POLITICS 101: The RIGHT Course

Abbott Press

Contents

Chapter One

Let me being by first stating the five basic concepts of conservatism:

1. Limited government

2. Free market

3. Individual freedom

4. Traditional American values

5. Strong national defense

Brit Hume, a former White House Correspondent, once summed up the struggle between the philosophies of liberalism vs. conservatism this way: "For the better part of a century, Americans have engaged in a seesawing debate over how to keep the United States strong, prosperous, just and free. Big government or small? Free markets or aggressive regulation? Should we protect our values abroad or meet our enemies halfway?"

Consider this quote by Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio talk show host: "The natural spirit of the human being is freedom and conservatism is simply freedom."

A famous quote very relevant to this book is by President Reagan while in the White House: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem."

This book highlights the differences between liberalism, which are the phrases to the left of each chapter vs. conservatism, which are the phrases on the right side of the "vs." This political divide can be based on the four spectra below.

Left vs. Right Secular Progressivism vs. Traditionalism Democratic Platform vs. Republican Platform Government Control vs. Individual Freedom

Keep in mind the "left" and "right" sides are used interchangeably with "liberalism" and "conservatism," respectively. Liberalism has its philosophical roots in being "left" and generally favors the Democratic platform. A sub-section of Democrats and/or those on the left can also be "secular progressives" (to be defined and discussed later.) To be fair, Democrats can also be traditionalists. Conservatism has its roots in being "right," which generally favors the Republican platform and most often favors the "traditionalist" agenda.

Left vs. Right

Academically, left means more government and right means less government. It is as simple as that. An extreme left position means a central government will decide who owns what, (including the seizing of private assets,) who works where, what kind of schooling children get, what, if any, religion we can participate in, and what we can say and think. The most extreme left position is impossible to pull off because people are not robots. But a close example of a leftist government was the U.S.S.R. back in the mid-twentieth century. We called it a "communist" country, along with other countries like it in East Asia (like North Korea) during that time period.

The most extreme right position possible means there is virtually no real legitimate government and anarchy reigns. There is no government regulation and no political framework to create one. The extreme right position results in a totally dysfunctional society. The closest we come to an extreme right government is a "Totalitarian" regime—a group of illegitimate rulers that try to control citizens with violent and brutal tactics. A modern day example of a totalitarian regime would be Iraq before the U.S. invasion or some renegade African nations that are controlled by drug warlords. Theoretically, somewhere very close to the center between these extremes is the best balance on the average. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that underdeveloped societies probably need a strong central government to kick start development, gravitating more left of center. A mature, developed and economically accomplished nation such as the United States should be targeting a significantly right of center location on this spectrum, meaning less government than needed on the average. The very essence of this book is to show how our society will flourish with increased prosperity and freedom when government is less intrusive in our lives.

Secular Progressivism vs. Traditionalism

These opposite viewpoints are more recent in their evolution than left vs. right. Today, we have "secular progressives," who are dedicated to advancing an agenda devoid of any spiritual influence versus "traditionalists," who tend to think more like our founding fathers in incorporating religious beliefs into their politics. The word "secular" means:

1. worldly as opposed to sacred things; temporal

2. not concerned with or related to religion

3. not within the control of the Church

Secular progressives push a liberal agenda with fewer if any moral restraints or boundaries that otherwise would be traditionally adhered to. Politics to them should operate within secular guidelines. They prefer to concentrate on new, contemporary ideas and downplay ideals that have roots going back centuries. Traditionalists, on the opposite side of the spectrum, cling to values kept through the generations by parents and ancestors. They use their moral and spiritual compasses to provide guidelines for political opinion and participation. Traditionalists tend to prize their patriotism whereas secular progressives often subject the U.S. to more criticism by constantly comparing it to other countries. Traditionalists seem to balance government involvement against cost more than secular progressives, who generally have more tunnel vision in pursuing their agenda. Here's an example: Secular progressives generally believe the U.S. should have government-paid health care for those who otherwise can't afford it. In debates about this, they rarely are interested in drawing a balance between this goal and what it will cost the people. Rather, they just insist that we are overdue for providing this service.

A typical traditionalist regularly goes to church or is somewhat religious or spiritual, is pro-life, prefers to keep God alive in government affairs wherever possible, uses spiritual values to frame political views, doesn't believe in too much debt for either themselves or their country, is a Second Amendment advocate, emphasizes work ethic over quality of education, believes in balancing ecological needs with economic affordability, and tends to view political correctness as a fad that will hopefully recede. A typical secular-progressive may go to church on occasion but doesn't emphasize it as a priority, is pro-choice, doesn't believe God should have any presence in government, doesn't emphasize morality in politics, is not upset about our country's debt, is concerned about having enough gun control, emphasizes quality of public education over the work ethic, believes ecology is generally worth the cost to improve it, and is a firm believer in political correctness.

Democratic Platform vs. Republican Platform

The party platform sometimes is just a philosophical viewpoint and other times it can be a specific view on an issue. The Democratic Party is almost always chosen by liberals, those to the left and particularly the secular progressives. The Republican Party is almost always the choice for conservatives, those favoring right-wing policies and generally but not always the pick by traditionalists. The Republican website currently says this on the issue of economy: "We believe in the power and opportunity of America's free market economy." When you click on "courts," it simply says: "We believe a judge's role is to interpret the law." For "energy," it says only, "We believe in energy independence." Most fair-minded people regardless of their party affiliation would not argue with these points. The Democratic Party's website is wordier and has an emotional appeal. So, the real party platform is generally a rough conglomeration of whatever the leading candidates happen to say about the issue in question.

The determination of our viewpoints should come from listening to the candidates from both parties. It shouldn't be derived from what our parents' viewpoints have been or what our preconceived notions always were. We then have the choice to convert what we've heard into a decision on whether to favor the Democratic platform versus the Republican. This is where the rubber meets the road and you decide to vote Democratic or Republican. Many of you are thinking: "I vote for the candidate, not the party." That's a great way to go. I'm just talking now about how the two platforms would typically match up with voter philosophy. Regardless, I hope you will exercise your privilege and responsibility to vote.

A thorough understanding of the political spectra will enable you to plot each of the following positions on issues onto more than just the liberal vs. conservative framework. Remember, the left phrase of the chapter title is the liberal side vs. the conservative on the right.

Government Control vs. Individual Freedom

I list this platform contrast first because it is one of the most distinctive philosophical differences between liberalism and conservatism. Individual freedom is what historically has separated the United States from the rest of the world and certainly is the primary reason for mass integration here. Political philosophy over the years has labeled Democrats as wanting government to have more control than the status quo and Republicans as wanting government to have less control than the status quo. I thought I would start out with examples that are of a local nature and close to home so you can really relate to the impingement of your freedom as it is gobbled up by government control.

Local Taxes: If all citizens knew exactly where all their local tax money was going, there would be a revolt. Although it is public information, we just don't have the time to be vigilant watchdogs. How often do you see one or two construction guys doing the work while the other three or four observe? Why do these projects have to be babysat by policemen?

Sometimes you just don't know where your taxes are going. I just happened to be browsing our local newspaper one day when I saw a story about a lawsuit a local employee brought against the township to defend his termination. He was fired because he was caught having sex with a municipal employee in the records room. The cost to the township of defending the lawsuit had gotten into the hundreds of thousands and I was paying for it with my taxes.

The subjective assessment of the value of someone's house, even when compared to your neighbors, gives way too much power to the municipality. When you compare notes with other homeowners regarding what they pay in taxes, you hear all kinds of inconsistencies that seem to be unfair. If you request a re-assessment, municipalities can conclude that you are underpaying instead and start charging more property taxes right then and there. I'll read in my local newspaper that total municipal expense (after state contributions and adjustments) will increase 2% to 2.5% per year. But then my taxes go up about twice that much that year. Why? My property assessment should reflect about the same increase as the overall expense increase. How do I know those homeowners with connections are not getting assessment increases as high as mine?

A solution to resolving this unfairness would be to use a more objective way of assessing the land and property. Tax assessors could use a constant rate (published for all to see) for lot size and the exterior size dimensions of the house and other building structures on the property such as storage sheds. Each type of structure would have a set rate. The assessor would simply multiply the rate by the exterior size of the structure. This would give the homeowner more control over the tax issue and the freedom from being subjectively overcharged. It is bad policy by the township to penalize homeowners with higher taxes for making improvements to their house and property. This discourages the conscientious homeowner who wants to fix up and beautify their dwelling. Homeowners should have the freedom to increase the value of their property without having their taxes on it increased.

Permits: I'm not against all permits required by the township. They can be a good thing, of course. If you are building an addition onto your house, you want to ensure the electrical and construction work performed is up to standard. However, the purpose of the permits should be to protect citizens, not to raise revenue. I found the following two examples of this shocking: 1. Many townships require a permit for you to have a tree cut down on your property. In a North Jersey township, one homeowner decided to save money and cut down the trees on his property by himself. Although he did a great job, the township later charged him a $1,000 fine per tree for not applying for the necessary permit ahead of time. Wow. 2. A friend told me he paid $900 in permits last year just for the installation of a roof and vinyl siding. The amount was calculated as a percentage of the $25,000 he spent on the work. This sounds like extortion to me as the actual cost to expedite two simple permits is a small fraction of the $900 hold up. (Naturally, the permits on record will eventually trigger an increase in tax assessment on the house, so the homeowner will get tapped twice. Ouch.)

Planning Board Tyrants: I know one neighbor who owned multiple acres of property and chose to sell off five acres for the construction of one house. The next-door neighbor objected to the sale. He wanted to have those five acres of lovely woods remain untouched so he could enjoy his privacy and grow a garden on his neighbor's land. He tied up the sale with legal action although he had no legitimate beef. To settle the objection, the township actually took some land from the homeowner (the one selling off the five acres) and granted it to the complaining neighbor just to placate him so the sale could go forward.

Town Council Runs Roughshod: An ordinance to restructure the recreation department was passed by our town council in April 2010. Some citizens objected to the changes and launched a petition drive to repeal it. The council had a choice to either repeal the ordinance or let the whole town decide through a binding referendum. They did neither. To get their way and bypass citizen objections, they introduced a new ordinance that restructures the recreation department with the same major changes, but with a slightly different structure. In other words, they ignored the will of the people and expedited an "end run" around official policy by getting creative. No hurrahs here for the Democratic process.

Holiday Police: There are some townships telling residents what window of time they will allow to let their kids "trick or treat" on Halloween. A few towns over, they "cancelled" Halloween one year because it snowed and the oligarchs on their throne at the town hall decided trick-or-treating would put the little munchkins at risk.

There was at least one township in the general area where I live that created a law pinpointing the earliest date residents could first begin lighting up the seasonal decorations before Christmas and the latest date they could light them afterwards.

Christmas Grinch? Every year at this time, a local news TV channel will highlight a particular house decorated to the point where people from around the town will line up with their children to see it. You've seen them—their electric meter must be spinning so fast, it's a blur. Life-sized Santa Claus and his reindeer are on the front lawn, which is speckled with five-foot candy canes and sugarplums. You might have Mrs. Clause knitting stockings in her rocking chair or maybe a workshop for the elves on the porch. You get the picture. Sometimes, though, the newscaster will also tell you the township stopped by and inspected for electrical violations, giving the homeowner a summons for multiple extension cords connected to each other on the lawn. But if someone is making children's eyes glow with excitement and happiness, can't the township look the other way?

Condo Control Freaks? There was a new condo complex being built some years ago one town over and I understand that one of the many regulations was that you were not permitted to put anything outside of your property to decorate it. This would include flowerpots and flags, including the American flag. I realize that a condo resident doesn't own anything outside of his dwelling, but come on. This is just un-American. There always needs to be some flexibility with the minutia of legalities between two parties. After all, the condo owner will often do little things on the outside of his property to improve it without expecting a discount from the condo association, so I think the latter party should practice some flexibility as well.

Just before I had this book published, I was talking to a condo owner that did own the land in front of his house (a new type of condo arrangement.) I was complimenting him on his garden, and he told me that as of this year the condo association now lets them grow flowers of any color in their own garden, whereas heretofore they were only allowed to grow yellow flowers!

(Continues...)

Excerpted from POLITICS 101: The RIGHT Courseby JOSEPH M. WESTON SR. Copyright © 2012 by Joseph M. Weston Sr.. Excerpted by permission of Abbott Press. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.