Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.
My experience in Arkansas was, a lot of the so-called conservatives said "Let's cut the budget." But they wanted to add prison sentences, they wanted to eliminate parole, they wanted to have harsher sentences for various crimes. And I said "OK, that's fine, but that's going to be expensive. So which do you want?" You can't have both, or you do what the federal government has done, and this is where I think Republicans have been especially irresponsible. Their approach has been [to] just kick the can down the road and let your grandkids pay for it.
So they run up huge deficits ... but they've pushed those costs down to the states, and the states have to eat it, because they have to balance their budgets, they don't get to print money or borrow. Or the federal government just runs up more deficits and let's the next couple of generations worry about paying for all this stuff.
Preach it, Brother Huck!
(Hat tip: CC reader Bill).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Great summary, Bill. I have noticed that points 2, 3 and 5 are especially prevalent among people who call themselves libertarians today. I would add that in many ways it is also an egocentric worldview.
I think many Christians who claim libertarian political views do not realize that they are grouping themselves in with people who believe 'it is all about me and my freedom to do whatever I want and to hell with the common good.'
The Apostle Paul addresses freedom in Christian context:
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I believe Huckabee is on to something about Republicans. Many in the Republican party today seem to be socially liberal at worst/indifferent to social issues at best and first and foremost concerned with money.
Also, Huckabee's heart reminds me of Reagan's when it comes to the sanctity of life issue, the issue that is at the real hub of our nation's soul. He is one of the few in national politics today that are unapologetically and unashamedly pro-life.
"The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law—the same right we have.
Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other."
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."
Excerpts From: "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" by Ronald Reagan.
I see Huckabee as more in the line of a European "Christian Democrat" than a typical American Republican conservative. That's a not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.
Here's an etymology of the word
conservative
as a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the Fr. Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his Fr. disciples, (e.g. Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur"). Conservative as the name of a British political faction it first appeared in an 1830 issue of the "Quarterly Review," in an unsigned article sometimes attributed to John Wilson Croker. It replaced Tory (q.v.) by 1843, reflecting both a change from the pejorative name (in use for 150 years) and repudiation of some reactionary policies. Extended to similar spirits in other parties from 1845.
"Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, but rather a way of looking at the civil order. The conservative of Peru ... will differ greatly from those of Australia, for though they may share a preference for things established, the institutions and customs which they desire to preserve are not identical." [Russell Kirk (1918-1994)]
Of course, I think Bob Barr completely misses the point! Huckabee is ahead of the curve as usual.
Compassion does not equal big government. Big government has been used to "fake" compassion. That's the issue. If Conservatism and limited government cannot be presented with authentic compassion then it's not viable and will be pushed aside. The trouble is that you have to deal with what true compassion is. We must care about people, but not necessarily (provide) care "for" them. The government has been on a path for many decades of larger and larger roles in everyday life. I am not in support of that direction, but changes and corrections in course have to be done with thoughtfulness and consideration and yes compassion. It is also compassionate to be considerate and responsible for the futures of our children and grandchildren. It's compassionate to deal with the problem we've created with excess spending and promises in Medicare and the "borrow it" mentality of Social Security and the Baby Boom generation as a whole.
Caring about people includes being good stewards of our economy, our environment and our government. Excessive consumption of goods is NOT a virtue, and yet some talk of it as a right. Our responsibility with freedom is to be good stewards and to care for our fellow man. If Republicans and Conservatives cannot articulate the message in that manner, they will fail and we'll have irresponsible Democrats. Huckabee is right; making a fiscal conservative case without addressing troubles with morality and care for our fellow man is empty and wrong.
The true Conservative case is one of responsibility, good stewardship and conservation of our environment, culture, traditions and our way of life. There is a righteous case to be made for the government to take a path towards responsibility and good stewardship and it's a compassionate case. It takes someone who is genuine and can solve these problems from the positive side. I'm sorry, but no one is going to vote for the Grinch and just taking things away is not a solution. We need to face our troubles head on and compete in the arena of ideas and one of those ideas is based on the principle that Freedom comes with Responsibility. And we care so much about people and our children that we will face these problems head on and deal with them instead of saddling the next generations with unbearable debt and potentially bankruptcy as a nation. A lot of people want to hear the truth from good people who aren't looking at who to blame but how to fix the problem. The blame part is easy; there is a generation plus that only needs to look in the mirror and realize that our collective greed and poor stewardship has left things in a big mess. We now have a country of generally overweight, lazy people with poor health that have few hands on skills that have chased convenience, comfort, security, financial safety, entertainment and efficiency. None of these are actually virtues and they have left society and families in a shambles. Conservatives have to redefine themselves as something virtuous and righteous instead of a hollow arguement of why we should be able to drive our SUV's and live in 4000 sq ft houses.
It does not take a lot of money to "care" about and for people. Just because the Dems have made the fallacy case that "money=care" doesn't mean the Conservatives have to make the same error in reverse. Our country was founded on the principle of the value of each and every human being as special being created by God. Defining Conservatism needs to be done with care and principle and it should have very little to do with materialism. We need to care more and in a real way about the future of our country and our descendants. And that care and love is the kind of care that requires sacrifice, creativity and optimism. It will need real Leadership from many people.
I publicly confess that I drive a Ford Excursion (better known as an "Explosion") and it consumes half the fuel of NorthEast Oklahoma!
When those claiming to espouse Christian beliefs come crashing down on libertarianism, I like to point out a few things that God himself had to say to us.
"You shall not steal."
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
Simply put, in a free society like the US, where we the people are indirectly responsible for the amount of taxation laid on others, voting to take from others against their wishes is tantamount to theft. This is not a "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's," situation because there is no Ceasar. In a free society there is only us. If you wish to assume the role of Ceasar, that is your free will (Which by the way, is the greatest gift God gave us) but search your soul, and see if you believe Ceasar is in heaven.
Christ did not say, "take from others, and be generous with what is not your own." Christ taugh to be generous of yourself. Christ did not say, "force others to act in a way which I find pleaseing." Christ asked us to act in a manner which pleases me. If God himself is unwilling to force men to act as he desires, how can you belive that he wishes you to?
The United States is not a missionary church, and it should not be treated as one. God warned us not to attempt to make a heaven on earth, instead asking us to work for his glory as individuals.
Just a few thoughts after some prayer and reflection.
Thank you for reading.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.