Was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio and heard him do the same thing the media does in defining the "conservative" position on an issue. Where the media usually calls anything they disagree with a "conservative" position, Mr. Beck was defining a position on immigration as liberal because it is the position he does not agree with.
In this case he was talking about a position Sen. Marco Rubio has staked out on what to do about the immigrants who illegally entered this country and have been here for years. Sen. Rubio prefers an approach that allows these individuals to stay. Mr. Beck referred to that as a liberal approach.
So let's apply the what is a Conservative test to Sen. Rubio's position.
1. A Conservative is someone who favors less government
2. A position/vote/bill that results in less government involvement is a Conservative position/vote/bill
3. Taken to its logical extreme the most Conservative point of view of all is anarchy, no government (I do not favor anarchy)
Using those points, which is the more Conservative position on what to do about illegal immigrants already in this country:
1. Mr. Beck's view where the Government would find these individuals, house them and feed them while they are given hearings, and if found guilty of improperly entering the Federal Government would country return them to whence they came at taxpayer's expense
2. Senator Rubio's position under which the Government relaxes its requirements and allows these individuals to stay in the US, subject to certain modest requirements, like paying back taxes and a few other things.
I'd argue that Senator Rubio's point of view is the more "Conservative" position. It involves less government involvement in the resolution of the matter.
Looking at it another way, an Anarchist would favor no government and therefore no government restrictions on who enters the country. Senator Rubio's position is closer to that point of view - he favors relaxing government standards and allowing these individuals to stay where Mr. Beck prefers a more rigid application of the laws and regulations to force these individuals to return home.
Let me close by saying just because a position on immigration is more Conservative does not mean it is more correct or that I agree with it. When I started this Blog one of the first points I made was that I am an American first, a Conservative second, and a Republican third. As an American, I believe it is important to maintain the integrity of our borders and control who enters the country so as to prevent, among other things, criminals, terrorists and other people intent on harming the US from entering our country.
Nevertheless, I felt it important to point out my disagreement with Glenn Beck, just as I disagree with the media, when the term "Conservative" is used not to describe an idealogical position but to categorize a point of view by whether the person agrees (in the case of Mr. Beck) or disagrees (in the case of the media in general) with the position. I think getting back to being intellectually honest is the first step in returning some measure of civility and reason to the political discourse in our country.
In this case he was talking about a position Sen. Marco Rubio has staked out on what to do about the immigrants who illegally entered this country and have been here for years. Sen. Rubio prefers an approach that allows these individuals to stay. Mr. Beck referred to that as a liberal approach.
So let's apply the what is a Conservative test to Sen. Rubio's position.
1. A Conservative is someone who favors less government
2. A position/vote/bill that results in less government involvement is a Conservative position/vote/bill
3. Taken to its logical extreme the most Conservative point of view of all is anarchy, no government (I do not favor anarchy)
Using those points, which is the more Conservative position on what to do about illegal immigrants already in this country:
1. Mr. Beck's view where the Government would find these individuals, house them and feed them while they are given hearings, and if found guilty of improperly entering the Federal Government would country return them to whence they came at taxpayer's expense
2. Senator Rubio's position under which the Government relaxes its requirements and allows these individuals to stay in the US, subject to certain modest requirements, like paying back taxes and a few other things.
I'd argue that Senator Rubio's point of view is the more "Conservative" position. It involves less government involvement in the resolution of the matter.
Looking at it another way, an Anarchist would favor no government and therefore no government restrictions on who enters the country. Senator Rubio's position is closer to that point of view - he favors relaxing government standards and allowing these individuals to stay where Mr. Beck prefers a more rigid application of the laws and regulations to force these individuals to return home.
Let me close by saying just because a position on immigration is more Conservative does not mean it is more correct or that I agree with it. When I started this Blog one of the first points I made was that I am an American first, a Conservative second, and a Republican third. As an American, I believe it is important to maintain the integrity of our borders and control who enters the country so as to prevent, among other things, criminals, terrorists and other people intent on harming the US from entering our country.
Nevertheless, I felt it important to point out my disagreement with Glenn Beck, just as I disagree with the media, when the term "Conservative" is used not to describe an idealogical position but to categorize a point of view by whether the person agrees (in the case of Mr. Beck) or disagrees (in the case of the media in general) with the position. I think getting back to being intellectually honest is the first step in returning some measure of civility and reason to the political discourse in our country.
Comments