Conservative v. Liberal

The ideological spectrum has crimson red and royal blue. And in the middle there lies burgundy, violet, indigo, lavender, etc. The different issues provide the different tones, tints and hues of the political prism. The concepts of conservative and liberal have become so generalized and categorical, that most people don't fit in the cookie cutter shape that we supposedly belong to. So I'd like to break down the concepts of conservative and liberal into a few categories, and hopefully it will give you an understanding of how you probably don't fit the mold, and that's ok! (Because you're good enough, you're strong enough, and gosh darn it, PEOPLE LIKE YOU!...no coincidence I am quoting a famous Al Franking character from SNL and we still don't know if he will be Minnesota's senator!)

Social Conservative: Traditional family values. Pro-life. Against gay marriage. Against Euthanasia. Pro-Second Ammendment. Against legalizing marijuana or prostitution. Most of those who are regular Church goers fit into this category. Stronger government involvement in preserving the traditional social values.

Fiscal Conservative: Small government. Low taxes. Low spending. Few entitlements. "Pull yourself up by your boot straps". Local and State governments should have more power. Trickle down theory of economy.

Social Liberal: Pro-gay rights. Pro-Choice. Pro-Euthanasia. Gun control. Legalizing marijuana and prostitution will help crime rates. Less government involvement in personal or 'behind closed doors' issues. "It's my choice, my life" mentality.

Fiscal Liberal: Universal health care. Universal social security. Government Entitlements. High regulations on big business. More government involvement in the economic arena.

Isn't it interesting the different roles the government plays in the minds of liberals and conservatives? Both need government for different purposes. Social conservatives need the government to 'keep the order' or 'maintain the values'. Whether through propositions, legislation, or judicial decisions. Yet, fiscal conservatives want the government out of their way, mind your own business. Social liberal's want the government to mind their own business, and stay out of their way concerning moral issues. Yet, fiscal liberals expect the government to step in when the money is tight and unable to make the free market economy work for them. I believe that the majority of the country is a shade of purple, socially conservative yet fiscally liberal. This is apparent when looking at California. How could they elect Barack Obama, yet establish marriage being between a man and a woman? They paid more attention to Obama's liberal fiscal plan and ignored his socially liberal stance on abortion, etc. So to naively say that 'conservatism is dead' is not only wrong, but as a conservative I could counter saying 'liberalism is dead' because Prop 8 passed in 3 'liberal' states, among other social issues. In a time of financial draught, the country leans fiscally liberal. In a time of financial feasting, the country leans fiscally conservative. It is a constant swing of the pendulum, depending on the country's climate. And to suggest that there is no turning back, the country is moving away from conservative principles is also ignorantly wrong. The current Republican party failed in providing true conservative leadership. What conservatives need is a true conservative. Someone who is the base, not appealing to the base. Someone who is willing to stand up for what they personally believe in, not what the Republican party wants to package them as. As for now, support our President. Let's give him a chance to make a difference, but also voice our dissent when he strays from the principles we believe in.

Divide and Conquer

I found this video clip this morning and was absolutely mesmerized as I watched it. This interview was given in 1985. So often on this blog we have talked about socialistic ideas that deeply concern us. Many people see the role of government as that of taking over the care of it's people and giving the people the things that they need. I know that both Sarah and I and many other lovers of history feel strongly about this because we know where it has taken other societies and countries in the past. As I have watch the movement in this country, by both parties, toward constant promises and handouts I am concerned.

I found this video on a liberal political blog. I need to quote him/her here because he/she says it so well.

"What does this tell us? It tells us that we all feel that something is wrong. Both conservatives, liberals, and moderates sense that we are in trouble. We just can’t agree on where the threat is coming from. So who have we been blaming?

Each other.

The Left is attacking the Right and the Right is attacking the Left. Families are arguing with each other and some really vicious attacks are being made." .............
Here’s the thing; if we all feel that something is wrong, then something is definitely wrong.
Why, then, are we blaming each other?
It seems to me that it smacks of the very basic, “Divide and Conquer” theory which has been used over and over again in history :creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to forestall alliances that could challenge the sovereign.

Think about it. While we are at each other’s throats, our economy has crashed, our homes are being foreclosed and more and more people are slipping into poverty. Rather than unite to try to solve the problem, we blame each other and let our country spin out of control."

-A voice cries out-

I really don't think anyone feels we are out of the woods today. Those who voted for Obama are happy he won but I haven't found any yet who feel that everything will be ok now. Obama has some very very difficult things to deal with from terrorism to the economy and much more. We all hope he can do some good but "all is not at ease in Zion".

Most who gather here are Christian. Many are LDS and some of other faiths. We are all aware that in the scriptures we are told that in the last days there will be division.

So what is my point? The election is over. Obama is our president. Maybe we can focus on what the problems that we are facing seem to be and what can be done. Will we always agree? Absolutely not but the discussion will be worth it and I think we can disagree without becoming divided.

Enjoy this clip, I found it fascinating.

Yuri Bezmenov
Uploaded by onmyway02

P.S. Many have used this video as a basis that Obama is a socialist and we are in trouble yet other liberal blogs have used it to show the destructive tactics of the far right. I think it says more about us as a country waking up and uniting.

One day to celebrate...

Yes, he did. We are part of history, and it is a proud moment for the United States. It is proof of the progress our nation has made during it's short history. It is proof that the large majority of the people are color-blind. It is proof that by hard work you can achieve anything. In response to the greatness of his call, and the steep hill he will have to climb to accomplish the change he's promised, I would like to respond with the timeless creed that 48% of the population shares: We will see. Lowered taxes for 95% of the population: we will see. Affordable health care for all: we will see. Ending the war in Iraq: we will see. Affordable college education: we will see. New forms of energy: we will see. Fixing Wall Street and Main Street: we will see. He will listen to those who disagree: we will see. He will be my President too: we will see.

By all accounts, this is the worst time to step into a Presidency. He does indeed have a steep hill to climb, but most of the "Hill" is on his side. My hope is that he will not be considered the 'most liberal President', just as he has been considered the 'most liberal Senator'. My hope is that he recognizes less than half of the country is still concerned about the changes he promised to make, and he leads from the center. The country was established on compromise and finding a middle ground. I pray for him, and his family, and those who will advise him. Our country is no doubt at a cross-roads, and I pray that we will become united without a crisis and he will be a leader for all the citizens of the United States of America. We will see.

Today!

Two years of waiting. Two years of debating. Two years of t.v. ads. Two years of speeches. Two years of mud-slinging. Two years of lying. Two years of historical moments. And it all culminates today. After waiting for about 50 minutes in a line, with my one year old son in a stroller eating Cheerios, while trying to read "Young Patriots" (great read!), I entered the card board box, and officially voted. And I left, proudly wearing an "I Voted" sticker. Hopefully in the next 24 hours we will see an end to this election, and have our next President chosen. My daughter's pre-K class had a mock-election, a ballot box with two crayons and pictures of the candidates, and they received the "I Voted" sticker as well. When she got in the car she announced that she voted for John McCain, not "Rock Obama". And I asked her who won, she said "Mom, I voted for the winner. John McCain!" We'll see if this pre-K class represents the country...or just Oklahoma. I hope I voted for the winner also!

Did you vote?

Did you have anything interesting happen?

Tomorrow!

Yes Annie, tomorrow is only a day away! And can I get a Hallelujah? Before tomorrow happens, I wanted to officially endorse McCain. Call the AP, blog-writer of Moms into Politics is making a huge leap on the McCain wagon! Surprised? I doubt it! Here's why:

1. Tested: John McCain has been tested. His endurance and will were tested in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 long years. He has served our country, almost to the claiming of his life. He has the respect of our troops, and I believe, for that service he can be considered a hero.


2. Experience: Not only does he have military experience, he has been apart of both houses of Congress. He served in the House for 2 terms, and in the Senate now for 4 terms. He is the ranking member in the Armed Services Committee, and serves on other committees such as: Commerce, Science and Transportation, Consumer Affairs.


3. Accomplishments: Line Item Veto Act of 1996: giving President power to cut specific spending. McCain-Feingold: Make campaign financing transparent, and eliminate 'soft money'. HMO Reform of 2001: opposed by Pres. Bush and majority of Republicans. 9-11 Commission: With Sen. Leiberman, wrote legislation which created this investigatory commission which suggestions has helped keep us safe. Aviation and Transportation Act 2001: Co-sponsored with democratic leader. Introduced McCain Detainee Agreement: It prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Major supporter of the Iraq Troop Surge of 2007 which has proved a success. (To name a few).


4. Bi-Partisanship: Although Democrats say "He's voted with Bush 90% of the time", that is one of the lowest party-line voting record I could find. He has worked with anyone who could support the same cause, including Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and even Barack Obama.


5. Understanding of the Constitution: Just as a brief example, when Clinton nominated Breyers and Ginsberg for Supreme Court Justices, Sen. McCain voted to approve them. Although they disagreed politically, he knew they were qualified and that is his role in the process: to determine their qualification. This angered many Republicans, but he knew that was right.

I do not see John McCain as the perfect candidate, or someone I would agree with 100%. But, the more I've researched about him, there is no doubt he is honest, hard working, and has the best view of our government and it's role. He has experience, both domestic and foreign. He is a strong leader, but understands the devistation that is involved with war. He is the only candidate that has lived it. For those who assume, he is ill-tempered and will 'jump the gun' regarding war, you are dead wrong. You may agree or disagree with who I'm voting for, but I know the facts, his record, and what kind of man he really is. I hope you do the same.

Yesterday

Being a History major, and a Republican (we always look to the past, right?) I've been thinking about past campaigns and Presidencies, and a trend occured to me. First, I will give you examples. (This is all off the top of my head, no specific dates or quotes. Sorry)

Franklin D. Roosevelt: When he was elected, the country was in economic turmoil. His campaign was based on economic change. And that he did. However, he was also Commander in Chief during one of the world's largest and bloodiest wars, World War II. There was a major agenda shift from economy to defense.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: A well-respected military man, obviously ran for President flashing his war credentials. He came in after WWII, and the American public wanted someone with military experience. With the Korean War as an exception, he made major economic advancements during his Presidency. One being the Highway Act (1954?) which connected the country, and strengthened our infrastructure. Shifting his credentials and experience from defense into economic.

Lyndon B. Johnson: One of his campaign ads will go down in history as one of the muddiest and dirtiest attack ad. A little girl plucking the petals off a flower, then boom, nuclear bomb! Obviously campaigning on defense platforms, being a war-time President (Vietnam War), he won with a landslide. However, he was unable to end the war in Vietnam, but furthered the New Deal in creating the Great Society. He ran with a defense and war-time strategy, but his Presidency turned into an economic one.

Ronald Reagan: What kind of Republican would I be, if I didn't mention Ronald Reagan? He campaigned on limited government, and the concept of Reaganomics. However, he had to deal with the Challenger disaster, Iran Contra affair, and most famously the Cold War. His campaign focus was the domestic affairs, but a lot of his Presidency was focused on the international stage.

And lastly, George W. Bush: His 2000 campaign focused mainly on education and minorities. He didn't have a lot of international experience, and campaigned on domestic policies. However, with the events of 9-11, he became known as a war President.

Pattern: When the country is focused on domestic issues during a campaign: economy, health care, immigration, social issues, etc., the country is then faced with international struggles (WWII, Vietnam, Cold War). When we elect a President based on the fear of war, we face financial and internal downturns. This 2008 Presidential Campaign has turned solely to the crisis in the economy. I believe most voters are electing someone who they believe will strengthen our economy. Which makes me wonder if history will repeat itself, yet again. Will there be some generated international incident as Joe Biden warned? It seems to fit the pattern. Will we learn from history? What do you think?

Are you listening?

The election is nearing and I am dumbfounded as to what could happen. If you are listening to the media Obama is our next president. This is what confuses me. I have been reading voraciously all I can about this man. I have read all he has to say and have considered his allegiances and friends and tried to be open minded and not judge based on wild claims and far right accusations.

I have noticed something about the discourse amongst voters and it is this. McCain followers seem to be cautious about his ability to fix all the problems but they have shared a genuine outline as to why they feel he is the best choice. Specifics are given as to what they feel he will do how he will lead and his basic philosopies. They are also honest about what they feel he can't or won't do. Obama followers seem to like him and feel like he is inspiring and gives good speeches and will bring about CHANGE. I have yet to read a blog or article that truly outlines what he will do that doesn't just go on and on about George Bush and the mess he has made. It is only "He will bring about Change Change change". What is this change and really will it be good for the country. In one comment made on an earlier post the commenter said that she hopes that when Obama gets in he will govern from the center. That is a confirmation to me that even that person knows that he is very very far left and just hopes that he will reign himself in. What if he doesn't reign himself in? What if he seats far left judges that make gay marriage legal nationwide, reinstates the fairness doctrine and changes the second amendment to be restrictive to the extreme....all Democrat philosophies. I just can't fathom voting on that pretense.....this is our country. I reiterate. I wish I could go back in time and have Hillary be the democrat nominee, I would take her right now happily. She and her husband have been oddly low key in their support for him.....I think that even they are not 100% on board.

I am extremely concerned, as an avid constitutionalist, about his philosophy. Today when I read his quote regarding bankrupting the coal industry and then read how he is is firmly in favor of NO on proposition 8 I am again at a loss as to why this man is being followed so religiously. He says he is against gay marriage but this stance does not support what he says. I find this on so many of the issues. What will this change he promises be? What is in his background or record that supports this change he offers. There just seems to be no substance to these change claims other than he is so charismatic, well spoken, cool calm and collected.
Give me the substance, show me what he has ever done that backs up his claims. Show me that he is a man who will fight tooth and nail to protect the constitution, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and marriage. I just can't find it, not in his track record, his voting record, his friends philosophies or what he says (constantly).

Even a democrat senator and Obama supporter said this week that Obama has no political courage. Well, lets hope he finds that at somepoint down the line.