Thursday, October 30, 2008

clearly ambiguous

As the election draws near, I have been thinking a lot about my own position. Yet the more I think of it, the more torn I am. The problem with the bipartisan system is that you must necessarily choose one or the other. One must force himself into either a square or a rhombus hole, even if you happen to be a triangular peg. Even more difficult is that Christianity doesn't fit easily into either. In my opinion, if Christianity were to become its own political party, it would be right-leaning on social/moral issues and left-leaning on economic and taxation issues.

Social conservatism and Christianity strongly overlap; the two are mostly in agreement with respect to marriage, divorce, homosexuality and abortion. But not the whole of conservatism is in agreement with Christianity. When it comes to taxation, the conservative tends to take the view of "every man for himself." The conservative says "I worked hard for my money, so why should I have to give it back?" Thus, the safety nets like health insurance are to be kept to a bare minimum. But this is a tricky issue. In an ideal world, people should be giving anyway. Unfortunately, they don't. In a secular society, then, there has to be some way to ensure that those who need assistance get it (with limitations on abuse, of course).

Likewise, conservatives believe that the market economy should be kept free and government regulation kept to a minimum. The problem, of course, is greed. Without regulation and enforcement, greed is bound to take hold of major corporations whose sole purpose it is to increase its wealth and size. This focus on profits necessarily leads to a disregard of morality. Even Greenspan - a strong advocate of free markets - has conceded his grave error.

In short, certain aspects of conservatism work in an ideal world - where people willingly give to the poor, use guns only for self-protection, and corporate greed is nonexistant. But such idealism is a fantasy and is downright dangerous.

No comments: