Welcome back to Part 2, where we will explore the second of three principles that define conservatism, and how it relates to RINOs. To recap, our three principles gleaned from Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind are:
- Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.
- A conviction that ultimate equality is in the judgment of God and before courts of law, but not equality of condition because there will be natural orders and classes in any society (i.e. equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome).
- The belief that freedom and property are closely linked, in that when government does not respect property, then it becomes the master of all.
A clear principle of conservatism, as it relates to item 2, is that ultimate equality will be attained in the hereafter, and is entirely the domain of God, however that actually “cashes out” in terms of his calculus of final judgment and reward. On earth, however, the best we can offer is equality of opportunity, for two reasons. First, we cannot offer equality of outcome because each human is unique, bringing different interests and talents to whatever endeavor they pursue. The second reason is a corollary to the first, because if each person is bringing something different to the table, then it would be terribly difficult to determine what “equality” actually is, even though socialist types try to quantify what is actually qualitative in terms of certain basic needs such as housing, shelter, transportation, healthcare, etc. Moreover, there are some who are far more productive than others, so when one considers equalization, the question would be just how much “equalization” needs to take place. As complex as human interactions are, particularly with respect to economic activity, I think any human or group of humans would be hard pressed to decide what “equality” would actually mean, though many have tried, yet all have failed. The reason they have all failed is because they attempted to do what can only be done through free markets via price signals predicated on consumer demand or producer supplies, and also because those doing the “equalizing” were always more “equal” than others to the point where those being “equalized” revolted.
Now how does this relate to RINOs? Well RINOs are those who violate these principles by talking a mean game on fiscal responsibility, but once they’re in office, they can’t wait to join the Democrats in redistributing other people’s wealth. This is why we see a continual cycle of Republicans gaining majorities in either house of Congress, only to be turned out after a few years later because they were effectively no different than Democrats. We need look no further than the “compassionate conservatism” of George Bush and the Republican majority in Congress from 2000-2006. In order to demonstrate that conservatives don’t really want to rob the poor and elderly, Bush and the Republican Congress went on a spending binge of social programs in order to change the damaged Republican image, which failed miserably in the end anyway because this is not the reason people elect Republicans in the first place. Be it education, prescription drugs for the elderly, agricultural subsidies, or other domestic programs, Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like, all while fighting two wars. He has only been outdone by the recklessness of Obama, yet he made Lyndon B. Johnson look like a fiscal conservative by comparison. Of course, Bush could not have accomplished such a distinction without an all but compliant Congress. The only good news is that since conservatism actually has a set of standards, we had a rule by which to measure Bush and his wayward, fiscally irresponsible Congress.
The point of this post is that the Republican party is hardly one that is heartless and cares little for the poor, so it shouldn’t try to be something it is not. It has been proven that conservatives are far more giving than liberals of their time and money, wishing to do it in a private, direct, and more local manner, instead of having big government coerce it from them and give it to others in return for votes. Conservatives believe it is not up to the federal government to take care of everyone, because this breeds dependence, but if we are to have a successful society, it will rise and fall on how it treats the least of its citizens. Government simply cannot be a substitute for societal virtue, so those who call themselves conservatives need to get out of the business of social engineering, lest they be called what they really are: RINOs.
And no, I did not forget about RINOs at the local and state level who are in bed with the public employee unions. Any true conservative would be disgusted that union bosses coerce union dues from public employees in order to support candidates who will take their money and vote a largesse to public employees that they know the public can’t afford. What is fundamentally unfair, in my view is that someone such as myself, who will be working long after age 50 with little financial certainty, will be providing sure financial certainty to someone else of the same age on a “3 at 50” pension for the remainder of their life. On top of that, that person of the same age can find another job and continue to work while I’m paying them almost a full salary based on their previous job. Please tell me where is the “equality” in that.
Comments on this entry are closed.