I got an e-mail from an uncle this morning. My uncle reported that he had heard from another of his nephews (my cousin) who had wondered how it was that I became so conservative. The following is a portion of my reply:
How did I become so conservative? Good question from Alex. I would say first it was the result of being my father’s son. As you know my dad was very conservative. Beyond this I guess it was the result of my patriotism, which really took hold as I became an adult. Through this process I considered the ideas and ideals on which the nation was founded and I began to appreciate and embrace the notions of limited government and individual rights, as well as the appropriate role of government as envisioned by the founders (as you know, what we have today in terms of government is very much divorced from what was intended).
The conclusion I reached is that democracy and capitalism ensure the most rights and freedoms for the most people. It does this by most ensuring the rights and freedoms of the individual. Individuals I decided are the driving force in our society. Their hard work, ingenuity, and contributions advance the nation.
The protection of individual rights is at the foundation of our system of government. It is why the constitution is a limiting document. That is, the rights of the individual are protected by limiting the authority of the federal government to intrude in the lives of its individual citizens. It protects the rights of the states who represent the individual on a local level. These limitations of government are designed to ensure that individuals have life, liberty, and are free to pursue happiness as they see fit and in their own best interest.
One of the biggest boondoggles going is the idea that serving one’s interest is mutually exclusive to serving the interests of the community. This is hogwash. When one prospers on an individual level it causes others to prosper. For example if I make a significant income through my endeavors I will most likely use the income to procure goods and services from others in my community, who will in turn do the same. In a capitalistic society I am able to own private property. As a result I have a vested interest in it and will want to live in the best community possible. Because of this I will most likely invest time, effort, and money in ensuring my community is clean and safe and has systems and organizations in place that support and protect it. Because I have children I will have an interest in securing them the best education and health care possible. This will result in me investing time and effort (and money) in these institutions. I will likewise vote for and support those who advance my interests, on the local and federal level.
In all of these examples, citizens serving their own interests benefit others and the community. By extension, the practical result of democracy and capitalism is the highest levels of prosperity and achievement for the most members of society at large.
Leftist don’t tend to like this model because they assert it makes little allowance for those who cannot, will not, or have not participated in or benefitted from this model. They highlight those few unfortunates who through fate or misfortune land at the bottom of the socio-economic strata as evidence that the system is flawed.
This argument belies a fundamental difference in ideology between left and right in this country. It comes down to what each side means when it speaks of equality. Conservatives believe that all men are created equal and should enjoy equal opportunities to prosper; whether it be jobs, education, housing, et al. We believe that an individual in good standing should have access to any opportunity their wealth, competency, or performance can accommodate. This is a great model in that it ensures those who are most suited for an opportunity will achieve it, which will in turn ensure the best chance for success for an industry or institution. At the same time it provides clear standards for success for those who would take advantage of future opportunities.
When liberals speak of equality however they mean equal results. They believe that the outcomes of our efforts should be the same for all. We see this in the manner they use government to try to manipulate industry, education, and the law to ensure that individuals achieve the same results. Examples of this are quotas in schools (to ensure equal results in education), capping executive pay (to ensure equal results in compensation), health care reform (to ensure equal results in care), and even in the current housing crises involving Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae where a major contributor were liberals in congress and the white house applying pressure on lending institutions to issue loans to people whose wealth and performance did not merit it (to ensure equal results in home ownership).
Their goal is for every individual to enjoy the same level of success as their neighbor and they construct political and economic models such as socialism and communism with this as the goal (one being the economic and the other the political side to the same coin). The problem with this is that it is contrary to the nature of individuals. Individuals are unique and are blessed with different attributes and competencies. They have different interests and objectives. Individuals possess varying levels of proficiency and perspective and as a result will achieve varying levels of success in their endeavors.
I believe that the objectives of the left, while lofty, are destined to fail. History has shown this. On a grand scale the Soviet Union is a prime example where communism and socialism was enacted in order to ensure all citizens of the union enjoyed equal results. No one owned property and things like healthcare, education, and even employment were mandated by the state. Over time it was an unsustainable model, one that had to resort to force to keep people living under the system. In China we see the same thing (Tiananmen Square), although China has recognized the failure of socialism and is embracing a capitalistic economic model. The current struggles of the socialist European economic models and even our own domestic challenges (such as in California and on the federal level) also demonstrate this, where governments who strive to ensure equality in outcomes are bankrupting their countries and states.
And through these models we see a loss of individual freedom and wealth. Be it the right to own property or determine the best use of that which we do own. Be it a lack of choice in where our children can attend public schools (schools our taxes pay for). Be it in increased taxation to sustain the issuance of benefits like healthcare, housing, and general welfare to those who do not pay for it. Be it that some are denied opportunities in which they are the most qualified because a quota has to be met or because a court thinks a particular group is not sufficiently represented. Be it in thousands of ways that government with the intention of equal results for all intrudes in our lives or inhibits our prosperity.
These manifestations of government are contrary I feel to what was intended in the founding of this country. I became a conservative because I discovered I share the conservative belief that individuals and their unique contributions are the treasure of our nation.
Conversely, my rejection of liberalism was affirmed when I realized that the actions of the left undermine these.