A Case for Conservatism

For much of his presidency, George Bush was called just about every dirty name possible, including “liar” by Sen. Harry Reid.

We didn’t hear righteous indignation blaring from the steps of the Capitol on the nightly news. No calls for an apology. No outcry for civility or respect.

So I find the clicking of tongues and waving fingers of shame at Rep. Joe Wilson interesting. Many of Wilson’s critics similarly complain about the health care and tea party protests, and dismiss the protestors as being rude, orchestrated, paid, or ill-informed.

Wilson’s outburst was wrong. Our President deserves more respect. But advocates of President Obama’s rapid and sweeping reforms seem unwilling to recognize one simple fact: the storms of protests are fueled not by ignorant misunderstanding but by ardent disagreement with the basic premise of these changes.

I’m among the conservatives who disagree with much of President Obama’s agenda, not out of desire to protect the rich or the status quo. Not because I’m racist. Not because I lack compassion for the poor or disabled. Not because I’m too dumb or ill-informed to really understand the issues or because I need to be enlightened somehow by my liberal friends.

My philosophy comes after much deliberate consideration. I believe that conservative principles of limited government and a strong free enterprise system offer the surest, most sustainable road to opportunity, prosperity, and happiness for the largest number of people.

Economist Milton Friedman, who died in 2006, staunchly defended free enterprise as the best economic system ever developed by civilization. The great achievements of civilization, he said, have not come from government bureaus but by individuals pursuing their own interests.

In an interview with Phil Donahue, the famously liberal talk show host lamented the uneven distribution of wealth in the world, the desperate plight of people in undeveloped countries, the existence of so few haves and so many have nots.

Donahue’s concerns are legitimate, and most people share them. No one has a monopoly on compassion for the poor and needy.

Friedman maintained, however, that the only cases in which the masses have escaped the kind of grinding poverty Donahue described are where they have capitalism and free trade.

“The record of history is absolutely crystal clear,” Friedman said. “There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive energies that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”

We have already wandered far from limited government. President Obama’s policies would propel government on a growth chart that seems impossible to sustain. This poses a huge threat to the government’s funding source, our free enterprise system, which in turn will hurt, not help the poor or middle class people President Obama professes to represent.

Rather than creating a fairer more just society, these proposals will undermine the quality of life for all future Americans.

Take exception with the manner of the debate if you will. But the intensity of opposition to these proposals suggests it is change many Americans don’t believe in.