With one of the more important presidential elections of a lifetime a mere six weeks away, the lines of demarcation between liberals and conservatives seems wider and deeper than ever. Perhaps it is because the lion’s share of my daily reading is of material and from authors supportive of conservative principles that I just don’t objectively understand how the liberal mind works. With what little liberal copy I do read, I hear that those of us on the conservative side of the line are filled with hatred, not just for the Obama regime but for the American people and our nation. We are labeled as intolerant, old fashioned, inflexible, misogynistic zealots driven solely by profits and wealth while using religious and moral hypocrisy to justify our objectives. The truth about the foundation of our core beliefs is never mentioned. We are likened to fascists and heartless, profit-seeking opportunists.
A former business partner, long ago deceased, told me, then a young lawyer, that if something was logical or made sense, he could understand it. I did not realize at the time that there was much greater depth to that observation than I thought upon first hearing it. Over the course of practicing law and mediating disagreements for some 23 years, I negotiated countless settlements of all kinds of disputes and lawsuits. One of the guiding principles I discovered in order for something to be acceptable to either side was that there has to be objective evidence of its existence. That is known as objective fairness. There has to be some basis in law, fact, or nature for something to be believable and acceptable.
A claim for loss of income for example must be supported by some form of evidence that substantiates one’s inability to perform a certain type of work for a defined period of time. A mere claim that someone was injured and could not work, without documentation, is worthless. Substantiation might come from historical evidence. How much was this person earning before the injury? And what do others similarly employed earn and gain over time? Once cannot hope to earn a certain amount and demonstrate a compensable award; nor can the claimant offer an experiment in supporting such a demand.
This is the manner in which conservative political analysis proceeds. The statistics and facts regarding unemployment, deficit spending, and even our nation’s credit rating bear out the failure of the current administration. Natural law guides us to understand that certain human behavior and choices are unacceptable and non-negotiable.
For liberals, everything is negotiable, from one’s choice of gender to determining the beginning or end of a life. It is inconceivable to think how one could operate a business or maintain a loving and functional family where some individuals believe everything is negotiable and subject to change, expansion, and unlimited progression. But liberals have no issue with unpredictability and increased governmental intrusions because they long for a political nanny state.
Natural change may be an unavoidable fact of life, but not for politics and government. I use the adjective “natural” to distinguish events in our lives that are beyond our control, like the death of a loved one or an unpreventable medical illness. Granted, progressive ideas have given women and other formerly excluded minorities the right to vote and more, much more. Medicare and Social Security are likewise rooted in progressive thinking. Progress has its place in science, medicine, and projects at large, but not in government. Government should progress in providing what is essentially mandated by our Constitution and not by expanding in size and scope in our daily lives. The more the government provides, the more beholden we are to it instead of the other way around, which is as it should be.
I am conservative because most of the conservatives I know can and do substantiate their politics with logic and facts, either current or historical. Liberals, from my experience, base theirs in large part on ideals, hopes, and experiments. That is not to say that these factors have no place in politics; but if the medical profession relied solely upon them, we would be no farther along the trail of cures and practical application of discoveries than when it all started centuries ago. Instead of utilizing and applying the fixes that have proven to be economically or politically effective, liberals want more social and economic experiments. They believe there is simply no point in conserving anything, save for the environment. For them, there is never enough. Never enough differences among us that must be recognized and accommodated; never enough government- funded programs to help all those newly-dubbed diverse individuals; never enough taxes to fund all that is perceived as necessary.
The lyrics of a song penned by well-known liberal songwriter and performer Sheryl Crow claim “it’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you got.” If that is true (and I believe it is), we don’t need more government programs or so-called inclusiveness. Instead of expanding an already- grossly overgrown government, it should be contained and put on a diet to shed thousands of useless bureaucrats and overpriced toilet seats.
I know that conservative elected officials are part of the problem. I understand how political deals are brokered and implemented. I am not naive. That’s been going on since embryonic forms of government were first established. The difference has to do with expectations and fundamental political beliefs. Am I here to serve my nation? Or was our government designed and intended to serve all citizens?
That brings me full circle to where I started with all this . . . that I don’t understand liberal politics that begs the question: “how can anyone with any degree of logic and moral fiber NOT vote for Mitt Romney?” Phrased conversely, why would anyone similarly endowed vote for Barack Hussein Obama? The answer is self evident. Those who will vote for BHO must be devoid of logic or moral convictions rooted in natural law. I am reluctant to broad-brush so many hard-working, law- abiding Americans; but I cannot explain it any other way. It may appear to be a mere difference in opinions, but opinions are often not very objective. They’re opinions; and like that certain part of the human anatomy, everybody has one.
copyright Russell Moker 2013
Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)