Column: Why I am a conservative
Published May 7, 2010
As the semester draws to a close, I wanted to leave you with some final thoughts on why I am a conservative.
I am a conservative because I want as little government regulation in my life as possible. Our government has grown too big and regulates too many aspects of our lives. Government is here to protect us, not run our lives.
Anyone who is old enough to take care of himself or herself is old enough to make his or her own decisions. He or she can make better decisions about how to live his or her life than politicians or government officials.
Sure, there are some exceptions to this, but for the most part people are more than capable of making their own decisions.
I also believe people are generally good and would willingly make generous decisions to give to charities, churches and other non-profit organizations. I don't believe there is anyone out there who does not believe there should be funding for charitable organizations or other good causes. Conservatives just don't believe we need our government to step in and tell us where to give our money.
A dollar given to a charity or other non-profit organization goes a lot further than a dollar taxed by the government and then given to a government agency to finally provide a service to the community.
As a conservative, I also don't believe it's our government's role to punish people for making good decisions.
The federal income tax is a perfect example of how people are being punished for doing well. In the United States, citizens are taxed on what they earn, not what they consume. A progressive tax system punishes people who make more money with higher taxes.
This means a citizen who works 70 hours a week and earns the same hourly wage as his co-worker who works 35 hours a week will be taxed more than twice as much. We are punishing him with a higher tax for working too hard. A more fair tax is a sales tax. Sales tax does not punish the worker, only the consumer. Those who consume too much drain our country of valuable resources. A sales tax punishes those who use excessive amounts, not those who produce too much. It is not the role of our government to punish people for working too hard.
If I were to summarize conservatism in two words, they would be personal responsibility. It's believing you have the power to go anywhere you choose in life. The sky's the limit!
I believe in everyone's heart they are trying to do what is best for this country; it's just a difference of opinion of what the best is. I do not hate anyone for his or her views, and I hope no one hates me for mine. Thanks for reading, and have a great summer.
Comments (14)
3:22 p.m., May 7, 2010
Brandon said:
That's all fine and good, Nate, but who says this Biblical ideal has to come from GOVERNMENT?? It's funny. You guys on the Left and DNC more rarely contribute to charity, and the data seems to show it, yet you think it's TOTALLY OK to use MY or someone else's hard-earned money to give to a bunch of random people who may or may not work hard. Now, I'm not saying all welfare-state recipients are deadbeats, but some are, and indiscriminately giving this money away through a faceless bureaucrat is not the answer. Besides, personal responsibility? That's libertarianism. What I am. And who cares if "the rest is greed", Nate? Don't you have the right to fruits of your own labor? Just b/c "the rest is greed" doesn't mean you have some right to take more of it away from someone who makes more. Reduce gov't spending and allow for a low-rate flat tax. We spend WAYY too much, and YOUR welfare state is eating up the budget most. Now, of course, defense costs a lot too, and I'm no fan of endless wars in the Mideast. You can't honestly say that there isn't a better way to approach education than keeping the current gov't monopoly, with its panoply of absurd rules, rather than a choice and competition program, perhaps like vouchers. You can't say that the current FDA is the best possible system; it's NOT! Opening up drug approval and knowledge of their effects to competition (not killing the FDA, tho) would do wonders for us. Face it, the current bureaucratic system is in dire need of 'change.' Change your pal Barack hasn't given us. He's the same ol big gov't welfare liberal.
3:23 p.m., May 7, 2010
Brandon said:
Btw, when is Barack ever gonna repeal NCLB?? I'm all for it, as it was a DISASTROUS education law. Or is Barack FOR that stupid bill? Give control of education back to the states to come up with their own much better approaches, not let the feds decide so much.
3:37 p.m., May 7, 2010
Someone who cares said:
"I believe someone can make enough to live comfortably. The rest is greed." What is wrong with greed? I'm sure as hell not staying up late at night thinking about why I should work that extra 4 hours a day thinking about how much I'm helping everyone. Additionally, you seem that you want to take away my right to be charitable? You think the government should mandate charity and let the politicians control it? No. My motivating factor is to earn a lot for myself. Not to contribute the most.
3:53 p.m., May 7, 2010
CH said:
Clay, Your view is idealistic, and unfortunately lacks any grounding in historical realities. While it would be wonderful if things were as simple as your article assumes, they aren't. 1. Most people are capable of making their own decisions. However, the decisions people are able to actually realize are undeniably limited by real barriers imposed, not just by government, but by those people's economic situation and the social norms imposed (often without knowledge) by those of the most powerful race/gender/sexuality/class. Any attempt to increase the freedom of those not in this "ruling class" requires positive action (as opposed to inaction). Government action is the most effective means to allow those people the opportunity to realize their goals. 2. Both government and charities require funds to offset administrative costs. Government does often require more of such funds, but only because government workers recieve better pay than people who work for private charities. This can be considered a secondary effect of the fact that government agencies require far more permanent employees than most charities, as such agencies serve far more people than said charities. 3. A progressive tax code taxes income based on a percentage. The percentage does change (+- 10%) based on one's economic situation, but the wealthy are still able to net huge amounts of profits despite their taxes. It is in no way a punishment. It is a simple recognition of an economically stratified society. If anything, the "Fair Tax" is a punishing tax. It takes a much, much larger percentage of the working and middle-classes' wealth than it does those in the ruling class. 5. Personal responsibility is an admirable trait, but one's having that trait does not automatically mean they are capable of realizing their dreams. Individuals do not exist in a vacuum, and are forced to react to external pressures from other people and institutions. I gave general examples of this in point 1. The sad thing is, if people have taken personal responsibility and fail, it may not always be their own fault. Conservatives to often believe that it is always the fault of the person who failed -- this disregards any experience of implicit racism. sexism, or financial mishaps. Further, it can actually discourage further action by the person whose goal was not realized. A good economic system must take forces larger than the individual into account and make it possible for individuals to realize themselves through good work. Thank you for your views. I am glad you are trying to do what you believe is good for our society, and commend you on that. If you would like to understand the complexities I've mentioned better, I suggest you look into one of the university's sociology courses -- particularly "Social Inequalities."
8 p.m., May 8, 2010
Fred said:
Very good job Clay ! Hey leftists please tell me where socialism works well. Go ahead tell me what country - Cuba - Greece maybe?
10:51 a.m., May 10, 2010
CH said:
@ Fred: Are you looking for a utopia? I thought you right-wing types didn't believe in those. To answer a simplistic question with a simplistic answer: socialism works about as well in Cuba as capitalism does in the United States. Further, what "works well" all depends on what class you belong to, eh? I, for one, DO sit up at night and think about how I might work extra hours to help everyone -- in fact, beyond ensuring my personal survival, the only reason I work at all is because I want to be of service to humankind in some way.
6:39 p.m., May 11, 2010
Daniel said:
Clay, you are just wrong—not just in theory, but factually. 1. You state that the government should protect us, that it is running “our” lives. Care to give an example or two, because I’m running my own life and quite frankly, I like my non-smoking restaurants, insured vehicles, safe roads, mail, safe food, and clean air. 2. You claim that people can make better decisions than the government and use that as an argument against regulation. However, history has shown that companies and people can and will always do the maximum allowed by law—the housing marking crisis is an example of this. Subprime loans were allowed, though they were inherently bad, and companies exploited millions of Americans. 3. You claim that “a dollar given to a charity or other non-profit organization goes a lot further than a dollar taxed by the government and then to a government agency to finally provide a service to the community.” First, donations to nonprofits are not taxable. Secondly, we still have huge differences in inequality between races and gender in this country. The more people we help out at the bottom, the more active consumers we have paying into the system. 4. If you were really concerned about overspending by our government, you would be concerned with what we spend on defense—that is where half of our tax dollars go. 5. You claim that the federal income tax punishes people for making more money and you claim that a person who works twice as many hours would pay twice the taxes. Yes, they would also take home twice the paycheck (provided that they don’t jump income brackets. Even then, they would still make far more money than the other person, provided their hourly wage is the same. 6. Your sales tax proposal would unfairly hurt the lower and middle class. There is a minimum amount of money required for living expenses. The rich would hit this number easier than the middle and lower class and thus have a huge financial advantage. The rich still tend to pay less in taxes by percentage than the poor (due to 18% capital gains tax). In fact, Warren Buffet offered $1 million cash to any CEO who could show that they pay a higher percentage of taxes than his or her secretary—no one collected. Regardless, in order to raise the kind of money the federal income tax does, high sales taxes would kill many industries and destroy many luxury companies—it could cripple our economy. 7. You also try to equal “working harder” with a greater income tax. This is false; poor logic; and unethical writing. The income tax is based on income, not work. That is probably why they call it the income tax. 8. Perhaps you should look at your own “personal responsibility” to learn about something before you mindlessly write about it. I recommend any course by Dr. Drury in the political science department; as well as sociology courses by Dr. Brekhus and Dr. Hermsen; and perhaps some writing courses to fix your generalizations.
11:59 p.m., May 18, 2010
Clay is an Idiot said:
Clay, I can't believe that you wasted precious maneater space on this. "Why I am a conservative is just another chance for you to bash your opponents." Oh and one more thing. It so pitiful to hear right wing cry babies talk about "The BIG BAD GOVERNMENT." The big bad government is made up of PEOPLE who were democratically elected to their positions. If you don't like the PEOPLE running government, take action! One more thing, Clay ... you suck
8:31 p.m., May 21, 2010
ApocalypseNow said:
"Lefty" "Conservative" "Republican" "Liberal" ? ? ? These words mean nothing, just children drawing lines in the sand. When a person has to categorize himself, it's usually not because they believe in something or even know the definition of what they claim they are. They do this for the simple reason: to hate the other side. "I'm this because I hate that" In 2010 there are no categories. And, let's be honest: It doesn't matter what a person is or says he is when he reaches the White House. The arena he walks into is already corrupt to the max. So, when you're finished calling each other names, and justifying your opinions, try to focus on the real problem: How do we overhaul an entire government that no longer represents us? You can't do this by dividing your forces.
11:28 p.m., June 2, 2010
Ronald said:
I haven’t read through this entire debate but I would like to throw in a quick, maybe insignificant question. You say you’re a conservative and therefore a republican I would guess. Lets bypass the all so insignificant economic factors and differences between conservatives/republicans, and liberals/democrat and pose this simple question, if conservatives are for limited governmental interference in the lives of individual citizens why are they so against giving basic human rights to homosexuals and against giving a woman the right to choose what she can or can not do to her own body? Don’t they believe "Anyone who is old enough to take care of himself or herself is old enough to make his or her own decisions." When you talk about talk about individual rights I believe you are too focused on the economic aspect and seem to forget about the social aspect. The government by itself has no right to interfere in our day to day lives, whether it is socially or financially, but we as a people have given the goverment these rights, Rousseau best explains this in The Social Contract.
2:03 p.m., May 7, 2010
Nate said:
You think government should protect us, but you don't want regulations. Guess what, regulations = protections. "Anyone who is old enough to take care of himself or herself is old enough to make his or her own decisions. He or she can make better decisions about how to live his or her life than politicians or government officials." Does that mean you're pro-choice? "A dollar given to a charity or other non-profit organization goes a lot further than a dollar taxed by the government and then given to a government agency to finally provide a service to the community." Proof please? As someone who knows how charities work, they are a huge rip-off and fueled by greed. "As a conservative, I also don't believe it's our government's role to punish people for making good decisions." As a liberal, I DO believe you should be punished for making good decisions. But really, people who earn more have the ability to contribute more to society through their tax dollars. I believe someone can make enough to live comfortably. The rest is greed. I think everyone has a personal responsibility to care for those around him. It's a Biblical ideal, Clay. Think about it.