Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

1. There is a distinct American culture - rugged individualism and self-reliance - which made America great.

As with most of the "truths", this one is important because it is necessary to keep it in front of us to avoid being overwhelmed by the mass of PC/multicultural propaganda. Unless we are aware of the importance of this truth it is easy to cave in to the crisis mentality of the left.

These things clearly are not the be-all and end-all, but they are the largest contributing factors. It is the combination of philosophy and environment which have created the individualism and self-reliance. But just because this is unique doesn't mean that people cannot argue that it is not as good as a multi-cultural society, that it is outdated, that it doesn't fit our way of life. It also doesn't follow, ipso facto, that America would not have been as great had she had a different national character. These are separate arguments with separate implications. But if we can get our opponents to admit to a common American culture, the other arguments will go a lot easier.

2. The vast majority of the rich in this country did not inherit their wealth; they earned it. They are the country's achievers, producers and job creators.

This again is an important point because it is a premise. One of the rhetorical weaknesses of American conservatives is to let the left define the premises for our discussions. This truth stands one premise - that a group exists called the "Rich", and that they are responsible for many of our economic and social ills - on its head.

Perhaps no other belief better illustrates that modern liberals are still just socialists trying to modernize themselves. The concept that a coherent group, or class, controls much of the economic and cultural power of our country is straight out of Marx.

The first half of this truth is solidly backed up by the evidence. It is an absolute fact that most people defined as "rich" (which is a very malleable word) are not rich because their daddies left them money. Anyone in doubt should read Thomas Sowell. In fact, age, family structure and education are far more meaningful predictors of wealth than is lineage, and status changes over time. Any given individual in the poorest quintile of Americans has a greater chance of moving to the highest quintile than of staying in the poorest.

The second half of this truth is a truism bordering on a tautology. In our culture wealth is a proxy for value. The only way that one can obtain wealth is to create things of value. Not value as defined by ivory tower academics, but by the mass of the people in millions of small decisions every day. By definition, therefore, one who has wealth has created value and enriched society.

This doesn't mean that rich people are better or worse than anyone else. It doesn't mean we should thank them or kiss their butts. It doesn't mean we should vilify them or punish them. It simply means that the results of their activity (as opposed to their intent) are beneficial to society, and any policy which seeks to punish the wealthy will only succeed to the degree that it also punishes society. Anyone remember the "luxury yacht" surtax? Boy, that showed those rich folks not to waste their money on frivolous toys! It also virtually wiped out the domestic luxury ship-building industry, throwing a whole bunch of not so rich folks out of work. Oh well, if you want to make an omelette......

George Gilder and Jude Wanniski may be flakes, but I challenge anyone to read "Wealth and Poverty" and "The Way the World Works", or for that matter to read the history books, and be able to dispute this.

But it is foolhardy to think that most Liberals think that "prosperity" is as important as equity. For them, prosperity is gained by raising the minimum wage. Prosperity is something they (in the guise of government agencies) should control and dole out to those they favor. It positively scares the heck out of them when conservatives talk about unleashing the trapped creativity and energy of America. Positively chaotic and unplanned, don't you know?

This matters because it strikes to the heart of the intention vs. results division. Liberals favor a minimum wage hike (which is a tax hike) because the intent is to give a clearly identified set of persons more prosperity. Conservatives oppose it because the result will be that a poorly identified, but very real, set of persons will either lose their jobs or not be able to find entry level jobs.

Conservatives who wish to make a difference should hammer and hammer on this theme. The compassion of liberals is the compassion of a five year old child who tries to help daddy by washing his car with Ajax. The first time he does it your anger is mitigated by his good intentions ("I know you only wanted to help son, but using Ajax on a car can ruin its finish"). If he does it a second time you begin to wonder if he gets the connection. If he does it over and over and over again you have to conclude that either he is brain-damaged or that he just doesn't care that he's wrecking your car.

One of the historic weaknesses of conservatives is to talk in theory, while liberals speak in terms of people - preferably cute and helpless people. No matter how sound the theory, people won't buy it unless we can demonstrate the effect it will have on real people in real situations.

This is the second half of the intent versus results issue. I again refer the reader to Thomas Sowell. In "The Vision of the Anointed" he explores this theme in detail, showing how not only the results of liberal policies are virtually never what they proclaimed, but that the need for change (the "crisis") was likewise often fabricated. More often than not, the impact of liberal policies has been to interfere in a steadily improving situation, stop the progress, and actually create a true crisis where none existed before. And guess what? In the meantime lots of jobs were created for like-thinking liberals. Sowell's book is full examples, including race relations, sex education, welfare and the environment.

One of the canards of modern media opinion shapers is that the difference between "left" and "right" are really just details, and that if we all try really hard, we can act more "moderate" and get along wonderfully. This is a canard because it overlooks the fundamental reality that two diametrically opposed visions of human nature drive our political outlooks.

The division is all about the nature of Human Nature. Two primary views of human nature emerged from the enlightenment.

The first views mankind as inherently flawed and imperfectable. Whether or not individuals in this group are religious, the theme of "original sin" resonates very strongly. They tend to favor economic, social and cultural systems which recognize and restrain our imperfect characteristics while seeking to channel them into positive results. They tend to trust the rate and nature of change to the individual judgements of millions of people making small decisions over time.

The second view is that Human Nature is not inherently imperfectable, and that most of the evil and imperfection in our society is a result of inadequate and unenlightened economic, social and cultural systems. They tend to want to repair and/or replace these systems in order to achieve the desired results. They tend to trust themselves and people like themselves to figure out what is wrong and how to change it.

The "labels" attached to these worldviews has changed over time. Today they tend to fall into the categories of Conservative and Liberal, although the words themselves bear little relationship to the philosophies.

It used to be that there were Democrats and Republicans of both views. But in recent years the Democrats have pretty much forced out all the conservatives, and the Republicans have forced out most of the liberals. This trend, which horrifies the media, has served to clarify the choices facing the American public. Unfortunately for the Democrats, their's is not a very popular choice. In order to stay politically viable they are tempted to re-invent themselves as New Democrats.

Some former liberals have changed their underlying view of human nature. When this happens they tend to clearly end up in the conservative camp. Changing one's label without changing the underlying view is not change at all, merely deceit. So it is that "New Democrats" spout technobabble and quasi-New Age mysticism ("The Politics of Meaning"), but have in mind exactly the same ends as unreconstructed liberals: to tell the rest of us what is wrong, how to fix it, and that we have to pay for it.

This is an important truth, because the falsehood that we live in an incredibly fragile, interconnected world is the unspoken or explicit premise for most of the totalitarian actions taken in the name of the environment.

The fact is that nature itself takes a toll on the environment that is far more terrible than anything we humans have done to it, and all of the global environmental indicators have stayed within historical rates of variation. Eco-systems that developed in an environment of volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fires and blizzards are by definition hardy.

This truth is important in order to deflate one of the left's favorite premises, but it does not provide a license for us to ignore our impact on the environment. We all have an obligation to our neighbors, our communities and our country to act with respect and stewardship towards nature. Simply put - even dogs don't foul their own beds. Most conservatives believe that the best way to ensure this is through property rights and incentives, not through totalitarian and mind-boggling government edicts.

Character is nothing more than the "rightness" of collected decisions and actions, large and small, over the course of one's life. If one has consistently made good and true and right choices, it is logical that one will continue to do so when placed in a position of power. If one has consistently made lousy choices, it is logical that those choices will continue and be magnified when placed in a position of power.

The "rightness" of a leader's choices are dependent on what one considers right. If one doesn't consider sexual promiscuity or drug use or lying "wrong", then Bill Clinton is fundamentally as character-filled as Bob Dole.

Liberals sometimes accuse conservatives of hypocrisy on this issue, pointing to the fact that although we talk a good game when it comes to character our leaders are just as liable to end up in trouble for character issues as are liberals. This reflects the views of human nature discussed above. Conservatives have no illusions about human nature. Even the best can fall. And most of us, including our leaders, are nowhere near the best. We are all faced with moral choices and temptations every day. We believe that if we keep character and virtue in front of us as goals, we will get a lot closer, despite our imperfections, than if we toss them out the window. A world that strives to reach for virtue and character and fails is a much better world than one which banishes the effort because it is bad for self-esteem.

8. The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you can do with it after you cut it down.

This is clearly a jab at liberal sanctimony (much like the old "Nuke the Whales" T-shirts) designed to get a rise out of tree-huggers. But there is a truth buried in here.

Value comes from applied human intelligence. A tree is a tree. Usually looks kinda nice. Provides shade. Oxygenates the air. Home for birds and squirrels. Very useful. But when human imagination is unleashed, that tree becomes a house, or furniture, or fire to warm a cold night. It becomes something that makes a positive difference in the quality of human life. And that is beautiful.

This is one of those subjective sorts of things which can be neither proved nor disproved. "Greatness" is a loaded word. We could readily identify 2 or 3 truly effective presidents in this century. The short list would probably be Coolidge, Rooselvelt, LBJ and Reagan. Beyond that it completely depends on whether or not you think what they accomplished is a good thing or bad thing. Roosevelt accomplished a great deal. To the average conservative much of what he accomplished is abhorrent and the source of many of our current problems. Reagan also accomplished a great deal. It is undeniable that during his watch we had the longest peacetime expansion in this century, the Cold War was won, drug use declined, and America shook off the doldrums imposed by mediocre leadership. I say Reagan hands down. I don't expect liberal friends to agree.

10. The 1980s was not a decade of greed, but a decade of prosperity; it was the longest period of peacetime growth in American history.

It is easy to forget how vibrant the '80s were. The period from roughly 1982 through 1990 were absolutely alive. The economy was growing. There was a palpable increase in patriotism and pride in our achievements. The cold war was won through strength and resolution. The wall came down. Central America was saved from communist domination.

The left was not pleased however. They cycled through various liberal millenarian crises: First anti-nukes, then the homeless, then the environment. The world was falling apart, but everyone was too busy making a living to shut up and listen to the anointed ones.

There was greed in the '80s. And in the '70s, and in '60s, etc. Greed is an inherent human emotion. Therefore only fools would expect it to disappear. But the left and right definitions of greed probably differ. To those on the left greed consists of anyone trying to earn a decent living, especially if they object to the proceeds being confiscated through taxation. To the conservative, greed is an aspect of selfishness, in which the short term goal of extreme acquisitiveness overrides the longer term goals of creation. The greedy guy is the one hoarding gold in his counting house, not the one investing profits into a business.

If there was an animating economic spirit of the '80s, it was not the Hollywood caricature of Michael Douglas declaiming "Greed is Good" in the movie "Wall Street". It was the vaguely spiritual Supply Side movement, whose gurus preached that the creative spirit of entrepreneurs is driven by altruism more than selfishness. The entrepreneur seeks to improve the lives of others, and will succeed financially only to the extent that he succeeds in that improvement.

11. Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy - every time it is tried.

Another tautology. It is worthwhile to remind those who love to speak of the "complexity" of our modern social issues how simple they really are. Not easy, mind you. Any teenage boy will testify that decent behavior is a constant struggle against hormones and culture. But nonetheless simple. If everyone abstained from pre- and extra-marital sex there would be no illegitimate births or significant sexual disease. Simple.

Furthermore, any policy that increases abstinence and decreases teenage sexual activity will improve the situation. Any policy which does not decrease these things will add to the problem.

We have spent the better part of the past 20 years trying to convince ourselves that the problem was lack of understanding and education was the answer. So we increased sex ed. We started teaching it earlier and earlier. We began distributing condoms to schoolchildren. Didn't help a bit. Probably made things worse. Which isn't surprising. I don't really believe that the reduction of unwanted pregnancy and STDs are nearly as important to liberals as are the central tenets of the sexual revolution. The very core of Feminist Theory and "Gay Rights" theory is a reversal of traditional sexual behaviors. Feminism is married to the concept that most forms of traditional sexual behavior are codified rape. And could you imagine how a Gay Rights activist would be treated if he called for abstinence among homosexuals?

This simple solution will be reachable only if we do an end run around the education and social services establishments. It is truly a grassroots issue.

Another poke at silliness. The logic here is irrefutable. If we provide condoms in schools then we are saying that children are engaging in sex. When the school year ends we no longer provide condoms, but surely the sexual activity will continue.

This is another instance in which the available evidence is overwhelming. If poverty were the root cause of crime, then decreases in poverty should by definition decrease crime. How is it that crime is significantly higher today than it was in 1960, or 1950, while poverty, by every reasonable measure, is significantly lower today than in 1960 or 1950? There is a statistical correlation between income and crime. But correlation simply implies that some sort of relationship exists between two variables. It does not mean that one thing causes another to happen.

I am of the opinion that the direct cause of crime is lack of respect for society and our fellow citizens, and that the things which contribute to this lack of respect are more likely to be found in "poor" areas than in "rich" areas. In other words, those things which help contribute to crime also help contribute to poverty. What are those things? Among them are the degree to which individuals have been taught the rules, and the degree to which we as a culture emphasize those rules consistently and punish transgressors appropriately (both "legally" and societally). Whether this disrespect is a conscious, ideologically-driven thing (e.g. Yippies), the result of a vacuum caused by lack of social structure (Much inner-city crime) or sociopathic behavior (people who just don't care about society or its rules), the result is crime, and often poverty.

14. There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not.

Conservatives tend to not be "rosy-scenario" types. We know that no amount of good intention or government programs will make poverty, dysfunction or crime disappear. They are part of the human condition. But we can mitigate them to a significant degree by taking two simple (albeit not easy) steps:

The essence of this truth is not in its self-evidence. It is a comment on the rather tattered nature of judges and juries in this day and age. When juries begin deciding "guilty" or "not guilty" based on any criteria other than whether the defendant committed the crime in question, it is a problem. When judges set criminals free, not because they didn't do it, but because they were caught the wrong way, it is a problem.