"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Some might call the President who uttered these words a socialist. Some might call him a partisan liberal. Some might call him radical or irresponsible or a commie.
But those who knew him called him "Ike." Yes, this is a quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54.
For those of you who don't know, Ike was a Republican.
Do you know which President presided over the largest peace-time tax increase in US history?
The correct answer is Ronald Reagan.
My point is this: the perception that being conservative means always opposing raising taxes and always wanting to cut social programs is simply a distortion of reality. Highly lauded and beloved GOP members have participated in raising taxes and funding social programs because they believed in doing the right thing. They were (apparently) not wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporations and billionaires.
I don't know exactly when being "conservative" required a person to exhibit moral superiority and fiscal cruelty. But somewhere along the road it did. At some point, the conservative platform became (1) judge everyone who believes something different, (2) advocate free enterprise to the point of eviscerating the environment, (3) call the poor "lazy free-loaders," (4) belittle and vaguely threaten anyone who dares to disagree with you, and (5) protect big businesses and the wealthy at all costs.
In today's political climate, neither Ike nor the Gipper would survive a GOP primary, and yet they are widely regarded as two of the better Presidents of the 20th Century. Republicans still get teary and - dare I say it, "woody" - when they utter Ronny's name. But politically, he would be to the left of several Democrats in the Senate and House right now.
I grant there is a tone of mockery in this. But really, I'm just asking for some perspective. Not all government spending is bad. Not all tax increases are bad. And I acknowledge that not all government spending is good - some of it needs to go (if we can pry the pet-project dough out of the hands of members of the House and Senate).
Remember the movie, "Dave?" Kevin Cline sat in a room with the budget and cut idiotic spending out of the budget. I love that! Don't we all? Unfortunately, budgets come from the House, not the White House. And all House members have their pet idiotic projects. As do the Senators.
The problem is actually not with medicare or social security. The problem is that we don't want to pay for them. The only solution is for we, the people, to step up and (1) turn down the money for pork projects and (2) be willing to pay for the government services we demand. And these actions takes sacrifice.
I also know that cutting medicare and social security is not going to prevent bridges to nowhere, and it is going to result in greater suffering.
The reason our politicians are so crappy is because we, their constituents, want our government services but we don't want to pay for them. We either have to pay, or give something up. When we learn this lesson, and commit to making the changes necessary, then our government can work correctly again. This is what I think it means, in part, to be "conservative." In this regard, I consider myself to be conservative. (Don't hold your breath waiting for me to staple tea bags to my straw hat anytime soon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment