Neoconservatives: America's White Knight.
It's the year 2036. Formerly considered as a world power, the heavy debted United States of America is broken, partially shrouded in darkness and under a lesser form of martial law because many Americans refuse to pay the high taxes imposed by the unipartisan federal government. Prisons are overflowing as the crime rate is constantly hitting new records and citizens are stealing money by suing the government because they are armed with the new individual rights. The New Democrats, extreme liberalists have taken over, not just the government but private corporations and utility providers are no longer privately owned, but instead federally owned. The upper class no longer exists and the heavily taxed middle class is forced to support the many government programs such as universal healthcare, universal college education, and many others. That is what liberalism will eventually lead our nation into, with its supporters backing many ideals such anti-military, anti-prison, pro-education, pro-choice including sexual freedom, and constantly extending new boundaries for human rights. Would other civic stances be a better choice and lead us to a better tomorrow and brighter future for the nation?
Libertarians argue that a government should never be allowed to become so big and controlling and should only be there to enforce sovereign laws and provide national security. They want to get rid of government regulations such as the Food and Drug Administration and eliminate airline security, as if there was no government. People such as Ron Paul would eliminate taxes, cut down military spending, and have a regulated free market and total human freedom. “Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others”.(Libertarianism) Similarly, anarchists believe that liberals and libertarians are not socially left enough; they would rather have no government, no corporations, become anti-capitalist, to therefore providing total economic equality as everyone would be on the same level. Their motto is something of “Where there is authority, there is no freedom” (Mental), a quote by Peter Kropotkin, a Russian anarchist. Perhaps, their Golden Rule is to “Live and let live”.
However, if we take a moment to analyze these “ideal” governments, or whatever kind of order those ideals believe in, we can see that there are major flaws that will accelerate society closer to hitting the floor. One thing these socialists ideas lack is regulation, regulation of people, safety, environment, money, resources, and many more. Without a strong, if any, central government, necessary basic human rights such as right to life, liberty, and property will not be effectively enforced? Who will enforce laws and regulate pollution? People will be allowed to rape, steal, and plunder all within the borders of their own country, because, according to the “Golden Rule” they are “letting people live” but just wreaking havoc on their home soil. If companies got large, they hold a puppet's hand over the citizens who want the goods, who want to work and earn wages, and who want riches. That being said, people will assassinate owners, not necessarily corporate owners or wealthy, but just because they have something the other person doesn't. With a central government, they will not do commit those acts of anarchy, and “freedom”, because those criminals fear the law. Although it is given that the Libertarians have some idea of order, they lack a few necessary things that are keeping today's world civilized, with the libertarian ideal; our country would be put under a lesser form of martial law. There are no regulators such as the Food and Drug Administration, therefore citizens would practically be eating health hazardous foods and goods would be defective, such as Toyota recalling 3.8 million cars to fix a defective gas pedal that puts everyone in that car as well as those surrounding the defective Toyotas at risk. If there was no government regulation, Toyota CEOs would still be relaxing while cars speed out of control and take a countless number of lives. They would not have to recall a single car because they are exercising their freedom, a key idea to anarchy and libertarianism, and other powerful people won't do a thing to stop citizens from living a proper and healthy life.
Now that we've gone all the way down the left side of the social line, let's take a look at who is on the right side, no pun intended. Opponents of the left wing politics are the conservatives and their depth of preservation and morally “old school” and traditional beliefs. In contrast to liberals and Leftists, the Right movement in opposition to the liberal way of thinking and ideals are the conservatives. They tend to support the idea of a small, limited government whose military is unparalleled in the world; they are anti-union, pro-corporate, morally traditional, anti-tax, and pro-capital punishment. Conservatism, defined in Latin as “preservation”, has a tendency to go against new, Leftist ideas such as universal health care. But in a world that is constantly changing, the government cannot always be so steadfast and unmoving, there must be a way to move forward while preserving the good old morals, thus, the neo-conservative, was born.
Stemming from the mid-20th century, this new hybrid class came to dislike the Leftists and Great Society of boosting equality at the price of existing freedoms, but yet holding onto some other liberal ideas such as social welfare but at the same time having conservative beliefs like having a “laissez faire” economy. Neoconservatives still believe that United States should be proud of its unrivaled military power and be unashamed to use it to combat threats. They want to expand and build the U.S. empire, establish it semi-permanently, for example, by defending the key point of Israel at all costs as a stronghold in the Middle East. However, although the United States has the capability as a world military, “New Conservatives” tend not to use a show of force. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are “more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law.” (Neocon) But where a liberal would vastly cut down military spending, the reality is that without a strong military, many parts of the world are eager to pick at any crack in the fortress of this glorious nation, where if we didn't keep something in check, then the whole wall would come crumbling down.
All government ideologies include national security in their agenda, even anarchism, but to what extent will they pursue it? For example, if we allowed a threat such as the terrorist attack of September 11th to go without any retaliation or response, then the terrorists would continue to attack and our national security would be at risk. In “Courting Disaster”, Marc Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for Bush elaborates on how we thwarted many other terrorist attacks. What he reveals is a shocking, thoroughly documented account of just how close we came to suffering follow-on 9/11 attacks, how so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” (including waterboarding) were directly responsible for unearthing the actionable intelligence that foiled them, and the extraordinary measures the Bush administration took to stay well within the bounds of what was not only legally but morally right. However, liberals argued against the interrogation techniques, instead they wanted to settle it diplomatically, but, how do you be diplomatic towards people that have no laws they govern by? Liberals do not want to continue to use force, they are closing Guantanamo Bay and shutting down operations that are necessary for national security, therefore inviting the next attack. While we may never know what kind of “enhanced interrogation” techniques the CIA used, what we do know is that there were no more attacks on the U.S. following 9/11, and therefore making the CIA's job effective and well executed. That is the very reason why military spending is necessary, to keep the Americans safe at home, knowing that they are safe to sleep at night.
However, many Leftists claim that because of our tendency to overprotect our nation and our often too-willingness to “retaliate” and respond to global threats that will lead to our demise. They say that it's because we don't regulate the economy, it collapses. They say because we don't promote enough government spending that there is poverty and people suffering throughout the nation. The government spends too much on our nation's penal system and not enough on education and human rights. The government also needs to allow sexual freedom and gay marriage while at the same time tax the rich and successful to allow the unfortunate people have more. While all of these ideas provided by liberals may sound like good ideas, they are actually illusions, leading up to a collapse of the nation's financial system and allowing people to break laws easier and get away with it. What seemed like a perfect plan in an attempt to create a near-utopia, has one major flaw, there is no foundation for liberals to build it on. There is a negative budget, the government has no surplus and money is hard to come by, and by imposing all of those ideas, it's only going to take its toll on our nonexistent reserve money.
The policies imposed by liberals and Leftists are short-lived, because they spend money that the nation doesn't have and instead of using the collected money to pay off national debt, they just use it as a down payment that later leads to more debts. For example, the U.S. as of today is under a debt of $5-trillion dollars, and still we continue to spend and create more social welfare programs and create new projects with a non-existent budget. It is because we regulate the economy that parts of it fall out, parts that were deemed “unnecessary” were part of the economy cycle, and the circulation of money is halted and the economy enters a recession. Take General Motors Co. for example, their bankruptcy in 2008 was because they did not adapt to the changing times quick enough and that because they were unwilling to change, they failed. They still thought the American people wanted gas-guzzling, powerful engines that offered low miles per gallon versus the imports that offered more miles per gallon. As a result, the American people turned to those imports and GM did not respond to loss of sales, and they collapsed. The government should not pick them up and fund them and nurse it back to life at the cost of our nation's tax money. However, it might be due to this “invisible hand”, which really isn't invisible anymore, that has started the recovery process. We will never know might have happened if the U.S. government did not step in.
According the A New Contract with America, Brownback says that 70 percent of government welfare funds are not reaching the bottom, where they're supposed to go. Only 30 percent of all the money that is invested and spent stops at the middle, where the “professional” personnel in charge think that they deserve the money that is supposed to go to the poor and people in need just because they did a little more paperwork(Brownback). What we need to do is stop creating more of these programs, and just create a task force to ensure that the tax-dollars spent on those programs reach where it is supposed to. The more programs that are built on this foundation, where under it is many trillions of dollars of debt, the harder this nation will fall. The liberals need to stop lying to themselves and to the nation and start fixing things before the foundation gives out and the country is sent in a downward spiral.
Conservatism, although deemed as the “stupid party”, is also the party that has outlasted every other party, going back to the age of monarchs to the present, this old guard's mentality has still been here today, and trying to preserve the values we hold onto. Change is good, but too much change that come too rapidly will eventually lead to a collapse of what the change is built on, where it stemmed from, the nation's wealth. “The liberal, in American parlance, has been a man in love with constant change;…commonly the liberal has tended to despise the lessons of the past and to look forward confidently to a vista of endless material progress, in which the state will play a larger and larger role, and a general equality of condition will be enforced.”(Kirk) However, with a world that is constantly changing, we cannot be committed to the old ways, we must be committed to the best ways to allow this nation to expand and grow.
Therefore, neoconservatists are the balance in this scale, allowing change to come at a pace that is healthy for the nation. Social welfare programs are good, but we need to make sure things get to where they are meant to be, not lost at the hands of greedy personnel that think they deserve more than the people who barely scrape by on the streets. America is and needs to be a dominant world power in terms of military and diplomacy, an honorable nation that is morally traditional. Justice needs and will be brought upon those who have wronged and human rights will be regulated, still abiding by the Constitution in which this nation's government has trusted in for over two centuries. And by restoring these principles, we as a nation will always stand united as one, indivisible, under the unwavering American flag.
1) "What is Libertarianism?." Libertarianism.com (2003): 1. Web. 4 Feb 2010. <http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm>.
2) "Quotes." Mental Anarchy 1. Web. 4 Feb 2010. <http://www.mentalanarchy.com/quotes.html>.
3) "What is a Neocon?." Classic Liberal (2009): 1. Web. 5 Feb 2010. <http://the-classic-liberal.com/conservative-what-is-neocon/>.
4)Kirk, Russell.”Who Are the Conservatives?” Writing the World. Revised. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000. 231-32.
5) Thiessen, Marc. Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack.. Washington DC: Regnery, 2010. III. Print.
5) Brownback, Sam. "A New Contract With America." Writing the World. Revised. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1994.