With this post we begin going through each of my "12 Key Conservative Concepts" in detail. For those of you who somehow missed my last post (Bad Reader!!!! I'm going to have to smack you with a rolled up newspaper!) here is a reminder of my 12 Key Concepts of Conservatism:
1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. "Equality" and "Fairness" are not synonyms...these terms CANNOT be used interchangeably.
3. Success should be encouraged, not vilified.
4. When I choose to help somebody, it is charity. When the government forces me to "help" somebody, it is theft. Robin Hood was not someone to be admired, he was a thief to be brought to justice.
5. America is, by and large, a pretty good place. American Culture is, far and away, the greatest culture in all of human history.
6. You are your own Leader.
7. Politicians are human too--which is exactly why limited government is preferable.
8. I don't care what you do in your bedroom--but I do care when you expose my kids to it.
9. The Needs, Goals, and Desires of the individual are infinitely more important than the Needs, Goals, and Desires of any perceived "Community".
10. The truth hurts...but is beneficial for us in the long run (which is why Political Correctness is extremely destructive)
11. War is Hell...and it is also very necessary at key points in history.
12. It takes a village to raise an idiot--it takes a family to raise a child.
Today, we focus on #1: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Some of you may have heard that phrase before, for others of you (namely, those of you who grew up on the East Coast...you poor, tortured souls), you likely have never heard it. Where I'm from, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a common colloquilism that refers to situations where a well meaning (but generally clueless) person will make a grand effort to "improve" something that is already functioning well to begin with. It is the concept of re-building or re-working something (and usually with an end goal that is only marginally better than the status quo) that was humming along fine--putting a lot of effort into changing something that really doesn't need to be changed. The end result of these "efforts" is usually that a problem ends up being created where none existed before.
Even if you've never heard the phrase, you undoubtedly have seen situations similar to these...it could be the new, energetic boss who tries to completly re-work the department upon his arrival, despite the department being profitable and efficient before his arrival. It could be the mother-in-law who insists that the way you fix pot roast is all wrong (despite the fact that your husband actually likes your pot roast), and insists that you do it her way--which only ends up tasting like rubber. It's your buddy who thinks he can "correct" your stance at the bowling alley, even though you do better than he does in your weekly bowling league.
Since we see the destructiveness of people in everyday life trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, it stands to reason that a rationally-thinking person would not want a government that would run around "fixing" things just for the sake of taking credit for having done so. Certainly, there will be some things that are legitimately "broken" and that a government will have to address (though there is certainly plenty of debate what type of issues that the government should have a right to address versus those issues that should be of no concern to the government). However, we seem to see a consistent message from the Left that constant change is a positive, even necessary thing. In fact, the canadacy of Barack Obama was based on little more than this vague idea of "Change".
Change that is truly for the better is a good thing...but "change for no apparent reason" (which I suspect was the original Obama campaign slogan before his handlers shortened it because "poor people and young people don't like lots of words") is a destructive and horrible concept that should be avoided.
The preferred role of government could be compared to that of a good sports referee. There's an old saying among officials that "you did a good job if the game ends, and nobody remembers you". This is to say that a good official in any sport will make the calls that they must make (calling those infractions which have a direct and obvious impact on play), but should not bog down the game by calling every ticky-tack foul they see. A good official gives some leeway and "let's the boys play". In fact, in the National Hockey League, there was an old axiom that in the third period and overtime, referees would "keep the whistle in the pocket"--only calling penalties that were so egregious that they couldn't be ignored, and otherwise allowing the players to police themselves. The NHL referees knew that the game wasn't about them, it was about the players...and they wanted to make sure that those players were the determining factor in the result of the game if at all possible.
On the other hand, take this summer's World Cup soccer final between Spain and Holland. A game that was over-officiated from the start, in which the referee called every foul he saw in the first half, and issued yellow cards to nearly half of the Dutch team. And on the rare occasions that Spain would try to man up and deliver some physicality back at the Dutch, our esteemed ref was right there to interfere and keep it from happening (though, in fairness, you don't have to ask the Spanish to shy away from physical play more than once...diving pansies that Spain are). The result was a second half where both teams were walking on eggshells, more concerned with the officiating than with doing what was necessary to win the biggest prize in soccer. In the end, a tough, physical team lost because of the officiating to a side that had much less physical toughness, and who was only too eager to hide behind the referee's skirt...erm, I mean, whistle. On the Monday morning after the match, talk around water coolers the world over centered on two things: 1) Geez, was that final boring as Hell and 2) That referee just wouldn't stay the fuck out of the picture--which is why the game degenerated into a boring foul-fest.
So which style should government emulate, an old-school NHL style of allowing the players (which, in terms of society, are each and every one of us) to determine the winners and losers, or a style like that of the World Cup Final, where the referee's (or, in terms of comparison, the government's) whims are the overriding factor determining victory.
To a true Conservative, the answer is the former--we believe that most of the time, humans have the ablility to respond to and handle life's challenges without relying on the government to fight our daily battles for us. We believe that most of lifes problems are better solved by ordinary people making the decisions that are best for their longevity and livlihood (economists have a name for this phenomena...they call it the "free market"). We remember that back when we were kids, problems on the playground were not solved by running to the teacher, but instead by facing them head on and taking care of them (in other words, knock the bully on his ass one time and you don't have any more "bully problems"...but go to the teacher and you'll guarantee yourself an entire school year of ass-kickings), things really haven't changed much since then.
I don't need a government to take care of what I can take care of on my own. I don't need them to make decisions for me that I am fully capable of making. If "change" is needed in my life, I'm intelligent enough to make those changes myself, and man enough to follow through with them. I don't need a government to tell me to buy health insurance, or what to eat, or what kind of lightbulbs to buy...I'm a college graduate, I can handle those things on my own, thank you very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment