I'm not being funny but I'm having a hard time determining what, exactly, it means to be "a conservative". I looked it up in Webster's and it says...
1capitalized a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party b: the Conservative party
2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
So, overall, a conservative wants to keep things as they are? They want to keep "tradition" even if that tradition is fundamentally unsound or unjust? We as a nation are addicted to oil, so, rather than devoting billions of dollars to "green technologies" we'd rather "drill baby drill" to feed our addiction? Or, instead of "live and let live" when it comes to gay marriage, we'd rather try and "legislate" what people can and can't do? If a marriage is a union between two people and their God, wouldn't this be a "separation of church and state" issue? Meaning, if you can find a "church" that will marry you, the "state" shouldn't be able to "de-validate" that union... should they?
Over the years, if we had ALL been conservatives, there would still be enslaved Africans in America, no women could vote and alcohol might not go "legally" with our American sporting events as they do now. America would Royally Suck!
Many of "us" are clinging to our "traditions" as an excuse to continue to do what we've always done & thus defer any "responsibility" of our current situation to ourselves.
Useful Analogy:A man graduates high school and finds a "good job" at a plant in his town. The plant trains him in what he needs to know and becomes a skilled worker and valuable asset to this company. He works there for 25 years and finds out that this plant will soon close. He had a son, that is now 18 and has followed in his father's footsteps and found employment at this same plant just last year. A man and his son now find themselves unable to find work. Neither the man nor his son, went to college and are finding that the particular "skill set" they possess isn't in demand at any other employer near by.
In the above analogy, the "tradition" has been to find work without furthering one's education. The "tradition" has been to not "create" employment, but to "find" employment. It's the old, "give a man a fish" parable... isn't it?
As a country we can not continue to do what we've done and expect a different result! There will be NO good economy unless we can "create" employment. We can't create employment if all of us are only trying to "find" a job. Some of us are going to have to "make a way" for others to go to work.
Employers are NOT conservatives as a rule. Think about it. Let's take McDonald's for example. Remember when you would roll to the drive through years ago and who ever took your order was waiting at the window to take your money? Now, they "might" not be in the window because they all wear headsets now. This allows them the mobility to take an order more on the fly and also help "fix" the orders. So now, McDonald's doesn't need that extra person to fix orders. Also, at McDonalds, years ago when I used to work there they came out with a "clam shell" grill. This allowed the person working the grill to cook both sides of the meat at once. I remember being able to cook 24 hamburger patties in less than a minute. This also meant that you didn't need as many people working the grill as you used to.
We've all seen those "self check out" registers at Wal-Mart and other stores. Those are "cashiers" that don't have jobs now. If the companies were more "conservative" they wouldn't invest in such equipment would they?
Overall, I think instead of looking at things through a "conservative" or "liberal" lens, we should just try to find the "best" ideas and see how we can make this country better for "all" Americans and not just those that hunt and go to church with us.
I'm Thed Weller and I approve this message.
So, overall, a conservative wants to keep things as they are? They want to keep "tradition" even if that tradition is fundamentally unsound or unjust? We as a nation are addicted to oil, so, rather than devoting billions of dollars to "green technologies" we'd rather "drill baby drill" to feed our addiction? Or, instead of "live and let live" when it comes to gay marriage, we'd rather try and "legislate" what people can and can't do? If a marriage is a union between two people and their God, wouldn't this be a "separation of church and state" issue? Meaning, if you can find a "church" that will marry you, the "state" shouldn't be able to "de-validate" that union... should they?
Over the years, if we had ALL been conservatives, there would still be enslaved Africans in America, no women could vote and alcohol might not go "legally" with our American sporting events as they do now. America would Royally Suck!
Many of "us" are clinging to our "traditions" as an excuse to continue to do what we've always done & thus defer any "responsibility" of our current situation to ourselves.
Useful Analogy:A man graduates high school and finds a "good job" at a plant in his town. The plant trains him in what he needs to know and becomes a skilled worker and valuable asset to this company. He works there for 25 years and finds out that this plant will soon close. He had a son, that is now 18 and has followed in his father's footsteps and found employment at this same plant just last year. A man and his son now find themselves unable to find work. Neither the man nor his son, went to college and are finding that the particular "skill set" they possess isn't in demand at any other employer near by.
In the above analogy, the "tradition" has been to find work without furthering one's education. The "tradition" has been to not "create" employment, but to "find" employment. It's the old, "give a man a fish" parable... isn't it?
As a country we can not continue to do what we've done and expect a different result! There will be NO good economy unless we can "create" employment. We can't create employment if all of us are only trying to "find" a job. Some of us are going to have to "make a way" for others to go to work.
Employers are NOT conservatives as a rule. Think about it. Let's take McDonald's for example. Remember when you would roll to the drive through years ago and who ever took your order was waiting at the window to take your money? Now, they "might" not be in the window because they all wear headsets now. This allows them the mobility to take an order more on the fly and also help "fix" the orders. So now, McDonald's doesn't need that extra person to fix orders. Also, at McDonalds, years ago when I used to work there they came out with a "clam shell" grill. This allowed the person working the grill to cook both sides of the meat at once. I remember being able to cook 24 hamburger patties in less than a minute. This also meant that you didn't need as many people working the grill as you used to.
We've all seen those "self check out" registers at Wal-Mart and other stores. Those are "cashiers" that don't have jobs now. If the companies were more "conservative" they wouldn't invest in such equipment would they?
Overall, I think instead of looking at things through a "conservative" or "liberal" lens, we should just try to find the "best" ideas and see how we can make this country better for "all" Americans and not just those that hunt and go to church with us.
I'm Thed Weller and I approve this message.
2 comments:
Thed,
This is one of the best spin jobs I've seen in a while and I thought fox news was biased. The dictionary definitions given really are for the most part inaccurate when difining "conservatives" as it relates to politics. The best definition is the one that details conservative policy, but your assertion that conservatives don't want to change is grossly inaccurate. Example, in order to protect the sanctity of mariage, most conservatives want to "change" the constitution. By your definition, this should be seen as a "liberal" stunt. Also most employers not being conservatives is false as well. First, most companies are going to school you on their history and the principles that they were founded on and want to maintain, but that being said, in order to maintain a certain level of success still requires change. Would most big retailers still be successful had they not implemented a strategy that included selling their products on the internet? They made that change, in order to "maintain" their positions as market leaders. Change as we all know has been an overused catch phrase in this election cycle by a candidate with no record of changing anything but, his clothes and his position on the issues when they loose popularity. He went from unversal healthcare to Universal healthcare "light". From repealing the bush tax cuts, to "Robin Hood" economics. I'm sure he'll change a few more times before Nov. 4th if the polls tell him he should, but yet some of his supporters have the nerve to question John McCain's character? John McCain has fough his own party tooth and nail when he thought it right. Obama claims to have split w/ his party's constiuency in the last debate saying his positions make him unpopular w/ the trial lawyers and the teacher's unions LOL!! but yet, they all endorse him. As much as we do need change in education policy and tort reform, it doesn't sound to me like they're worried about him "changing" anything. You tell me, what does Paul Hubbert think about Barack Obama? Is he scared Obama will break his choke hold on Alabama's lackluster system?
@the boss hog: so sorry about the delay in response [had to get my Magic City Classic on! lol!] It's back to reality now...
"Change as we all know has been an overused catch phrase in this election cycle by a candidate with no record of changing anything but, his clothes and his position on the issues when they loose popularity. He went from unversal healthcare to Universal healthcare "light". From repealing the bush tax cuts, to "Robin Hood" economics."
Universal Health Care Light? I think you're getting Obama's position confused with HRC...Obama has always subscribed to the theory that if "health care were affordable, people would get it." but you already knew that i'm sure. he does want to "mandate" health insurance for kids but i don't think this of overall a "bad thing." As far as "Robin Hood Economics"...lol! Are you serious? Do you listen to McCain on the stump and believe all this "Joe the plumber and socialist B.S."?!? There is nothing wrong with looking at the tax structure of a nation and seeing how it could be "more fair" to it's citizens. Personally, I don't care that McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time...he's a republican! That's to be expected! Who cares if Obama voted with his party 96% of the time...he's a democrat! Big Deal! What I do care about is how each of these candidates have presented themselves while vying for the presidency. I care about the plans that both sides have presented in their vision for the future of America. And as for Paul Hubbert...The state of Education in Alabama leaves much to be desired. If he's worth his salt, he'll try and do SOMETHING quick to better our educational system regardless who wins the white house.
Post a Comment