CONSERVATIVE LIBERALISM OR LIBERAL CONSERVATISM?

Michelle, who is a very valued commenter on this blog, indicated that she was having maybe some ideological concerns of late. It seems that her conservative views have, in some instances, devolved into some fairly liberal stances.

Welcome to the real world, Michelle.

You are not alone. Practically everyone has the same experience, or the reverse experience. I did not make this up, but someone once said that he was afraid to be too liberal in his youth because that meant he would probably be too conservative in his old age. You and I probably are the ones who fall into the 'reverse' group here.

I make no bones about it. I am a conservative. I was born in 1942, so I was able to vote the first time in the 1964 elections. I was a strong supporter of Barry Goldwater, and still feel that had he been elected Vietnam would have been over by the middle of his first term. Instead it ended more than a decade later and we still feel the effects of improper prosecution of a war. I campaigned for him, was called one of "Barry's Boys" on many occasions, and contributed money to help elect some Republicans to Congress.

Strangely, four years before, in my first year at Marshall, I had worked for Hubert Humphrey in an attempt to stop the juggernaut of Joe Kennedy's millions that was used to buy West Virginia and the presidency for his son. I got to meet both and have few words with them, and found Kennedy to be magnetic but transparent and Humphrey to be overwhelmed by the effects of the money thrown against him. Had I been able to I would have voted for Nixon that year.

I majored in Accounting in college and took a position in northern WV upon graduation. The accounting degree was useful in that it immediately placed me into management for the bulk of my career--until I got fed up with management and what it had become--and dropped out to become a lowly telemarketer. But a telemarketer who was constantly harassed by management to rejoin their ranks. During my long career I served as financial manager for a number of Fortune 500's and then became active in social work management, which was where my management career ended. I retired in 2004, just before my 62nd birthday.

None of that is important, except that, as a manager, my social and political views were pretty much conservative. Then, as now, I felt that conservatives generally were better at managing the government from a financial standpoint. And, admittedly, my social views inclined to be somewhat conservative, also. While the idealism of youth was still around, it lay hidden below my consciousness for twenty-five years or so.

I do not know of any particular thing that caused my social views to begin changing in the mid-1980's, but they began a metamorphosis that astounded me. Come to think of it, maybe I do have some inkling. It was Roe v. Wade that got me unstrung.

I do not believe in abortion as a common method of contraception. Therapeutic abortion for specific reasons, yes, I approve. But simply because a woman does not want to bear a child is not enough reason to deny that child life. In my opinion, anyway. So how did that make me become more liberal? Funny you should ask. I wondered about that too. But it started a complete review of my value system.

Always a strong supporter of individual rights, I felt that the right to keep and bear arms was critical to the national profile. I was a strong supporter of the death penalty. I had little sympathy for those on welfare of their own accord, which spilled over at times to scorn for those who were there for any reason. My, how the times do change.

After a lot of internal debate and a lot of hand wringing, excited by the experiences of living in a few major and a few tiny cities, and seeing the carnage performed by Americans upon Americans, I found I could no longer support private ownership of handguns. Subsequent developments in this area has led me to withdraw my support for even hunting rifles and shotguns, and all other firearms. And I feel I am well within the Constitution in doing so. It says "...in order to maintain a well armed militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Well, okay, let them keep and bear their arms in a well armed militia. That does not mean they are or should be allowed to walk the streets with them. In this case I think the conservatives have erred and continue to err in their interpretation of that great document. (That is hilarious, I typed interpretation as 'unterpretation'--maybe I should have left it that way, it makes more sense!)

All my life I had been a supporter of the death penalty. Relying upon the Biblical injunction of an eye for an eye, I paid little heed to the other one that said thou shalt not kill. The whole thing about abortion called into question, for me, just when if ever killing was allowable. Even the Bible was unreliable as it also says, vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. So could society, as a whole, condone killing simply because it had not worked out a way to prevent it? Clearly, if society put a murderer to death, there would be no repeat by that murderer. But it provided no clear deterrence either, as witnessed by the fact that most murders were committed by family members upon other family members. And those family members committed those murders in the heat of passion or by clear premeditation for various reasons where knowledge of the consequences meant little or nothing. I vacillated, but finally come to the firm conclusion that the death penalty was an unworkable punishment and did more harm to society than good.

I have always felt, and still do, that, of those who live on welfare alone, probably eighty to ninety percent have no real reason to be there except an aversion to working for the good of themselves and society. I have little if any respect for them, particularly those families now in their third or fourth generation of welfare. But at one time I lumped them all together, those permanently on relief and those temporarily on relief. And what a fool I was. For I came to realize that there are so very many that are there through no fault of their own. And those ones we must encourage and aid in any way possible. We must go out of our way to succor these unfortunate persons.

But the permanent welfare dweller is a problem of another sort. And I have no solutions for them. Absolutely they are a tremendous drain on society. Some go so far as to feel an entitlement to those funds. But, you know, I also feel we must in some ways try to generate a sense of worth among them, which they sadly lack. What programs are required and what concessions must be made and what demands must, I cannot begin to extrapolate from my own experiences. I only know that we must be much more concerned with them than we have been in the past. We cannot allow such a percentage of our citizens to ride free upon the largess of society forever.

So, yes, I have a patch of liberal views, myself. As does every thinking adult. And I also have a greater patch of conservative views. Indeed, my own personal views are currently best described as falling almost over into the libertarian areas. I am tired of government which is overbearing, grasping, insensitive and unappealing. I am tired of politicians. I am tired of those who think they know better than I how I feel about matters of importance. I am sick to death with those who pimp their own solutions and think anyone who doesn't agree with their views are undoubtedly ignorant or intentionally boorish, or whatever their latest buzzwords are for those who dare disagree.

I do not care one bit if some think of me as one of the great unwashed majority of the country. I take it as a compliment when I get a disagreement from an especially rotten correspondent, to a well reasoned argument, that he happens to not agree with. The old sticks and stones saying is true. Even some of my best friends and I disagree somewhat fiercely on some areas. And disagreement is a good thing. It shows that people are thinking.

But by the same token, the proper usage of the English language is an indicator of the intelligence of the person. A good argument is destroyed, whether liberal or conservative, by rotten language. Asking someone to add the punctuation or missing words or capitalization is the sure sign that the writer is not concerned with making a valid point, only in trumpeting his ignorance.

I'm feeling a rant coming on, and this is not the time nor place for that.

So, don't feel too bad, Michelle, you are among good company with your ideology. I dare say everyone who reads this blog is in the same position, a mix of both. And that is what is so great about this land of ours, we can be different while being a part of the one body of America. And be free to do so.