ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why Conservatives are Right and Liberals are Wrong

Updated on September 19, 2018
jackclee lm profile image

Jack is currently a volunteer at the Westchester County Archives. Jack has worked at IBM for over 28 years.

Introduction

What does the Constitution, our Economy, and Climate Change have in common? They are all part of our current political discourse. Our government institutions and how we are to be governed, our economic enterprises and our Environment are the three major areas of debate. I want to explore the differences between Conservative and Liberal thinkings. Perhaps, you will agree with me at the conclusion of my article that my hypothesis is correct. Even if you don’t, it is nice to read and consider both sides.

- Aug. 2018

The Constitution

Our country is ruled and guided by our Constitution. All elected officials, upon taking office, swear to an oath to the Constitution. Yet, when it comes to actual practice, we have two very different interpretation of the Constitution. That is one reason why many of our recent Supreme Court decisions are made with a 5/4 decision.

On the Conservative side, we believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Laws should be judged on their merit but also whether it follows the guidelines set by our Constitution. On the liberal side, they believe the Constitution is a living document. Open to interpretation as the time dictates. Conservatives, on the other hand, also believe the Constitution is a living document but with different meaning. They believe the Constitution can by ammended through the Amendment process. In our long history, there has only been 27 Amendments. The first 10 was encased in the Bill of Rights.

How do we reconcile these two very different views? That is our current dilemma.

Economic Systems

Conservatives embraced Capitalism and the free enterprise system. Liberals, especially of late, believe Socialism like what they have in Western Europe is a better way to go. They called this a Democratic Socialism. What does it mean? When you drill down, it is the policies that they support that defines their economic system. They believe in universal free healthcare, free education for all. They are for a bigger role of government in how commerce is conducted. They also believe in a progressive income tax system where the rich and the big companies would shoulder a bigger portion of the taxes.

Actually, we don’t need to rely on economic theory to reach a logical conclusion. This debate has been faught many times in the past. Every time, the socialist and communist has failed. Starting with the Soviet Union, East Germany, to Cuba, and Venezuela, and Greece to North Korea, socialism has failed to deliver. On the other hand, capitalism and the free enterprise system has produced the highest standard of living for Americans in all of human history.

The stock market is a forward leading economic indicator. No one can predict the future. However, current rises is a direct result of better economic prospects by companies and CEOs, and the belief that better earnings are in the future and investors has the confidence that they will be profitable.

The Last Two Years SPY, DOW, NASDAQ

Compared to the Last 5 Years... 2013-2018

Climate Change and the Environment

Global warming or the theory of AGW is a modern phenonmenon. Since 1990, a group of scientists have proposed a theory on global warming. They claim that human activities including burning of fossil fuel and the creation of CO2 gas as a byproduct is the primary cause of recent warming of the earth. The theory is simple but climate is much more complex. The scientists made a serious of dire projections going forward and they predicted a much warmer climate, increased hurricanes both frequency and intensity, and rising oceans due to melting ice shelf.

Something happened in the 30 years that followed. None of their dire predictions came true. Instead of taking a step back and re-examine their theory, they doubled down and incorporated the environmental movement. They now claim the CO2 is a pollutant gas. That our environment is being hurt by fossil fuel and that we need to createl a Carbon tax and offer tax credits to green energy such as solar and wind power.

That is where we Conservatives draw the line. We are for clean water and clean air and support the EPA in those efforts. However, we don’t believe the government should be involved with choosing winner and losers in the arena of energy production.

The recent tropical storm Florence is another example of how popular opinion does not lead to science facts. It started out as a Cat 5 storm but by the time it made land fall, it was down graded to a Cat 1. Despite the vast damage by the rain and flooding, it is not a “storm of the Century” as some in the media has portrayed it. Some weather men have used this event to say it is undenialble proof of climate change. Just the contrary. Check out this story debunking Al Gore and his claims.



Summary

In this article, I try to appeal to the common sense of people. I hope people can read it and digest it and even question it. I am not asking you to trust me but to ask questions and probe deeper. Ask people of authority and don’t just accept common beliefs. Verify for yourself who is telling the truth and who is spinning.

Knowledge is good. Good knowledge is better.

I only highlighted three issues in this article. You have to wonder, if Conservatives are right on these issues, what other issues they may be right about?

A Glimmer of Hope...

Recently, in 2018, a few indicators have demonstrated the time is changing. The monopoly of the media and the Democrats have been broken. Due to social media and alternative media such as talk radio and cable news, a few people are getting it. Two such persons, both millennials, have come forward. One is a gay hairdresser by the name of Brandon Straka who started the Walkaway movement and another a young black women by the name of Candace Owen. Both have came out against the Democratic party that they were born into and decided to walk away.

We Conservatives welcome them with open arms.

A new Documentary film from Dinesh D’Souza

© 2018 Jack Lee

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 weeks ago from now on

      Well Jack don’t be disappointed, as long as your friend doesn’t read it “he/she” might be able to remain friends.

      One thing you may have noticed here on hub pages is the libs have a different definition of an internet troll than you find in the dictionary - to them anyone who questions what they say or proves them wrong or calls them out on their left wing talking points or diabolical liberal tactics of debate is a TROLL. They are such weanies, they start forum discussions like “attacked by a troll” where only liberals show up to trash hubber’s they call “trolls” without naming them and they beg each other to report these “trolls”. They think “trolls” are giving HP a bad rep when the fact in their face is the libs are what have given HP a bad reputation and you can find proof of that in Hubber internet reviews of HP and the minions of writers who have left HP It’s just how they roll and I wouldn’t be surprised if your liberal friend is just like these snowflake liberals.

      On the other hand I have been here for 8 years and you know me - I may be a troll according to their definition I gave you above (and proud of it) but anyone who has followed me knows I am not an internet troll. How does an internet troll get over 250 fans and all the akolades I have. And have you ever seen a conservative on here call anyone a troll? I never have, and why? Because it is nothing but name calling which the libs live to do. If a troll shows up in a discussion they will disappear after a hit and run post (which liberals love to do) as it will be obvious to everyone they are a troll by the definition of a troll so why call the Hubber a troll? Because it is just a textbook example of another diabolical tactic liberals use to try and diminish the credibility of another Huber who has nailed them in a lie or revealed them for what the phonies they are.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      4 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      T, it has been a month since I published this article. I am afraid you are right in your prediction. My liberal friend did not find the time to read this article. Very disappointing to say the least.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      So when you said “we need a majority decision of 6-3 or higher.” you didn’t mean we need to make that a rule for the SC to render a decision. In that case we do agree, in order to get a better than 5-4 decision we need elected representatives who will appoint and confirm originalists to the court which now is what the American voters want since they elected Trump and gave him control of congress - we are heading in the “right” direction, the next election will confirm that as

      THE BLUE WAVE WILL BE DECIMATED BY THE RED TIDE.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      5 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      T, I am in agreement with you. What I am saying is that some our current judges are not doing their job. They are voting with political bias rather then apply the Constitutional principles. If they did, the rulings would be and should be much closer. In an ideal world, most decisions should be ruled 9-0.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Jack, “ we need a majority decision of 6-3 or higher?”

      Jack explain to me how that would work when for example with the present court many or most decisions on controversial issues being less tha 6 - 3 would then be thrown back to the final decisions of lower courts being. This could result in the Supreme Court seldom rendering a decision. How could that be constitutional?

      No the solution is to elect people to congress and the presidency who will appoint originalists to the court. This way the court is actually some sort of reflection of the voters and the mere number of judges on either side of an issue won’t matter as long as originalists are the majority. There is no other solution.

    • ethel smith profile image

      Ethel Smith 

      5 weeks ago from Kingston-Upon-Hull

      Thanks for insight into USA politics from a Conservative perspective.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      6 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Jack Lee

      That is an excellent way to show how important the SC decision needs to be closer to the criminal jury verdicts. The comparison between the jury in criminal cases and the SC verdict for the country put it in a light that everyone should agree with it.

      Thank You

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      6 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Brad, I agree with you. In a trial by jury, where a man’s life may be at stake, we demand a jury vote of unanimous decision. In the Supreme court, where their decision can affect 320 million of us, we need a majority decision of 6-3 or higher.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      6 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      T

      "I see your point and the problem you are addressing but to solve it with your suggestions or have an even number of justices would just result in a large number of cases never being decided and reverting to the lower court verdict and that can’t be good.

      B:

      The job of the SCOTUS is not to decide on cases, but to decide whether it is constitutional or Not. The SCOTUS decides not to hear thousands of cases a year/

      And a bad SCOTUS decision is no better than no decision, it may be worse especially if they wrongly interpreted the constitution. That is why a 7-2 decision would be a better decision.

      ----------------------------

      I don’t see conservatism or liberalism being a personal belief or bias when it comes to interpreting the law. Conservatism chooses the constitutionalist approach which is defined and liberalism’s approach is basically to do away with a constitutionalist approach to interpreting the law and almost accepts anything goes, laws of foreign governments apply, the ruse of a living document is used as an excuse to do away with a constitutionalist approach. The only way to have a truly honest and accurate Supreme Court is to appoint constitutionalist to it and then at least if there is dissent it will be on a proper interpretation of the law, and not mucked up with phony liberal excuses not to interpret the law as the founders meant it to be."

      B:

      You would think that would be a solution but why should a constitution expert be adaptable to current adaptation to a 250 year plus document. And many SCOTUS cases have never had the opportunity to decide on technology cases, or even the extent of the powers of the president.

      The easiest change is just to get rid of the simple majority decisions of SCOTUS and make the decision based closer to what it takes for passing a constitutional amendment. 2/3 or 3/4 as a SCOTUS decision is in line with the power of an amendment, the only difference is that the SCOTUS can easily change that law of the land in their next decision, but an amendment has to go through the amendment process.

      I hope that we can agree that the simple majority decision is not good.

      Thanks

    • tsadjatko profile image

      6 weeks ago from now on

      Liz, what you said is the problem with liberals because they have demonstrated repeatedly just that, revoking policies that actually work because they want to pursue theirs at all costs. Take Obamacare for example.

      It is wrong however to make it a blanket statement of politicians because in the case of conservatives most often they only pursue their policies because it is easily demonstrated that the alternative doesn’t work or is not nearly as good.

      You see conservatives have principles that are effective and work in real life that are aimed at preserving liberty and freedom and our God given rights. The main principle of liberalism is the ends justified the means to create larger government, higher taxes and more of power over our lives. This is the biggest reason they are now getting less power over our lives, because when you wat something that bad you will lose it.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      6 weeks ago from now on

      I see your point and the problem you are addressing but to solve it with your suggestions or have an even number of justices would just result in a large number of cases never being decided and reverting to the lower court verdict and that can’t be good.

      I don’t see conservatism or liberalism being a personal belief or bias when it comes to interpreting the law. Conservatism chooses the constitutionalist approach which is defined and liberalism’s approach is basically to do away with a constitutionalist approach to interpreting the law and almost accepts anything goes, laws of foreign governments apply, the ruse of a living document is used as an excuse to do away with a constitutionalist approach. The only way to have a truly honest and accurate Supreme Court is to appoint constitutionalist to it and then at least if there is dissent it will be on a proper interpretation of the law, and not mucked up with phony liberal excuses not to interpret the law as the founders meant it to be.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      6 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      TSAD

      "But Brad the scotus is made up of constitutionalist (conservatives) and liberals and whichever point of view is in the majority there it is one of those two “ideologies” that is applied. 5-4,7-2 or whatever, the mere numbers don’t make a decision it’s basically the ideological makeup of each judge."

      B:

      Take the ACA example, a 7-2 decision would have changed the decision. Whenever, you discount four of the jurists you don't get a good decision. Judges are supposed to be neutral and interpret the law not the politics of the law.

      Roe v Wade was another 5-4 decision and the SCOTUS failed to determine when life begins, and because of that the decision is argued every presidential election.

      Personal views of the justices are not supposed to affect their decision. Take the jury system, one of the first things that happens is jury selection and one of the things that both sides do is get rid of jurists that are biased. Because they would not be swayed by the evidence enough to overcome their bias.

      That process should go all the way up to the SCOTUS. I would rather have a Jurist recuse themselves than add their personal bias to a decision. Wouldn't you?

      The ideological makeup of the jurist shouldn't affect the decision. If you are a hammer than everything looks like a nail. SCOTUS making a 5-4 decision is really one person making a decision for 9 people, and how is that a good decision.

      Actually, I always thought that an even number of jurists like 8 would force more thought into a decision because they would be force to make their decision with more thought, than just based on the odd liberal or conservative to make it official.

      Good question!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      6 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Jack

      I understand what you are saying about the president. But doesn't it defeat the purpose of SCOTUS that it matters whether the justice is conservative or liberal. Justice is blindfolded at least the statute depicting it.

      Worrying about the political values of the justices makes the Judiciary another political branch. And your example of the ACA is why we need more than a simple majority for SCOTUS decisions.

      7-2 would be my wish. I don't believe this would even require a constitutional amendment because the congress setup the SCOTUS in the first place.

      Just another thought.

      And my comments were not intended to detract from your well written article, but just to give another viewpoint.

    • Eurofile profile image

      Liz Westwood 

      6 weeks ago from UK

      Unfortunately, many politicians forget open-mindedness in favour of a tunnel mentality, pursuing their own policies at all costs.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      6 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Liz, thanks for checking in. I don’t seek agreement from them, just an open mind.

    • Eurofile profile image

      Liz Westwood 

      6 weeks ago from UK

      Interesting article. I'm not sure that the local Liberal Democrat activist we talked to yesterday would agree though.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      6 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Brad, I agree with you the SCOTUS in recent years have not been a good arbitor of laws. The most recent ACA is a prime example. I wrote about this in one of my other hubs. However, there is no perfect system. That is why it is so important to elect a President who can appoint Conservative justices. It is the only sure way to preserve our way of life as intended by our founders.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      6 weeks ago from now on

      But Brad the scotus is made up of constitutionalist (conservatives) and liberals and whichever point of view is in the majority there it is one of those two “ideologies” that is applied. 5-4,7-2 or whatever, the mere numbers don’t make a decision it’s basically the ideological makeup of each judge.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      6 weeks ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Jack

      I don't identify with either conservative or liberal or any other ism.

      My comment on the constitution is that it is interpreted by SCOTUS, and in my opinion, they have not done a good job.

      The framers of the constitution created SCOTUS as the third branch of the government, but they let the legislative branch implement it. When has the legislature been able to do anything right.

      The worse thing about SCOTUS is the simple majority. When the SCOTUS makes a decision it is the law of the land, good bad or indifferent. But making a 5-4 decision is the recipe for bad decisions. If they made it 7-2 or even 6-3 I believe that we would get better decisions.

      How can a 5-4 decision be a good one when it ignores the vote of 4 jurists. It makes the vote of a single jurist decide very important issues. It would be better for the country and the people if the court couldn't make a 6-3 or 7-2 decision than pass it by one vote.

      Roe v Wade was a 1973 5-4 decision that have been argued every presidential election since it was decided.

      The SCOTUS decisions have changed the small central government of the framers, to the large very obese government we see today.

      First, they allowed the 16th amendment to be implemented. And while amendments can't by definition be unconstitutional their implementation can be unconstitutional.

      The Income Tax allowed the government to fund bigger government. The SCOTUS rulings on the Interstate Commerce Clause allowed everything to be a federal case. These two together allow and make legal the diminished value of the 10th amendment.

      At the same time, SCOTUS has ruled against any and all cases that say the Income Tax is unconstitutional. Every and ALL.

      In this century, the SCOTUS made the 14th amendment to all in one tool for social reenigineering. The 14th amendment was the basis for gay marriage.

      Yet, the 14th amendment didn't allow blacks their equality.

      It didn't allow Blacks or Women to vote. So why has it changed in 150 years to be something so different.

      The 13th amendment made the 3/5 black into 5/5.

      The 15th amendment gave black men but not black women the right to vote.

      The 19th amendment came 50 years after the 15th amendment and gave women the right to vote.

      The 14th amendment didn't do any of it.

      Also why is it OK to force different people to pay different rates of taxes? Where is the 14th amendment on that issue?

      just a thought.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      6 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Mike, thanks for your comment. I wrote this mainly for one of my dear liberal friend. I hope he read it with an open mind.

    • Readmikenow profile image

      Readmikenow 

      6 weeks ago

      Jack, well written. I have liberals in my family and I can anticipate the responses you are going to receive. You seem strong enough in your beliefs that you can take on all who confront you. I have nothing to add. I completely agree with what you've written. I think the mental health of liberals is for another article. Enjoyed reading this.

    • jackclee lm profile imageAUTHOR

      Jack Lee 

      6 weeks ago from Yorktown NY

      Tsad, thanks for the compliment. I attribute my improved writing skills to my writing Group. I have been a member for about two years. They have really help me by constructive critique of many of my hubs.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      6 weeks ago from now on

      Great commentary Jack! Not that I am judging but I see definite progression and improvement in your writing abilities looking back on your first efforts. You are one who, once you set your mind on something, you won’t stop short of perfection!

      Anyway I think you are being generous saying “the liberal side, they believe the Constitution is a living document. Open to interpretation as the time dictates.” No, let me change that from generous to naive.

      Living document ? Really? Where on earth has there ever been a living document - that sounds miraculous, yet we all know the Democrats, liberals, don’t believe in God let alone miracles!

      Like every liberal position (or democrat - the terms are interchangeable for what I am about to say) belief in a “living document” is nothing but a liberal ruse meant to supply some sort of reasoning behind accepting false interpretations of the constitution, not just false but liberal interpretations totally contrary to anything the founders intended. Since the Democrats can’t find a way to just do away with the constitution (which believe me they would die to accomplish that) they come up with a fantasy explanation that the authors were somehow clairvoiant enough to foresee the future and design a document that miraculously changes with the times. I suppose they want you to believe the founders had supernatural powers to write such a document?

      So Jack, if you never really thought about it I would like you now to explain why anyone would actually believe a government document could ever be written that has somehow embedded in it foreknowledge of the future that would make it open to interpretation as “time” dictates. Substitute “liberals” for “time” and you will be enlightened.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)