To Be or Not To Be?

That appears to be the drop dead argument between for and against government.

That may seem overly simple, but think about this: conservatives hate and fear government, especially big government, but then they have never defined what big is. Liberals are purported to believe in endless large government. I doubt that has ever been defined, either, and in fact, there is no one speaking up for this position in the first place. Who is making the claim of what liberals are supposed to believe? Certainly not the liberals themselves. I think this is a conservative tactic. Speak of the evils of liberalism as though that alone defines the argument.

It doesn’t.

Furthermore, middle of the road folks both believe in the legitimate role of government and limits to that role at the same time. Middle of the Road supporters actually borrow workable ideas from both the left and right. It keeps balance front and center but it empowers government at the same time to get things done. That’s what government is for: getting necessary things done.

So, it seems we need to define what the conservatives are fighting for and what they are not.

The pure position of conservatism, I think, is no government other than that which organizes and operates the military in order to defend the nation. That would be the limit of government. If that is so, I think the position is ridiculous, but let’s let the conservatives speak for themselves.  What is it they want? What is their definition of limited government?

And which government? Do we at least agree that local governmental entities are legitimate and necessary? If not, how do they propose to provide public education, streets, traffic control, storm water controls, water, sewer and all the other base line utilities a modern society relies on? Is all of this to be owned and operated by private organizations?  If so, who controls their standards, policies and what not? Is this by management fiat of the owners of the utilities or is this a government role? If so, which government?

At this very moment conservatives are plotting to shut down the federal government yet again on December 11^th when the funding agreements in Congress expire. The budget is approved, but the funding of that budget is not. Debt ceilings need to be expanded. Taxing authority adjustments need to be made. Money and banking policies also need to be tweaked to make all of this work.

Also at this moment, conservatives are attempting to defund all of Planned Parenthood. If they were given full sway here, abortion wouldn’t be outlawed, but from a practical point of view access to abortion would be severely limited. An increase in unwanted births would result, social programs would once again be overloaded with an expanding case load, and all the issues conservatives abhor would be front and center again.

Again, conservatives have high ideals to talk about but they are oddly silent when it comes to effective policy generation. Wishing a problem away doesn’t make it so. It is not like fibbing about facts; policy actually gets work done. Wishing doesn’t. Neither does fibbing.

Conservatives, if you think governance includes more than just national defense, please spell it out. Meanwhile, raise the debt ceiling and put the government back to work. When that is done, begin a serious discussion about your ‘demands’ from the rest of the nation. Your ideology is not well spelled out. And your programs are oddly missing unless that’s part of your ideology – no government, therefore no programs.

You see the problem? Is America to be or not to be? And whichever you choose, how do you make that happen? What higher power do you believe will magically make all of this work without a hitch?

We are listening. But please, let’s have a serious discussion with no tantrums and pouty faces!

December 4, 2015