The Current Condundrum of the Conservative Party

     In today's times, conservatives have shifted so far right that they would reject Ronald Reagan if he campaigned today with his couple-decade old ideologies. Reagan was actually in favor of background checks, something that no republican, tea-party supporter, establishment, or libertarian, would ever be in favor of. Indeed, instead of shifting ever so slightly liberal as the passage of time should do, they have become more reactionary and unchanging as the rest of the world has moved onto the twenty-first century. The party still opposes gay and abortion rights, issues that almost all other first-world countries, even ones with conservative parties in charge, have granted. Even the drug wars, which the majority of the country is against, which costs billions of dollars, which is listed as the causation of the majority of arrests in America's top-ranking prison count, are supported by the supposedly fiscally responsible republicans. The military-industrial complex is so bloated that it is bigger than the next twelve biggest military budgets (including China and Russia) combined. Surely, it is plain that such policies, when looked at with some critical analysis, seem counter-intuitive. What can over-spending and over-regulating accomplish? Especially when republicans complain about an overreaching government when these policies do just that? Evidently, the answer to these questions cannot be synonymous with the general well-being to the country. It seems that all venues to do so leads to more sinister motives. The problems are two-fold: there is an imbalance of power due to the stratification of wealth and its potential influence in the current government, and the subsequent propaganda that cloaks this problem with other trivial concerns. Thanks to Citizens United (an ironic name, as is usually the case with regressive bills nowadays), entities, usually corporations due to their vast wealth, are able to make unlimited political "contributions," or legalized bribes. Such a problem is further complicated by the fact that the average election to run for the house or senate requires millions of dollars just to have a chance, resulting in a dependence on external support. Naturally the corporations, who traditionally donate the most, have the greatest influence. The answer to this problem is plain enough; just repeal the bill, right? Although such a solution is obvious and of no conceivable detriment to any individual, it sorely lacks the attention it so rightly deserves due to heavy propaganda. Perhaps the most glaring and, paradoxically, subtle proof to this statement is the average Joe's insistence that the media is liberal. If this astounding statement were true, then clearly the country would shift left instead of right over time due to its undeniable influence over the citizenry. Gay rights and drug wars would end before they started. Instead, the opposite is demonstrably true. When George Bush called on for war, claiming that his administration had solid proof that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction," every single media outlet reiterated this unfounded and highly dangerous sentiment constantly. There is no doubt that had the media not constantly bombarded their watchers with demonstrably false information, the U.S. would not have went to war nearly as quickly, perhaps not even doing so had the actual facts had time to surface. Even if one were to argue that although that it is not the case today, the most recent Syrian crisis disproves such an argument. Even now, when a democrat is in charge, the media went wild with stories insisting the U.S. had to go to war. Although this particular point may be attributed to the democratic party's own rightward shift, the fact that the republican party considers itself more extreme in matters of war makes matters far worse. By doing such ludicrous reporting, the media has shifted the gazes of the public away from more important matters such as education and representation. Even traditionally liberal media outlets support corporations, as is the case with Erin Burnett. The extreme shift to more reactionary methods has been so severe that even notable democrats such as Feinstein have gone so far as to propose legislation that severely limits the First Amendment Rights of practically everyone. Dubbed the Free Flow of Information Act (again ironically so), the law is being presented as a shield law when in fact it actually takes away protections of free speech of everyone that have always existed under the Bill of Rights except salaried journalists, i.e. virtually everyone except the establishment media. Senator Feinstein magnanimously stated that she "is not going to go there," referring to protecting the rights of bloggers and otherwise average people. The bill has passed the senate and is moving on to the house for a vote. Even though some democrats and a few republicans oppose such ridiculous bills that seem to be proposed every other day now, almost all republicans are invariably in favor of them. The republican party has been losing more and more voters since Ronald Reagan, meaning that if it is to survive it has to at least partially shift to a more reasonable and less restrictive, anti-middle and lower-class position on its policies. In the past, such thinking of a mainstream party would have been cast as mere lunacy. But more and more people agree that the government is becoming extraordinarily unresponsive to everyday people, and that it must be more connected to the majority constituency. As the democrats have followed suit to become more conservative, the republicans must become more moderate for the betterment of all of America.

States Versus Federal: a Pattern to Follow

     American history is filled with disputes between the state and federal, between the individual and the collective, starting before and during its founding as was the case of Shay's Rebellion going all the way up to modern times in the marijuana debate. Perhaps the most pressing question in relation to this dynamic unique to America is what is the right choice. The question is not what is lawful or not, as that is already evident: the federal always supersedes the state in terms of the rights of the citizen and influence. What is still ambiguous is when it is considered okay to go against the will of the collective. For example, when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation that was stated to free all the slaves(although the Thirteenth Amendment was the real cause), many of the southern states went into open rebellion and seceded. Through the luxury of historical hindsight, it is universally agreed upon that the South was wrong to do so. Often times, liberals laud the South for going against a federal edict, going so far as to call them traitors(a word that is used too often throughout history), with Southerners being equally preposterous in their continued support for the Confederation and of secession. Although it appears that liberals have a sort of hypocritical streak: they are against secession when it applies to the southern states, but favor the Washington and Colorado initiatives to legalize marijuana. Clearly it seems that they only favor their agenda and are against other viewpoints. Although this point is valid to a large degree the issue, as clarified before, is not the clear subordination of state authority, but when civil disobedience is "correct." For example, it is virtually guaranteed that marijuana will be legalized in the U.S., probably in the next twenty years. As such, history will look back on Washington and Colorado's actions as revolutionary. In contrast, history widely condemns the the southern rebellion. The ultimate distinction between the two lies in the moral high ground, that is to say, one side was in favor of more rights towards a certain group of people. Such a trend has been the case throughout all of -recorded history in general; as time goes on, people tend to see eye-to-eye and abandon "conservative" values in response to modernity, the very same force that the people who are in favor of continuity enjoy. Thus it is clear that the side that favors greater rights, exemplified through precedence, is correct. While this standard may not seem fair, it has ironically held constant. In today's policy-making, a rule as plain as this cannot be ignored.    

LR- Societal Obligations: Responding to the Social Contract Theory Video

     In modern times, the ideologies of Locke have been  the most heavily adopted of the three, in particular the social contract theory. The question to answer, therefore, is when is its implicated actions, be they peaceable protest or downright rebellion, are justifiable and in extension applicable to the 21st century. One way of analyzing such a massive and ambiguous question is examining its claimed uses in U.S. history. Among the first of such rebellions against the fledgling American government was Shay's Rebellion. The event gained steam, as though all farmers had been in high debt due to new farmland applications, the government of Massachusetts was the only state that did not have any pro-debtor measures. For this reason, the farmers revolted in armed protest. Though they were put down quickly by the governor's organized militia, many people disliked the harsh reaction and the event inspired similar, smaller-scale rebellions throughout the country. In contrast, the Whiskey Rebellion was a phenomenon caused by farmers revolting against a whiskey tax that would cut into their profits. The rebellion too had disgruntled farmers fighting against an apparent imposed tyranny. But in this instance George Washington responded quickly with an army numbering in the thousands to utterly crush the crusade. What differentiates the two is not just the manner in which they were crushed and their exact reasons, but also a sort of tacit line that was crossed in the second. When the first rebellion occurred, it was a mostly isolated instance due to a relatively unresponsive government which Washington likely did not feel merited a federal response. Even though he did not support the protest, he might have held some sentiment for its legitimacy. In the second instance, however, the issue was Congress's ability to levy taxes. If some ragtag farmers could challenge the government, than anyone could. Thus Washington responded so decisively and harshly. In doing so, their was a sort of implied difference formed which communicated a leniency for "justifiable" rebellion, in which the constituency did not receive treatment held to be reasonable, versus a forceful assault that meant that no action would be tolerated if the action in question clearly violated the Constitution. True, both were eventually put down violently and both failed, but nonetheless the different responses to the crisis by the federal government showed a strong division from right or wrong. Indeed if the protest was peaceful, perhaps in the form of a petition, the farmers would have no doubt received some compensation for what was deemed a crucial duty. In effect, the social contract in America can be seen as a sort of unstated web of response: if one is constitutionally justified, that is to say in accordance with Locke's suggestion of protest due to an unresponsive government not backed by a constitutional necessity, then it gains traction. Perhaps the most important ingredient is that dissent remain peaceful, especially in present times due to the increased destructive capacity, to gain true legitimacy throughout a country. For if an adamant and comprehensive chorus is raised, a government without fail will respond, likely in a reciprocated mannerism.  

Free Post on Government

     The role of government in the U.S. should be more isolationist than its current form, which seems like it wants to intervene in every conflict that arises in the world. What originally spurred growth in the U.S. prior to the 1920's was a relative adherence to that rule, being truly active only in the west hemispheric portion that was relatively close geographically to the Continental United States. Of coarse they were involved in conflict, but it was close enough to be considered a feasible variable in national security. In addition, the conflicts helped to build up the size and power of the United States as a whole and did not solely appease a specific special interests group, like the annex of Texas. It can certainly be argued that Hawaii was added due to its crops which were profitable to the corporations in that field, but this argument does not consider other implications which set this event aside from the ones that trouble contemporary times. First, and to stress a previous point, Hawaii is quite close to the U.S.A. Thus, it can be seen as a strategic base to directly protect the U.S. as it is advantageous to post soldiers there. One of the common misconceptions that plague most people of the modern age is that people who are against foreign intervention are against any sort of intervention. Although a few individuals might reflect this ideology, most obviously do want the U.S. to focus its efforts on keeping peace. The key difference is that many people do not want to support wars half way around the world for an indefinite period of time with no clear victory or defeat; such a standard tends to decrease morale and hamper the American Spirit which is still valued today. Also, Hawaii had a very pro-American stance just before annexation,  to the point where they more or less asked for it. Its populace had been changed so that a significant amount of well-off Americans inhabited it. Third, it was also good for national trade. Now one might claim that intervention in the middle east is good for oil companies, but again such a point fails to consider the differences. Most oil companies are based in far-off foreign operations as that is where they obtain most of their staple product. The addition of Hawaii directly gave the U.S. a much-needed and otherwise nigh-unobtainable boost to various crops of profit and import. When oil companies receive control over oil, the price rarely goes down at all. In contrast, a conflict in this region tends to shoot the price up. Thus intervention in this region only helps the corporations and actually hurts the general U.S. population as a whole. Most people are indeed for corporations if they can provide the whole of the U.S. with something necessary and ethical. One may say that times have changed, and that the U.S. can never revert back to its isolationist roots. But such thinking is fatalistic and does not adequately address the problems of modernity. As time goes on, most societies become more industrial and as a consequence demand more autonomy. Whether American decides to intervene or not, the world will continue to progress nonetheless. Such believes to intervene anywhere where any lobbying group or rebel faction demands it is not plausible and more of a reflection of the country's rightward shift into Neconservativism. Just over fifty years ago Eisenhower, a Republican president and World War Two general, commented that the U.S. as it was could not hold itself together if it continued to hold so many bases so far away. If such a conservative and military-minded individual would think that way in a relatively recent period of time, it speaks volumes to the sordid state of affairs that America is in today.