Today I heard the local radio talk show host saying that opposing gay marriage is not conservative. He believes that conservatives do not want the government to tell people how to live their lives. Most of the time that is true. However, he is actually confusing libertarian beliefs with conservative beliefs. This is a point that has often frustrated me recently especially with the rise of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party largely focuses on just one of the three legs of conservatism, fiscal conservatism, which is the one area where conservatives and libertarians actually agree. Therefore, both groups have aligned with the Tea Party. However, conservatives and libertarians are very different when it comes to defense and social issues, which are the other two legs of conservatism. In fact, many libertarians align more with liberals in these areas than conservatives. Libertarians basically believe in freedom (or liberty) at any cost, which leads to virtually no government. Conservatives on the other hand believe that some government is necessary but it must be limited. They understand that freedom without virtue is anarchy.
It is also foolish to think that people who support gay marriage are conservative or believe in limited government. Despite their rhetoric that claims it is about freedom, they really want to impose their beliefs on people who do not support gay marriage. Libertarians kid themselves when they say you can believe whatever you want in your church as long as you don't ask the government to force others to agree with you. That's exactly what the gay marriage advocates are doing. They want everyone who does not agree with them to be labeled a bigot and their rights limited. If you don't believe this, you should look up what the mayor is doing in Houston.
Therefore, for a conservative, gay marriage is not as simple as providing the most freedom to individuals. No matter where you land on the issue of gay marriage you will be infringing on somebody's rights. Instead, you have to ask what is best for the society and imposes the least amount of change. Marriage has existed as an institution between men and women for thousands of years and has never been challenged until the last 20-30 years. There has never been any historical evidence that marriage between only one man and one woman has ever been a problem for societies. In fact a lot of social research has proven the exact opposite. However, the growth of homosexual and sexual promiscuity in general has always been a sign of a society in decline.
Therefore, I reject the notion that opposing gay marriage is not conservative. True conservatives hold onto all three legs of conservatism because the society cannot survive without any of those legs. Libertarians need to stop forcing their beliefs on us by pretending they are conservatives.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Let's Hear it for Stay at Home Moms
I came across an article today on CNN about how many women are in the workforce today: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/13/news/economy/women-work-force/index.html?iid=Lead The main point of the article was that the percent of working women has been flat since 1990 and that this is cause for concern. The solution, they believe, is more government laws that make it easier for women to make jobs more "family friendly".
This is yet another example of the big government idiocy that is prevalent in our media. Whenever there is a problem they always think more government is the solution. And even when there is not a problem, they conjure one up as an excuse for more government (see Global Warming). This article is a perfect example of the latter. Just because the number of working women grew dramatically from 1950 to 1990 and has stayed the same since doesn't indicate a problem.
The article compares the US to European countries and assumes that we need similar laws (even though it never mentions the percentage of women working in those countries), but they fail to recognize the differences in our countries. For one, we have a had a much stronger economy over the last 30 years and, therefore, likely have more families that can afford for the wife to stay at home. We also have a much more conservative society compare to many of the European nations. As a conservative and religious society, we put more emphasis on the value of mothers staying at home with their children over a full time career. (Sorry to all the liberals who just fell out their chairs over that notion.) Yes, women do choose to stay at home. They are not forced to by an inhumane government or non-family friendly employers. Some just do not subscribe to the liberal ideology of the women's lib movement that believes all women should be working and if they are not there is something wrong.
Ironically, this article does point out one concern that is worth noting: the declining birth rate. The irony is that more government and pushing women into the workforce would have the exact opposite effect. Big government policies has led to the breakdown of the family over the last 50 years and women going to work has caused them to delay having children and resulted in smaller families. If you really want to address the problem of a declining birth rate, you need to shrink government and re-emphasize the importance of strong families in our society.
Instead of wringing their hands over the 26% of women who choose not to work, this article should have celebrated the women who are still willing and able to put their families first. (I don't mean to attack those who have to or choose to work.) Since they didn't, I will. I am so grateful that my wife was willing to take time out of her career to focus on raising our children the best way we know how. She sacrifices every day by putting up with poopy diapers and a whiny toddler, when she could be working her way up the ladder with her MBA. She is cultivating the next generation and should be viewed by our society as a queen and not a problem that needs to be solved.
This is yet another example of the big government idiocy that is prevalent in our media. Whenever there is a problem they always think more government is the solution. And even when there is not a problem, they conjure one up as an excuse for more government (see Global Warming). This article is a perfect example of the latter. Just because the number of working women grew dramatically from 1950 to 1990 and has stayed the same since doesn't indicate a problem.
The article compares the US to European countries and assumes that we need similar laws (even though it never mentions the percentage of women working in those countries), but they fail to recognize the differences in our countries. For one, we have a had a much stronger economy over the last 30 years and, therefore, likely have more families that can afford for the wife to stay at home. We also have a much more conservative society compare to many of the European nations. As a conservative and religious society, we put more emphasis on the value of mothers staying at home with their children over a full time career. (Sorry to all the liberals who just fell out their chairs over that notion.) Yes, women do choose to stay at home. They are not forced to by an inhumane government or non-family friendly employers. Some just do not subscribe to the liberal ideology of the women's lib movement that believes all women should be working and if they are not there is something wrong.
Ironically, this article does point out one concern that is worth noting: the declining birth rate. The irony is that more government and pushing women into the workforce would have the exact opposite effect. Big government policies has led to the breakdown of the family over the last 50 years and women going to work has caused them to delay having children and resulted in smaller families. If you really want to address the problem of a declining birth rate, you need to shrink government and re-emphasize the importance of strong families in our society.
Instead of wringing their hands over the 26% of women who choose not to work, this article should have celebrated the women who are still willing and able to put their families first. (I don't mean to attack those who have to or choose to work.) Since they didn't, I will. I am so grateful that my wife was willing to take time out of her career to focus on raising our children the best way we know how. She sacrifices every day by putting up with poopy diapers and a whiny toddler, when she could be working her way up the ladder with her MBA. She is cultivating the next generation and should be viewed by our society as a queen and not a problem that needs to be solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)