Archive for ‘conservative’

July 5, 2013

Most Think Founders Would be Disappointed in U.S.

by thoughtfulconservative

A new Gallup survey finds that despite a high 85% of Americans saying they are “extremely” or “very” proud to be an American, 71% say the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed in today’s United States, while 27% say they would be pleased.

via Most Think Founders Would be Disappointed in U.S..

I’m not sure what they would be disappointed with. Conservatives and libertarians may feel they would be disappointed with how big government became and how dependent we are on it. Liberals no doubt think it would be how a few seems to have influence over the many.

I think they’d be pretty happy that their experiment has lasted this long.

Advertisements
January 11, 2011

I Wonder…

by thoughtfulconservative

I wonder sometimes…

Only those on a desert island (who wouldn’t be reading this anyway) haven’t heard about the tragic shooting of many people including the serious wounding of a US Congresswoman and the killing of a Federal judge.

The shooter by all appearances is a troubled young such as those who have dotted the American landscape, pretty much since the republic was founded.

Recriminations began. Those on the left blamed inflamed political rhetoric centering on a well-know few. Concerns about gun violence were aired as well, citing the right’s continued insistence on 2nd amendment rights.

One network even talked about such words as “campaign,” “war room,” and “target” used in a political sense.

Conservatives (and others) responded by saying that the shooter had no political beliefs, and that controls on speech and guns is a typical knee-jerk reaction.

Who’s right?

I wish I knew.

Really.

Gun violence appalls me. Yes, I still support 2nd amendment rights because it’s in the Constitution. But I wonder if we could still do something beyond the laws on the books.

I’m not much into over-the-top rhetoric either. It’s not that I don’t think Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, Sykes, Belling, McKenna don’t say good things. It’s just the way they say them sometimes turns me off. The same with the bastions of liberal thought.

I just wonder what it would be like if they toned it down sometimes.

I’m not naive. Both sides hold their positions and think they are right. Strong political rhetoric has been a feature of the American political scene many times over the years. And both sides are guilty of it. Don’t make me link to them; I can.

But I just wonder, what it would be like.

Not that I think it will happen or even should happen. I certainly value my 1st amendment rights too highly to listen to any proposal to limit that, even for the biggest jerk IMHO, of this whole mess, Fred Phelps, who is planning on demonstrating at some of the funerals.

But I do wonder what it would be like, if we really believed that the other side loved their country just as much as we do and just have different ideas than we do about how to make our country great.

Yeah, we differ, sometimes vehemently, and I’m no different than anyone else.

I just wonder…

June 16, 2010

Mark Neumann’s not a conservative?

by thoughtfulconservative

I like Christian Schneider. I’ve liked him ever since Dennis York hit the blogosphere. I like his humor. I like the fact that he can write “red meat” posts without their sounding red meat. So when he wrote the other day,

“Seems that Mark Neumann is claiming to be a ‘conservative,’ without really knowing what the word means.”

I thought, “Ah, here’s something good to know.”

Because, seemingly, I’m the only conservative blogger in Wisconsin who hasn’t made a clear statement of support for Scott Walker for governor. Or at least it seems that way. So I’m interested in this stuff. I like to vote my values.

So Schneider started off with Neumann’s crazy comment about Citizens United that if he (Neumann) had his way, all outside sources of information except from the candidates themselves would not be allowed.

He did temper his statements with “the Constitution does not allow that” which shows a.) it’s pesky (according to Schneider) or b.) he respects the Constitution.

Fair enough. I’m not too hot on limiting free speech.

So what else was there that proved Neumann was not conservative?

I read through the rest of the post.

Nothing.

That was it.

I’m sure Christian has other reasons for thinking Neumann is not a conservative, but in perusing Neumann’s site, I didn’t find any.

I guess I’ll have to wait a bit longer for Christian to post more proofs that Neumann is not a conservative.

Because this one doesn’t prove it to me.

I’m uncomfortable with litmus tests (liberals do it, too, but I don’t care about that) and labels of RINO if someone doesn’t fit into our grid of what should be conservative or Republican.

June 4, 2010

“How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?”

by thoughtfulconservative

Jim Wallis, of Sojourners and the author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It which I reviewed awhile back (There is no link anymore, once again thanks to Google), wrote a post simultaneously posted on Huffington Post and God’s Politics on the Tea Party.

I can agree with Jim Wallis on some things, but on most things I would disagree. From this article, it doesn’t appear as though Mr. Wallis knows what the Tea Party is.

This comes out immediately in the title. Mr. Wallis links Tea Parties with libertarianism. My sense is that there are some Tea Partiers that are libertarian there are some who are not libertarian, mostly Republican with a few independents and even Democrats. That’s not to say that libertarianism is not an undercurrent as he points out has been evident in the Republican Party.

I hold some viewpoints in common with libertarianism, but I’m not libertarian.

Painting with a broad brush necessitates making some points that aren’t true for the whole. And instead of looking at the Tea Partiers, Wallis seems to be rebutting libertarianism, or those things that Tea Partiers believe that are the same as what libertarians believe. those points Wallis contends are:

  1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue.
  2. Not so. Although perhaps not a virtue, individual choice is the foundation of Christianity. We come to Christ by our individual choice. We are exhorted to live Christ-like in this world, but are not forced to do so. We are our brother’s keeper, but again that’s a choice we make as the Holy Spirit directs us, not one that the government, or anyone else can coerce us to do.

    Wallis tries to prove his point by going to the Old Testament prophets, but we must remember that Israel was God’s people on earth, something only a Christian dominionist might contend today. God’s People on earth should exemplify these characteristics, but all political parties fall short here.

  3. An anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical.
  4. Mr. Wallis erects somewhat of a straw man here, as he says later, “Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to ‘big’ or ‘small’ government.” I think that’s what the discussion IS about as I believe wanting to get rid of all government is called anarchy. And I think most clear thinking Tea Partiers and Libertarians would concede some taxes are necessary. They just think taxes are too high.

    He then puts on his rose colored glasses and states, “a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration.” Apparently he and I are not examining the same government. Eminent domain, police abuse, bureaucratic malfeasance seems pretty common.

  5. The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin.
  6. This might be the area I agree with most and it’s not limited to libertarians; many conservatives feel the same way. In a previous post I thought aloud about some things concerning government regulation. Wallis gave me this food for thought:

    Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids’ toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won’t serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in all human institutions, doesn’t a political process that provides both accountability and checks and balances make both theological and practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not because people are essentially good, but because they often are not. Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism…”

    Some would argue we were fine for hundreds or thousands of years without government regulation, but I’m not sure that’s a valid argument. Others have argued that regulation is the cause of some of these problems.

  7. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian.
  8. He shows his hand with this sentence:

    “[P]rivate charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness or justice, let alone compassion.”

    There you have it. Jim Wallis’s position as succinctly as you can get it. Private charity is not enough. We have to redistribute wealth by government decree.

    And here, oddly enough, is where Wallis could possibly come closest to agreeing with conservatives and libertarians.

    “When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.”

    The system could be construed as being the government in some arguments.

  9. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. …would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office?

This is his big finish? To answer the second question first, who knows? McCain was not that popular among conservatives or libertarians, so maybe, maybe not. And it’s hard for me to label a whole movement racist when there are African-Americans at the rallies, although no doubt as Wallis says, there are probably some racists attached to the movement. We even have an African-American writer taking the libertarian side on The Civil Rights Act (though most African-Americans would no doubt dispute that he is a valid speaker for the African-American community)!

It seems as though Mr. Wallis needs to learn some more about the Tea Partiers as part of his “dialogue.”

<a href=”http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060834471?ie=UTF8&tag=musingsofatho-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0060834471″>God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It</a><img src=”http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=musingsofatho-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0060834471&#8243; width=”1″ height=”1″ border=”0″ alt=”” style=”border:none !important; margin:0px !important;” />

January 11, 2010

Is left vs. right becoming archaic in political thought?

by thoughtfulconservative

Arianna Huffington says so in this welcome letter to the newly launched The Daily Caller.

Anyone looking at today’s political landscape with clear eyes can see that on issue after issue — the war in Afghanistan, the bailout, health care, the war on drugs, etc., etc. — the binary division of the debate into right vs. left obscures more than it reveals.

John McCain and Maria Cantwell are joining forces to bring back Glass-Steagall-type banking regulations. Ron Paul and Alan Grayson are pushing through legislation to audit the Fed. George Will agrees with Russ Feingold that we should not escalate in Afghanistan. Howard Dean and Michael Bloomberg are both down on the health care bill. And on and on it goes.

The outrageous news last week that the New York Fed under Tim Geithner told AIG to withhold from the public key details about payments that put billions of dollars into the coffers of major Wall Street players, including Goldman Sachs, offers a perfect example of just how archaic the right vs. left framing is.

Hmmm. There are areas where some on the right and some on the left agree, but for different reasons. For example, the right trumpeted Dean’s call to start over on health care because we don’t like the present bill. But we would like Dean’s version even less, I suspect.

I would suspect that Will’s and Feingold’s reasons against escalation in Afghanistan would be different though the result is the same.

Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell. There’s more. Read the whole thing and see what you think.

March 9, 2009

THE Right Side of Wisconsin Blog Network

by thoughtfulconservative

An announcement from THE Right Side of Wisconsin

THE Right Side of Wisconsin, recently ranked by BlogNetNews “the most influential blog in the State of Wisconsin” for two weeks running, announces that it is relaunching itself as THE Right Side of Wisconsin Blog Network. The flagship blog THE Right Side of Wisconsin already boasts such contributors as Ambassador Mark Green, Jean Hundertmark, Senator Glenn Grothman, Representative Kevin Petersen, National Columnist Camille Solberg, Conservative Critic Andy Haaf and others, and will now open its doors to any conservative in Wisconsin that wants to become a political blogger. In addition, THE Right Side of Wisconsin Blog Network will host a weekly internet radio program called “from THE Right Side of Wisconsin” which will discuss the best blog content from the previous week along with interviews from Wisconsin’s political news makers…

“Any conservative who want to become a political blogger.” Here’s your chance if you’ve been wanting to blog.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine