HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Oct. 9, 2006 Modern Conservative philosophers have one big problem that they don't like to discuss. In fact, it's so big and so obvious that it's usually not mentioned by the so called liberal media. What is this damming problem, this rather large elephant that seems to throw wrenches into the gears of their goals for America? Models! Working, real-world, models (AKA, evidence). The Republican party/conservative "side" has many facets, but it can be summed up like this: they advocate a kind of free market radicalism (minimal regulation, minimal interference into commerce from the government), coupled with Biblical morality (AKA, "family values", AKA maximal interference into our private lives from the government - Uncle Sam knows better than you do what's good, bad, right and wrong). Here's the rub: there are currently no nations in the world which practice these two views and enjoy the high standards of America and other first world nations. In fact, the nations which currently give their citizens the highest standards of living tend to be very secular. In some cases, it is a self-imposed secularism since many actually have official national religions! A wise choice on the part of their relative populaces, IMO, and a direct result of excellent public education (and one of the main reasons that American political Christan groups push voucher-programs here). Their economic and social policies are what we would call liberal, yet, in many cases, those nations are actually beat on us in terms of economic freedom according to, and as defined by, a conservative-based index; five European countries are currently ahead of us (link below). The continent of Europe has more people than America, better infrastructure, well developed cheap and efficient public transportation, world-class transferable health care (you don't lose it between jobs or career changes), and, most importantly, enviable public education systems. Germany alone is the world's third largest economy, and all together, Europe as a trading bloc can certainly hold its own – indeed it must, as it transitions to the global economy. There tend to be two schools of thought in Europe about the US insofar as military might. One side is content to let us be the dominant world-player, to allow us to continue to be the policeman. American conservatives snicker and mock this idea from both sides, calling Europeans wussies for expecting us to live up to our treaty responsibilities while at the same time, enjoying our privileged position of military superiority. This of course hints at the second idea in Europe, endorsed by French president Chirac among others. Given their wealth, why not strengthen their own military? I doubt very much that if Europe spent the net 50 years ballooning its military might, that American conservatives would smile. They'd likely mock and snicker just the same, very similar to the Hillary Clinton paradox. The side of "family values" can't get over that one. "Hillary is just playing politics, she should have some principles and divorce him!" Assuming she would leave Bill, it would of course enrage the "stand by your man, forgive, divorce is bad" crowd from the same side. Either way, she would remain the subject of useless "moral" attacks. The real reason they snicker and mock Europe is of course that Europe and other first world countries are models of liberal policies at work. Real evidence that a social contract to put people first doesn't mean high national debts and a poor economy. Evidence that low crime rates can be achieved without throwing masses into jail for decades. Evidence that gay marriage does not in fact cause perverts to push for the legal right to marry goats, nor does it wreck modern civilization as some of our own right-wing loons contend. I've heard many conservatives over the years on political talk shows go on and on about the "moral" decline in Europe, but the facts are the facts, the stats are the stats. The red state that I live in is running negative Republican attack ads, snickering and mocking the "liberal tendencies" of the local Democratic candidates. Given the stats for our state, I wonder how many of my local red-neck bozos ever take the time to examine other models and compare and contrast? I guess it takes stupid people to elect stupid leaders and get the same, stupid, results. I would sum up conservatism as the protection of what we have now. There is no desire, it seems, to seek out what may be better, or to contrast and differentiate. It's a type of arrogance that pats us on the back for what we have, without any real comparison to anything else. It's a myopic, fish-bowl, philosophy. What's more important to my neighbors is having that extra buck in their pocket, a buck that doesn't stay there for very long. Indeed, even with the oft-cited high tax rates in European countries, they actually have higher personal savings rates than we do on average. National health care? What fer?! Hell, the ER 'll take ya any dang way, Earl! We don't need that gosh darn so-sheeahlizm here, damn commies! Besides, with this extree buck in me pocket, I can play the lottery and get RICH! No, I don't think all conservatives fit this idiot-caricature. I think some know better, yet endorse such views because it suits their own purposes. Pushing people to become ignorant lottery playing fools is good for Republicans. As for the continued negative use of the word socialism, I can only shake my head in disbelief. The local farmers here benefit greatly from the many American socialist programs which are alive and kicking. Americans enjoy artificially low food prices as well. Mixed economies are quite simply the best in the world. The issue is not, and has not been for around 100 years, capitalism versus socialism. The issue is, how much socialism do we want/need in our base, capitalistic, system? It seems pretty darn politically correct to ignore using the word, "socialism", but this is the kind of hypocrisy I expect from that side, a side which supposedly deplores political correctness. They've renamed freedom-fries, "French fries" again, perhaps one day soon they will wake up and realize that the USSR is gone and rethink their narrow view of "socialism". Only a fool would imply that Europe is what we should emulate precisely to solve all of our social woes, and this isn't something I advocate. Many specific policies in most other first world countries can teach us something, however. Most of these nations learned much from us. Isn't it foolish to pretend that we can't learn anything from them? For example, our public education system is second rate, most other first world nations don't have this issue. Why not see what they are doing right? Only a delusional fool would refer to liberal policies and ideals as "religious", however (especially from a "side" which supports religious views and influence otherwise), or liken American liberals with the likes of Hugo Chavez. When this happens, I'm only too happy to provide plenty of examples where liberal ideas work, or, where they do what they promise to do without grinding the wheels of business to a halt in the process. Europe does have some issues with Islamists, this is true. We have our own issues with religious extremists, however, extremists with strong ties and influence over the Republican party, folk that want to bring about WW3, literally; more on that in a future article (see links below). It must also be said that many European papers reprinted those Mohamed-mocking comics out of protest - not protest against Muslims so much but in defense of free speech. American newspapers were rather coy and shy and, yes, "self censoring" over the incident, fearing backlash from the many Muslims who we deal with on a regular basis. -- Resources: The American dream? The results of the comparative study make it clear that the most important difference between poverty in the United States and in the other Western nations studied is that poverty in the United States is more prevalent and more severe. U.S. poverty was compared with that in Canada, France, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Sweden. The policy implications of this finding are significant, according to Duncan. "The belief that generous social assistance programs are a key impediment to economic mobility is not supported by these data," he says. "We've known for almost twenty years now that a substantial proportion of American poor escape from poverty," says Duncan. "What is surprising is that there is so much mobility in tradition-bound, class-conscious, welfare-state European countries." Is the American dream the European reality? Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. remains a more mobile society than Europe, economists and sociologists say that in recent decades the typical child starting out in poverty in continental Europe (or in Canada) has had a better chance at prosperity. Miles Corak, an economist for Canada's national statistical agency who edited a recent Cambridge University Press book on mobility in Europe and North America, tweaked dozens of studies of the U.S., Canada and European countries to make them comparable. "The U.S. and Britain appear to stand out as the least mobile societies among the rich countries studied," he finds. France and Germany are somewhat more mobile than the U.S.; Canada and the Nordic countries are much more so. Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend - Are we heading back towards aristocracy? Liberal policies steered us in the right direction for decades, will conservative policies steer us wrong? This article is a good read and places some blame on the Democratic party as well. An index of economic freedom, maintained by a conservative, American, think-tank. Five European countries are ahead of us. Canada is directly behind us; we are number 10. A Bush/Republican party supported religious fanatic who thinks that New Orleans received a punishment from God, that Israel should be backed for Biblical reasons, and that we should welcome and facilitate the tribulation (AKA, end of the world, AKA, World War III). ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
