Why I’m a Conservative

Government can’t do anything for you except in proportion as it can do something to you.
            William F. Buckley, Jr.

As a teacher and one who comes from a predominantly Democratically-controlled state, the descendent of Jewish immigrants and union workers, it might seem odd that I call myself a conservative.  Some might go so far as to say it is down-right miraculous.  However, as I grew up, perhaps as a condition of my contrarianism, I saw the things around me and grew suspect of their validity and effectiveness.  I heard the rhetoric but did not see the results.  I heard the passion but missed the certainty and self-assuredness.  It was once said that religious faith does not come from wisdom but from personal experience.  For me, political awareness and conviction materialized in much the same way. 

For me, conservatism is a belief that does not belittle others but believes in the inherent worth and ability of the individual.  For example, fiscal conservatism suggests that every person has the chance to rise as high, economically, as they want and the U.S. created a system that allows people to do just that.  For nearly 300 years, people have flocked to what was to be and what is the United States in search for a better life.  It does not matter a man’s race, country of origin or previous experiences, in the U.S. a man has the chance to stand on his own merit.  Liberals, in order to maintain their own power structure, assumes a perpetual disadvantage of racial, economic or religious proportions.  The policies with which liberals do not agree are framed as a slight or as particularly injurious to minorities (the recent voter identification requirements an example).   

The belief in the individual also discounts the notion of the conservative as a racist, as often suggested by liberals – usually mentioned in arguments over entitlements.  A true conservative feels that it is better to teach a person to take of themselves than to use the government as a means of filling that role.  Many liberals see the extent of their concern as directly proportional to how much they are willing to take care of others.  Within their arguments, they use terms like “the disadvantaged” or “the unfortunate” and in the process, they adopt a paternalistic attitude that, to a conservative, is demeaning and strips them of their humanity.  Over the last eighty years, liberals have suggested that their policies and attitudes are designed to help but poverty has not receded.  In fact, in the last forty or fifty years, it seems to have worsened.  However, there is no reflection upon these policies and liberal calls for endless government spending that has nothing to show for the expense.  If one assumes that a person is in need of government help because of a minority status, is that not the real racist?   

Therefore, my belief in the individual also negates the need for an overpowering and all-encompassing government.  Our Founding Fathers had an inherent distrust of government and the ability of someone to rule from afar.  President Ronald Reagan said, “The ten most dangerous words in the English language are “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”  As a conservative (and a historian), I realize that the government has never managed or operated anything that private hands could not do better and more efficiently.  When the government makes the assumption of its own legitimacy and superiority over its own people, where does that leave the average American?  The overwhelming trust that some have in the government has an inverse relationship with the lack of trust they have in people.   

In “cool” circles, there are no advantages to being a conservative.  Conservatives are roundly described as racists, hayseeds, uneducated and cruel.  Democrats declare that our policies are out to kill grandmothers and that we hate or cannot stand minorities, little children, down-on-their-luck single mothers and we probably kick puppies too.  Yet, in the condemnation, they show the madness of their declarations of tolerance and caring.  William F. Buckley, noted conservative thinker, once said, “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.”  As a conservative, I see the individual capable of more and I have greater belief in the individual.  At its core, that is why I’m a conservative. 

The Thrill of Victory, the Agony of Obnoxiousness

I love everything about the Olympics – the overwrought opening ceremonies, the parade of nations, the competition of athletes and the Olympic ideal that conflicting national policies have no role in the camaraderie of men and women in pursuit of a common goal.  There is a noble quality to the nature of the Olympics that draws me in each time.  I was fortunate enough to attend the Winter Olympic Games in the great city of Vancouver, British Columbia and it was an once-in-a-lifetime experience.  Last month, I was in Greece, the home of the modern Olympics and the experience made me more excited for the Games.  As I watch the Olympics in London, however, I’m struck by several things and sadly, not all of them positive.

There seems to be a great deal more crying and a general lack of graciousness among certain athletes.  On several occasions, I’ve seen silver medal winners reacted in such a way that undermines the importance of sportsmanship.  That is not to say that disappointment is unreasonable – indeed, it is expected.  However, how one addresses their fellow competitors, coaches and the public as a whole has not been shown in the best light.  In the gymnastic events, the Russian women did not afford themselves very well and American Mckayla Maroney treated the congratulations and condolences of her fellow vaulters as an imposition when she unexpectedly won silver in her singular event.  Yes, she just lost a gold that everybody and their mother assumed she would win but it does not excuse the behavior.  Thankfully, in interviews after the fact, she was appropriate but it does not erase the post-competition or medal stand behavior or demeanor.

Contrast that with the post-race behavior and demeanor of American runners Dawn Harper and Kellie Wells who typified the very best of graciousness and class as they respectively won the silver and bronze in the 100 meter hurdles.  There was the brave face shown by dominant Swiss cyclist Fabian Cancellara after crashing during his time trial race.  How classy was Jamaican Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce when she congratulated American Allyson Felix, who won gold in the 200m final.  Romania’s Catalina Ponor lost a heartbreaker to American Alexandra Raisman but still showed class in defeat.  There are so many more who are displaying the Olympic spirit. 

I was certainly not alone in my admiration for and attention to South African racer Oscar Pistorius.  However, the American broadcasts seem to miss the entire specialness of the man and his efforts.  Throughout the Games and NBC’s broadcasts, there was a constant focus on the prosthetics and the uniqueness of the situation.  With every race or every story, NBC highlighted the differences that Mr. Pistorius has worked so hard to cast aside and render irrelevant.  Yes, the man and his achievements are historic and it certainly does require some mention but the attention that, at times, seemed ad nauseum was a case of missing the point and pigeon-holing the young South African runner as an oddity rather than as an accomplished athlete working to make his dreams come true.  His mother never treated him differently – it is too bad the media does.

On another note of what is and what is not talked about, there has been some talk about the weight comments of Australian female swimmer Leisel Jones and American female weight lifter Holley Mangold with the addendum that no one would ever make a comment about the weight of a male athlete.  Any fan of any male sport will tell you weight is often talked about.  If we are to treat athletes without consideration of gender or condition, we must allow for analysis that cuts across the gender line.  At a time when we are considering the London Games as the games of the women with more female participation than ever before, we are reverting back to a place where women are fragile, emotionally-damageable creatures in need of kid gloves. 

The one thing that strikes me the most is the representation of one’s country.  In particular, I love seeing the efforts of small national delegations who are heroes for their Olympic struggles.  While political and economic factors might label one country as more important and news-worthy than another, on the field of competition, athletes are the same in their path and skills toward a particular event.  The widow of one of the slain Israelis of the 1972 games talked about her husband and his approach of some fencers from Lebanon and Syria.  She said she was aghast but to him, they were all athletes and indeed, she witnessed camaraderie.  That is part of the magic of the Olympics.  While they represent their respective countries, they are equalized as athletes.   

I could go on as there is much to talk about.  Perhaps, this is a good time to begin writing another Olympic article.  Or, perhaps people are done with the Olympics.  This Sunday, the closing ceremonies will bring to an end to a special time.  Already, my wife is talking about going to Rio de Janeiro in 2016.  I must admit I’m intrigued.  I hope in the meantime that some current and aspiring Olympic athletes learn the true nature of the spirit of the Games and learn that their endeavors are not about them but something greater.

Queuing Up For Community

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life.

            Aristotle, Politics  

For those above the age of forty, there might be memories of a community feel to your neighborhood where children played with one another, parents chatted and shared the dispensing of discipline and a general protectiveness of the neighborhood.  Strangers in the neighborhood were welcomed but asked their business.  New neighbors were greeted and made to feel a part of the communal esprit de corps.  In a great many neighborhoods today, that feeling no longer exists.  People are sequestered in their air conditioned homes and only come out and communicate with neighbors when the lawn needs mowing or watered.  However, I have experienced another example of community – the queue. 

About ten years ago, I was attending a baseball game and parked in the lot of a closed K-Mart, one I’d used before and one where about fifty others were using as well.  We made the long but manageable trek to the ballpark, enjoyed the game and returned to the lot only to find nearly seventy cars had been towed.  As the various fans gathered, we began to fan out, looking for a sign and sure enough, behind a tree, was a sign warning of towing.  In a society increasingly known for looking out for oneself, we gathered together and made a plan.  One person called the towing company to find out the cost of getting our cars out ($150) and another sought out the nearest ATM machine.

Together, we walked about two miles to the towing company and approached the window together.  In the midst of this line, I discovered that we were together, bounded as one in the face of injustice.  Injustice might be a bit overwrought but we did develop a camaraderie that night as we helped one another with answers to questions.  People before us told us the procedure upon stepping up to the company’s representative, jokes were shared that mocked the officiousness of the company and a general affinity for one another who shared the same predicament was evident. 

Yet, these types of instances need not be all bad.  Eight years ago, I queued up to vote in the presidential election.  People were excited and represented those willing and desirous of doing their civic duty.  Early on in my wait, it was discovered that a young man near the front was voting for the first time.  The citizens clapped and congratulated him and upon his exit, he was congratulated once more, this time with high-five slaps and handshakes.  I’ve always felt this congeniality when voting before and since but that day, it brought home for me the nature of Americans and their sense of community.

In the face of recent technological breakthroughs and cultural changes, there is much to bemoan about the loss of community.  I also honestly believe the future of our community is dependent upon the revival of physical, actual (non-virtual) communities.  Yet, there are moments where people break from their own lives and work and commiserate with one another in a genuine togetherness.  I wonder if this phenomenon is common in other countries.  Perhaps, other countries have not seen their sense of community erode the way it has here in the States.  I know that the U.S. is not devoid of this attitude and there are plenty of examples of it but it is not as strong as it once was.  Perhaps, we can take a lesson from the queue.  There is still something within us that craves this feeling. 

The Folly of an Old Argument

In the wake of the tragic events in Colorado, some seek to take the opportunity to rehash an old argument – the elimination or reduction of weapons in the United States.  Social and political liberals feel that the only way to reduce such happenings is to simply eliminate the ability to purchase advanced weaponry.  Some go so far as to ban the sale of any weapon.  While it is true that these activists are capitalizing on a horrific event that is not what concerns me.  The truth is that draconian measures against weapons are not effective and indeed, only hurt the innocent and law-abiders.   

For many international observers, Americans’ obsession with and adherence to gun rights is perplexing at best, unbelievable at worst.  The nature of U.S. development depended upon the idea of the “citizen soldier.”  From the earliest days of the colonies until well into the 19^th-century, soldiers were as likely to report for duty with their own rifle or other weapon then depend on a government issued firearm.  Until the late 19^th-century, Americans were still exploring unchartered territory and weapons, be they handguns or rifles, were essential for defense.  The traditions of hunting and self-defense are the basic reason why the majority of Americans agree with gun ownership of one type or another.  It is the reason why they resist demands to give up their weapons and why some internationally find themselves philosophically against what some represent. 

In the worst crime-laden cities (Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit), city leaders passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.  Law-abiding citizens, fearful of their lives and when accosted, had little with which to fight back, had no options but belated phone calls to police long after the perpetrators fled.  City leaders promised that gun restrictions would ebb the amount of violence but crime rates remained (remain) high and indeed, the only people who are impacted by the laws are legitimate citizens.  Those using weapons for crimes do not register or purchase weapons legally.  Therefore, their access to firearms remained unfettered and conditions continued to deteriorate and proved increasingly dangerous for the average law-abiding citizen.  In the last two years, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Second Amendment to the Constitution yet, the recent events in Colorado have brought the issues back to the fore.

Personally, I think that certain military grade weapons have no business in civilian hands but I have an unwavering belief that we are allowed by the Constitution to have individual firearms.  The problem with eliminating some is that it quickly leads to the elimination of all firearms.  Some states allow for concealed handgun licenses and it would have been interesting if someone in that theater had had a pistol.  On a news talk show, I heard an activist say that such a scenario would have created a worse blood bath.  Her paradigm suggests that any positive reason of a firearm destroys her entire argument against them.  The Aurora, Colorado theater was already a blood bath – unfortunately, it was a one-sided affair.  That is the future of activists’ arguments. 

Gun ownership in the U.S. has always been accompanied by training and responsibility as well as instruction on the history of weapons in the U.S.  It is one reason why so many gun advocates are well familiar with the Second Amendment and the country’s history in relation to weapons.  As for the demented man in Colorado, no society can prevent or anticipate previously undocumented insanity and to burden society with such a task shows the folly of anti-gun activists’ point of view.  The best that Americans can do is being prepared when the unpredictable happens. 

Japan’s Uncertainty with Nuclear Power

This past week, large scale protests took place in Tokyo against the government’s decision to reactivate two nuclear power plants.  Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda explained that the purchasing of oil and gas imports to replace the missing energy sources was forcing the Japanese to quickly restart the heavily public invested nuclear plants.  However, the protestors fear that the dangers posed by Fukushima and other power plants have not subsided and the very nature of nuclear power plants in such a geologically unstable region like Japan makes little sense.

In the wake of the Japanese nuclear disaster, several countries banned or scaled back their nuclear power facilities.  It was a knee-jerk reaction to the calamity in Japan.  In Japan, racked by fear and uncertainty since the earthquake/tsunami, some Japanese are lashing out, albeit in an organized and peaceful way, to the news of the re-started plants.  It would seem that the Japanese government is in a difficult position yet the Japanese people have legitimate concerns about the viability of nuclear energy and the stability of those plants currently operating.  The Economist, in an article on the protests, suggested that the incident has ignited the urgency of a rather small group of liberals on the issue of nuclear power as a whole but the party that represents that point of view has not grown in support, a temporary reprieve for the Noda government.

While a country like Japan, unique in that it is a mountainous country without fossil fuels like coal, could have naturally gravitated towards geothermal power, previous Japanese governments have sought the clean and cheap alternative of nuclear power.  Throughout the world, nuclear power has provided an energy alternative that has seldom created the nightmarish scenarios that protestors and activists promised.  True, if things go wrong as they did in that “perfect” storm of natural disasters in Japan, nuclear power poses an extraordinary risk but the history and technology of the industry suggest that it would take another confluence of disasters to create the same ideal setting for catastrophe. 

Countries who sought to eliminate or reduce nuclear power energy were often those who had no history of risk but simply did so to mollify fears generated by the immediate hysteria of troubles in Japan.  In the United States, in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island near-disaster, nuclear power plant construction dropped to a stand-still yet, the increasing safety measures and technology have made such plants safe, dependable and productive.  It seems that the attempts to throw the baby out with the bathwater are unreasonable and illogical. 

If any country’s reactionary stance on nuclear power is understandable, it is that of Japan.  However, the Japanese have grown increasingly weary of their governments – the rate of government turnover is remarkable.  And a beleaguered government cannot throw away the millions of dollars in investments on a progressively safer and reliable energy source.  The geological instability of the region would suggest a shift towards geothermal is advisable but for now, the Noda government must utilize the resources they have in order to bring more normalcy to daily lives while working diligently to upgrade all nuclear facilities. 

I Know It’s Only Rock n’ Roll…

I remember it like it was a bolt out of the blue.  I was at a friend’s house and his older brother had just purchased a new album – Black and Blue by the Rolling Stones.  The older brother also possessed Goat’s Head Soup and Exile on Main Street.  The three albums were very different from one another but I was hooked.  I would digest every album from that point on and through the years, have enjoyed much of their earlier albums though their period of the 1970s is my favorite.  Yesterday was the 50^th anniversary of their first gig as The Rolling Stones.  Consider this article a little tribute to the greatest rock n’ roll band in history. 

When I was a kid, one was either a Rolling Stones fan or a Beatles fan.  I never understood The Beatles but the Rolling Stones impacted me like no other band.  There was something raw and rebellious about the Stones where the Beatles seemed to be pretending.  I must have annoyed the daylights out of parents with singing and asking to buy this album or another.  Of course, they had the right to suspect my musical tastes as I was once fond of KISS.  The Stones are based on the rich tradition of the blues and as I grew older and more aware of their lyrics and complexity, it simply intensified my affiliation. 

Of course, as a young teen, part of the Stones’ attraction was their rebel status and to think they had been ticking off parents for decades.  It is quite impressive.  I do enjoy some of their post 1970s material, most notably Tattoo You, Undercover (the title track is still amazing to hear) and Voodoo Lounge.  Unlike some fans, I’m not as upset about the “newer” material as the progression of the band was both predictable and inevitable.  After one achieves international stardom to become some of the richest musicians on the planet, it is hard to play the rugged, life-is-tough style.  Though they are based on the blues (a great love of mine as explained in an earlier article), most of the older blues musicians are not much better off than they were when they began.  They certainly do not enjoy the riches of the Stones so they remain tied in.  What the Stones still bring across, however, is audacity and brashness.  Brash might be a difficult adjective for men well into their 60s but it applies.  Yet, they also represented danger. 

As a young man, dangerous people and ideas were like a drug.  I remember the first time I heard “Gimme Shelter” with its focus on the worst of mankind.  I still get chills listening to Merry Clayton belting out that rape and murder is “just a shot away.”  Similarly, songs like “Shattered,” “Midnight Rambler” and “Dead Flowers” drew me in.  “Undercover” fits into the category.  As dark as their music could be, their presentation was just as troubling to my parents with Mick’s serpentine movements and Keith’s death-defying existence.  As an adult, I know most of their antics were part of a show (something the “rock-is-deviltry” folks never understood) but to a young boy, they were thumbing their noses at the powers that be and it is hard not to like that.   

In honor of their 50^th anniversary of existence, I’m spending a great deal of time listening to everything I have, from box sets to studio and live albums.  In sounds trite but the Stones served as a soundtrack to my life and often, I remember certain events in conjunction with a new Stones’ album or a song.  Though I’m well into my 40s and in lifestyle, far from my wilder years, I can pretend and remember my halcyon days when I was young and tough.  Like the Stones, I’m not what I used to be but the music and the memories remain the same.

A Second Brief Message

Well, for my tens of rabid fans (including the occasional spammer from Russia or Malaysia), you might remember the last time I had this kind of posting. I was carefully navigating communist territory in eastern Germany. Today, I’m hedonistically enjoying the sun and beaches of debt-ridden Greece. One would think that Greece is not quite as problematic as life behind the Iron Curtain (do they still have that?) but Greece ups the ante with Neo-Nazis, recently elected to the Greek Parliament under the strangely optimistic name of the New Horizon Party.

Kidding aside, this is a beautiful and wonderful country and the people could not be more generous (again, notwithstanding the occasional skinhead). Try to get here if you can. Hellas was not originally on the top of my list of places to visit but I’m so glad to be here now. Please visit next Friday for my next article.

Cheers

Ross