Politics - Why I am and Am not a Conservative (Part 1), 7-31-2010

 For the last 30 years, Americans lauded the word conservative. Why shouldn't we? Conservative came packed as meaning prudent, and Americans love the idea of commonsensical prudence. Who does not prefer thinking of themselves as canny, as realistic, as opposed to the wild-eyed dreaminess of the idealist?

Moreover, Americans love the idea that they can themselves be rich. The conservatives promised entry to the world of wealth.

Conservatism offered release from change. Change tires people and tired minds scare easy. Change replaces the old verities with new uncertainties. Conservatism offers no changes from what works to what might work. Conservatism gives us the political equivalent of Valium.

My Dad thinks I spend too much time thinking of the past. I agree with a bit. I do not handle change well anymore. I did try to finish the work started by my ancestors. However, I also tried fighting against the dead hand of the past. I know the past remains with us – read Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom for proof of this. I say I lived my life on the tension between the past and the demands of my own ambitions. Or I did so until everything fell apart, leaving me trapped in an unhealthy morass of ambitions, imposed and of my own, without any exit.

I knew by 1984 Ronald Reagan was selling us a fraud. His conservatism talked of favoring the entrepreneur while boosting those who had already made their pile. Statistics show the decline in real incomes since the day of Reagan. Entrepreneurial capitalism suffered from lack of capital, but finance capitalism flourished under Reagan. Think clearly, and a line exists from junk bonds to credit default swaps.

The same fraud applied to Reagan's social conservatism. The right to privacy/abortion issue could end forever with a constitutional amendment. No Republican promoted any such amendment when Reagan was at the peak of his powers, or when George W. Bush had control of both Congressional houses. Instead, the Republicans concentrated on judicial appointments. Why? Fund-raising. The Republican politicians raked in the dollars to fight the good fight. The good fight being their re-election and continuation in power.

Nor did Reagan's conservatism shrink government. Reagan transferred Keynesian spending to the military side of the military budget. I see two reasons for this: 1) preserving jobs and campaign contributions, and 2) squeezing the USSR.

Yes, Reagan helped break the old USSR and its domination of Eastern Europe. He did this along with Pope John Paul II and Gorbachev.

We have passed through the years of Republican control of the House of Representatives (1994–2006). With George W. Bush, they had the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. We saw conservatism's ineptness as a governing principle. Instigating a war in Iraq was not conservative. Pawning the nation to the Chinese was not conservative.

sch

[To be continued. sch 2/22/23.]