The Conservative Edge

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has led to a host of environmental zealots trying to make us all feel guilty about using oil. As the director of legislative and public affairs for Ohio’s Environmental Council put it, “You turn the key to the car, you’re part of the problem, and you’re part of the solution.” Undoubtedly, there is a short-term toll on the Gulf ecosystem. The results would be even worse if not for the efforts to contain and dispose of the oil that has already reached the shorelines. However, the guilt, and blame, lies squarely with BP and whoever else might have been responsible for the accident.

One of the primary reasons that oil companies have been drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is that the environmentalists have successfully convinced enough people in Washington that there should be no oil drilling on the U.S. mainland. Nearly all of the areas of the country that hold any substantial oil reserves have been deemed off limits. As a result, much of our domestic oil production comes from offshore drilling. Furthermore, while other countries are busily securing oil supplies wherever they can, the United States has neglected to develop its own resources.

Which doesn’t make any sense at all. There is always someone on television talking about the need to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” That’s tough to do if we insist on buying our oil from other nations. Even Adolf Hitler realized the need for a steady supply of petroleum that would keep the German army mobilized. By the time World War 2 had started, Germany was able to make hundreds of thousands of barrels of synthetic oil, reducing the need to find a supply of fuel from distant sources. These synthetic fuel factories were prime targets for Allied bombers. When the factories were destroyed, it devastated the German mobile army.

It remains unclear why our government can’t use similar foresight. Instead, the liberals and Democrats resort to their core ideological beliefs. They believe that the individual has no right to succeed or fulfill any self-interest. The well-being of society takes precedence over the development of the person. As a result, we are all made to feel guilty for our normal and daily activities. We must not acquire wealth, because it is to be dispensed to the poor. We must not own firearms, because we might injure or kill another person. We should not enjoy the automobiles we own, lest we selfishly destroy the environment by burning fossil fuels. We must measure our self-worth by how much money we send to impoverished people in faraway countries. Meanwhile, as we suffocate our self esteem, the government grows larger in size and authority, and puts us under its dictatorial rule.

Nobody should feel guilty for using the gasoline that allows them to keep a job, feed a family, and maintain a home. Neither should any American feel remorse for using this country’s natural resources that would prevent us from being so dependent on a foreign supplier of energy. We should only demand that the producers of energy be efficient and responsible in their operations. And we should demand the same from our government.

Jonah Goldberg wrote a column that was recently featured in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. Goldberg wrote about the statement made by Obama that he is not an “ideologue.” Goldberg countered that Obama is indeed an adherent to an ideology. Most politicians are, I suppose, but the liberals seem to be more radically aligned with an idea or set of ideals.

One of the editors from the Dayton Daily News claimed that Obama wasn’t an ideologue, but more of a pragmatist. That doesn’t explain why Obama took an entire year to realize he’d better do something about the economy. Anyway, I decided to respond to the editor on the newspaper’s website. I thought the response might make a good blog post, as follows:

“The liberals’ actions clearly reveal a consistent adherence to an ideology. Generally speaking, the principle components of liberal ideology are that corporate profits and individual wealth are both evil; wealth, in fact, must be redistributed; growth of government is necessary and good; and the rights of the individual are subordinate to the greater society. These ideas have caused every president since Jimmy Carter to punish the very businesses that provide goods and services. Carter had his obsession with “windfall profit taxes” against oil companies; and one of the first acts of the Obama administration was to levy outrageous taxes on tobacco, another industry hated by liberals.

“The liberals seek to create a dependency on government. That is why they want to reduce our wealth by way of taxes and redistribution; eliminate our right to self-defense; and restrict our right to pursue happiness, especially if that happiness comes from enjoying a cigar (just ask Michael Jordan), driving a fast car, or building a profitable business. Jimmy Carter tried to accuse the American people of harboring a “malaise.” He never stopped to think, as liberals seldom do, that the liberal ideology created,and still creates, a despair among free Americans.”

You can view the editorial opinion page of the Dayton Daily News here. Feel free to tell the editors what you think about the liberal ideology.

I’ve been giving some attention to the reaction of the local media to last week’s Tea Party here in Dayton, Ohio. Our newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, generally downplayed the event. There seemed to be too many ordinary people who were present, too many blue-collar conservative types. Oh, and let’s not forget–they were mostly white folks.

As I read various articles and blogs, I noticed that of the people who carried signs at the event, there seemed to be no predominant message, other than venting at big government in general. There were lots of people who gathered because of one big issue that troubled each of them. Some people, for instance, were irate about high taxes. Others were concerned about government spending. Still others questioned the bank bailouts. You get the idea.

But I wonder how many people can put all of those little pieces together in order to craft the big picture of what this present administration is really trying to do? And how many folks can look back just a few years ago, to see when and how all of these power grabs got started? The speed of legislative action and the enactment of liberal ideology since January of 2009 has been breathtaking. The dominos are falling rapidly. The closure of Guantanamo Bay; the blitz of tobacco taxes; the reshaping of the auto industry; and now the judgement of the EPA concerning greenhouse gases, are all indications that there is serious social re-engineering going on.

I wish that conservatives could put everything together. The religious right, for example, should get off the abortion soapbox. They think that if a potential congressional or presidential candidate doesn’t say exactly what they want to hear on the abortion issue, they can’t support him. When they withdraw their votes, the liberal fanatics get to fill the vacuum. If the abortion foes would just see the bigger picture, they could help expose the liberal hypocrisy. Namely, the liberals want to give women the right to do as they please with their own bodies (by having abortions), but those same liberals want to take away everyone else’s right to do as they please with their bodies by enjoying tobacco. And these liberals have tried to validate their seizure of the right to use tobacco by citing suspicious and questionable “research” done on the dangers of tobacco use, going all the way back to the 1970s.

They have also been hammering on the oil companies since the late ’70s. Remember Jimmy Carter’s efforts to hammer oil companies with a “windfall profit” tax? And didn’t the liberals raise the same idea last year? Instead of allowing more responsible use of American resources, they restricted further the exploration and production of American oil and gas. What would happen if the oil companies stopped pumping because of the crushing profit taxes? Fuel costs would likely spike even higher.

We all need to see that the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time. They now have the opportunity to implement the many items on their agenda. We need to understand the many issues that are jeopardizing our freedoms. To the world, our President is appearing to be thoughtful, cooperative, and non-threatening. At home, he and his Democratic cohorts are squeezing the last bits of freedom from American society. Can you see the big picture?

As I speak with friends and/or acquaintances, I have begun to notice a common element of our conversations. Namely, there is a grave concern that this is the time in which the government finally achieves a total elimination of personal freedom. The phrase “social engineering” keeps coming to mind. We are living under an administration that is bent on reshaping the role of government, increasing its power at the expense of the common people.

I must say that the title of this post was inspired by a column written by Brock Yates in 1984 for Car and Driver magazine. His piece was titled “Why Liberals Hate Cars.” Yates listed several ways in which previous Democratic administrations expressed their hatred of the auto industry. Lyndon Johnson gave us the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which resulted in substantially increased government regulation. In the 1970s, a Democratic-controlled Congress implemented the 55-mph speed limit, and also mandated the requirements for ignition interlocks and 5-mph bumpers. Jimmy Carter promoted the development of the air bag. Yates further stated that the Democratic Party “believes with a religious conviction that all social problems can be solved by heavily funded Washington-based bureaucracies.”

That has become a rather prophetic statement. Barack Obama has dealt more harshly with the auto companies than he has with the financial institutions which caused the current economic meltdown. Making Rick Wagoner leave GM isn’t going to fix things. Obama just wants to put a smack down on the car companies. In his column, Yates referred to a writer named R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., who commented on the liberal attitude. Tyrrell said, “It’s not that a liberal hates cars, it’s that most Americans love cars. He sees the guy next door polishing his new car, and it makes him sore. He thinks that something has to be wrong if such a simple act can produce happiness.” Tyrrell continued, “It seems as if a liberal’s central purpose is to disturb his neighbor. On the one hand, he demands total freedom in terms of pornography…but denies other people the right to smoke cigarettes or drive without their seatbelts. It’s pure egotism. They’re right, and you’re not.”

Yates also quoted an author and commentator named Ben Wattenburg. He said, “The automobile is the ultimate expression of a deregulated society. The car is the ultimate freedom machine, the great uncommon carrier. The liberals hate it because it defies control and regulation by bureaucratic elites.” Notice those words and phrases carefully. “Expression” and “freedom” are the things being assaulted by Obama and his cohorts. They hate anything that “defies control and regulation.” It’s no surprise, then, that the Democrats are using such heavy-handed tactics against the auto industry. They believe they can operate the car companies better than the executives; but on the other hand, they don’t care if the companies go under. That is egotism and arrogance at its finest.

This liberal hate is not reserved for the automakers. The liberals have gone after other industries. They are punishing tobacco companies—and the people who use tobacco—with exorbitant taxes and regulation. They want to hit oil companies with outrageous windfall profit taxes. They want to take away the option to send our children to non-public school systems. They are proposing legislation to eliminate conservative media outlets. They are plotting to eradicate any and all rights to gun ownership; that’s probably the Holy Grail of liberal control and domination.

Remember those words from Yates’ column. The Democratic Party “believes with a religious conviction that all social problems can be solved by heavily funded Washington-based bureaucracies.” Those words are coming to pass in a way never imagined before by the American people.

I’ve been listening to the debates over President Obama’s proposed stimulus plan. It seems that some people, like New York Times columnist Gail Collins, insist that there are no earmarks in the plan and that we should all just “give it a pat on the back” and accept it. Others, like columnist Paul Krugman, are accusing the Republicans of “trying to push the economy over the edge” as they object to the sheer size of the program. Of course, before Obama’s election, Mr. Krugman repeatedly charged the Republicans with overspending and running up the federal deficit. So much for his objectivity!

President Obama has ridiculed the Republican view that this stimulus is more about spending than about stimulating the economy. “What do you think a stimulus is?” he asked. Spending, he said, “is the whole point.” That callous response doesn’t make sense—common sense, that is. Most Americans understand the need to control their personal spending during tough times. Indeed, that’s partly why the economy is in a recession. People have tightened their budgets and expenditures; they’re saving money instead of spending it. How then can it be un-American to question the size and the intent of the stimulus plan? Didn’t the liberals question and over-analyze everything from the Patriot Act to Bush’s tax cuts?

The Democrats don’t understand (or won’t admit) that there may be ways to stimulate the economy without spending money like a shopaholic. For one, the government could slash the corporate tax rate, as America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. Businesses might be able to retain more American workers, instead of sending production overseas to offset the high taxes. Many countries in Europe, for example, also subsidize corporate energy costs, making it even cheaper to produce goods. This puts American business at a huge disadvantage. But for some reason, the Democrats hate Big Business, especially oil companies and tobacco companies. They don’t seem to realize that when you create an environment in which business can grow, you create opportunities for employment growth as well.

Aren’t there any reductions in the stimulus plan? Can’t the supposedly intelligent, qualified members of Obama’s Cabinet (and other Democratic Representatives and Senators) find excess and redundancy in government and cut it out? Instead, they are focused on their efforts to make government even bigger, with a resulting increase in government control. When Ronald Reagan’s administration took office in 1981, James Baker recalls that their top three priorities were: economic recovery, economic recovery, and economic recovery. But now, the Obama administration’s priorities are: spend, spend, and spend some more.

Maybe more Americans would have a positive view of the stimulus plan if all the Democrats would pay their income taxes…

The celebrations and festivities are kicking into high gear. Of course, I’m referring to the excitement of the impending inauguration of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States. There was somewhere around 40,000 people in Baltimore, Maryland to see Obama on one of his train stops, as he traveled on to Washington, D.C. I have seen photos of people crying, as they stood rapturously attending to Obama’s every word. Thousands of citizens are pouring into our nation’s Capitol, eager to celebrate this historic moment, and celebrate this great time of “change”.

Everyone except me—and others who know, deep down inside, that our country is set for a socialist takeover. I’m not sour about the election, as though John McCain got cheated by a fraudulent election, or some other shenanigans. In fact, the American people made it clear that they wanted someone quite different to perform some miraculous revival of our country’s “greatness”.

It’s just the definition of “greatness” that troubles me. It should trouble most white Americans in particular, but also anyone who values personal liberty above an omnipresent, omniscient government. Americans have come to see our current crises as a unique time for government, with a knight in shining armor leading the way, to magically solve all of our problems.

And government will intervene, too. Americans have lost confidence in themselves, partly because of inaction by conservative leadership, but mostly because of the messages we have been receiving. We have been told that America has spoiled its reputation abroad with its “cowboy” attitude. We have been scolded for burning too much fossil fuel, causing dramatic changes in global climates, and that we must bear the burden for cleanup. Too many of us are stubbornly “clinging to our guns and religion”. Therefore, we must purchase our ammunition coded with ID numbers, so our misuse of lawful arms can be tracked and verified. We must tolerate the establishment of Islamic temples and organizations, some of whom funnel money into terrorist networks all over the world. All Big Businesses (especially oil companies) are evil, so they must be taxed and regulated, to the point that they move their workforces overseas. Individuals who are “rich” must give their wealth to the government, to be given then to the “less fortunate”.

Does this sound like the prescription needed to cure our economic and social sicknesses? Is this the “change” we should celebrate? I read an observation made by an author of one of my favorite books, which states, “…unused power passes imperceptibly from idle hands into more active ones.” This is precisely what is happening in America today. The more active hands belong to the Democratic (I call it the National Socialist) Party. They exert their power more as the power of the individual weakens. So, this is a perfect time for them to ride in as “saviors”, when they are actually consolidating power among themselves.

I’m reminded of a story in Biblical history. When the young nation of Israel tired of being ruled by a prophet or judge, they demanded a king be anointed over them, just as all the other nations had done. Samuel the prophet, the last judge of Israel, tried to warn the people what they would endure under a monarchy. He told them that they would be heavily taxed; that the best of their sons would be conscripted for the king’s guard and the national army; other things they would sacrifice to keep the monarchy fed and supplied. But the people told Samuel that they didn’t care. They demanded a king! So, Samuel anointed a man named Saul as King of Israel. He eventually descended into madness, and nearly destroyed the nation of Israel.

America has demanded its “king”. I certainly hope we don’t get the same results.