Now it appears is the time to coalesce around the apparent nominee, Mitt Romney. Let me be among the first to say: GLADLY!

First of all, I am satisfied Mitt is far superior to the train wreck of a sham we have in the White House currently. He stands head and shoulders above Obama in terms of experience, background and ethics. Very few could do worse than Obama in these departments. Mitt will excel from Day One, in all areas.

Put it this way: There won’t be any “bimbo eruptions.” There aren’t likely any Communist/Maoist/Socialist boogeymen lurking in Mitt’s past, always tainting his every move. Just isn’t gonna happen. You now have, in Mitt Romney, the very definition of “squeaky clean.” Relish that!

One thing we can do in the primaries to come: Provide Mitt with the groundswell of unanimity he deserves. Vote Mitt, and give Obama and the MSM pause for thought – and some quaking – at the groundswell of support he’ll receive.

Another thing you can do is to familiarize yourself with Mitt’s past, his positions and his plans. Become an advocate, a defender, a champion. Whatever your circle of influence, however large or small, the call is made for you to become a representative of the Conservative Cause that’s coming. Lin with others in your community. Introduce yourself, and become a player wherever you may be. We need you!

Now, turn your thoughts to the Vice President. A very solid pick would be any number of Republican Governors, Senators or Congressmen. Among those touted during the primaries are/have been:

• Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida

• Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
• Allen West, Congressman from Florida
• Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
• Nikki Haley, Governor of North Carolina
• Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin

Not to be discarded, and certainly needing no introductions:

• Rick Santorum

• Newt Gingrich
• Rick Perry

ANY of these individuals would be wonderful, and would get a LOT – a LOT! – of the base fired up. All are solid picks who would benefit the ticket in any number of ways. To be sure, no one is without fault, but any one is a whale of a lot better than Joe Biden.

After Vice President, pic a GREAT cabinet to replace the Marxist and Misfits (but I may repeat myself!) currently infesting the administration. Personally, I think Steve Forbes would be an EXCELLENT Secretary of the Treasury, for one. I also would like John Bolton for Secretary of State. Any of the above named individuals could find useful – and welcomed! – service in the Romney Administration. Sarah Palin, too, I hope will be given an opportunity to bring her fiery brand of Conservatism to play.

Next, we also MUST bring a Republican (and by that, I mean Conservative!) Congress into the mix. By retaining control of the House – and expanding our majority with solid Conservative, Tea Party types, we will give President Romney one-half the tools he needs to make the necessary changes to save this country. We also must “de-throne” Harry Reid in the Senate, and give the Conservative GOP an unshaeable majority in that chamber. Now is the time to turn your gaze to the local House and Senate races in your state, and chip in for the victory we need.

It is never too late to start to bend the ear of Congress – and Congress-Critters-To-Be! – about what we expect from them. Job One will be the immediate repeal of every vestige of ObamaCare. Job Two will be to foster a climate of trust and predictability in the U.S. Government, which will include deregulation and simplification of the onerous ties that bind the gears of economic production. Simplify the tax code, and lower corporate rates to spur the economy. Make America THE place to do business again, with low – the lowest! – corporate tax rates and the highest skilled and productive worforce in history. Break the literal stranglehold of unions on business, especially public unions.

So, we know where we’ve been, we know where we wanna go, and we pretty much know how to get there and what to do to make it all happen. To undecideds, petulant hold-outs and winter patriots, we say, “Lead, follow or get out of the way!”

I’m excited! You?

I have been pondering for a few weeks now the Elitism exhibited by the Current Occupant of the White House, and others like him ensconced in socialist regimes, dictatorships and autocracies the world over. (Perhaps I repeat myself.) In the movie, “Hunger Games,” released yesterday, you can see the elitism in the character of “President Snow,” played with chilling icyness by Donald Sutherland. It seems there is a common trait of all these that needs to be examined so we can deal with as we encounter it.

And encounter it we surely will.

An Elitist possesses an arrogance proclaiming, in deeds if not in actual words, that he is “better than you.”

How did he come by this? What led him to this conclusion?

Here are a number of indicators:

• Careful preparation by teachers and mentors along a time-tested path.

• General replacement of humility with pride.
• Disregard of dissent, and no consideration given to the possibility that the elitist may be wrong.
• Fostering an air of Superiority, Arrogance and Infallibility.

I have always heard that humility is the state of being “ready to be taught,” and humility is a good thing. It is an admission that you don’t know it all. Usually, you have been brought to a state of humility by a series of frustrating setbacks when you try to show you know what you’re doing, but not really. Humility doesn’t come from being wrong. Humility doesn’t come from repeatedly making the same mistake over and over. It only comes when you admit that you don’t know what you think you know, and you turn to someone and humbly ask for help to do it right.

Obama can talk a good game, can lend literally hundreds of millions of dollars to “green” company after “green” company, only to watch them fail (hard) time after time, and yet he is not humbled by this. He arrogantly continues on in his pattern, thinking his status as an Elite will see him through to success.

But until he turns to the American People and admits he has no idea what he is doing, and asks for help from someone who does, he will not have gained the humility sufficient to the task.

You can see this, surely. No one can tell Barry anything. The American People, by margins approaching 80 percent, say they do not want ObamaCare. The American People, by approximately 75 percent, say they want the KeystoneXL Pipeline. The American People, by 60 percent, say they do not think the Gub’mint should be telling the Catholic Church – or any church! – what they can and cannot do.

Arrogantly, Barry presses on, ignoring what everyone is saying in these and other matters. It is precisely this arrogance that will get him into trouble. “Pride,” as they say, “goeth before the fall.”

We, the people, should be on guard from here on out against anyone who arrogantly promises to “fundamentally transform” our way of life, and who meddles so meticulously in our every activity. Americans used to be on guard for this, but we have been lulled into believing that someone better than us can make everything right, and that someone resides in Washington, D.C.

It just isn’t so. And cannot be.

As Bill Whittle (seen here) says, even the Smartest Man in the World cannot possibly know all the minute details necessary to run each and every person’s life. Even the 10, 25 or 1000 Smartest Men in the World, gathered in Washington, D.C., (gathered anywhere!) cannot possibly know what is necessary to run even a small gas station in the remotest part of, say, Alaska. They just can’t do it.

Yet they assert that they can. And no one can tell them anything different.

As Bill Whittle puts it:

“Humans are unpredictable and often unreasonable. Any equation with human nature in it becomes chaotic. Two humans are chaos squared, and the variables involved in 300 million humans making up the U.S. economy can be described as chaos to the three hundred millionth power. The only way to even try to get a handle on such a number and on such complexity is with 300 million individual processors, spread out all across the country, each making individual decisions on those events closest to them. Ten processors, a few thousand miles away in Washington, even if they are twice as fast as any single one of the 300 million out there, is massively – massively! – inadequate to the task. Conservative distrust of elitism is not, as guys like Bill Maher would have you believe, just jealousy on the part of NASCAR-loving rednecks who are too stupid to get into a good school. Distrust of elitist thinking is based on its historical failures, the moral repugnance of people who make the claims in favor of an aristocracy, and especially on the fact that it just cannot work due to a massive failure of intelligence.”

The real problem becomes, not that Barry is so arrogant, but that Barry has power in his hand that his arrogance uses to affect real people. For him and the other elites in Washington – the “Ruling Class” – it’s all about control, not efficiency.

That should scare you.

“The Sovereign is not in Harmony with Heaven, and the Ox destroys the Field.”

To bring it into modern terms – the here and now, if you will – consider this real-world scenario.

The company has been ordered to implement “Activity Based Compensation,” or “ABC.” Basically, it’s “piecework,” where a worker is paid based on the amount of pieces he produces. Produce more; earn more. (Forget, for a moment, that W. Edwards Deming, himself a figure of Lao Tzu and Sun Tzu proportions, said piecework was dehumanizing and companies should do away with it. If for no other reason than adherance to Deming’s Holy Writ, I concur. It’s a faith thing.)

So the edict has come from On High that ABC will be implemented. Production Targets need to be set. Empirical Evidence gathered for six workers over six months shows an average of 11,500 units per hour. One worker hits 16,000 fairly regularly, but he’s the exception.

The Sovereign – in this case, a Vice President – wants the Production Target set to 25,500.

Has it hit you yet?

The Soverign (Vice President) is not in Harmony with Heaven (the Empirical Evidence), and the Ox (the unrealistic production target) destroys the field (the production floor.)

But the Sovereign is the Sovereign, imbued with the power of Life and Death, and those who cross him do so at their peril.

So what is the soldier to do?

I asked him how he managed to produce video for a customer, and he said, “We only produce ‘footage’ that’s ‘good enough for the customer,’ because producing at a finer resolution or smoother pacing or faster frame rate costs too much.” If I remember correctly, he charged somewhere in the vicinity of $75 per finished second of video.

Now I find myself in a similar situation where I can see the need for higher quality, but I meet resistance from people who consider what we currently do as “good enough,” and there’s very little, if any, enthusiasm for taking operations to a higher level.

Case in point: We often use handwritten records to capture data required by federal auditors, should we ever get called on the carpet for our operations. (Specifically, we track check stock used when printing check jobs, required by Sarbanes-Oxley.) These handwritten records are dutifully filled out and turned in by print operators at the end of every shift, and values from these hardcopy sheets are transferred by hand by diligent QC workers into electronic format, (another Excel spreadsheet.)

Now, we meet our Service Level Agreements (SLAs), so everyone’s happy, and there is no impetus for changing the way we do things.

I, however, would like to be able to field Excel on computers on the production floor, allowing print operators to directly enter data into the spreadsheet, and enabling QC operators to copy and paste into the master record. The benefits, as I see them, are numerous:

• Reduced data errors due to transcription errors

• Availability of data in electronic format for analysis and management decision-making
• Reduced hardcopy storage requirements

To name just a few.

I am the ONLY champion for digitizing the process; everyone else thinks we’re getting by as is, so why mess with success? No resources would be devoted to changing over to an electronic/ database system. And I’m wondering just how much energy and enthusiasm I should expend implementing this when I am, in essence, swimming against a tide of molasses.

In a bigger sense, I am constantly amazed how much we’re willing to accept mediocrity as the standard, when excellence is so close.

No. Such. Thing. As. Free. Lunch.

Let me illustrate by using one of the simplest implements imaginable: the humble Q-tip.

I bought a box of these from the Dollar Store a couple of weeks back, and if memory serves me (and it’s an iffy thing some days!), there were at least 100 Q-tips in the box. (Maybe more, but let’s just go with a hundred.)

So, for a penny apiece, someone has figured out how to manufacture these little critters and still make a profit. They have to buy cellulose in bulk and machine it to uniform lengths and diameters. They also take cotton and wrap a consistent amount around both ends so that it stays securely fastened to the shaft. Is there some sort of glue involved? Maybe. Then there’s the plastic bubble package, and the cardboard back, which has to be printed with such niceties as the manufacturer’s name, the brand name, all the features the Marketing Geniuses^tm; have come up with, and all the warnings Gub’mint wants slapped on there so some idiot doesn’t impale his or her brain from the side.

Consider all the people who have to be paid to crank these little hummers off the assembly line and get ‘em into your hot little hands: Purchasing agents, Salespersons, Administration, Machine Operators, Truck Drivers, Dollar Store employees.

At a penny apiece. It’s pretty amazing if you think about it.

But even the little miracle that is the Q-tip costs SOMETHING. What kind of dolt does it take to believe that even a Q-tip can be provided for “free?”

The next question’s even more infuriating: What kind of an evil political person promises to provide ANYTHING for “free?”

That’ll get you thinking!

Now, who’s gonna tell me that health care is – or even can be – “free?”

Some suggestions, in no particular order, to help you if I can:

Gotta put to rest any notions that you may be secretly squishy down the road. You need to COMPLETELY disavow your stances on health care mandates, global warming and any vestiges of love for Big Gub’mint solutions. A Catholic term will come in handy here: Mea Culpa. Use it and extricate yourself from the Swamp of Supposed Squishiness.
• Abandon your attacks on the other GOP candidates, especially those that appear to disparage wealth, or highlight the gap between the wealth of one candidate versus others. That smacks of Class Warfare and – worse, in my book! – displays an alarming propensity for Envy, which if I am not mistaken, is one of the Seven Deadlies. You also need to get away from the notion that wealth is somehow a product of “not work.” Hereditary wealth, perhaps, but the kind you’ve been dissing these past few weeks is actually the product of quite vibrant Capitalism.
• Turn your considerable intellect toward the REAL Enemy, Obama. You’ve done very well in debates by highlighting the Liberal presumptions in the media’s questioning. Just ratchet that up a notch or two by highlighting the Welfare State’s presumptions, and attacking the Current Occupant of the White House’s complicity in these schemes.
• You need to distance yourself from your self-professed Progressivism. Glenn Beck, among others, is doing yeoman’s work in highlighting this dangerous creed, and your continued association and identification with its practitioners of yore – like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR – is not earning you any bonus points with a crowd that is increasingly aware of the danger from this sector. You may have a shallow historical affection for these figures, but surely, it can’t be on the depth of their convictions of Progressivism that you admire them so. If it is, Heaven help ya, because you’re as destructive as they wanted to be, albeit perhaps at a more measured and stately a pace. Makes no difference, in the end, you’ll get us there just as surely if Progressivism’s your Guiding Light.
• So help you, if you earn the nomination and there are other allegations of marital infidelty lurking out there, you will justly deserve the contempt and scorn of everyone. We do not want to be waiting for any other shoes to drop, and you cannot trust anyone in Gub’mint or the media – probably all sides of the media! – from delving into and disclosing that crap if it exists. Do a little soul-searching, and if there is ANYTHING out there, you either need to drop out for the good of the party and the country now, nothing less will be acceptable. People are hitching their wagons to YOUR star, and they don’t want to be in the vicinity if you go nova, in a very bad way. Ditto any allegations for lobbying or other Gub’mint activities.

Good luck!

Mitt, from a wanna-give-you-the-benefit-of-the-doubt possible supporter, some notes, in no particular order, to (hopefully) help your campaign:

If there are less-than-honest characterizations of your opponents in campaign literature or advertising, please clean them up and rise above that. Admonish any associated PACs to do the same.
• If there are “dirty tricks” practiced by your campaign staff, please clean them up and rise above that.
• If there are any inconsistencies or omissions or inaccuracies in any documents your campaign releases, clean them up and do a full confession.
• Humility and thankfulness for every vote and every supporter is in order. No more talk – especially among campaign staff! – of having this or that asset “in the bag” or “in your back pocket.” The illusion of a rich man buying the election is not a positive one for you. And no more declarations of “it’s over” when the handful of delegates awarded still does not yet give you the majority you need. It ain’t over ’til it’s over!
• Try to embrace Tea Party and Conservative principles: Limited government, fiscal conservatism and free markets.
• The first priority is to defeat Obama. Turn your considerable intellect and passion toward the true target, and rally support for that mission behind you. Abandon attacks against other GOP candidates, and the support (and delegates) will follow. You claim to be the most electable: Start proving it by beginning the fight againt the Enemy!
• Abandon your unqualified support of RomneyCare. Conservatives don’t like any state-mandated – and that means State AND Federal! – programs dictating to them how to lead their lives in every little detail. Without Conservatives solidly behind you, you don’t have a prayer in the general election.
• Use your business acumen to its fullest advantage. We have had politicians without an ounce of business sense at the helm for too long now, and we need someone who’s been in the Driving Chair, cutting the red tape, trimming the fat, greenlighting the cost savings, sparking innovation and leading from the front in an arena he knows! Added Bonus: Appoint Steve Forbes, another excellent businessman, to be your SecTreas!
• In debates, which you’re already very good at, start to turn to showcase Conservative principles in your answers, and target Obama more, and concentrate MUCH less on the other candidates.
• You also have to start distancing yourself from “Establishment” Republicans who’ve been in Washington for too long. There’s plenty of corruption to go around, and it doesn’t all have a Big “D” after its name! If you truly believe you’re an outsider on a mission to clean things up in D.C., start to show us and convince us. (This may involve ditching McCain.)

Yours to win or lose, but you can only truly win – and not just the primaries, but the general! – as a Conservative. What we’ve seen so far isn’t the most glowing example of Conservatism, but only you can prevent this forest fire from consuming you.

Good luck!

BLECH!

Watched a GREAT movie last night, “Judgement at Nuremburg,” in which Pragmatism was the central subject of the film. Four Nazi judges were on trial in 1948, for their roles in furthering the Nazi state through their jurisprudence. A secondary theme was the U.S. Military’s pressing need for the German people’s support as the Berlin Airlift was just beginning.

The Nazi judges’ defense was that they were doing what needed to be done to protect their nation, and all their actions could be characterized as “rescuing” Germany from the depths of Post World Wat I depression, and then later under the Nazis, of supposedly sacrificing a few to save the many.

The Military’s pressure on the American Tribunal was to be more lenient in sentencing the Nazi judges, because the German people would look more kindly on the occupying powers in the face of naked Soviet aggression, then just beginning.

In one of the final scenes from the movie, Nazi Judge Ernst Janning (played by Burt Lancaster) has a visit from the American Tribune Chair Dan Haywood (played by Spencer Tracy.) The following dialogue about the Holocaust (from my own, imperfect memory) follows:

Janning: “We never thought it would come to that.”

Haywood: “It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death who was innocent.”

This, I believe, is a warning to our own Pragmatic Day and Age. Every step you take echoes in the ages, so every step must be made with integrity and thought given to the consequences.

It applies to just about everything, if you really think about it, but I believe it has special meaning as we head into the momentous elections this year. I have been watching two of the remaining four GOP candidates descend into bitter attacks, and I’m not sure either camp is fully cognizant of their own shortcomings nor the consequences of their strategies beyond the immediate political gains and losses. Both candidates have long histories of Pragmatic approaches to political maneuverings, one as a Republican governor of a very liberal state, and one as a Republican firebrand amid the swirl of political and personal tumult throughout his career.

Not only has a crass Pragmatism defined their political histories, but it informs their current strategies for winning the Presidential nomination, and makes certain assumptions about how they will be perceived and supported by those they purport to lead.

By examining their pragmatic histories to date, we can gain some insights into their characters,

By examining their current motives and execution of their strategies, we can also gain some insights into their characters.

And by examining their assumptions about us, those who will ostensibly be “led” by them, we can not only glean insights into their characters, but discern in our own some fodder for productive contemplation.

Personally, I can accept the pragmatism of their yesteryears, with a hope that they will have learned some lessons to enable them to more effectively lead in the future. It’s a guarded, stingy hope, perhaps tempered by my faith and experience with “mere men.”

Personally, I abhor the current tactics and execution of their campaigns. I had hoped that, in the one case, higher religious principles would’ve been invoked in the strategy and execution of his campaign, and in the other case, had hoped that higher Conservative principles would have been used in structuring his relationships with his opponents and in conducting his campaign. But apparently the Pragmatism is too strong in these, and that is a very bad thing.

In addition to these two candidates’ overweening Pragmatism, I have watched their various supporters go at each others’ throats with much the same abandon of either Religious or Conservative principles on their own parts. When an eventual nominee is chosen, will the rancor and bitterness on exhibit today give way to a shared sense of mission when the target becomes the Marxist in the White House? I am skeptical, until proven otherwise.

And the opposite side of that same coin needs to be examined from the candidates’ side: It seems to me that the two main protagonists in the GOP are making a very Pragmatic – and quite possibly very wrong! – assumption that the strife will be forgotten, acrimony will recede, and all will be forgiven in the end game of the campaign. I have seen numerous instances of what I thought were very principled and stalwart Conservatives declare they would definitely NOT support their chosen candidate’s opponent were he, the opponent, to be nominated. The assumption that the Conservatives will experience a Kumbaya Moment post nomination may be the most dangerous Pragmatic assumption of all.

So what’s the cure?

Can’t do anything about past history. What’s done is done, and we need to come to grips with that, both candidates and supporters.

In the present campaigns, an honest presentation of a candidates’ history, stances and platforms is needed, and among supporters, an honest evaluation of the pros and cons of each. But the bitterness and rancor exhibited by some needs to end. Don’t mind passion in advocating a particular stance, but cannot see how partisan sniping furthers the cause of Conservatism as a strategic concern.

And finally, a warning: Pragmatism will be rejected, most noticeably by the Tea Party, but as it redounds in society as a whole, by pretty much everyone. The cure for the Pragmatic Assumption is Principled Leadership. Only then will Conservatives – and quite possibly, Principled and Loyal Opposition – respond positively in the way it needs to be to enable us to work ourselves out of this mess we find ourselves in.

This is such a time.

I wish to draw some clear lines about Conservatism, in hopes that they will, first of all, solidify in my own mind the battle lines, and if possible, help others who may be struggling to find the sure handhold to grasp for the coming fight. For I firmly believe there will be a fight, and quite possibly not of just words, but fearsome blows. A good handhold seems like a decent idea, no?

In the long string of debates among the GOP hopefuls of late, there has been a noticeable lack of clear definition of Conservative principles as the fight has descended, too often, into inter-personal attacks concerning one person’s stance versus another’s. Too often, the underlying Conservative principle is unseen, or ignored, or forgotten. That can’t be good.

So, for the next few lines, I’d like to try to lay out some of the underlying Conservative principles as they pertain to the debate, and as they compare and contrast with the Opposition, and as they may pertain to the future fight. I probably won’t touch everything here, and will likely add others as the time goes on, or in future posts.

Conservatism, in my opinion, is the political manifestation of the philosophical stance of Existentialism: That is, Man’s coming to grips with his individual existence in the world. I make no apologies in drawing heavily from Soren Kierkegaard’s model, with the subjective (individual) examination of the Aesthetic, the Ethical and Religious aspects of life and living:

• The Aesthetic stage of life deals with a man’s coming to grips with himself and the physical world around him, and what makes him feel “good.” (VERY broadly speaking!)

• The Ethical stage deals with how man comes to grips with other men.

• The Religious stage attempts to come to grips with man’s relationship to a Supreme Being.

Kierkegaard generally saw man as progressing from one stage to another, with the Religious being the highest stage.

Conservatism, for me at least, consists of how I deal with life in each of these three “arenas:” How I deal with the art and culture and beauty of the world around me, how I deal with other people, and finally how I deal with my relationship to God. (In this case, it *IS* all about me!)

Now, government – or “Gub’mint” as I am wont to say! – is an institution of men among men to attempt to impose order in the affairs of men. As a Conservative, I recognize the need for government, but the BIG QUESTION for Conservatives is how much is enough? And what level of imposition is permissible in an individual’s life? In one sense, “Freedom” might be defined as the relative level of imposition of government on an individual or society. As a Conservative, I’m generally in favor of limiting Gub’mint’s imposition on individuals only as much as necessary to ensure general peace and freedom to conduct associations and business as the individual sees fit.

Conservatism generally rebels at the notion that Gub’mint should control individuals’ interactions and business, insofar as those associations and interactions don’t upset the orderly day-to-day progression of society or break any laws. You should be free to associate with whom you please, when you please, where you please, as long as you’re not breaking any laws or harming society. (It gets tricky, I’ll acknowledge that, but generally, I think this describes mainstream Conservative thought.)

To sum up in a few words so far: Conservatism is concerned with an Individual and his Freedom in relationship to Government.

Another important aspect of Conservatism is the principle of Private Property. This includes the concept of working to use one’s Private Property to benefit one’s self, and being allowed to reap the benefits of the gains realized from the use of that Private Property.

Conservatives generally agree that Gub’mint should exist to protect the Private Property rights of individuals. This can be done via laws which govern behavior, enforcement of contracts or agreements between individuals, and police protection and national defense.

All the people who make up and reside in the society, and who agree to live by its laws, and who contribute labor, taxes or goods and services to the society, can say they enjoy “sovereignty:” the right to participate in the society, to agree to the existing laws, and to try to peacefully and legally change those things they can when desired. This “sovereignty” is something Conservatives wish to uphold, because it represents one of the ultimate freedoms of any society: The right to determine its own course in the world, free from outside influences.

To sum up in a few words so far: Conservatism is concerned with maintaining the sovereignty of the Individual, his Freedom and his Private Property in relationship to Government, and maintaining the sovereignty of the Government as a whole in the world at large.

One last piece of the puzzle: The Constitution. Conservatives revere the Constitution as the overarching rule book with sets up the proper relationship of the Government to the Individual, in order to ensure the Individual’s sovereignty, his Freedom, the sovereignty of his Private Property, and the sovereignty of the whole structure in the world.

The root of the word “Conservative” is “Conserve,” meaning to guard the hard-won freedoms for the Individual, his Freedom, his Private Property, and the limits of Government. We’re highly suspicious – and jealous! – of any attempts to change the basic relationships I’ve described here.

Take taxes, for example. Is it fair to forcibly take a portion of one man’s labor – his Private Property – to give to another who has not participated in any way the earning of it? Do you see how Conservative bristle at the suggestion of “wealth redistribution?” Can you see why we get steaming mad at the liberals’ inability – or unwillingness! – to put a “hard value” on the term “fair share?” Can you see why we hate the fact that almost half of America pays NO INCOME TAX, while we have punishing levels – and threats of even more! – for those who are most productive? Can you see why that’s a big issue for us?

Take illegal immigration and voter fraud. Can you see why Conservatives – who live and work and play by the rules and expect all others to do the same – might be upset when illegals vote, or other people illegally vote in decisions where a person’s sovereignty – of his person, of his Freedom, of his Private Property, and of his Government as a whole – is usurped? The illegal actions of some threaten the integrity of the sovereignty of what we hold dear. Can you see why we view this as a problem?

Can you see why Conservatives have an issue with Gub’mint spending? Can you see how ever larger Gub’mint threatens to upset the balance between the Individual, his Freedom, his Private Property and the Gub’mint as a whole? When Gub’mint spends beyond its means, and chains unborn future generations to debt rung up for today’s luxuries, can you see why we might get a little upset?

I would venture to say that most issues of concern to Conservatives can be boiled down to this basic interference in the relationship of Man to his Freedom to his Property to his Government.

1. Education: Complete Elementary, Middle and High School – Diploma, then Go to College (Optional)

2. Work: Get a Job
3. Marriage: Get Married
4. Family: Have Kids
5. Live Within Your Means

The steps should be done in order, and if you get them out of order, you’re messin’ up!

If you truly try to live by the Social Contract, and make every effort, then, when and if a time comes that you stumble temporarily or fall occasionally, there are all kinds of help available, and gladly given with no shame or stigma attached. We have all the forbearance in the world for “can’t,” but have a very hard time tolerating “won’t.”

Everybody understands when someone can’t do something, because of physical or mental circumstances. Largely, society has no problem taking care of those who truly can’t. But “won’t” is an entirely different matter.

See, Conservatives have a hard time figuring out why it’s their responsibility to pay for the bad choices of people who buck the rules. You drop out of school and become a perpetual welfare case; how is that our fault, and why do we keep getting our paychecks raided when more and more people think this is OK? You have 7 kids by 5 different fathers none of whom is married to you, and why is this our problem? You can’t keep a job because you’re too insubordinate or drunk or stoned, and so you become a permanent fixture on the public dole. Why do our taxes keep going up for more spending to pay for correcting this cavalcade of poor decisions?

We need to attach some consequences to poor decisions and destructive behaviors. You drop out of school? No welfare benefits for you. You have kids out of wedlock? Loss of welfare benefits after the second child. You do drugs? Absolutely no Gub’mint benefits of any kind for you: No clean needles, no welfare checks, no food stamps. Make sure education at every level enforces the notion of the Social Contract, and clearly details the types of poor decision-making and behavior that will result in known consequences. There should be no excuses that one remains in ignorance after the 12th year of life. If kindergartners are expected to digest the nuances of sex ed, surely the subsequent years can be used to soak in some of the harsh lessons of life lived outside the rudimentary social contract.

If you’re a liberal, and your head hasn’t yet exploded, you’re probably screaming at your monitor about my insensitivity and cruelty and selfishness. How dare I limit anyone’s enjoyment of this life by my narrow rules!

But what you think are limits are like guardrails on a mountain road. We have rules to keep you – as much as we can – from negatively impacting society. Millenia of trial and error have shown that the disruptive or destructive behaviors – like dropping out of school, having kids out of wedlock, unwillingness to hold a steady job, doing drugs or alcohol to excess, or gambling excessively – have profound impacts on society as a whole. The ones who play by the rules and try to keep the social contract are getting sick of coming to the rescue of those who refuse, (not “can’t” but “won’t!”) Having to siphon off resources to keep rescuing your wayward asses from the ravines along the side of the mountain because you won’t even observe the limits of the guardrails drains our pockets and our reserves of good will. This detracts from our own abilities to keep to the social contract and trying to live the best lives we know how to.

It won’t take too many disastrous trips into the ravines before you might start to get the idea that that guardrail is a pretty good idea.

The guardrails along the mountain road are not limitations on your driving. In fact, they’re there so your continued driving is possible. What a concept!