Conservatism is (or at least should be) in line with classical liberalism (as opposed to modern, liberal progressivism). It believes that government should be small and should only serve to protect individual freedom. For this purpose, the Constitution established enumerated powers and left everything else to individuals and states. These limited purposes do not include welfare programs, minimum wage requirements for intrastate business, or universal health care. This is the basis for the accusations that Conservatives are not charitable or compassionate. But is it really charitable to believe in those things?
Forcing someone to help other against their will is not charitable. Is it charitable for me to see a poor person, reach over in to your pocket, and give that person your money? It is not charitable at all, despite the fact that you may have more money than you know what to do with. It is charitable for me to give of my own money or for you to give of your money, but not to forcefully take another's to give.
For this reason, a government cannot be charitable. It simply does not have anything of itself to give. It takes what it "has" from others. It is wants to give more, it takes more. The question of whether the government can do this has long been lost. There is a question of whether it should (and that is, I admit, debatable), but that does not mean that believing it should not makes one uncharitable. It would be uncharitable to believe that nobody should give of their own money or that I should not give my money, but I am not uncharitable if I don't want my money forcefully taken and given.
The fact of the matter is that Conservatives are actually more charitable, on the whole, than progressives. This makes sense, given that progressives would prefer the government to give, leaving them with no need to. That is not to say that either party cares about the poor more (though progressives claim otherwise), but that they go about providing for the poor in different ways.
Finally, it is cartoons like this that argue that Conservatives are heartless.
Here is what I think of this. The problem with this cartoon is that is acts as if pregnancy is cancer--striking unsuspecting victims through no fault of their own. Second, it completely assumes that having the baby means keeping it, as opposed to adoption. Believing in personal responsibility and allowing people to suffer consequences of bad choices is actually charitable in the long run. If your kid misbehaves, it is charitable to punish him and also to suffer any consequences, so that he will learn and grow. It is not charitable to save people from the natural consequences of bad decisions--they believe that one need not make good decisions because there are not consequences. Having a baby should not be a punishment, but it is the natural consequence of what can be a bad choice--having unprotected sex.
That's all I will rant about for now.
2 comments:
I thought this was well thought out and there were some good points,.. of course I'm going to like it though,..it kind of strikes in harmony with my beliefs/thoughts,...The only trouble with making these sorts of comparisons is that the other side of the argument will always feel misrepresented no matter how hard I tried to keep my opinions of what they believe out of it. :)
I try to be as fair and balanced (sorry FOX) as I can. I admit that socialism and government "charity" may be desirable, but I propose having the debate. I hate the mischaracterization of conservatives as racist (if against affirmative action), bigoted (if not in support of gay marriage), sexist (if against Title IX), heartless (if against welfare), greedy (if against high taxes), or selfish (if against green movement). I do not seriously believe left-leaners are evil. They are often socialists (but that is not pejorative). That is why issues are not actually debated, but each side tries to slant the issue (upcoming post of false dichotomies?).
Post a Comment