HOW?

Our country is 236 years old, much too long for any organization to sustain viability. So we have a broken system, a system broken into two parts, conveniently labeled, left and right.

The rhetoric from both side is designed to influence the voter who is all foam and no beer. I am a conservative and this may come as a surprise after listening to some on the left, but I do not want to kill children. I do not want to drink dirty water or breathe dirty air (Where in the heck does the left think the right lives, some other planet?) I don’t want the sick to have no place to go and I don’t want the streets full of homeless families and pregnant women. It’s not what we want, WE ALL WANT THE SAME THINGS! It’s in HOW to get what we want that the left and right differ.

It’s the issues that intelligent people should be discussing, not trying to scare the snot out of the uneducated into voting on “our” side. How about discussing solutions? What will best help our country and its people. Is demand side economics or supply side economics best for job creation? What entity is best able to handle health care, public or private sector? Are our poor best served by giving a fish or teaching to fish etc.?

Our two biggest differences are divided into social and economic. Since, it would appear most voters do not understand economics, especially the government’s version of finance, (Can you believe there is actually a debate over whether $17T in debt is a good or a bad thing?). Because of the economic complexities most of our vocal differences seem to reside on the social issues.

I believe every person is made up of an emotional and a rational side. The healthy folks are those who have the appropriate amount of each. I believe our society, being made up of people, is the same; our society comprises both the emotional and rational aspects. Now, I’m about to make a statement that for some unknown reason drives the left nuts, but I’m going to do it anyway. In general, I believe the Liberals represent the emotional side of society, the conservatives, the rational side. Why do I say that?

The 2 legged stool of liberal philosophy is based upon the emotional concepts of fairness and equality. (If you don’t believe this is true listen to how often a Liberal will use those words or allude to social situations that are not fair or equal.) The problem with that is life isn’t fair and equal.  So, since the world and pesky human nature do not create fairness and equality, the left needs something to unnaturally make them happen, enter the government.

 If you want a government big enough to enforce fairness and equality, you have to pay for it. Since the government has no money, it must take it from those who do have it (redistribution just “feels” right) and give it to those who do not, therefore making things fair and equal.

As Conservatives we also believe in fairness and equality. Being more rational, we know it will not happen. If we figure some thing should have more fairness and equality about it, our first thought is not the government. We will look to the private sector, family unit, church, not for profits etc.

Again,  what left and right have in common is we want the same things, we just come at problems from different vantage points. Another thing we have in common is that we will all be disappointed. The Liberals will be disappointed because their Utopian ideas of a peaceful world,  a drastic reduction in poverty, majority and minorities treated equally, will never happen. The Conservatives will be disappointed for the same reason, except they never thought they would happen.

Since we all want the same, but are so divided over the how, we will have to experience something that is very rare in our government. We will have to compromise.  The Liberals will have to compromise by recognizing there is a reality with which they must deal. The conservatives will have to compromise by recognizing the power of working toward a world we would all like to see.

Not an easy stretch for either side.