World President Barack Obama spoke today from Prague, Czech Republic on the need for total nuclear disarmament, calling on the citizens of Earth to create “peace in our time,” to quote another failed politician.
In his speech this morning, Obama delivered the wrist slap to North Korea we’d all been waiting on, at least after the U.N. “surprisingly” failed to act. In a passing, off-hand statement, Obama condemned the launch by North Korea of a ballistic missile, “Rules must be binding,” he said. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.” However, North Korea’s launch was in direct conflict with a 2006 U.N. Security Council Resolution. (See, Mr. President, these resolutions are just words). FOXNews reports, in the end, President Obama addressed the North Korea crisis at least a dozen times. Unfortunately, he said nothing stronger.
The meat of this speech dealt with the utopian fairy world I sometimes (read: everyday) feel he lives in. He spoke of a day when nuclear weapons will no longer be necessary, a day we all hope for, but the president laid out a plan in which a new nuclear non-proliferation treaty is drawn up, and all so-called “good” countries sign, agreeing to drastically pare down their nuclear weapons arsenals. While in liberal theory, this sounds good, it’s unrealistic, just like so many other liberal policies. Sure, perhaps we and Western Europe will agree and actually follow such a treaty, but how does anyone in their right mind believe al Queda or Russia will? Of course they won’t!
The president did said we would maintain large enough stockpiles to fend off any threat from rogue nations such as Iran or North Korea, but I have sneaky suspicion his idea of “large enough” and reality are two different things. If these groups want these weapons, nothing this current administration is apparently willing to do (talk them to death) or the U.N. says is going to stop them from acquiring these weapons.
Lending to his role as a “world citizen” Obama received large cheers from the Czech crowd when he told them his new treaty would provide safe, clean nuclear energy technology to the whole world, and that the U.S. had donated a very large sum of money to the IMF to provide a sort of “global stimulus package.” Mr. President, need I remind you who you serve? As much as I’m sure it pains you to admit it, you are not the President of the Czech Republic, or of the farther-right-than-us European Union. You are the American President, and we have enough problems of our own; we don’t need you galavanting across the countryside of the Old World undermining our security by blatantly telling the terrorists we’re dumping nuclear power.
[This is an essay I wrote earlier this week. I've republished it here.]
Stereotypes are cop-outs. Each of them is just a way for us to pre-judge someone before we actually become acquainted with them on a personal level.They are tools we use to lock each other into specific, predetermined groups and behavior patterns. We use these mind tricks to exert control over other people, to gain traction in a difficult situation. Instead of facing the challenge of exposing ourselves to another individual, we take the easy way out and brush them aside with the passing thought, I’ve seen their kind before. What if, however, we took the time to give the benefit of the doubt, even to only one person? A few more minutes out of our busy schedules would not be missed. We spend that much time daily dialing the telephone or ordering coffee in the Drive-thru. Why not put those minutes to better use? If we did, we would discover that a person is more than the sum total of his or her parts, labels, and appearance. Appearances are deceiving, for we are each more than our stereotypes or labels alone allow for us to be.
As an eighteen-year-old sophomore at a small state university, my life is full of interesting topics and paradoxes, puzzles and quirks. My life is based on suggestion, on stereotype, on societal expectations, but my habits are geared against the grain. I do what is thought impossible and am seen for whom I am not. People expect me to be a certain way, but I surprise them by being even better.I believe in forging my own path and setting my own agenda, but rebellion is not what I seek: I fight apathy, and work to make my positive mark on the world. It is what this time of my life is supposed to be about. As a college student I have some of the biggest and hardest-to-shake stereotypes placed upon me, that I believe in an “anything goes” world, or that I fought to see Barack Obama elected.But after busting through these grandiose façades, I drop the biggest bombshell of all: I am a young conservative.I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, and the rule of law. I work for lower taxes and less government intervention and involvement. I want to live my life the way I see fit, by taking responsibility for the consequences, and not by following a ten-step plan developed by a bureaucrat. I believe in making money, in capitalism, in success for the individual, and in freedom for us all. Of course, being politically conservative and educationally an undergraduate leads to some interesting encounters. Many of my peers do not understand why I believe what I do, and many older adults approach me in disbelief as well. It seems most think youth should be a time of frivolity and a more carefree lifestyle; I do not necessarily disagree, but I look to my future as well. I am not a boring old codger while still a teenager, but I dream of one day being a successful, financially secure professional, and that dream cannot be fulfilled by following the plans and ideas of the other side of the political spectrum.
If liberalism on campus is such an accepted belief and lifestyle, why I am so different? Why does my belief system differ from the supposed norm? To fully investigate this issue, it is necessary to investigate my past, my experiences, and my goals for the future. Understanding one’s lifestyle choices is not an easy task. My political affinities come from several different places. To begin, since both of my parents are Republicans and very conservative, it would be easy to discount my ideals as something handed down and accepted without challenge. It is true that as far back as I can remember knowing what a political party was, I have identified myself with the GOP. However, neither of my parents has ever forced their political belief system on me. They’ve presented their views, but always left my choices in the matter up to me. Saying that my party affiliation and governmental philosophy stem solely from my mother and father is a vast misstatement. Perhaps my parents led me in the right direction, but it was by my own free will I came to believe we should as strictly as possible follow the plans laid out for us by the Founding Fathers in our nation’s seminal documents. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Even as young as I am, I have had enough life experiences to realize how important it is to keep and follow those democratic ideals. Right now, as a young adult, I am watching as the grand era of prosperity of my early teenage years dries up and our nation sinks into a deep recession. The most treacherous example is of the recent government bailouts. Instead of allowing companies who made bad business decisions and granted sub-prime mortgages to go bankrupt and restructure themselves, our government is using billions upon billions of our money and money borrowed from unfriendly foreign lands to artificially prolong the lives of those failed ventures. To me, that idea is unfair and, at the least, not in line with the spirit of our Constitution. Why are we who made good decisions being forced to help those who did not? I believe in helping others in need, but it must be my choice, not the government’s. Life experiences such as these catalyze my beliefs. They make me look toward the future and realize that as this spending continues, my dreams become a little farther off, a little less attainable. If success is punished and failure is rewarded, why will any company try to succeed? Where is the motivation to hire the best and brightest talent and sell the best products if the federal government is only going to tax their profits into losses and save them if they fail? How will I, or my children, for that matter, ever ascend to the peak of our abilities?
That hope for the future and worry that my dreams will not come to pass is what most strongly motivates me. America is a great nation, and I cannot bear to see her flounder. I want America to achieve her epitome of greatness with the restoration of our Constitutional values. As for myself, I want to someday work for a multinational computer electronics company. I want to be able to provide for my family, and I want my future children to have even better opportunities than I had. Neither one of these dreams is easily possible with the current onward march of liberal policies and socialism, at least not according to some of the greatest political minds. Many have equated our recent lapse to that of Western Europe after World War II. It is a commonly held belief in the United States that Europe is very similar to our country, but in truth, it has many problems we have never had to deal with, including strangled access to healthcare. Here, generally speaking, if one is insured he or she can schedule an appointment with a doctor and have met with him or her within a week or so. In other nations where socialized medicine exists, everyone has access to healthcare, but many people’s health suffers because of long lead times for life-saving surgeries and routine checkups. Also, the citizenry is taxed beyond belief, to the point where the tax rate reaches atrocious and unbelievable amounts. At what point do we say enough is enough? The idea of healthcare for all is valiant, but the execution is wrong. Providing healthcare is not government’s job. Many argue that private companies cannot and should not be in charge of providing medical assistance, that they wield too much power of people’s lives. However, the evidence points to the contrary. Even with their problems, private companies tend to provide a much better service, due to competition in the market. All the government needs to do is encourage that competition by lowering taxes, and thereby fostering growth, and repealing senseless regulations. Look how much government has regulated education in America. Does it sound exciting to be required to take a standardized test to verify your lifestyle choices before doing a urine analysis? Do you want to have to write your Senator just to have an emergency appendectomy? I have experienced such a surgery, and I can assure you that sitting up is murder, let alone handling a keyboard.
My conservative beliefs do detach me from my peer group of young college students, at least from the majority.This aspect of my being cannot be separated from me as a whole; it makes up an integral part of my being, of who I am as a person. They do not fit the expected mold, but I accept that and embrace it. I will not change who I am simply to force myself into such an idea. We can never fully escape stereotypes, because generalization is part of who we are as human beings. However, we can rewrite them to include more facets of other individuals. Once we have broadened those horizons, we must do all we can to transform stereotypes from the crystalline stones they are today to the malleable clay they must be tomorrow, changing and updating them with each new person we meet, as we learn to connect more deeply.
The media and liberal (er, progressive) interest groups are always looking for ways to break apart and shut down the conservative movement, from flat-out lies to “misstatements” and bending the truth. Those of us who proudly wear the title “Conservative” are accustomed to their trickery, but the general population is not. If we expect to win elections, we must be able to answer every question.
Last semester, in one of our final College Republicans meetings of the semester, we invited a very liberal politics professor to speak to us, him being the very definition of a “liberal special interest”. We knew we wouldn’t agree on anything, and he knew he wasn’t going to convince us of anything, so while there were some heated moments, it was fairly congenial. However, he did raise one point that really caused me to think, not to subscribe to the liberal condition, but to re-examine how we as Conservatives and Republicans, operate.
In the midst of his skulduggery, and as part of his no-questions-welcome monologue, he used the old leftist argument (I’m paraphrasing), “Well, how can Republicans claim to be limited government folks when they support big government ideas? You can’t be limited government if you’re for government intervention into people’s private lives, such as with gay marriage and abortion!”
How do we, as conservative Republicans, address this argument? As an “all of the above” conservative (fiscal, social, and national security), I feel a bit torn when I hear this brought up. I’m all for allowing people to run their own lives, in fact, I believe it’s their responsibility, and I believe in limited government, so how do I respond?
First of all, I believe it’s important to point out to voters (not liberal “skulduggers”, they won’t listen anyway) that Conservatives and thereby, Republicans, are not the anti-government party. We believe in limits and in rules, but only as many as are necessary. We trust people are mature enough to do the right thing. That’s one reason I believe a proper democratic system of government can only survive in a nation of Christians.
I believe the perfect way to sum up the conservative movement to prospective voters is the old “My freedom stops where my fist punches your nose” adage, or the idea that a citizen is free to do as he or she wishes until they infringe on someone else’s freedom. No one individual is worth more than any other. The flip side of that is that rules exist, and even though you’re no less of a person, if you break the law, you must face the consequences, no matter who you are.
As limited government conservatives, we believe in having a government as small as possible and one whose power is limited by the people it governs. According to the US Constitution, government exists to “insure domestic tranquility” among other things. In other words, government’s place is to guarantee the rule of law is upheld and that wrongdoers are properly and justly punished.
That being said, this is where morality comes into play in government. As a Christian nation, God and His Word, the Bible, provided our moral compass, our ideas for what was right and wrong, legal and illegal. Now, however, with the onslaught of moral relativism, we have no compass. Liberal judges are happy to legislate their own flavor of morality, and their tastes change with the days of the week. We need a standard to back up our laws.
It’s important to point out that so-called “big government” social conservatives are not pushing to increase government; they’re working to undo the harm done to our society by these moral relativists. This is why social conservatism ≠ Big Government. Social Conservatives are fighting for the ever-elusive “traditional values” (Biblical truths) and are working to restore government to its size of old. It’s social liberals who aretrying and succeeding in growing the federal government to allow and protect such things as gay marriage and abortion.
This is why our coalition must reconvene and be strengthened. Liberals haven’t changed their tricks or tactics, we’ve just stopped fighting their advances. They accuse us of being the party of anarchy, but they legislate it, providing protection and non-discrimination clauses to benefit those who have broken laws or assist those with ethical faults.
Folks, it’s okay to say something is wrong. There’s truth in that statement, but until we grow up and get past our fear of having our feelings hurt, none of this matters; we’ll always be the minority party, if we survive at all. But before you give up, remember this, if we don’t defend what is true and right in our nation, who will?
The answer to that professor’s question is this: “You, sir, are the one who has grown government, and we will always fight to stop you.”
Social conservatism is a limited government principle, but unless we take ownership of our own ideals, liberals will always redefine them to suit themselves.
—————
As always, I’m eagerly await your comments. Have something more to add to the discussion? Am I way out of line somewhere? Or do you completely agree? Let me know! Leave a comment in the section below.
