Part II: The Dialogue Continues Into Personal Responsibility

This post is a continuation of the prior dialogue. The conversation veered into issues of personal responsibility. You will see that, regardless of which side you take, there is a clear distinction between the two viewpoints. As a conservative, I do not separate my values from my politics. I do not believe policy should be made on the basis of what "feels good." The institution of "welfare" undoubtedly felt good, yet, as noted below, resulted in the destruction of the black family. We "feel" bad that gays can't marry, so we'll change a definition that has existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Government agencies that are meant to protect us (the FBI, Homeland Security and the military) have purged their training manuals of any references to radical Islam or jihad, so as not to hurt the "feelings" of Muslims in this country. When policy is based upon feelings, rather than truth and logic and common sense, one should not expect a positive outcome. A final note: I agreed in advance to give the reader the last word.

TU: Do you think trial and appellate judges are more persuaded by logical and consistent arguments or illogical and inconsistent arguments? Logic and consistency form the essence of persuasive writing and debating. As to why liberals do not care about logic and consistency, see the January 18 post.

R: I agree in a court logic and consistency should and do prevail. But human beings do not operate on logic and consistency alone. As a matter of fact, they often behave illogically and inconsistently and emotionally. So people vote and behave in significant part on feelings and emotionality and the gut intuitive sense of what is in their best interest, or what makes them feel more secure, or what makes them feel better. Your appeal to individual initiative, responsibility and hard work is laudable. But taken to its logical conclusion creates a very stressful situation in life that many people do not want and cannot handle. The truth is that many of our fellow citizens are not as capable or intelligent or as motivated or emotionally strong as we would hope.

The Reader continues: So just as the far left cannot impose a collective, communist, radical agenda on most of the people; strict conservatives cannot impose a strict individualist and conservative socially agenda on most people. The majority of people are somewhere in the middle. It means they don't want any overly socialistic and regulated society. At the same time, they don't want an overly competitive society in which it is stressful and in which there is an absence of a reasonable level of security, especially in old age and with regard to healthcare. I think conservatives miss the point that most people do not want to face a life of ruin or bankruptcy, due to a fear of serious illness or death within the family. It can be worse than the loss of some freedoms and choice. If Republicans don't speak to those needs it should not be a surprise to see electoral defeat, despite logic and consistency.

TU: I think that every social scientist now agrees that welfare led to the destruction of the black family unit in this country. Previously, the black family unit was strong. Look at the outcome: kids without fathers drop out of school more, are more likely to get lower paying jobs, are more likely to end up in jail, and more likely to have kids of their own at a young age and outside of marriage. As Larry Elder says, it is a liberal elitist attitude that essentially treats others (be it Blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, whatever) as being unable to take care of themselves. With all due respect, your family is a perfect example of what I mean. Both you and your wife work hard. All three of your adult kids have significant disabilities, yet all of them also work hard. It is a testament to the values that you and your wife instilled in them. Yet, you do not believe other people are capable of taking care of themselves.

TU continues: Respectfully, I agree with Elder that it is a paternalistic, elitist attitude. That does not mean I would get rid of every single social program. It does mean an extreme rethinking so that we do not create the wrong incentives in people - and that's what most of these programs do. I am not mean spirited. Rather, I have learned from 35 years of dealing with injured people that it is far healthier for them to return to the work force than to be home collecting benefits. They feel better about themselves, feel better mentally, and are productive members of society. Conservative values are better values. You and your family live those values. You just do not believe living like that is good for anyone else. Again, see my 1/18 post.

R: I agree on rethinking incentives. But the policies you advocate need consensus. That means an uplifting, inclusive message and tone, so people will vote for and support your ideas. No matter what Larry Elder says there are people less fortunate, sick, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, etc. I work with them daily. Yes, there are fakers and lazy people. Yes, the welfare incentives have been horrible. Still, the black middle class is rising dramatically, and we have a black president. Corrections need to be made, but conservatives need to get elected to implement their policies. They need an uplifting, inclusive message. People need to be won over, not browbeaten.

TU: I do not need a "consensus" to know the right way to live. I know that you do not either. I also know, without consensus, that it is the best way for others to live. Consensus will never determine my values. That does not mean, however, that we do not need articulate Republican candidates to explain why conservative policies are better. Better for the individual and better for society as a whole. I do not know, however, that you believe conservative values are best for society. Obviously, there are some who need assistance. But the big picture is that we need to restore conservative values to our homes and our schools. It sounds like your comments still consider conservatives as the "other," not ones that you identify with. In other words, I cannot tell if you would argue for a return to the conservative values that you and I live by.

R: In the beginning we were talking about gay marriage as a public policy issue. I did not think we were talking about our individual beliefs or values with respect to gay marriage. They are two different things. As a matter of public policy I believe that it is the right thing to do now. My values versus the values that I wish to impose on other people are sometimes two different things. I think you would agree that a fervently evangelical Christian or an Orthodox Jew have very strong values that are legitimate and mostly worthy of praise. But you would not agree that those values should always be imposed on the larger population. One can be fervently religious and still believe in the separation of church and state, and respect that others think differently. You said you don't need consensus to determine your values, but I thought we were talking about public policy.

The Reader continues: So it seems that we have been talking about apples and oranges to some extent. I don't see that having values means being inflexible with regard to those values. I don't mean moral relativism. I mean just taking into account that sometimes core values compete with one another. I can basically believe in the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility without also being opposed to upholding the value of taking care of fellow human beings. It is clear that certain people need help. From a purely libertarian point of view there would be no taxes except for public security. That means all help would have to come from charity. If there's not enough money for charity, too bad. So the government started to step in. Yes, it can go too far the other way. Yes, there is corruption and faking and waste in all social programs. There's also corruption and waste in our most sacred programs, such as the military. So I agree with you that the social programs need to be rethought and reconstructed to minimize fraud and abuse and to maximize incentives. I really did think we were talking about public policy and that is why my themes were centered so much around political dynamics and political consensus.