Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:40:25 PM
I have noticed a difference between conservatives and liberals, at least some conservatives and liberals. Real conservatives, alone among all political views, can say that all politicians, of whatever party, are equally corrupt, equally given to mistakes and in all other ways equally prone to fault. On the other hand, most "moderate" conservatives, and all liberals, have to argue that the politicians of THEIR party are wonderful while everyone else's politicians are evil and immoral and incompetent.
Why is this?
It is quite simple. Liberals, and most of today's "mainstream" moderate conservatives are inclined to give government nearly unchecked power. As a result, they have to rely upon the competence and morality of their representatives. On the other hand, as a conservative, one truly inclined to give the government as little power as possible, I don't care. If the purpose of the state is limited to very small, clearly defined areas, then it matters very little which party is more ethical, or less. So long as politicians are sufficiently ethical that they do not openly flout the law, I don't particularly care which one is in office. That is so long as the government is properly limited to protecting citizens from force, theft and fraud, as well as settling civil disputes.
Which is why small government conservatives are alone in not playing the finger pointing game of "your guy's less ethical than my guy". I will happily confess that almost all politicians are rascals, and both parties have their share of reprobates. That actually makes a good argument for my position. If even the party I like more is still too immoral to entrust with much power, why would I want to give it any more than I have to?
Actually, if you think about it, immorality of either party argues against giving much power to the state. Unless you think your party will hold office forever, isn't giving the state power going to eventually give that power to those "unethical guys" in "the other party"? So, even if you think your party is the greatest, wouldn't you want to limit government anyway?
Then again, these are the same people who argue we are too incompetent to decide when we are paid too little, or what we should or should not eat, but that, as a group, we can be entrusted to decide ballot questions and select a government, so I suppose consistent thought is not their strong suit.