If today was a bounty of liberal thought on the op-ed pages of the Lincoln Journal Star it was much the same for the Omaha World Herald in terms of conservative writers. Now, the Omaha paper generally publishes 12-15 letters to the editor per day, making them a reliable source of interesting letters, so it’s not as surprising to see a spate of pretty conservative letters, particularly since the Omaha World Herald leans to the right. And while liberals scored a shut-out in the Lincoln paper, the Omaha paper publishes enough letters that 5 of the 13 today were relatively non-political. The remaining letters were various shades of conservative, with four in particular showing a rather impressive strain of conservative thought.
First up is an irresistible little letter titled “How I define ‘liberal'”:
It appears to me that [an earlier letter writer], an apparent liberal, doesn’t know what the word “liberal” means. Let me explain it in a conservative kind of way:
A liberal is a person who wants to take the hard-earned money that I earn and give it to someone who has not earned it–without my permission.
I hope this will steer those who don’t know what “liberal” means in the “right” direction.
It appears to me that the letter writer does not actually know what his taxes go to support. Since income taxes are a pretty big chunk of change, let’s take a look at the 2007 Federal Budget broken up by type of spending to see what his taxes support:
The largest share goes to Social Security, which almost by definition is money supporting people who have earned it since you get Social Security based on past income. The next largest share is national defense, which I assume the writer fully supports. Medicare, like Social Security, goes to support the retired. Somehow I doubt the letter writer is referring to the elderly when he talks about people who haven’t earned his support. That brings us to 54% of the total Federal budget.
And finally we come to the section of the budget that I imagine he is envisioning when he complains about taxes going to support lazy bums. “Income security” programs include unemployment insurance, temporary assistance for needy families (commonly known as welfare), and health programs aimed at children, the poor, and the disabled. I guess the children and those disabled from birth haven’t really done much to earn his financial support either, but I doubt that those are the people he’s talking about either. I imagine his real gripe is with the fictional “welfare queens.” However, anyone who’s taken the time to read the TANF requirements will quickly find that no one is getting rich off of the program. So in the end, the part of taxes he doesn’t like is about equal to the amount we spend paying down the national debt.
Well, allow me to offer my equally-glib definition of a conservative: A conservative is a person who wants to enjoy the services supported by the government without paying to support them. I’m pretty sure that’s not what conservatism is about, but sometimes these letters make me wonder.
Next up is a letter hearkening back to the better times of the 50s and complaining about Obama. You know, that candidate who would have had a tough time voting in the 50s had he lived then:
U.S. Sen Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s main campaign promise is change. Do we really want more of their change?
Life used to be sacred. Democrats changed that, and Obama is promising to make it worse. Marriage used to be sacred, but Democrats and activist liberal judges are changing that, with Obama’s full support. Television and radio programming used to be clean and family-oriented. Now there is extreme violence and pornography, and the liberals want to blow it wide open.
Creation, the Ten Commandments, prayer, Christmas and Easter, the Bible, patriotism, responsibility and faith in God used to be a part of the public school curriculum … We used to be an openly Christian nation. Now the words “separation of church and state”–found nowhere in our Constitution–are rammed down our throats.
Two years ago, the economy was strong. That has changed since the Democrats took control of Congress. Can we really handle more liberal, anti-God change? Remember, without God, we will become “one nation under.”
Yes, times certainly were better when the wife was the property of her husband. Or am I going too far back in time? It’s so hard to tell. Let’s see if we can pinpoint exactly the era to which this writer wants to return: “under God” was added in 1954, so it wouldn’t be earlier than that. A ban on teaching evolution was ruled unconstitutional in 1968, and teaching creationism was struck down by the Supreme Court again in 1987 because it violated the Establishment Clause. See, there is actually a portion of the Constitution that enforces the separation of church and state, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It turns out that the English language has more than one way to express an idea. The exact phrase “separation of church and state” comes from Thomas Jefferson, in a letter where he was explaining his views on the interactions between the two. The fellow might have some idea on what the phrase in the Constitution means, seeing as how he helped write the thing.
I guess life being sacred ended in 1973, although here’s a fun fact: in the olden days abortion was legal up until the “quickening” (the baby’s first movement) because that was when they believed it became alive or was ensouled or something. I can barely understand what some conservatives believe now, much less what they believed a hundred years ago. And the sacredness of marriage must have ended in 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned miscegenation laws. Or perhaps that isn’t what he’s referring to? So hard to tell sometimes since the things threatening to destroy marriage change so quickly. You know what is destroying marriage? Disney. High expectations on love in marriage have made the whole adventure a great deal trickier.
Finally, the bible is not actually banned from classrooms; it can be taught in terms of literature, culture, and impact on history. What it cannot be taught as is literal or religious truth. The Supreme Court has held religious instruction in public schools unconstitutional since 1948. Since “under God” wasn’t added until six years later, I guess this golden era must never have existed. How surprising. And if believing in god helped the economy run more smoothly the Chinese wouldn’t be doing as well as they are. I suspect is has more to do with the emphasis a society places on education. And the useful sort, not the religious kind.
The most interesting parts of the next two are just snippets, so be aware this isn’t the entirety of the letters:
Democrats refuse to let the Republican proposal go to a vote in Congress. While emotions and other factors have taken the price of oil higher, the main driving force is supply and perceived future supply.
The price of oil has been falling since President Bush lifted the executive order banning offshore drilling, and Congress has been debating the issue. Maybe there’s no relationship between the two, but another reason for us to extract more of our own energy is danger from unexpected surprises like Russia’s invasion of Georgia.
First off, the phrase you’re looking for is “supply and demand.” Perceived future supply is important too, but demand is the real biggy right now. In fact, dropping demand is the reason prices have been falling: since the start of 2008, Americans have consumed an average of 800,000 fewer barrels of gasoline per day. That is great news. And I’m really looking forward to a day when we’re relying on wind, solar, and tidal power so Russia won’t have an incentive to invade Gerogia to make sure they (Russia) control of the flow of oil.
Last, and certainly least, is one of the more hateful ideas I’ve seen expressed on the opinion pages. I may disagree with people on offshore drilling, but I understand where they’re coming from (even if I think they have the facts wrong). I have fun disagreeing with those opinions (mostly because I can out-statistic the heck out of them). But tragedies like the shooter at the Unitarian church always seem to bring out the worst sort of small-minded hatred:
All of us should pray for those from the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church who have been affected by that horrible shooting. However, I would like to ask: Since Unitarian Universalist don’t call everything sin that the Bible calls sin, could they call this shooting wrongful and sinful, which is was?
Unitarian Universalists are a diverse group of people, so I really can’t say what all of their opinions on the concept of “sin” might be, but to a person they would call the shooting wrong. Right and wrong are not the sole possession of a single interpretation of a single religion. There are perfectly functioning ethical systems, better than most religious ones I would dare say, that don’t rely on gods to imbue an action with rightness or wrongness. The shooting was wrong because it hurt people. It has nothing to do with gods. And you know what else is wrong? Using a tragedy to make your smarmy, repellent argument about following the bible. Unitarian Universalists are some of the nicest, most ethical people to walk this planet. They would probably even listen to your point of view and offer a polite rebuttal. So it’s a good thing I’m not a Unitarian so I can heap on the scorn that sort of petty thinking deserves.
But, of course, a Unitarian Universalist blogger can make this point more elegantly and politely, and a quick google check finds one that already has, with an article entitled “The Myth of ‘Anything Goes’ and Unitarian Universalism.”
So what I get from this is that Unitarians are polite in their rebuttals to your support of big government.
Don’t be ridiculous, Unitarians Universalists would thoughtfully support me! (The majority of practitioners are politically liberal, in addition to being theologically liberal.)
How much opposition to a large government is based on inaccurate assumptions about the amount of funding that supports welfare or foreign aid? Because Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense–the big expenditures–seem to enjoy widespread support.
I paid into social security for 40 years, and congress took my money and spent my money on their favorite pork barrel projects rather than properly funding Social Security.
This is what large government does, take your money and in return you get a mess of pottage.
“Marriage used to be sacred, but Democrats and activist liberal judges are changing that, with Obama’s full support.”
No one has ever said that religious people won’t be permitted to continue to treat marriage as sacred. Go to it! Knock youselves out! What they should not be permitted to do is dictate to everyone that only their brand of marriage is acceptable.
I personally advocate for government getting out of the marriage business entirely and overhauling benefits systems so they are more fair and equitable to single people and people with openly-acknowledged multiple partners. Equal protection and all that.
“Television and radio programming used to be clean and family-oriented. Now there is extreme violence and pornography, and the liberals want to blow it wide open. ”
Last time I checked there were many sources of TV programming for children and adults who wish to avoid sex and violence on TV. Certainly religious conservative institutions have the money to fund as many of these channels as they would like. If they can bring the viewers needed to make them financially sound, why not? Again, they simply have no right to dictate to the entire population what is appropriate viewing material in their opinion or according to their religion.
I’m a UU, by the way.
Suppose, I hope you’re exaggerating about the mess of pottage. After working for 40 years you deserve to enjoy a comfortable retirement. But I think the idea of the Social Security trust fund paying for your retirement with your own taxes is a polite fiction. The people currently supporting your SS payments are young workers such as myself. And the system will continue to be able to completely pay benefits until 2042 according to the Board of Trustees and the AARP. Even at that point, the amount coming in from young workers will be 70% of the total benefits. An increase in the eligibility ages and perhaps a small decrease in benefits for the wealthy would seem to cover that shortfall quite adequately. Of all the issues facing Congress, I would think that would be one of the easier ones.
Anita, I agree with you entirely. Thank you for making that point so well. If I felt the need to go to a church, I would definitely chose the UU. I have a great deal of respect for their social activism work. Blessing same sex unions since the 1960s is very impressive, not to mention its incredible work for civil rights and abolitionism. To see someone suggest that UUs don’t know right from wrong, it’s more than a little galling.
My retirement being paid by my taxes is not so because as I pointed out the US Congress used my money, as I said, for their own pork barrel projects.
That is why young people such as yourself and my grown children are funding the payments. But the whole system is going deeper in debt because they are still using the SS tax revenue for government projects other than what it was intended, and floating government bonds to help keep afloat this gigantic pyramid. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Franklin Roosevelt said Social Security revenue would never be used for anything but to fund the system. These are what government promises amount to.
[…] on Sat 22-11-2008 Taken in by Craigslist Spam Saved by MomokoBishounenLuvxD on Thu 20-11-2008 ⇒ The Omaha paper will see the Lincoln paper’s three liberal … Saved by mystoandpizzi on Tue 18-11-2008 Lincoln-Douglas debates hit 150th anniversary – San […]