The journey from there to here
Published on January 17, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I am writing this article for those who would describe themselves as conservative on JoeUser. While you are in the majority here and in the US government, your opinions are often shouted down in the mainstream media and in the world.

Many conservatives are quick to cry that they are victims; that the attacks on their ideologies are unmerited and personal, when nothing could be further from the truth. And yet I, a former leftist, have not been able to find a home among the conservative camp in America.

The ideals you claim are noble: fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Yet, with a majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, you've succeeded in INCREASING federal control under tha mask of "accountability", and removing rights from the states, in direct defiance of the Constitution you've sworn to uphold. You've created a potential disaster in No Child Left Behind, and driven many good, responsible teachers with established careers out of education entirely and into other sectors of employment because of the way these goals have been implemented. You've exploited the tragedy that shocked all America on September 11, 2001 to advance initiatives that could potentially effect the implied right to privacy of all Americans, which is not stated outright in the US Constitution, but heavily implied in the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. In 1994, you created a Contract with America that garnered intense popular support, and just as quickly, many of your legislators broke it. You have proven yourselves to be anything BUT fiscally responsible in awarding contracts, tax incentives, and other considerations to big businesses. And while you've preached moral responsibility, too many of your politicians have been caught either with their hands in the cookie jar or at least standing very close to that cookie jar.

You mock and ridicule the left without giving due consideration to what they have to say. Many of the left have good ideas about the nature of problems in our country, even if they're not perfectly in line with the right solutions. I believe that with your understanding of economics, and their understanding of the social problems throughout the nation and the world, we can achieve practical, viable solutions to make a better nation.

This country was BUILT on compromise; politics only works when we are willing to sit down and have open discourse with our opponents. And we can't have that kind of discourse when we wholly disrespect our opponent's  point of view. Many off you think of yourselves as the "bigger man"; let's try to act like it and discuss workable solutions to our mutual problems.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 18, 2006
COL, I'm a conservative. I detest the Bush fiscal policy. But I'm pretty much a single-issue voter these days, with the War On Terror being the issue. So, like a good conservative, I'm willing to set aside the secondary issues for the moment, in order to get some traction, focus, and commitment on the primary issue.

This is called "compromise" and "pragmatism", and it's something good conservatives are known for. Bush may not be "conservative" as you (or I) define the term, but he's still the best conservative choice for two reasons: One, his foreign policy, which is consistent with "neo"conservative ideals. Two, it's a lock that any Democratic administration would have an even less conservative fiscal policy.

Liberals, on the other hand, have two qualities that do not commend thems to me: One, they seem to disagree entirely with me (and our current President) on what the important issues are. Two, they seem to be totally unwilling to compromise on any issue at all, even when it means giving up any hope of real political power (and leaves them with no strategy beyond internal bickering and feeble partisan attacks on the oppostion).

I mean, I'd totally agree with you that a good conservative shouldn't support some Bush policies (and for the record, many good conservatives--including my favorites--have consistently opposed Bush on big government, immigration, etc.); except that you can't seem to offer any alternative at all. If not Bush, who should I support? Kerry? Kucinich? Clinton?

You keep ranting about how Bush is not really conservative, how his fiscal policy is crap, etc. But at the end of the day, I still have to choose the best course of action for this country. Bush is the only option that even begins to make sense. He's also the only option that gives me what I want on the most important issue--The War on Terror--while forcing me to give up what I want on the other issues. As far as I can tell, the opposition faction would do the opposite: screw up the WOT (even more than Bush, if you subscribe to the notion that he's screwing it up as badly as the media and the opposition say; but why should I trust either of them?), and screw up the other issues, too (again, even worse than Bush).

I have to make a choice, Gene. What do you recommend I should do, as a good conservative?

The good conservatives I know recommend supporting Bush on the War on Terror, and opposing him on the bad parts of his domestic and fiscal policy. That seems like exactly the kind of optimal compromise solution that is typical of the flawed world in which we live.

What about you?
on Jan 18, 2006
Bush has not made you or me safer. Go ahead and tell yourself that the Iraq war has made the probability of another 9/11 less if you want. The only thing that has reduced that is our improved intelligence, info sharing etc. We have however not protected our borders and for anyone to support Bush as making us safer with what he HAS NOT DONE to safeguard our borders I do not understand. Any terrorist can come into this country and bring any WMD along.

Thus I do not believe he has made us safer. He has not helped solve the energy problems, education, trade, healthcare and he is destroying the fiscal condition with his CHARGE AND SPEND policies. His tax cuts have added one Trillion dollars to the national debt. That is causing interest rates to increase which will harm the economy. He has done NOTHING WELL and is a looser as is anyone that follows his policies.We need to move BOTH parties to the center or split the power in Congress which will force compromise.
on Jan 18, 2006
No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.  Coincidence?
on Jan 18, 2006
Not a coincidence. It is better homeland defense and info sharing. It has NOTHING to do with the War in Iraq or the border protection we are not doing!
on Jan 18, 2006
So... Was there an answer to my questions in there anywhere, Gene?

Let's agree to disagree about the strategic value of the Iraq war, shall we? Suffice to say that I believe the long-term benefits will outweigh the short-term drawbacks, and that while I admit that it is a huge gamble, it is a risk worth taking, for the long-term benefits it will bring if successful.

I know you disagree with me on these points. We've both presented the best arguments we can in favor of our positions. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

What's more, it will be several years before we have any clear idea about which of us is right, and which of us is wrong. Only time will resolve this disgreement for us.

In the mean time, what are my options? What would you recommend a good conservative do?

I couldn't really vote for Kerry, since as a "liberal" Democrat he'd be even more likely to increase spending and expand government power (without even getting a war on to to justify it). Not only that, but other than opposing the Iraq thing, he didn't really have a plan for fighting terrorism. In fact, I have yet to hear a single Democrat say anything substantial at all on the subject of immigration reform WRT the war on terror. If the Bush plan is so bad, where's the Clinton plan?

For that matter, where's your plan?

How about this: You come up with a solid, detailed plan, for combating terror. Take into account state sponsors of terror, the occasional necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils, the various trade-offs in liberty and security your plan would require, and the amount of collateral damage you expect and would be willing to accept if your plan was implemented. Post your plan on JU, and defend it fiercely in debate. If it turns out to hold together better than the Bush plan (which shouldn't be too hard; even I have some doubts about the Bush plan), and one of your liberal candidates adopts your plan or something like it as part of their campaign platform, I will vote for them or support their candicacy in any way I can.

Ready?

Go!
on Jan 18, 2006
1
on Jan 18, 2006
you've succeeded in INCREASING federal control under tha mask of "accountability", and removing rights from the states.


Sorry, but all I see is a board idealistic indictment without regard for behind-the-screen demands of both houses and state leadership, and resulting self-serving riders from that often extract the bills teeth.

Don't get me wrong, at times I would really like to ignore what I know as political reality and travel your road independent ideals. But, as soon as I start down that road, understanding of how our system works slows me to a crawl.

You've created a potential disaster in No Child Left Behind, and driven many good, responsible teachers with established careers out of education entirely and into other sectors of employment because of the way these goals have been implemented.


Here again, I disagree. Although the system isn't perfect, it's a step in the right direction. From what we've seen and heard in our district, teachers like the expectations while hoping for further improvements. Our district has lost a few teachers but as it turns out they didn't like the idea of performance standards nor reaching a bar not set by them individually. Good ridden's.
on Jan 18, 2006
This country was BUILT on compromise; politics only works when we are willing to sit down and have open discourse with our opponents. As did some of our founding fathers who would not ratify the Constitution w/o the Bill of Rights.
on Jan 19, 2006
This country was BUILT on compromise; politics only works when we are willing to sit down and have open discourse with our opponents. And we can't have that kind of discourse when we wholly disrespect our opponent's point of view. Many off you think of yourselves as the "bigger man"; let's try to act like it and discuss workable solutions to our mutual problems


I agree, and stated such in my earlier post. Your right about compromise. Apparently you must have an unshared vision of what defines compromise. I'd like to hear it.... Would you agree all senators and congressman postulate, formulate, threaten filibuster and extract pieces of their ideal contribution in hopes of retaining other key elements as they compromise towards an end. When three ideals come to the table knowing compromise is needed, they also know what happens, legislation like "No Child Left Behind".

Gid, I appreciate an "Independants" ideal point of view. But, from my political experiences, "Independant's, like Democrats and Republicans have to find compromise by going backwards to some extent.
on Jan 19, 2006

Bush has not made you or me safer.

Not a coincidence. It is better homeland defense and info sharing

Have you started debating yourself now?  Sure looks like it.

on Jan 19, 2006
But, from my political experiences, "Independant's, like Democrats and Republicans have to find compromise by going backwards to some extent.


I won't disagree with that statement at all. One of the comments 've made about my run for TX legislature is that, if i'm elected as a minority of one to the legislature, I'm the most effective representative our district could have because I HAVE to compromise in order to accomplish ANYTHING.
on Jan 19, 2006
I won't disagree with that statement at all


If you're in agreement with my backward compromise, then wouldn't it make sense to be less critical of what comes out of the congress knowing regardless of what they champion the finished product is easily affected by opposing party members forcing backward movement to some extent. All party's have to feel as though they're getting something for their support.

You mock and ridicule the left without giving due consideration to what they have to say.

I haven't been here long enough to be considered part of this contingent, and even if I was, that's not how I view difference in a place such as JU.

Both ridicule and poor reading skills are derivatives of undeveloped social and comprehension skills and have nothing to do party affiliations. This place and others like it attracts a wide socio-economic contingent of folks, but I don't have to tell you that. All with thoughts, developed and undeveloped. Some express themselves well while others haven't refined their thoughts and don't react well when questioned. Labeling them with a broad pen stroke serves no value.

If I were to write a similar article, I'd pass on "Conservatives Only!" and considered a title evolving around certain social behaviors that fit a "mentality" not a political party.
on Jan 20, 2006
If I were to write a similar article, I'd pass on "Conservatives Only!" and considered a title evolving around certain social behaviors that fit a "mentality" not a political party.


The key is getting articles READ, Titan. To do that, you need to put up a title that will attract readership. I wrote five articles yesterday, all of them fairly informative and well written, and only one of them received more than 2 responses. Even that one received a grand total of SEVEN. I've hit and miss often enough to know that a less than oversimplistic title can kill an article quicker than anything. So, for the pithy nature of the title, I apologize. But I can't get my ideas to the floor for discussion if they don't get read, so I find it a necessary evil.
on Jan 20, 2006
Gideon,

You critical articles appear similar to position papers and in some cases reflective of an Independants views regarding congressional activities. When your subject matter is reviewed, you've even covered prime social and civic subjects.

I am curious... Are you using JU as a reference point for your campaign positions?
on Jan 20, 2006
I am curious... Are you using JU as a reference point for your campaign positions?


Not specifically. But I won't hesitate to point them out to anyone who asks.

These positions are positions I've long held and formulated. Because I will be challenged on many of them, I do use JU often as a "journal" of sorts. I started doing that when I was borderline homeless and couldn't rely on always having a computer handy to store these notes. And I make every article visible because I like the discussion. It sharpens me.

So, the answer would be "yes and no". Nothing within my blogs is "spun" for PC purposes, but I do find it a handy medium for anyone who wants to know more about me and who I am.
2 Pages1 2