The False Assumptions of Conservatives

It is highly likely that this post is merely a report on my own self-inflicted angst.  After all, I live in Texas, the home of grand illusions, and I actually read Facebook and watch Fox News.  All in all it appears to me that as a nation we have arrived at a position where history and science are ignored and false beliefs form the foundation of our national goals.  I fully recognize the risk in milking the sacred cows and pointing out that the emperor is in fact naked, but there is so much poppycock and balderdash floating around out there that I cannot live with myself if I do not protest.

Many of my friends and acquaintances are conservative.  They vote Republican.  They placed the leadership of Texas and the US in the hands of conservatives and they still lament government action or inaction.  It surely must strike them as at least odd to awaken to a world where conservatives control government and the world grows worse each day.  If not, then they are among those conservatives who would rather not think, would rather not review what we know versus what we believe.  I think the conservative angst exists because conservatives operate on a foundation of false assumptions.  We hear those assumptions from a host of conservative leaders, articulated in ways that imply these are some kind of bedrock truths.  Not so.  So, here I go:

There is an assumption that the United States of America was founded by conservative Christians and based on Christian principles.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Those who left Europe to come here were either fleeing religious persecution or seeking economic opportunities not available in the caste system of Europe.  Nothing scared our founding fathers more than a government attached to a set of religious beliefs.  They railed against it.  They placed that right up front in the Bill of Rights.  Never again should the state persecute citizens based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  In Europe Anglicans persecuted Catholics and vice versa.  The colonies were populated by French Huguenots, Catholics, Jews, Dutch Calvinists, German Reformed Pietists, Scottish Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, and other denominations all of whom were fearful that the state would declare one of these beliefs as “the” belief.  Add to that widespread belief in astrology, alchemy, and witchcraft and the US was a hodge-podge of pilgrims seeking a safe place to believe what they wanted without state interference, without the state telling them what they should believe.  The very best evidence of this beyond our Constitution is the philosophical statement the Treaty of Tripoli, the earliest statement we have from an act of Congress regarding the relationship of our government to Christianity. This is Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, a Muslim state, in June of 1797, passed unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington, etc., all wrote in clear language that the government should never be based on one religious belief system nor should the government ever act in ways to support one belief system over another.  The assumption that the USA was founded on Christian principles is just flat false.

There are economic assumptions that persist despite the fact they have never, ever worked.  The worst of these assumptions is that if we reduce taxes on the wealthy and on corporations there will be more economic growth.  That has not ever worked.  In fact, every time it has been tried the results have not only been negative they have been nearly disastrous.  Hoover argued that in the 1920’s and we got the Great Depression.  Reagan argued the same thing in the 1980’s and triggered a national debt beyond anything ever seen.  Bush 2 tried that in the first decade of this century and we got the Great Recession of 2008.  Trickle-down economics, supply side economics, whatever moniker is used, does not work.  It does not work for anyone but the wealthy.  Why so many lower and middle income people still believe this is beyond me.  Only those making more than $400,000 per year will benefit from the Republican proposed tax plan.  In simple terms, if one wants the economy to improve and jobs to be created the simple thing to do is to put more money in the hands of more people in the lower areas of our income brackets.  They are the ones who then go to stores, buy homes, etc. and stimulate the economy through increased demand.  The producers will not increase production if no one has money to buy their products.  This assumption is false.

Akin to the supply side nonsense is the government regulation nonsense.  Reagan laughed at the phrase, “I’m from the government and I am here to help.”  That is sarcasm if the government rep is talking to producers.  It is the truth if the government rep is talking to producers on behalf of consumers.  Maximizing income and profit is an incredible motivator and producers will reduce costs if they can to increase revenue.  Safety is expensive.  If you are the only producer working to keep your employees in a safe environment your costs will be higher than every competitor.  If the government requires all producers to practice occupational safety the playing ground is even and workers are safe.  The same is true for securing the safety of our food.  The same is true to protect us from pollution.  The same is true to protect us from harmful ingredients like lead and asbestos.  On and on.  If producers did all that voluntarily there would be no need for regulations.  Producers won’t because it adds to their cost.  Only if they are all required to do it will it happen and be fair.  The same is true of regulations regarding banks, hedge funds, stocks, etc.  If the regulations disappear consumers are put at risk even though those in the financial industry will make more money.  Government regulations are a good thing.  Seat belts, smoke detectors, monitoring pesticides and fertilizers in our rivers, ensuring the safe packaging of our food, etc., etc. are all good things.  To stop any or all of these regulations helps producers make more money and threatens the safety of consumers.  The same false assumption that providing more money to the wealthy and to the producers via taxes proves false for reducing regulations.  Yes, regulations are expensive and a pain to producers.  But reducing birth defects and other societal ills make them worth it.

Wrapped up in all this poppycock is the corollary assumption that the government that governs least, governs best.  Or again from Reagan, “Government does not solve our problems, government is the problem.”  Never has a bigger load of horseshit been dumped on the American public.  So, Harvey hits Texas and Irma hits Florida.  Who do we turn to?  Government.  First responders, FEMA, National Guard, NOAA, Coast Guard are all governmental agencies.  The very conservative governor of Florida was on the television this morning assuring Floridians that the he was from the government and he was there to help.  He talked about all the resources he is bringing to bear, yada, yada, yada.  In times of conflict and times of crisis we always turn to government for help and solutions.  When the economy crashed in 2008 the very first people standing in line at the government trough were the very corporations who contribute to candidates that want to reduce regulations.  They were not shy about accepting government support when they needed it.  They just oppose government support for others when they themselves do not need it.  The more we reduce government regulations, government programs to help the needy, the more hypocritical this assumption becomes when the wealthy need governmental help.  In fact, the only reasons to actually oppose government help is that it costs money, generated by income tax, and these folks are not willing to pay taxes for services they do not need to help people who are in need. 

And finally, for me, the conservative assumption that what I believe to be true is true despite all the evidence to the contrary.  It is anti-intellectual.  It is anti-science.  Such a believe is at best medieval and at worst pre-historic.  I am so sorry, but climate change as a result of human behavior is real.  No matter how much the fossil fuel industry wishes it was not real, it is real.  I am so sorry, but evolution is real.  It is verified over and over and over.  I am so sorry, but the earth is not flat and is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years old.  I would argue that if you believe climate change is a hoax, evolution is not real, the earth is in fact 6,000 years old and Donald Trump cares about anyone other than himself, you should be required to forfeit air conditioning, internal combustion engines, cell phones, computers, microwaves, etc., etc.  To taste some of the fruits of the tree of science and then deny the existence of the inconvenient fruits is so hypocritical lightning should strike.

The evidence for everything I have listed above is public knowledge.  It is available to anyone who seeks to find it.  How the wealthy have talked so many working poor, so many hourly workers, and so many Christians into buying this bilk is beyond me.  I remain astounded.  But I also remain convinced that the conservative philosophy is self-serving for the wealthy and is grounded on false assumptions.  If this is a shock to you, I am sorry.  Get your information from somewhere other than Fox News, the pulpit, Brietbart, Rush Limbaugh and the like.  Those folks all have a self-serving, not a people serving, agenda.  Until we become the liberal nation we were set up to be we will continue to struggle.

Perhaps next I should address the basic assumptions of liberalism.