Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Conservative?

September 24, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

When Wick Allison, former publisher of the conservative National Review, recently made a conservative's case both for Obama and against McCain, I was shocked. But only briefly. True conservatives value a strong economy, and while this does not mean full government control, it also does not mean the complete Gramm/McCain deregulation that has led to financial disaster.

True conservatives value a strong defense, but that does not necessarily entail peace through militaristic adventurism, as McCain supported in Iraq and now supports for Iran. Strength includes diplomacy, which Obama called for with Iran and for which he was mocked.

But a true conservative was not surprised when five former Secretaries of State, including Powell, Baker and Kissinger, recently said talks were the right course of action. A true conservative values low taxes, but does not fall for giveaways to the rich and certainly doesn't support paying interest on over $7 trillion in debt and leading our financial institutions looking for foreign capital to survive.

It is hard to see how a true conservative can support McCain when his policies don't conserve anything, and instead spend our wealth, military might and prestige.

Paul Atchley,
Lawrence

Comments

David Omar 6 years, 3 months ago

While I am an advocate against abortion, it is because my moral upbringing doesn't permit the destruction of human life in any way. How can you, RT, tell us that killing unborn children is a human rights issue the killing adults and children in Iraq is not which you have supported in other threads. They are most definitely the same and you cannot be opposed to one without opposing the other. Our incursion into Iraq was a violation of their human rights and like abortion, we have killed lots of humans. I am opposed to abortion, and I don't believe in a son of God, but I also believe that each person has the right to believe what he wants. You see that is guaranteed in the Constitution. If a person wants to think that abortion is alright, that is on his/her conscience. My conscience is clear on all killing.

rtwngr 6 years, 3 months ago

I understand what you are saying Paul. When you look at the economic issues McCain isn't much better than Barack Hussein Obama except in the arena of redistribution of wealth. That is called socialism and Obama is all over that. There are other issues that us "conservatives" look at like the right to life. That may seem like a "religious" issue to most but they are deluding themselves if that is their view. Human rights are precious. All of them. What is more is they are not equal. Some are more precious than others. The right to life is the most precious and fragile of all and we as a society treat it as a "choice".

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

BrieflyPremises are mostly accurateConclusions about McCain's stance or role are incorrect.

storm 6 years, 3 months ago

I think this letter means a true Republican. Conservatives are in both parties (they're religious bigots and hate the environment usually in the name of patriotism).

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

"also does not mean the complete Gramm/McCain deregulation"**What? There has hardly been "complete deregulation." Capitalism is a great idea, too bad we haven't tried it yet in in the US.

staff04 6 years, 3 months ago

Well, in typical fashion, rtwngr just talked him/herself into a hole.Good luck digging out of it.My favorite hypocritical statement from the post:"the purposeful destruction of a human for no other reason than to exterminate its life"Guess you don't know what bombs do...

rtwngr 6 years, 3 months ago

Mimis_friend,I disagree that killing is all the same. I would argue that no matter how abhorrent invading another country where their citizenry is in harms way may seem, sometimes it is necessary to safeguard our freedoms and liberties. We may not agree on Iraq and the way it was prosecuted but that does not make it wrong. The death of an infant in the womb is evil. It is the purposeful destruction of a human for no other reason than to exterminate its life. Regardless of what you think the intentions for invading Iraq were not to murder its citizens. That is what abortion is, however. The invasion of a human body to murder an infant.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 3 months ago

"It is hard to see how a true conservative can support McCain when his policies don't conserve anything, and instead spend our wealth, military might and prestige."McCain is buffeted by prevailing winds.Bring him to Kansas; watch him blow North.Take him to Chicago; watch him get blown away.

patchley 6 years, 3 months ago

I have nothing to say to a social conservative. You are arguing issues of faith. There is no rational way to judge the outcome of that discussion. I leave you to it and wish you the best.On the other hand, we have good data about the effect of recent policies on the U.S. economy, prestige, and military readiness. In a data-based discussion, the current policies are a disaster. I find it difficult to imagine Paine coming back and say "The results of these ideas seem to make common sense."

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

"Capitalism is a great idea, too bad we haven't tried it yet in in the US."Do you have an example in mind of a country that has, to the extent that you apparently are looking for?

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

jonas--to my knowledge, capitalism as envisioned by the Austrian school of economics has never been fully implemented. However, some economies are closer than others:http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

"Well then I think you've missed my point. My point is that no matter what the current level of economic freedom that exists in a country in question, it would benefit from a move towards more economic freedom. The optimal level then, is 100% and thus it is a good system."That's a pretty absolute statement, and one that you can't absolutely defend, I think. At any rate, whatever you intended, you certainly weren't clear enough to get your point across the first time through. Thank you for finally adding another variable into the equation. But since you've never seen this illusory and fictitious perfect system that you advocate, you have absolutely no idea whether it would actually work in practice.

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

Well then I think you've missed my point. My point is that no matter what the current level of economic freedom that exists in a country in question, it would benefit from a move towards more economic freedom. The optimal level then, is 100% and thus it is a good system. And LS04, under my ideal system, you would have all freedoms that don't infringe upon others' freedoms. Murder and other crimes against people obviously are not to be allowed. The entire purpose of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and so more to the point at hand, I would enforce contracts and debts and people's property rights.

JohnBrown 6 years, 3 months ago

bndairdundat :Of course rail would have been even more competitive than trucking were it not for the government paid interstate system (a de facto subsidy for trucking).GM & Ford are in the free market, but no one is complaining about them getting today a $25 billion bailout to help make them more competitive.This American economy, controlled by those who want a lawless economy (read: unfettered) is a FUBAR.At least take responsibility for what you have done to our country.

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

Well, if that's the standard we're using (and it's probably a good one to use), an interesting phenomenon or two occurs when you compare that list to economic growth. One of the big ones, if I recall correctly, is that a number of the countries posting large growth, for a prolonged fashion (Russia, China, Brazil, I believe are a few, Taiwan and Japan in their heyday, and I think one or two other of the Asian Tigers in theirs), they all have more or less equivalent levels of economic freedom, at least by the measurement of percentage of state-owned assets, which is somewhere around 50%. But the original point, if a system is developed that is unable to be perfectly implemented, in its perfected, ideal, and unobtainable state could it still be considered to be a good system?

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

If marginal increases in economic freedom are beneficial at every level of economic freedom, then yes, it is still a good system.

kansas778 6 years, 3 months ago

A poor choice of words, I understand marginal has a specific meaning in the context of economic thought, which is not the meaning I intended. Better would be small increases, or any movement towards more economic freedom.

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

"If marginal increases in (A) are beneficial at every level of (A)"This seems somewhat circular.

jonas_opines 6 years, 3 months ago

I know what marginal means in the economist lingo. You've missed the point.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.