Talking Politics
As a conservative who works in a city that is overwhelmingly liberal (Madison may be second only to San Francisco. The mayor even wants to put in a trolley system.), politics tends to be an uneasy subject with me. As a defense, I have resolved not to talk politics with anyone, whether conservative or liberal, who isn't willing to give me, in writing, a list of 5 issues on which their side is wrong, as well as how and why. This policy applies whether your agree with me or not.
I need to clarify this somewhat. I'm looking for real issues here, not current events. Things like education, overall foreign policy, health care, welfare, gun control, the environment, Evolution, prayer in school, and abortion all work. The Iraq war, the sitting president (whoever this may be now and in the future), or whether John Kerry is a flip-flopper don't. I contend that there are plenty (hundreds, some more contentious and popular than others) of issues like this that if you can't find at least 5 points on which you disagree with your side's conventional wisdom you've probably been too entrenched, too brainwashed if you will, to have a real meaningful discussion involving politics. You've lost the ability to think for yourself and will accept almost anything your side's talking heads spout, and reject anything coming from the other side, or at least instantly mistrust it. Cognitive dissonance will kick in too quickly. If you can't find at least a few areas where you don't toe the party line, you need to go back and evaluate how you think about things. Maybe listen a little more to news and media sources sympathetic to the opposition, so you're sure you get both sides of the argument.
To avoid being too much of a hypocrite on this policy, I'm currently working on my own list. I'm putting some thought into it because I want it to still be valid some time from now, so I can point back here and say, "Here are mine. Where are yours?" I'm also planning to list a few additional items where I don't completely follow the Conservative viewpoint, but would still be considered to have a Conservative bent. Look back here soon for me to edit this post to include my list below. The list is now ready, posted on 9/20. Read below:
Energy Policy: Convservatives have largely focused on ways to get more domestic oil or to better use the oil we have, but it's still about oil. When it's not about oil, it's about ethanol. We need to focus more on alternative sources, especially solar.
Environment: Don't get me wrong here; I think a lot of liberals are way off the deep end. As a devout Christian I'm also of the firm belief that God is in control of events. God determines if there will be drastic climate change in our future, not man. I believe global warming is happening, but I'm not convinced that it's a serious problem yet. All that said, I think conservatives ought to push more for, well, conservation. Better recyclying programs, polution controls, and expanding parks. I think the liberals have often taken the wrong tack on how to go about it, but at least they're doing something.
Education: This is something liberals definitely have right, and conservatives need to stand up and take notice. We need to push more money to education, if for no other reason than that the kids of today are the voters of tomorrow. Right the teachers union is fiercly liberal, and not only because that's the standard union way. It's also because the teachers know where their money comes from, and they know democrats in control mean more money in their pocket books. And these are the people who teach our children. You don't have to spend a lot of time in a public school around here to find indications that the result is going to be children who grow up to be liberals. Madison high schools have gay/lesbian sensitivity classes. The elementary schools have children bring school supplies to a socialist style common supply closet.
Space Program: I'm hesitant to use this one because it almost qualifies as a current event, and because it's hard to nail down exactly what the each side's positions are. Suffice it to say that the program has of late followed conservative direction, and it hasn't prospered. It could do a lot more with a lot less. That doesn't mean commercialize the program; that would be a mistake. I think maybe the best solution is better divide the research, exploration, and space services missions. Tom Mueller of SpaceX said of NASA in a recent Wired article that, "They pay five times the cost for the last 5 percent of performance." This would be fine for the research arm, but the same philosophy is killing it's exploration and services branches.
Homeland Security: Creating an entire Homeland Security department was not a good idea. There's just too much beauracracy. Homeland Security should have limited to a new agency under the department of defense, and it's primary charter should consist of only two missions. First, enabling the sharing of information between agencies that currently are unable to do so. The CIA and FBI aren't supposed be too close for good reason. But sometimes one will have info of importance to the other and . A homeland security agency could provide a well-defined, legal means of sharing that data. Second, it should exist to support local governments in securing infrastructure- water supplies, utilies, and roads. I would mention the broad wire-tapping, but that's more of a current-events thing.
Now for some issues where I side with the conservative camp, but with perhaps some liberal leanings:
Gun Control: I think it's pretty clear the 2nd Amendment is referring to individual rights, and not the right of states to keep militias. I don't have space here to go into all the reasons why, but let me just say I think it's wishful thinking to beleive otherwise. Even if these were not case I doubt the wisdom of a ban on guns. I also want to point attention to the word 'infringed'. Infringe is not the same as deny. Have you denied someone a gun if you make them wait seven days, or say they just can't get an assault weapon? Well, no. But you've certainly infringed on their right, and therefore these measures are unconstitutional. I do beleive there are three measures we can take for better gun control in this country:
1) Redefine a gun to include a trigger lock. All guns come with trigger locks, trigger locks must be used in residential and urban areas.
2) License gun owners. It sounds a little creepy, but as long as the government doesn't have the ability to turn down a license (or charge more than a pittance for it), it should be legal. This won't do much on it's own, but it's essential for the next item, which is...
3) Make gun owners somewhat liable for crimes committed with their gun. Level fines for allowing a gun to be stolen, jail time for failure to report a stolen gun.
The idea is make it worthwhile for gun owners to be a lot more responsible about how they take care of their weapons, and make it a lot more difficult for unregistered weapons to end up on the streets, all without denying anyone the right to a firearm.
Prayer in Schools: I believe that even teachers and administrators should be allowed to pray and be seen praying at school. However, leading a prayer that includes students is perhaps crossing the line. As much as I like to think about a student coming to know Christ because of prayers led by a teacher, I still think there needs to be clear guidelines on religious expression from public authority figures. I would be deeply troubled if my daughter felt pressured to pray to 'the Great Spirit', Buddha, or anyone else. However, as long as she is not asked to take part it's merely an educational opportunity. I don't think she shouldn't know what else is out there.
