THE BUSINESS OF A BUSINESS

I think I talked about this before, but it hit me again at how surprised I am that not all people think as I do. After all, my conclusions are derived by careful thought, intense research, and good old common sense.

What got me thinking this time was the Tony Dungy statement made a couple of weeks ago regarding the drafting of Michael Sam, who would be the first openly gay player in the NFL. To paraphrase what Dungy, a former  Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Indianapolis Colts and   coach, said: he said he would be concerned about drafting Sam only because of the distraction to the team that media coverage of Sam's attempt to make the roster would create.

Coach Dungy had no problem with Michael Sam being drafted or playing in the NFL. He merely said he would not want the distraction. That sounded perfectly logical to me. A coach is trying to manage a team to the championship, which is the job coaches are hired to do, and the job his customers (fans) expect him to do. Dungy simply felt the distraction caused by Sam, a 7th round draft pick whose chance of making the team was slim at best, would only interfere with a coach successfully doing his job.

Again, sounded logical to me and sounded like a good business decision, but the Left attacked him like he called for the beheading of every gay over 12 years old.

What was the difference between my Conservative view of the situation and the view of many Liberals? Am I a homophobe because I didn't jump on the "String up Dungy" bandwagon? I know I'm not, but why do I think the way I think?

It's all in the definition....

Conservative definition of a business: "The activity of making, buying, or selling goods or providing services in exchange for money." A person or group gets an idea of a product or a service they can provide that will be needed or wanted by another who will pay money for that good or service. The owner will design his or her business and all of its parts (equipment, employees, finances) in a way that will cost the least to produce the good or service so that he /she can sell more than the competitor.

Liberal definition of a business: " A person or group gets an idea of a product or a service they can provide that will be needed or wanted by another, who will pay money for that good or service. The owner will design his or her business and all of its parts (equipment, employees, finances) in a way that will provide the employees with a wage that will allow the employee to live a middle class life regardless of the employee's skill level or his/her contribution to the business. In other words, Liberals tend to think of a business as an incubator for social justice.

This is why, I believe, Conservatives and Liberals disagree on a government-mandated minimum wage. Should a business pay workers what the workers want from the business, or pay the workers what they are worth to the business?

It is also why the "Dungy disagreement" occurred. A coach is running a business. The introduction of an employee (Sam) that would undoubtedly interject a distraction thus impeding the coach's ability to provide his "customers" with the best product for the cost, is to be considered very carefully. Should a coach concentrate on winning more games or making a social statement?

This, I guess, is why all people don't think the way I do. We often times have a different core definition of the subject. If I believe the main objective of a business is to make a profit through concentration on the customer, and a Liberal friend sees the business as a way to implement social justice through concentration on the employee, we may have to agree to disagree.

There is a lot of that going around.........at least the disagreeing part.

CAN'T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG? NO.

As a Conservative I do not believe the Liberals are "wrong." They are doing what they believe is necessary and correct to create the society they wish to create. I, and other Conservatives, just believe that what Liberals wish to create (a fundamental transformation) is wrong for the country and in direct opposition to the society (envisioned by the Founding Fathers) which the Conservatives wish to preserve. So, it would only make sense that the two sides would fight like two cats in a sack.

Let's take a look at, in general, Liberals and Conservatives views:

Liberals are generally described as being open to new experiences, celebrating diversity and questioning authority. They speak for the weak and oppressed and want change and justice even at the risk of chaos. Liberals tend to view life more illogically, more “gray’ and more spontaneous. They challenge existing norms and values and local customs and generally look for ways to change the current state of society. Liberals tend to believe in an expansive government and with commensurate tax rates needed to fund government welfare programs and believe in a large “commons.”

Conservatives tend to view life more rationally, more black and white, more this is the way thing are and should be. They are more comfortable with safety and dependability. Conservatives speak for institutions and traditions. They defend existing norms, values and local customs, and generally wish to preserve the current state of society. They believe other societies would benefit from our values. Conservatives believe a limited government must "live within its means," believe in a balanced budget and that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored, therefore oppose excessive government debt.

Pretty divergent views! So how do we then come to a common ground so we can move forward? Both sides think the other side doesn't compromise. I think what they mean to say is that the other side won't do things "my" way, therefore they are not willing to compromise. "I agree to do what you want if you will have your 5-year-old son run across the Interstate 10 times at rush hour." You say, "No, of course, I won't have him do that!" "OK, I'll compromise; have him run across only 5 times." The stakes are just too big and the differences too fundamental for any substantial political compromises. Both parities are, pardon the cliche but I happen to believe it, are fighting for the soul of the country.

Why does it seem the left/right divide is deeper and wider now than any other point in our life time? I believe it starts at the top. At the top we have a very unusual situation. We have as a leader, someone who, to the best of my knowledge, has not, in his formative years, lead the life of a typical "American" child. (Attending state fairs, sitting on the side lines of the Memorial Day parade waving a little flag, saying the morning Pledge of Allegiance before school, singing the Star Spangled Banner before a football game, watching Andy Griffith, Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet on TV) Those are the years where a child becomes "imprinted" by the American experiences that would lead the typical American child to share the values and morals of other previous Presidents, and most of the inhabitants of the USA.

If I had spent my childhood in places like Kenya and Indonesia, came from a broken home, with Communists as parents and adult role models, experienced Islam as a prominent religion, spent my time as a young man in a schooling and social setting where the US was seen as just a part of the global scene, no better or worse than any other plot of land in the world of global sameness, and my young manhood was spent with anti-American extremists, I guess my world view would be more like the President's.

I know there are those who agree with the President that we should not see the US as exceptional, and I understand that, but what kind of a motivational speech would a football coach give if he told his team they were no better, and in some ways worse, than the team they were playing? Shouldn't our head honcho be our head cheerleader? I do not believe President Obama could ever give an inspirational speech to jack up the country like Ronald Reagan could. Not that President Obama isn't a fine orator, he is, he just doesn't feel it. Not his fault, he just doesn't have it to feel.

Considering that a person is a sum total of his or her experiences and Barack Obama didn't share the experiences of (wild guess) 90% of the population, it is no wonder he governs the way he does. Again as I said in the beginning, he is not "wrong" in the attempt to impose his beliefs. What he does is designed to drive America to a whole different place--from Leave it to Beaver to Two and a Half Men.

As a Conservative viewing the actions (not the rhetoric) of the President and taking him at his word that he wants to fundamentally transform the county, which would mean to make it different at its core than it is. I would assume he would want to make it like he and his life's influencers want it to be. I don't believe they are shooting for a stronger more influential USA. Possibility just the opposite.

I say that because of their actions. Is accumulating, and adding to, an almost unsustainable debt making the country stronger or weaker? Is changing the core construct of a strong society, the traditional family, making the country stronger or weaker? Is forcing our businesses to pay workers what the workers want rather than what they are worth, making the country stronger or weaker? Is passing laws that make it harder for the good guys to have guns while doing nothing to prevent the bad guys from "carrying", making the country stronger or weaker? Is curtailing the hometown production of the world's main energy source thus freeing us from dependence, making the country stronger or weaker? Does allowing almost unfettered access to our country by unskilled workers, thus adding "takers" not "givers" to our population , making the country stronger or weaker?​

Our President's view of what part America should play in the world, how Americans should relate to each other and what should be our relationship with our government are, in most cases, diametrically opposed to the Conservative philosophy. This is why Rush Limbaugh said, (and was much misunderstood and maligned), "I hope he fails." Rush did not want the US to fail, but it was said with the sincere belief that if the philosophy of a person with Barack Obama's background and subsequent political beliefs succeeded and ever got to be the law of the land, the US, as we have known it for 238 years, is lost. If you reread the conservative philosophy above you will see why, for a Conservative, defeating President Obama's particular brand of Liberalism is worth the fight.

-