Party On!

The Tea Party movement has me a bit conflicted. I can certainly appreciate the motivation behind such a movement, but I'm beginning to wonder if the direction that the movement is taking is the best for it.

I personally believe that the Tea Party movement has some sound principles behind it, like a more limited government, reduced spending, fewer entitlement programs, and return to the fundamentals of the constitution all align with my own personal beliefs. I do think that the federal government has overstretched its bounds and that a considerable scaling back and "weeding out" of corruption is needed.

My concern with the Tea Party movement is that it has yet to truly centralize and get some semblance of structure. It needs to find itself, so to speak. I see a bit of structure taking place, but it needs to find definite leadership and a concrete party platform before I could see it as a credible institution. Though the movement has stated some fundamental principles, like those I mentioned above, it still seems to primarily convey as its main platform a general dissatisfaction with the current government. This expression of dissatisfaction with government has attracted some genuine radicals to the movement.

There has been a push for the movement to actually become a viable political party that presents candidates for elections. I fear that until the movement becomes more credible, what will actually happen is the Ross Perot effect, where the Tea Party candidate pulls some of the conservative Republican and Independent votes away from a conservative Republican candidate, thereby splitting the vote and paving the way for a more liberal candidate to win the election.

I am not opposed to the idea of the Tea Party becoming a genuine political party, but the structuring and weeding process definitely needs to take place first if any credibility is to be expected.

It is unfortunate that the current media has done all in its power to put a negative light on the movement. Any protest, rally, or political gathering will likely include a few wackos on the fringe, but in the case of the Tea Party movement, the liberal press will do all in its power to make the few bad apples appear to be what comprises the whole barrel.

In the light of the way the media is portraying the movement, the leaders of the Tea Party (once some genuine leadership materializes), need to make an intense effort to weed out the people who are counterproductive to the movement. A definite platform will help such a process. If the tea party picks what principles it will stand on, then the people who aren't in agreement with those principles will gradually fall out of it.

Members of the party, especially at public gatherings, need to do all they can to keep members of the movement who are or may be on that fringe (true right wing radicals do exist) in check. The signs below were photographed at the rally in Washington D.C. on March 21st.



Though I'm sure that the general movement does not support blatant threats of violence or such derogatory images of our president, these are the people that the media will focus on until the movement weeds them out. And until these people are removed form the party, the party will have no real credibility in the political arena.

In my travels for work, I encounter people from all walks of life. The majority of people I work with, however, are strong conservatives. Among those individual, I have encountered quite a few who claim to be a part of the Tea Party movement. Some of these individuals have said seditious things against the government to include wishing our current president dead. Such views have no place among those claiming to be good citizens and are in no way patriotic.

That said, until those people are weeded out of the Tea Party, I do not feel that it will be viewed as a credible institution, but rather will be seen as a destructive force.

I feel like I should reiterate that the Tea Party movement can do some good for our country. A revitalization of the conservative strains in the citizenry of our country is in my view necessary. The Tea Party can be a catalyst in such a revitalization. Whether the movement becomes a driving force within the republican party, its own political party, or whatever else, as long as the bad apples can be weeded out and as long as the movement finds its platform and becomes a more viable movement, it could have a great future.

Entitlement Generation

One of my biggest beefs with my own generation is its sense that it's entitled to a certain quality of life and a multitude of perks.

For example, there seems to be the impression among those my age that a good job, good education, health care, a home, etc are all things that they somehow "deserve" simply because they're American.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I've always felt that nobody is "entitled" to anything. If you want something, you earn it.


Sorry, no novel this evening. Too tired for that.

Abortion - A Human Rights Issue

Not only in the arena of politics, but practically everywhere, abortion is a white hot issue. Few issues, if any, have a more polarizing effect on people than this.

I used to take a more libertarian stance on the issue, that is to say that I felt that the choice to have an abortion or to keep the child was up to the would be parents of that child. My own personal belief is that elective abortion is a horrible and shameful act, but did not feel that I have a right to force my own views and opinions upon others. I still maintain that one should not ever force an opinion or belief on others, no matter how passionately he or she feels about it; however, as far as abortion is concerned I had a change of position. Not one based upon emotion, but logic.

My change of position occurred when I heard a talk show host say that abortion is a human rights issue and was non-negotiable. He did not elaborate on his position, but that phrase alone compelled me to review my position. I don't know if I changed views based on the same criteria as this host, but all the same I did eventually change it for my own reasons.

My position hinges on the fact that science cannot conclusively prove at what point a fetus becomes a viable human being. Some argue this transition occurs at conception, others at a specific time during the pregnancy, others at birth, and still others even argue that a child is not a "human being" until it has developed into an individual that thinks for itself and argue that this occurs as late as 4 years old.

I do not intend to argue the sanity, extremity, or fallacies of these positions. I don't believe that emotion or pure opinion have a real place in politics. Rather, I base my position on the fact that science cannot agree on a specific developmental point in which a fetus or child becomes a "human being".

Therefore, if we do not know if a fetus is a child, we should err on the side of good judgement, meaning that if in 20 years we "discover" that a fetus is in fact a human being, I would rather have not been committing or endorsing infanticide for 20 years than have been guilty of such an abhorrence.

Therefore, as government has an obligation to protect all human beings in its jurisdiction, especially the defenseless, then it should also protect those which may be human for the reason outlined above.

There will always be the argument that an abortion is needed in order to save the mother of the child if the child threatens her life. I compare this argument to that of emergency services using triage to select patients that get emergency care first. Sometimes a life in jeopardy is sacrificed to save that of one with a better chance of survival; however, I feel that elective abortion is an absolute violation of human rights.

Independence before Freedom

In order for a person or a people to become “free” they first must become “independent”. This independence has a two-fold meaning. Independence must be declared from an oppressive government, as occurred in America in 1776 via the Declaration of Independence; however, in order for a people to be truly free, a second independence must be achieved from any government.

This second independence is not a separation from or a rejection of government. Government is necessary to protect and keep a people safe. It is, rather, a declaration of independence from dependence upon that government. If a person is dependent upon a government for much more than safety, then he/she will never be truly free.

If a person is dependent upon a government for his/her own welfare, he/she has deprived oneself of two fundamental ingredients of freedom: personal responsibility, and consequently, self-fulfillment. If one relies on the government for a paycheck, retirement, healthcare, food, housing, or anything else, then he/she has forfeited his/her potential to choose for oneself the level of success that is achieved in those same arenas. If one relies upon the government for income, then he/she is at the mercy of that same government for their own level of financial success. They have forfeited their personal responsibility for their own success. By forfeiting responsibility for self in an arena, one forfeits the ability to choose one’s own level of “fulfillment” in the same area. Self-fulfillment can no longer be realized and instead is substituted by a hand-out.

Secondly, reliance upon a government enslaves others governed by that same entity, whether they are recipients of these programs or not. Government cannot create wealth and resources, it can only redistribute them. If the government claims responsibility for the welfare of a particular demographic, then others will have to bear the associated costs. This redistribution not only hinders the level of success of the recipients of these programs, but also hinders the success and freedom that can be achieved by the financiers of these programs. The more social programs instituted by a government, the lower the potential for achievement for the entire nation.

These so called “entitlement programs” also hinder the government’s ability to balance a budget. Politicians are always looking for ways to increase their voting base. Entitlement programs are almost always on the top of that list. Additionally, politicians also realize that raising taxes on the governed is a surefire way of losing the support of a voting base. So what results is a cycle of increased social programs with minimal or no tax increases until a tipping point is reached (like we are currently experiencing).

Until people declare their independence from dependence upon their government, the expectation of a balanced budget and reduced deficits will only be a pipe-dream. The governed can shout about the necessity for their government to reduce spending, lower taxes, reduce deficits, and balance budgets all it likes, but until the governed take responsibility for its welfare away from the government and reduces its dependence upon the government, these dreams will never be realized.

Conversations with a Conservative

This blog is meant simply as a forum for me to ramble (and sometimes rant) about my political, social, and other views. I occasionally find myself with something to say, but no real forum in which to say it. So I decided to create a blog where I can ramble into cyberspace.

I did name the blog "Conversations with a Conservative", so readers can consider that an invite to comment on my posts. It's not a true conversation unless word traffic goes both directions. Otherwise I had just as well name this "Ramblings of a Lonely Conservative". So feel free to agree, disagree, add to, or tear apart my arguments and posts.