Chris Mathews of MSNBC's Hardball once summarized the differences between Left and Right this way: The Democrats are the "Mommy party" and the Republicans the "Daddy party". When we need some help or compassion we turn to Mom. When tough times hit, we turn to Dad. Viewing the ideologies of Left and Right, rather than just the parties, in this way can be helpful, despite the crudeness/bluntness of the metaphor. Conservatives are, in fact, often less caring and compassionate.
Often this is something for which we conservatives should apologize. But just as often, it is not.
This is a quandary, since we all value being compassionate and/or caring. At the root of this quandary is a corruption in our society. As a society we have redefined or misunderstood what it means to be caring. What our society calls "compassion" is not compassion. What we call "help" hurts. What we call "loving" is not showing love. Too often we end up feeding selfish desires at the expense of providing whatever it is that will truly help.
Examples of this are all over our society, and are probably present in each of our lives right now. It's the parent who spoils the child; it's the teacher who gives the student a better grade than was earned; it's the person who gets "one more chance" when they've already been given plenty; it's being politically correct instead of telling the truth. All these things have a common thread: they give temporary comfort at the expense of long-term benefit.
This happens when "caring" gets in the way of actually caring. When "loving" someone gets in the way of doing what is best for them. When "helping" a person only perpetuates the root problem that is causing their need. When being "understanding" feeds longer-term problems.
Yes, at times conservatives are too cold-hearted. Yes, there are times when our hearts need to grow several sizes. Yes, I myself can be more understanding. Yet there are other times when seeming uncaring is actually caring, seeming cold-hearted is loving, and seeming compassionless is the result of compassion.
Perhaps this phenomenon should not be framed in terms of politics, but in terms of life. Every day I see people I love making their own lives and the lives of those they care about worse because they are trying to be "compassionate", "loving", "helpful". May we do what is hard when it is right. May we be tough when tough is needed. May we throw away our emotional "compassion" for true compassion, and let us not give up on love when love need be tough.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
25 January 2007
19 January 2007
Who Knows Best?
Confrontations in politics are at their best and most productive when well-intentioned and reasonable people simply disagree about the best course of action. There can be a fair give-and-take, constructive debate, and a mutually agreeable outcome. That is politics at its best.
While such political battles take place all the time, there are other instances when our view of the world and the people in it--along with how the government relates to them--collides with a differing view to create a clash that makes compromise exceedingly difficult.
One issue that relies heavily on how we view the world is the role of government. As one could easily surmise from past posts, I am of the "limited government" point of view. Though not always, more often than not people should have the freedom to spend their money how they wish, eat what they wish, raise their kids how they wish, worship how they wish, and the like.
With that perspective in mind, I was very disappointed to read that at least one legislator in the great state of California wants to ban spanking. Throughout her argument on the topic, the legislator equates spanking with "beating a child". Obviously, parents should not be allowed to beat their children. Certainly there are parents who blur the line between a spanking and abuse. The problem with banning all spanking in order to curb the actions of these people is that it invades the right of a parent to raise and discipline his/her child in an appropriate way.
In the sake of full disclosure, I have no children. My wife and I have not yet decided whether we will spank our children (if we are blessed to have any). But I don't want the government to take that option away from us.
Simply, this seems a clear invasion of freedom and government intrusion in an area in which it does not belong. Should government protect children from abuse? Absolutely. Is spanking, as properly used, abuse? Hardly. The government should prosecute those who abuse their children. Intelligent parents can choose to use timeouts, or remove privilege, or spank their kids. I'm sure all can be effective. But the job of deciding which will be most effective with each child is the job of the parent, who knows the child, not the government who does not.
While such political battles take place all the time, there are other instances when our view of the world and the people in it--along with how the government relates to them--collides with a differing view to create a clash that makes compromise exceedingly difficult.
One issue that relies heavily on how we view the world is the role of government. As one could easily surmise from past posts, I am of the "limited government" point of view. Though not always, more often than not people should have the freedom to spend their money how they wish, eat what they wish, raise their kids how they wish, worship how they wish, and the like.
With that perspective in mind, I was very disappointed to read that at least one legislator in the great state of California wants to ban spanking. Throughout her argument on the topic, the legislator equates spanking with "beating a child". Obviously, parents should not be allowed to beat their children. Certainly there are parents who blur the line between a spanking and abuse. The problem with banning all spanking in order to curb the actions of these people is that it invades the right of a parent to raise and discipline his/her child in an appropriate way.
In the sake of full disclosure, I have no children. My wife and I have not yet decided whether we will spank our children (if we are blessed to have any). But I don't want the government to take that option away from us.
Simply, this seems a clear invasion of freedom and government intrusion in an area in which it does not belong. Should government protect children from abuse? Absolutely. Is spanking, as properly used, abuse? Hardly. The government should prosecute those who abuse their children. Intelligent parents can choose to use timeouts, or remove privilege, or spank their kids. I'm sure all can be effective. But the job of deciding which will be most effective with each child is the job of the parent, who knows the child, not the government who does not.
16 January 2007
The Big Difference
One of the inherent flaws in government is embodied in the idea that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". That is why I am convinced that our founders were brilliant men: they enshrined checks and balances and separation of powers into our Constitution so that parts of the government would reign down on others when they get out of control. Nevertheless, the fundamental flaw in all government is that it is the ultimate arbiter, since it is the only entity in the world which can legitimately use force. If you don't pay your taxes you go to jail; if your business is corrupt they will shut it down; break the law they will put you in handcuffs.
The problem is this doesn't always apply to government itself.
Today word came out that the Pentagon "accidentally" sold goods (including parts for missiles) to Iran. Some middlemen bought the parts for alleged non-military use only to turn around and send them to Iran. Two things went wrong in the government, so far as I can tell: 1) There was plenty of evidence that the people buying these surplus parts were not on the up-and-up (one of them was even convicted on arms-smuggling charges then released only to be allowed to buy more surplus army items); and 2) The Pentagon is selling parts for F-14s, which it is retiring--the only other country in the world flying F-14s is...yup...Iran.
The question is this: let's say, hypothetically, that the company that made the F-14 was selling surplus parts, and let's say they did not do their homework on the prospective buyers. How would the government react? My suspicion is the company would be shut down/raided/have its leaders put on trial, or at the very least would be heavily fined.
We will see what happens in this case. I hope I'm wrong, but what likely will happen is Congress' investigative arm will "thoroughly examine the matter", scold the Pentagon in the court of public opinion, and some rules will be changed. That will be about it. The Pentagon can't even be fined since it's not their money. Even if they could be, what would it matter? It's not their money to give away.
Businesses do not always do what is right, but when they do wrong the government is there to crack down on them. When government does wrong there is no one else there. With all due respect the 535 members of Congress are ill-equipped to serve as a proper check to the government bureaucrats who number in the 10s--if not 100s--of thousands. Providing services (even those like auctions) should be the job of those outside the government, and it should be the government's job to make sure the job is done right. That is the ultimate check-and-balance.
The problem is this doesn't always apply to government itself.
Today word came out that the Pentagon "accidentally" sold goods (including parts for missiles) to Iran. Some middlemen bought the parts for alleged non-military use only to turn around and send them to Iran. Two things went wrong in the government, so far as I can tell: 1) There was plenty of evidence that the people buying these surplus parts were not on the up-and-up (one of them was even convicted on arms-smuggling charges then released only to be allowed to buy more surplus army items); and 2) The Pentagon is selling parts for F-14s, which it is retiring--the only other country in the world flying F-14s is...yup...Iran.
The question is this: let's say, hypothetically, that the company that made the F-14 was selling surplus parts, and let's say they did not do their homework on the prospective buyers. How would the government react? My suspicion is the company would be shut down/raided/have its leaders put on trial, or at the very least would be heavily fined.We will see what happens in this case. I hope I'm wrong, but what likely will happen is Congress' investigative arm will "thoroughly examine the matter", scold the Pentagon in the court of public opinion, and some rules will be changed. That will be about it. The Pentagon can't even be fined since it's not their money. Even if they could be, what would it matter? It's not their money to give away.
Businesses do not always do what is right, but when they do wrong the government is there to crack down on them. When government does wrong there is no one else there. With all due respect the 535 members of Congress are ill-equipped to serve as a proper check to the government bureaucrats who number in the 10s--if not 100s--of thousands. Providing services (even those like auctions) should be the job of those outside the government, and it should be the government's job to make sure the job is done right. That is the ultimate check-and-balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)