respect and nothing more. Sure, this is not a matter of national security but an issue that was worth discussing.

Ok, now for the second part of your statement and I will keep my personal religious views out of my answers and/or arguments.

1) “As I understand it, conservative, or right leaning politics likes to keep government intervention to a minimum.”

Our Republic was set up with very limited powers for the Federal Government and more power for the individual States. We have strayed a long way from that system. Reading the actual writings of our founders makes that very clear. If it isn’t provided specifically in the Constitution it isn’t a role for the Federal Government. Unfortunately, as an example when the Judicial Branch goes outside its constitutionally provided role and doesn’t stick to only “interpreting” the constitution this system fails and its original role for our Republic becomes unbalanced. This weakens the power of how our founders set up the roles for each branch and the checks and balances for our government.

2) “Fewer taxes, fewer government programs, lower regulations, etc. Let people make their own decisions. States rights. However, when it comes to social issues there is so much force to the arguments to outlaw abortions or limit rights for same sex couples.”

My comments to the previous statement apply here as well. In addition, I believe we can spend our money better than the government. Most government programs are not as effective as private ones (and that is more likely an understatement in reality). Why would people/private groups take care of something if the government is doing it/paying for it? It is human nature to let government/or someone else take care of it if you don’t have to. However, I think we would be shocked at how the private sector would take over if the government got out of these areas.

I also support lower regulations in respect to allowing the consumer/market (if it is truly a “Free Market” - one without government intervention as was NOT in the case of Fannie and Freddie for example) to control the power. If a company is irresponsible we don’t support it and they will change or fail. Allow the consumer/free market to reward or punish. No one is entitled to never get hurt, never lose money, and never have their company fail, etc. even if they didn’t deserve it. That’s life. I will say it again; the government is not good and not effective in these areas. And it wasn’t meant to be that way.

Giving the States more power and keeping the Federal government to basic issues (i.e. protecting us) allows each individual more power in the decisions that affect their lives. That is a very good thing. You might find it interesting to know that I don’t technically believe in a Federal Constitutional amendment to keep “marriage” between a “man and a woman.” However, considering the situation I can see why it could be a viable option in these days in order to protect the traditional meaning of marriage. But I think all those types of issues are more adequately addressed at the state level just as was intended by our founders. The problem in this particular example is allowing say “gay marriage” in one state is going to mean all states (even those that do not recognize “gay marriage”) will be forced to recognize that “marriage.” This is directly due to expanded and inappropriate roles of the Judicial Branch legislating from the bench and would force those other states to recognize it under “federal law” and therefore circumvent the power of the vote for the voters of those states.

Basically I have the same argument for the abortion issue. As complex as these issues can be I will try to keep my comments on this issue as simple as I can. I would argue that the Constitution protects ALL people. Slaves were once not considered “people” and that was abhorrent. Let’s keep this really simple. Take “partial birth abortion,” as my specific example. Why would the difference between someone being a “person” be dependent upon being “in the womb” verses “out of the womb?” Why aren’t they offered and deserve equal protection under the law?

As a woman, yes I should be able to have control over my body. However, my decisions have consequences (and we can discuss rape separately but I am trying to keep this simple). That baby was not created by only a woman. Where are the father’s rights in this? It isn’t his fault that only a woman can carry the baby.

Nevertheless, many feel very strongly that Roe V. Wade was just simply bad law. Take all other issues out of it and you will find it was legislating from the bench. Again, not the role provided for in our Republic. That would be the role for the Legislative Branch if the people wanted that issue addressed and then legalized.

3) “Can you explain to me why those are issues that it's OK for government to legislate while conservative/right/republicans typically like less government intervention? You can't get more to the heart of people being able to make their own choices than to who you choose to spend your life and share your assets with or your choice about pregnancy.”

I think I have somewhat addressed the first part of this statement but there is an argument to be made that sometimes conservatives feel left with no option but fighting fire with fire (in other words using federal law/constitutional amendments) and to use the government to reverse/protect some issues. I also feel I addressed the issue of choice with pregnancy earlier. I will simply add that I don’t have the “choice” to take an innocent life and the location of that life doesn’t make basic sense to define that legality.

Now, I will agree whole heartedly that same sex couples, close friends, etc. should have some rights that only “families/spouses” currently have. For example; access to visitation in the hospital or deciding who gets your estate. Now, the reason we currently have government “reward” so to speak with tax issues (i.e. tax deductions) for married couples is because it is a fact that the most stable situation for children and therefore the family unit is one with a married man and woman. In fact, take my family. My two step-sons (and therefore to a different extent my daughter as well) do not have the most stable family unit. I see the negative effects every day and it breaks my heart. There is so much more that could be said but I think that is as far as I will go now.

I hope that helps shed some light on where my views come from. Please let me know if there was something that I wasn’t clear on but I tried to keep it as simple as I could. And for those who know me best that was quite a task!