A Stern Yet Fair Criticism of Today's Conservatives

Email Print



Among conservatives
in general, I am in the minority in actually opposing Big Government,
and think that moral laws are absolute and that no one is above
the law — not even agents of the State. Alas, today's conservatives
in general have been supporting a huge growth in centralized, bureaucratic
federal government, at home and overseas, and are not actual conservatives.
Many conservatives have abandoned traditional moral values that
respect life, liberty and property, and have abandoned the principles
of the Rule of Law and God-given rights as recognized by the Declaration
of Independence
, and have for many years embraced the interventionism
of socialist central planning and the expanded intrusive State.

For some inexplicable
reason, while many conservatives have shown skepticism of much of
Washington's Big Government domestic agenda, such as the recent
medical and financial takeovers and other usurpations and power
grabs, when it comes to foreign policy they seem to show a dangerously
blind faith in the State.

I believe that
one main reason why Americans including conservatives are out of
touch with traditional values of morality and personal responsibility
is the century-long proliferation of collectivism in America. War
is a collectivist concept. To be blunt, war has been waged for the
sake of war, for the sake of power, and to strengthen the power
of the State, regardless of the emotion-filled rhetoric the politicians
and other nudniks have spewed upon us to rationalize it.

In the Bush
Administration's and now Obama Administration's wars and anti-terrorism
short-term fixes, conservatives have been supporting an emotion-driven
carte blanche unleashing of the federal Leviathan that has enabled
so much corruption,
usurpation of due
rights, as well as violating the absolute Rule of Law
against killing innocent human beings. But this abandonment of American
and contradiction of the Declaration of Independence is nothing

When conservatives
opposed U.S. entry into World Wars I and II, they were incorrectly
labeled "isolationists," when in actuality they were "non-interventionists."
In Woodrow Wilson's taking the U.S. government into World War I
to "make the world safe for democracy," his grandiose
plan backfired
against the U.S., because it was an abandonment of the Rule of Law
and George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's
wise anti-"foreign entanglements" doctrine.

begets further dysfunction: Woodrow Wilson
made the world safe for World
War II

A few years
into post-World War II Cold War, conservatives joined the anti-communist
crusade, exemplified by National Review Founder William F.
Buckley, Jr., writing
that "We have to accept Big Government" to prevent communism
from spreading to our shores. But it's the conservatives who have
seemed like communists in their supporting a huge federal Leviathan,
and supporting the forced, intrusive "spread of democracy"
abroad (and the destruction of life, liberty and property abroad
that goes with it).

Many conservatives
oppose domestic interventionism, but for some reason foreign policy
is different. Many just don't seem to recognize — or want to acknowledge
— that the U.S. government's intrusions and aggression into foreign
lands have elicited
much anti-American sentiment especially from inhabitants of Middle-Eastern

For example,
the 1953 CIA-led
that replaced Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh with the
Shah gave Iranians 25 years of brutal dictatorship,
so it should have been no surprise that such U.S. government interventionism
would inflame anti-Americanism in Iran and throughout the Middle-East,
and would lead to the 1979 taking of American hostages in Iran.

More fuel for
anti-Americanism continued with the U.S. government's providing
Iraq with weapons
and intelligence during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. From the mentality
of socialist central planning bureaucrats in Washington, the U.S.
government aided
in a "strategic planning" effort to counter the
Iranian Revolutionaries, when it would have served America better
in the long run to stop interfering in Iran's, Iraq's and other
countries' affairs.

Such socialist
interventionism backfired much more intensely against the United
States after the U.S. government's invasion and destruction of Iraq
beginning in 1990. The U.S. government's non-retaliatory1990-'91
invasion of Iraq and subsequent destruction of water and sewage
treatment facilities, and blocking
the means necessary for rebuilding through sanctions throughout
the 1990s, led to widespread disease, increased cancer and child
rates in Iraq, and further inflamed anti-Americanism.
Sometimes I wonder if today's conservatives, especially the younger
ones, even know about those U.S. government actions during the 1990s.
It seems that many people are now eager to do the same things to
Iran, rather than learn the lessons of history.

After the September
11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, conservatives abandoned
their otherwise intuitive distrust for the State and fell prey to
George W. Bush's emotionalism and fear mongering, leading to a blind
acceptance of what has now been one intrusion after another of domestic
spying and unnecessary airport searches, a policy of randomly
rounding up totally innocent
people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and remote-controlled
bombings and killings of innocents, especially non-combatants, women
and children. How can someone claiming to be a "conservative"
and to believe in moral values support these kinds of immoral State-executed
actions? And how can any conservative rationally support the Big
Government Leviathan that has been shown to be nothing but counter-productive
against America?

Despite repeatedly
hearing from terrorists themselves
the terrorists' actual reasons for their terrorism — the U.S. government's
constant intrusions into Middle-Eastern territories for six decades
— conservatives still fantasize that it's because the terrorists
dislike America's freedom and values. But the truth is that they
don't like America because our government has been committing the
most intrusive, invasive and harmful acts in their territories for
many decades, since well before 9/11.

the internationalists and collectivists, from the Wilson
to the Bush neoconservatives, have considered a "moral"
government as one that actively involves itself in the business
and lives of others, domestically and internationally, using both
government social workers and government soldiers. But that misuse
of government has been the source of many problems and conflicts.
In practical terms, the desired results of society's collectivist
planners are not actualized in the long term, because government
intervention and socialist central planning involve violations of
liberty and property, and cause further destruction of society.
That applies to both international
and domestic interventions.

Let me put
it this way: If I hire a bodyguard, his job is to protect me from
the aggressive acts of others. I don't want him to do anything else.
I don't want him to go into the neighbors' home next door to organize
their home for them, and I certainly don't want him to act aggressively
against others. But if he starts a fight with someone, or interferes
with someone else's fight, at that instant he is making me
more vulnerable to subsequent aggression by the objects of that
bodyguard's aggression.

that impose intrusions into other territories or start wars make
their own populations more vulnerable. Poking
Middle-Eastern hornets' nests has made Americans less safe.

But I believe
that the Rule of Law is absolute. Never intrude into the lives,
liberty or property of others anywhere. No theft, no trespassing,
no killing of innocent human beings, period.

Call me old

To the Founders,
a moral government does not violate any individual's right of sovereignty,
one's right to life, liberty and property, in or outside of America.
And the denial of due process is not only contrary to the Founders'
original intent, but conservatives may very well have been supporting
policies that could be used against
by presidents and their flunkies who do not believe in
the idea of inalienable rights. We have already learned that about
Elena Kagan.

We really must
decide whether or not "all men are created equal," and
"are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
To be a truly moral society under absolute Rule of Law, a society
must decide in the affirmative.

I wish that
conservatives agreed with me on that.

Lazarowitz [send him mail]
is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.

Best of Scott Lazarowitz

Email Print