Moving from the abstract to the concrete
Published Tue, Nov 11 2008 1:22 AM
Technorati Tags: Conservatives
I've been repeating the call to educate the electorate about conservative principles and values for some time now, and especially since the election. It's something we must do if we want to get our message across. Getting that message across is something we must do if we want to regain the liberties that we have lost over the last 150 years or so, and it's something we must do if we want to return our nation to the principles that made it great and can make it even greater in the future.
Individual liberty. Individual responsibility. Smaller government. More accountable government. States rights. Sensible and sane foreign policy. These are not just abstract ideas, but they sound abstract if that's all we say about our platform and our ideas. We need substance and not mere platitudes. If the people want platitudes let them go listen to the other guys. They will anyway, because after all the other guys are better at that than we are.
Barack Obama and other “liberals” ran on a campaign of “change,” an abstract notion if there ever was one. Not that the left can truly afford to run on specifics. Many a commentator has noted how it was that whenever he gave a prepared campaign speech Barack Obama was clear and articulate in his message. Many a conservative commentator has noted too that whenever he had to deal in specifics about his positions, or respond ad-hoc to criticisms of his past or his proposed policies that he lost that articulateness. His speech became filled with pauses and stuttering.
I believe that this was due to the fact that he felt the need to hide his true positions from both his supporters and from the middle. Otherwise, much of his support would have evaporated. There were gaffes aplenty during the campaign, from Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, and even from “the one.” Focus was quickly diverted from these errors of specificity though and the mantra of “change” was intoned from on high again and again.
Tonight, as I was driving home I chanced to hear David Boze on the radio and something he said got me to thinking again. As conservatives, we can't let the same thing happen to us. We should never be afraid to stand for our values. If we're genuine conservatives we shouldn't hide our ideas behind rhetoric or stammering. But an abstract recital of our ideology won't cut it either. As we develop candidates and as we educate one another and the independents and moderates about our values, we've got to present concrete examples of how conservative ideals and values can impact the lives of the people we're trying to reach.
As an example, conservative politicians tend to be against such jobs destroying policies as minimum wage hikes. Simply coming out and saying that it's a bad idea isn't going to cut it, because the left will simply turn it upon us and say that “conservatives don't care about low income working families.” And we let them get away with it if we don't explain carefully why minimum wage hikes actually hurt the low income working person, or at least people trying to get a start in the job market.
We as conservatives know that the simple truth of the matter is that small businesses, and the ones most likely to offer minimum wage jobs in the first place have a limited revenue stream to work with. Forcing them to pay ever higher “minimum” wages typically means that they must cut expenses elsewhere, or offer fewer jobs. For a business working on a small margin it generally means fewer jobs.This of course means that less work gets done, unless there's a rise in individual productivity. Less overall productivity will end up cutting into the businesses' bottom line, with the possible outcome that even fewer jobs become available. It's not just bad for the business, it's bad for the potential labor pool as well.
A change in the minimum wage rate rarely matters to skilled labor, or to people with more experience. These people seldom are working at minimum wage in the first place. Even in the fast food industry, minimum wage is the starting point. Good, reliable workers will tend to earn raises over time. I remember my experience with this all too well. In my college years, I began a minimum wage job as a fry cook, flipping burgers. Over time, I learned the job well, and learned other jobs for the restaurant. I earned wage increases.
True, they were small, but I wasn't working there to make a living, I was working to help pay my way while I went to college. I had room and board through the graciousness of my parents, and the money went to pay for tuition, books, and a few extras. Once I finished college I started looking for a real career, and I wasn't about to take minimum wage in that job.
Anyway, it seems that each time I earned a wage increase, the state would follow up by increasing the minimum wage a month or two later. I would work my backside off to earn that increase, only to find that I had essentially wasted my efforts as the minimum wage increased to the point where I was back at minimum again. The state literally took away the incentive for working hard and learning new positions. What, after all, is the point of working hard when people that don't work as hard get the same increase in pay simply for showing up?
So increases in the minimum wage rate tend to reduce the job pool for potential workers. They tend to result in increased unemployment in the people that need those starter jobs the most. They tend to decrease productivity among the people earning minimum wage and for the businesses that provide those jobs. Further they result in disincentives for those same people that might want to get ahead. These are concrete reasons why a conservative might oppose a minimum wage hike.
This is the sort of thing that we as conservatives need to present when we teach others about our principles and values. We need to teach people not only what those values are and where they come from, but how they will affect the people we're trying to reach.
Sure, it's more work than the “change” mantra and empty promises. But then, conservatism isn't about empty promises. It's about liberty and responsibility. And, in the end, conservatism is compassionate in all of the ways that socialism isn't. Individuals after all have compassion. Bureaucracies don't.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1275
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/11/11/1275.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Marshall Art responded with:
 | Abso-freakin'-lutely! You've hit the nail on the head. We can look at the Bush administration for an example of what not to do. Even with his shortcomings (amnesty, Harriet Meiers, etc.) he, or his spokespeople, could have done a lot more to explain what they were doing and why they thought it was a good idea. They could have done the same for that which they already did, as well.
Keep in mind also how few Obama supporters could articulate just what it was that they saw in the man that led to their voting for him. They could not defend an Obama position even if you gave them help with it. In the meantime, I was prepared to illustrate why our side, even with McCain as our guy, was still a better choice for THEM, as it was for me.
But it won't be easy. Doing the right thing rarely is. But to stay with it, first learning ourselves just what the hell it is we're defending, and patiently (because they like to shout you down) explaining and then, and this is important as well, challenging them to explain why we're wrong, if they can. |
Angel responded with:
 | empty promises indeed my friend..sigh |
ablur responded with:
 | Your dead on. I have used the minimum wage as a key example many times. The minimum wage and a living wage were never meant to be one in the same. This combination is more of a forced private business welfare program.
We need to focus on clearly articulating our position and its success focus. We may need to point out the opposing view and how it is a detriment to that which it tries to fix. Clear fundamental thinking with real world examples often win out in the end. |
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | Change may be abstract but in the context of Obama politics it is certainly vague. Appeal to the idea of change and let those with no appreciation for scrutiny embed their own notion of what that means translate into votes for an enigma.
Minimum wage is a fine example of government trying to look compassionate to win votes. Rather than foster the ideals that occupy great minds which advocate the gratifying experience of armiing one's self with the tools for success through the hard work of gaining knowledge and skills necessary for a good life, legislators allow their craft to promote reliance on others for all one needs.
Maybe the 'can do' crowd will prevail despite the growing number of those who feel entitled to everything the 'can do' crowd produces. |