What is small government? Many right-wing political pundits declare that small government and the conservative ideal is an amalgam made up of individual rights, free market principles and respect for equality. Is this a trinity of sacred ideals or merely claptrap semantics? Let us first examine the conservative right’s dogma that counteracts “heavy-handed” government and all its evils.
In theory, smaller government leader to greater Individual Rights. Reaganites, Palinists and the Tea-Party populace are bound by a common belief that robust government is a pathogen that starves and suppresses personal freedom. Rather than use “individual rights” as a cavalier catch phrase, let us look at specifics . It is altogether fitting that we list and explore some personal freedoms that make America Great.
The right to bear arms is commonly thought to be a personal entitlement. This concept has it merits and is explicitly permitted in the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the concealed firearm or open carrying has its roots in “cowboy conservativism” and is reasonable as long as the carrier does not have a violent criminal past and the public area they wish to bring weaponry to permits its patrons to do such a thing.
Recreational hunting? Many believe this to be a Biblical endowment given by the hand of the creator Himself. Others may argue the virtue of tracking and shooting defenseless, mentally inferior creatures all in the name of sport; but even the staunch animal rights advocate may see reason in allowing the respectful law abiding hunter to seek out and consume his game. After all, the personal freedom given to the bow or gun hunter helps provide funding to various states’ natural resource departments and/or fish and wildlife conservation commissions, increase tourism dollars that support local businesses and also trim down the various animal herds whose members would otherwise face starvation.
Conservatives also campaign for individual rights that reside outside the area of “gun-think.” Many make a case in favor of school prayer and describe it as hallowed, sacred individual right. To an outside observer, prayer in school may seem like a non-issue being used as a rallying cry to stir up the Evangelical base. Clearly, no school can unequivocally forbid a student to pray. It can only prohibit state sanctioned group led or daily prayer. Therefore, this is a right designated to U.S. citizens in the Constitution’s First Amendment and any notion that it has been taken away is exaggerated empty rhetoric; pure and simple.
The right to life? You can tote this up in the Pro Life movement which makes a great case. Surely, no one really likes abortion and even some of its staunchest advocates see it as a necessary evil or, fail that, the “least-bad” alternative to a total prohibition. Oddly enough, many of these so-called Pro Lifers have a double standard when it comes to capital punishment. Perhaps the Old Testament’s “eye-for-an-eye” brimstone vengefulness is more delectable in the instant gratification society. At least when the other option is the “turn the other cheek” pragmatism they also claim to hold so dear.
Shall we examine what we have learned so far? The modern day conservative platform wants you to have a gun if so desired, and insists that every embryo get a chance at life away from the uterus. Outside of being a fetus and carrying a gun what are the individual rights evangelicals hold dear?
Much of the aforementioned individual rights revolve around the gun. The gun is an item, if used inappropriately, can be lethal to not only its user but also to innocent bystanders. That being said, substances like marijuana, cocaine, MDMA (or ecstasy) can potentially harm innocent bystanders if a user under the influence operates a motor vehicle. Otherwise, those recreationally ingesting intoxicating substances are doing so in the pursuit of, if not harmless fun, an enhanced social or introspective experience. Yes, narcotic consumption may lead to negative medical consequences but there are many things proven unhealthy. In many such cases (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, fast-food) society will realize that unhealthy choices are being made but recognize that every adult has certain personal liberties. When it comes to recreational narcotic use, the conservative right tosses these personal liberties aside all for the sake of convenient virtue.
Before we describe the political right by using such unflattering words like “hypocrisy” and “double-standard” please just assume, for arguments sake, that street-drugs are bad and should be illegal. A return to true self-governing and personal freedom can be made in another less dangerous arena. For instance, people are free to choose a mate and form civil union. Not only should society permit this, but it must also encourage consenting adults to exchange matrimonial vows. Is there any personal freedom more fundamental than the right to seek out marital bliss? Surely, this individual right is at least a pillar, if not the foundation, of the platform that supports the American Conservative movement.
One may find it astonishing that this is not exactly the case. Gay marriage or other same-sex unions may be an individual freedom of those who live in Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Argentina, Nepal and Mexico City it is not yet a inalienable right of those living in the Great Nation conceived in liberty. It seems that conservatives living in America and their God-fearing brethren believe that this right is trumped by Leviticus 18:22. In other words the traditional Biblical belief that marriage is an institution that only binds man with woman. Modern day Evangelical Christians have turned a blind eye to other Biblical commandments regarding marriage (Corinthians 7:10 & Malachi 2:16 virtually forbids divorce and remarriage) but if all those who broke the marriage covenant were not welcomed to church, the offer plate would be less heavy and the temples barely grand.
Now please consider that there is a logical wisdom for imposing these restraints upon personal freedom. Legal narcotic use could lead to terrible neighborhoods, much like the urban slums we have today in spite of the drug prohibition. Allowing Same-Sex unions might be a slippery slope towards a complete mockery of marriage, however, it seems impossible that anyone could make a greater sham of marriage than Rick Rockwell, Darva Conger and other Bachelors/Bachelorettes, Joe Millionaires, and other heterosexual, reality TV brethren who so desperately pursue Nielson marriages and the Rock of Love. Yet, even this correspondent is hard-pressed to justify one excessively alarming civil liberty that the conservative right ruthlessly strips away in the name of public virtue and Christian fundamentalism; and that is the right of the terminally ill to willfully end their personal human suffering.
It is reasonable to suggest that empowering the terminally ill the power to make this excruciatingly difficult choice is compassionate act. Therefore, it is quite bewildering that a presidential cabinet led by a so-called “Compassionate Conservative” exerted much energy and taxpayer’s resource to derail a highly restrictive and regulated physician-assisted dying initiative that came into law by popular vote and will of the people. These self-proclaimed “compassionates”, who often state that government role in citizen’s lives should be limited, wanted to use government to bully-away and pillage this individual liberty from the terminally ill. Even more disturbing are the illogically harsh and underhanded methods this presidential cabinet used when trying to achieve its worrisome goal.
The U.S. Federal Officials who initiated the 2006 Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Oregon had a directed effort to empower government to overstep its bounds, and ruthlessly revoke citizens’ civil liberties. As incredulous as it may seem, high ranking government officials in an independent nation created in the best interest of the people, by the people, and for the people, alleged that physicians who enable the terminally ill with chance to die with dignity were actually violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. Truly, this is the action of an Executive Branch that ostensibly praises the laurels that come from limited government involvement in the citizen’s life but will not hesitate to irrationally flex big-government and federal muscles if it dislikes a State approved ballot initiative that is both reasonable and constitutional.
Please allow your correspondent to admit that assisted-suicide, the War on Drugs, and Same-Sex Marriage are all controversial issues and altering the status quo may not reflect the popular will of the people. But does this country not mandate that the popular will must be reasonable? Is it not dangerous to succumb to the popular will when it inhibits a citizen’s freedom to choose a husband or wife? Before we blindly follow a political campaign that rallies on the stump by appealing to popular passions and prejudices, should we really be so enthralled with such hot-button social issues? The fact is that if our neighbor chooses to ingest intoxicants while at home or marry another of same gender or seeks a physician’s help to alleviate the suffering of a terminal disease it will not directly break an innocent leg or pick an unbeknownst pocket. And any group in favor of regulating such intimate and personal activities is only impeding civil liberties, furthering oppression and is quintessential Big Government at its very worst.
No comments:
Post a Comment