Heh - any of my lefty critics care to respond?

ed.

Actually Busboy it was more a Protestant work ethic and idea of self-reliance, that is why it was ok to fund soup kitchens and such for those who failed. You were expected to try hard for yourself first, and if you looked capable you’d be looked upon as someone who did not try. The view of Christianity today is not the same one that built this country and evolved with it.

I can’t say that I agree with this post but it has given me some things to think about, and I think that is a good thing.

“I would hope that our liberal friends read the preceding and understand why conservatives cannot and will not support the Obama version of national health care reform. It is decidedly not connected to our traditions, or our customs, and in no way can be supported since it posits ‘change’ as some kind of mythical ‘progress.’”

I understand . . . but I disagree.

The same argument could be made for sufferage, or Civil Rights. The magic dividing line is what the definitions of “traditions” and “customs” are. These are emotionally resonant words, but they lack meaning. We had both a tradition and custom of owning slaves . . . does that mean that Conservatives opposed civil rights and Emancipation because “we never did it that way before”? They thought is was the moral and good course of action, but it wasn’t “tradition” or “custom”?

We have a tradition and custom of Christian mercy and charity in this country. We have tradition and custom emphasizing community (and the common good) without disrespecting individuality. I could easily say that these traditions and customs put healthcare reform squarely in line with our past.

I could say that . . . but it wouldn’t be true. I’d be twisting the meaning of “tradition” and “custom” to suit my ends.

Just as you are twisting them to suit yours. You use those terms for their emotional hook — not because they are inherently “good”. The Right publicly prides itself on being the “moral” party — are there any Reds who will publicly defend slavery? Denying the vote to all but White Male land-owners? No (Dear God I hope not). I assume they won’t do that because it’s just wrong, tradition and custom be damned. You note that trying to go back to a 19th century society is tantamount to killing ourselves. At some point, we as a people need to break from tradition and custom. The question should be is this one of those issues with which we should break from tradition and custom, and if so why?

Sometimes . . . “tradition” and “custom” are wrong. Sometimes you have to say “that’s just not right” even if it is the way things have been done. Attitudes and behavior become tradition and custom because people have followed them . . . but they were new and different once.

Disagree with HC reform. There’s plenty to disagree about. It is good and right that people have different opinions.

But don’t hide behind a reverence for the past as the reason. That’s the coward’s excuse.

The Onion headline for January 17, 2001:
“Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’”

It’s actually a little creepy to read the entire thing, even though you won’t. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

You have laid the predicate for a 2010 excuse. I suppose that if Obama continues to unravel and looks as vulnerable in 2011 as congressional Democrats do now, you then will write his pending defeat means nothing.

Where to start? Maybe with acknowledgement that poll after poll after poll shows Americans have grown more conservative, not less, since Reagan. Similar polls show rejection of larger government, despite your claims of disconnect. Maybe that the Bismarkian Big Government “conservatism” you implicity or perhaps inadvertently endorse was a hallmark of the Bush/Rove Administration, which you rejected. So maybe Big Government conservatism is a good thing only while the GOP is out of power? Maybe that Disraeli was separated from the socialist welfare state by a century. Kirk would seem to support your theory but/for the public doesn’t want the change you claim.

You reject empirical data and distort history to support theory, yet you decry others as “ideologues.” Jesus Christ, man. You have descended into utter dogma and might want to re-evaluate a few of your shibboleths.