Category: Politics

Mind the gap – or don’t.

Curt Conklin4 Comments

There has been a lot of talk recently about the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans. If you listen to our President and Democratic candidates, it’s the biggest problem facing America. That is why, according to them, it is so important that we increase the minimum wage. But does increasing the minimum wage accomplish this objective? Is there a policy that does? Is this really the problem, or is it just some focus group tested rhetoric that polls well with Democratic voters?

To find out I ran some numbers on my own. It has been widely reported that the topDont-mind-the-gap-logo-Tw-font1 1% of Americans makes in excess of $300,000 per year. With that as our starting point, the proposal to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would decrease the income gap by 2% (change in gap/gap). That’s not a noticeable enough dent to merit an increase on this issue alone. In fact if we increase the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour as many progressives have called for, the decrease is still a mere 5 1/2%. So clearly increasing the minimum wage in-line with proposed legislation does not decrease the income gap in a meaningful way.

On the other side of the coin, there is a policy that dramatically decreases the income gap. If we cap incomes at 200K or institute a 100% tax rate for every dollar earned over 200k, we can decrease the income gap by 35%. Decrease the income ceiling to $100K and the income gap drops 70%. Clearly this accomplishes the stated objective, but no one in their right mind wants to see this sort of policy instituted. It would destroy aspirational productivity and decimate our tax base.

So if moving the bottom – i.e. increasing minimum wages – does not affect the income gap, and moving the top – i.e. capping wages – isn’t something even progressives want to do, then clearly the gap is not the problem. As long as we are lucky and our entrepreneurial spirit is in tact, people will always figure out how to make more money which increases the size of the pie and increases potential tax revenue so the top earners are not the problem.

The real problem is just poverty. People in poverty need options to move up and away from the bottom. They need better education and training. They need options when their schools are not meeting their needs.  They also need jobs, and our neighbor states offer great lessons in how to create them – reduce costs, and reduce corporate tax rates (not sweetheart deals), and create a pro-business and pro-hiring environment. Growing companies need people. They also need a government that is more focused on job training than on welfare.

The minimum wage is going up. Some people will make a little more money and some companies will hire less. But it won’t affect the income gap, nor will it lead to people currently making minimum wage to making more than minimum wage. They will still be minimum wage workers.

So although the income gap is a convenient and emotionally satisfying rallying cry for the left, it obscures the real issue which is not that rich people make too much money, but that the poorest Americans – generally urban blacks – lack the opportunities and options to better their situation. Let’s get this minimum wage thing behind us so we can focus on the problems that really matter like public schools and job growth.

Wasted opportunities in Chicago

Curt Conklin5 Comments

When I first learned that the red light, speeding, and school zone cameras were to be erected around Chicago I was in favor of the idea. What better way to plug the city’s budget deficit than fining people who were actually breaking the law. My thinking continued that it should force everyone to be more conscientious drivers. The fact that it wouldn’t affect driving records or insurance premiums made it seem all the more innocuous. Besides, as a good driver who has never had a ticket, I appreciated not being the target of a government revenue program for once.

And then I realized I was very much the target. It turns out that the city wasn’t after just the scofflaarlington_red_light_cameraws that were driving recklessly, ignoring signs, and putting people’s lives in danger. They were after every penny they could squeeze from this new resource. In situations that would have generated no tickets in the past – like a pattern of traffic where everyone is driving a bit above the limit – the City can now efficiently issue a ticket to everyone. In school zones when no children are present, no real cop would ever pull a driver over, but robot cameras can facelessly issue tickets to everyone who passes through. As for the appeal process? There is one and you are encouraged to follow the process. A few weeks later, you will get a nondescript “NOPE!” (and an implied “HA HA!”)

No, the red light cameras were not erected to segregate taxation between the scofflaws and the lawful. They were erected with the assumption that every citizen is presumed guilty and any punishment the City chooses to heap upon them is deserved.

Interestingly, this revelation parallels the one I have gone through with Mayor Rahm Emanuel. I was a pretty big support of Rahm up front. I liked the idea of a guy waking up every morning with a list of whose ass he was going to kick that day. It struck me that there were a lot of bad guys in politics around here and on the City’s payroll and I was darned happy to have a fighter coming in to bop some of them in the nose, get rid of others, and ebb the tide of corruption.  Finally, a “my guy” I could vote for mayor.rahm-emanuel-305x263

But instead of putting his gumption to use to eliminate Madigan’s spending shenanigans he has used it to shove through a property tax that forces you and me to pay for more of them. He sort-of stood up to Karen Lewis, but lost to her PR machine and came out looking like a bully with no financial improvements to show for it. His hand-picked staff which should have been a Justice league of no-bullshit straight-shooters has been string of lightweights, buffoons, and hand-in-the-cookie-jar criminals.

Meanwhile, gun violence in four small south-side neighborhoods – Auburn Gresham, Grand Crossing, Chatam, and Englewood, approaches the level of countries at war. Four neighborhoods! Less than 5% of the City’s total area. How hard can it be to augment the police presence in such a small area to the point where the neighbors don’t shoot children? Certainly these are communities have many problems, but in the short-term, is there a reason why the Illinois National Guard can’t be used to stop the shooting?

I still think Rahm Emmanuel is a smart man, and I believe he wants Chicago to be a better place. But the voters need to be convinced that everything in between there and here is more than just a nuisance to him. A teacher’s strike, black people killing each other, and all us irritating citizens expecting something for our tax dollars need to be things he becomes passionate about. If he can’t do that, it’s going to be tough for any of us to see him as “my guy” next time around.

Question your elders. All of them.

Curt Conklin2 Comments

The metaphorical work water cooler. Where ever it is in the office, it is the gathering place for criticizing our employer. We discuss how our fellow employees have been treated, how thing could be better, and even our relative salaries.

We also criticize our government leaders. We have ample candidates to choose from (well, except maybe in Chicago), and we are given the opportunity to toss out the stinky ones. We even have whole television stations dedicated to finding and highlighting the flaws of our President.6c82a0ed48fb4a95c1c3dfb0861433a5

We criticize our community elders, our parents, the talking heads on TV, and we have even – just recently and in the wake of the priest sex scandals – begun scrutinizing and criticizing our religious leaders.

Yet why is it that any criticism of a union leaders is considered an attack on the working class or worse and attack against America. Why can’t criticizing union leaders be an active and accepted part of the American dialog?

It’s not because the middle class is made up of union members. In fact only 11% of all Americans are members of a union which breaks down to 4% of Americans are in private unions and 7% are government employees. So who is the working class? Well, it’s everyone above the poverty line and everyone below the so-rich-they-don’t-need-to-work line.

Looking at the bottom first, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty rate in this country has held pretty constant at 15% over the last 50 years. So the working class is above the bottom 15% of American wage earners. Looking at the top, we may have some debate. The 99%ers, or Occupy Movement stated that only the top 1% is richer than requiring work. However, we can be more conservative and say that everyone below the 90% line still gets up every morning, drives to work and puts in a full day.

So everyone in between that top 10% and the bottom 15%, or the middle 75% of Americans is working class. But again, only 11% is unionized. Let that sink in. The union is not the middle class, it is in fact less than 15% of the middle class. It is also very privileged, and it is supported by the greater middle class who pays for union benefits they do not receive through higher taxes, yet unfunded pensions, reduced government services, strikes, and over-billed government engineering projects.

The greater middle class, to which my family and likely your family belongs, has every right to criticize, scrutinize, and question the use of our tax dollars. And when one small slice of the group is getting disproportionate attention, we are all welcome at the discussion table.

Support your teachers – I do. But question their union leaders. I’d love to see our teachers better paid, but I’d also like to see nurses, doctors, musicians, scientists, curators, and baristas better paid. In fact I would like to see everyone who does a good job and is nice get a raise. However, in a world of limited resources, not everyone can get everything. Before you jump on the unconditional support for Karen Lewis band wagon, ask yourself, how much of what you love about Chicago are you willing to give up for it?

Criticizing the union and our union leaders, is not un-American. It is in fact what makes America strong. Find an opinion, learn to politely articulate it, and bravely join the discussion. In the mean time, I will be doing the same.

Editorial note…
The original headline of this piece was “Union criticism fits fairly into the civic dialog”. That headline was boring, pedantic and preachy and I was embarrassed . Believe me it happens. It is my job to make this blog both fun and thoughtful. Man, my apologies.

Teach a man to fish and you’ll get … happier story tellers

Curt Conklin4 Comments

As we approach Thanksgiving, the national holiday of gluttony, it seems appropriate to talk about one of the finest adages that western civilization has given us is: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. This little nugget is right up there with the golden rule. Everyone learns it, and everyone knows it’s true. So when you ask most Americans which is a better method of supporting the less fortunate, it’s not a surprise that people answer correctly: teach him to fish.

Now that Saint Nick of Communism, Karl Marx, would have given you a different answer. In 1875 he wrote his most famous line: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is the opposite idea. According to Marxism, if somebody needs fish, the guy that already knows how to fish should fish for them. Not surprisingly, most Americans disagree with this statement and with good evidence. The failure of communism in the 20th century illustrated that if you force a fisherman to give away his fish, eventually he will just stop fishing and get his fish for free like everyone else.

But if your Thanksgiving dinner includes some contemporary progressives, the conversation might include a third answer.

Me: Which is better, a fishing lesson or a fish dinner?

Liberal lawyer who makes his own beer: “A fishing lesson AND a fish dinner!”

Me: “I’m sorry, but that wasn’t an option.“

Fellow in thick glasses wearing a hat at the table: “Sure it is. How can you expect someone to learn anything on an empty stomach? Give him a nice plate of Dover sole – heck, make it fried carp for all I care – then get him a good night’s rest and tomorrow you can talk tackle!”

ME: “The question specifically implied that you have to choose one or the other. Assume that there is some physical impossibility in providing both.”

Lawyer’s wife: “Fizzie what? This is the real world. Of course we can do both!”

ME: “But they both cost money – especially in the real world. The purpose of the question was to determine which was a better use of the limited funds we have?”

Bernie Sanders (OMG, you are having Thanksgiving dinner with Bernie M-Fing Sanders!) : “Funds aren’t limited! Find some more. Look how frickin’ hungry that guy is. We need to get him some dinner!  We’ll borrow it if we have to!”

Me: “But even if we borrow the money, won’t he be hungry again in the morning?”

Hostess, getting annoyed: “So borrow some more money tomorrow and feed him again. What are you, some kind of monster? Help the fella out for chrissakes! You are not invited back next year.”

Herein lies the challenge. Americans know the right answer but when faced with making the decision, the right answer seems unkind and no one wants to be unkind. Further harshing the toke, the right answer appears to offer mercilessly little more than the opportunity to remain self-sufficient. Still, even a crappy fishing lesson is more appreciated than a five dollar gift certificate to Long John Silvers. One of the smartest men in America, Arthur Brooks said “the greatest controllable factor to happiness is earned success through work.” In other words that fellow even wants to catch his own fish!

I very nice looking fish dinner.
I very nice looking fish dinner.

Tough love may be harder to dish out than it is to receive. In an effort not to appear mean, we avoid requiring self-sufficiency and helping in-need people get there. Instead of investing in job training we throw borrowed money at stimulus programs, jobs bills, and extend unemployment incentives indefinitely. We make free fish dinners the standard and avoid delivering the fishing lesson to those who want it. We choose not to look into the wet eyes of the currently unemployed and say “I am sorry, but the job, house, or retirement you must accept is not as good as the one you had before – but it will return you to self-sufficiency,” even though we know that is the right answer, and things will improve for that guy. Instead, we leave the bad news for generations to come later, people who we don’t know and whose eyes we will never have to look into and apologize for anything.

It’s time we change the strategy. Government assisted training, and work for aid programs need to gradually replace welfare as the default safety net. We all know that it is better to teach a man to fish and we all know that giving him a fish has only temporary benefits. Americans often fail to understand that we can’t have both, but that must change. The current course will only grow the number of families reliant on government handouts while pushing increased expenses into the future. That’s not fair to those in-need today or those picking up the tab tomorrow.

An executioner walks into a bar…

Curt Conklin2 Comments

Do you want to talk about the death penalty?  Because I do! before I continue, can you guess which side I will take? More importantly, can I make it interesting enough for you to read the whole thing.

Let’s see…

lee-majors
Lee Majors has absolutely nothing to do with this post.
The current argument against capital punishment is that it is either cruel or unusual. There is some mind-numbing article written along these lines every day. Maybe the drugs that are used hurt, or the windows that allow visitors to look in are embarrassing, or the FDA has only approved that particular drug for euthanizing chronically ill sea turtles.  Actually, these made-up examples make it sound way more interesting than it is. The truth is it’s all technical details that do not resonate with the American people. These arguments may be fodder for lawyers, but lets face it, lawyers are boring. In general no one cares.

So? Money shot follows…

The reason that Capital Punishment in the United States needs to be abolished is because our system makes mistakes. Not all the time, and maybe only rarely, but when there is a chance that the system has made a mistake, no punishment can be enacted that fails to offer a recourse. It’s that simple, and everyone should get behind this.

Think about it. If we throw a guy in jail for 30 years and 29 years into his sentence, we decide to check the DNA and find that – oops – he isn’t the guy that did it. We can let him out of jail. Society is going to owe him a huge apology and hopefully a whole lot of tax-payer funded comforts to make up for his time in jail, but he gets to have what’s left of his life back. Conversely, if we execute a convict only to discover after the fact that his DNA did not match what was found at the crime site, we have absolutely no way to correct even a portion of the societal wrong.

There are those that like the “what about now” argument. This is applied to heinous monsters like John Wayne Gacy and James Eagan Holmes, the Colorado theater killer. The argument goes that they clearly did it and their crimes were so heinous that they clearly need to be put down. In these cases I kind of want to agree. But then I remind myself that these men were unanimously convicted and sentenced by the same pool of jurors that unanimously convicted and sentenced Rolando Cruz of the Jeanine Nicarico murder in 1983. Rolando Cruz spent 12 years on death row losing multiple appeals before Brian Dugan confessed to the killings and Cruz was sent home.

And just how often does the system accidentally make a mistake? Check this out!  Since 1973 when the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois, the state has put to death 12 inmates. Let that sink in. 12. Over that time Illinois has exonerated – reversed the guilty verdict and set free – 20 death row inmates. That means that in Illinois, since 1973, our system has made capital punishment mistakes 63% of the time! That is not a rare occurrence. That can only be described as most of the frickin’ time!

There is a certain cost that society is willing to bear to keep law and order. Part of that cost is that occasionally the wrong man goes to jail. It is unfortunate, but inevitable, and acceptable. But the other side of that token is that society owes it to those who pay that cost to offer recourse when a mistake is found.

A version of this post originally ran on Facebook in September 2015.

What do Chiraq and Paris have in common?

Curt ConklinLeave a comment

paris-skyline-silhouette-1556112

On Monday November 4th, Tyshawn Lee, a 9-year old child was lured into an alley and shot multiple times in the chest and head by a member of the Terror Dome faction of the P Stones. The killer apparently used some sort of bait, possibly candy, drew him around the corner, and then fired mercilessly, at point blank range, execution-style. Children are in general trusting of adults and the cold-hearted killer likely watched the boy’s eyes go wide with disbelief before going dark forever.

Poor Tyshawn was a pawn in a game the P Stones and their rival, the Gangster Disciples, are playing. The game-play is to terrorize rival gang members and the community while the goal is to force residents to take a side. If you pick the wrong side horrible things will happen. But if you refuse to fight, even worse things can happen.

As a parent of a child of similar age, this story brings me to tears. This can’t happen! When our children can be assassinated by gang insurgents, our way of life is under attack. As good-hearted Chicagoans who love our city, we must find the courage and fortitude to empower our law enforcement community to stop this violence before more children die. We need bravery from the men and women of the South Side. We need them to forego the code of silence and point law enforcement in the right direction as we bring these killers to justice and help all of us restore order to their community. We are all in this together.

Last Friday, eight Islamic extremists assisted by at least three others launched an attack killing nearly 150 innocents in beautiful and formerly peaceful Paris. This follows twin suicide bombings in Beirut the day before, a Russian passenger liner blown out of the air the week before, and a long list of other Islamic terrorists attacks against innocents. In all cases, the dead were regular people doing nothing but going about their daily business. If you want the whole list, here it is.

Paris was targeted because it is high profile and France is an easy target.   The refugee crisis has opened borders, the people are largely trusting, and they are relatively unsophisticated in terror intelligence compared to the UK and the US. Their “French culture is better” attitude and their laws against religious expression are irritating (not just to Muslim residents), and they have been designated “most hated country in Europe” by the Islamic State. But that’s still nothing compared their ISIS’s hatred of the leader of Western ideals: given the opportunity, they would prefer to spill blood on US soil more so than any other.

By whatever name, Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh, this organization is a gang. They are terrorizing innocents in an effort to oppress and control populations of innocent people.  Their enemy is all Western governments who believes it has a right to interfere with their ideology, in this case its calling to worship as they wish, exert ownership over their daughters and wives, kill their neighbors for worshiping the wrong god (or the right god wrongly), turn back the clock on technology, sell illegal heroine, and put an end to Israel. In many ways, this hatred of the West is their reason for being, and whatever we do, these radicals will  poke, kick, kill, and slaughter, begging for us to try to stop them. For – as they believe – when that war finally comes, their god will ensure a quick death to their enemies.

And as they continue their affront, America’s repeated response is to distance ourselves from the engagement. The single most empowering event in the history of ISIS was the American exit from Iraq. Just as ISIS was gaining regional relevance we gave them a terrific graduation present by refusing to come to the aid of the democracy-friendly Syrian rebels. Before a year passed, they had created one of the biggest states (caliphates) in The Middle East, and established beheading Westerners as the national sport.  Now we have Hillary Clinton saying in last night’s debate that “this is not our fight” and suggesting that the incompetent militaries in Iraq and Syria should be able to handle it with us offering little more than a pat on the back.  Although politically expedient, this strategy constitutes dangerous isolationism that will only put the US National Security at additional risk.

The majority of Middle East residents want peace and the removal of the gangs that threaten their lives. They also know that the only way to overcome these villains is collaboratively where they provide the intelligence and the US supports them with military force. Without our support, they cannot possibly defeat ISIS. Yet we continue to ignore their requests for help.

If we continue this course, ISIS will continue its attack on our allies in an effort to engage America. They will launch opportunistic attacks around the world as they continue to seek the chink in our armor. Innocents – and innocent children – will die with each attack, and the death toll will grow overseas. Eventually they will figure out how to hit us at home and we will pay a dear price. History will punish us for not acting earlier.

The victims of gang violence are too often targeted because they represent well-meaning intentions of their Chicago communities. In a similar way, the attacks of ISIS are intended to terrorize the family of nations that share western values and in particular the United States. We must protect the members of the besieged Chicago neighborhoods by eliminating the gangs who terrorize them. By the same token, we cannot sit on the sidelines as ISIS continues to attack the world and searches for an opportunity to deal real damage to the United States. We need our government to act forcibly and rapidly if we wish to stop the slaughter of innocents.

–

With contributions from Dan Rice: President, Thayer Leader Development Group at West Point; Co-Author “West Point Leadership: Profiles of Courage”

Union practices voting to strike. Ice skating next.

Curt ConklinLeave a comment

On Monday the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) conducted a practice vote and reported that 97% of teachers are willing to vote yes on a strike. This meeting was held in secret and the details of what happened are otherwise unknown, but here is what we do know.

  • The source of this information is CTU. There is no way to corroborate anything about this meeting, there is no law that says they have to tell the truth, and they have an incentive to say that it went a certain way. The results could have very well been 97% or they could have been 100% or they could have been 32%.
  • We might not know the details of the vote, but we do know CTU has an incentive to report that the percentage of teachers supporting a strike is very high. From their perspective, a number that approaches 100% sends a message that the danger of a strike is very real and brings them a stronger position at the negotiating table.
  • On the other side of that coin, the union has an incentive to report that the results were not quite 100% in favor of the strike because that would send the indication that the vote was not legitimate. As I suggested earlier, maybe the result of the vote was 97% or maybe this was the Goldilocks of numbers – just right. However, as the next two points illustrate, it is likely that the number was even higher.
  • Teachers union votes tend to operate on the “rising vote method.” That means that everyone is gathered in the large room, the position is read and all those supporting it are asked to stand. This allows everyone to see – and point at – those few who are opposed. This can be very uncomfortable and there are documented cases of supporters turning aggressive toward opposers. Such fears ensure that elections run this way are unanimous – or close to it.
  • This practice election actually offered an incentive for everyone to vote “yes”. If a teacher was in favor of a strike, he or she would vote “yes.” But if he or she were opposed to a strike, and knew that strong vote could prevent one, he or she would also vote “yes.”
  • Yesterday’s vote was supposedly based on the “state of negotiations between CPS and CTU.” That may have been focused on raises and benefits, it could have been based on air conditioning and improved janitorial services, or it could have been about a return of smoking privileges to the teachers lounge and pizza party Fridays. By not sharing with the public what the issues were, the CTU hopes we will assume they were addressing the most serious issues, but the truth is, we have no idea. Common sense suggests that the issue selection was chosen in favor of the desired outcome.
  • It may be in some teachers personal best interest to strike – or it may not. Some teachers oppose strikes because they do not get paid while on strike which can be devastating to their families (as it was to my single mother). Some teachers don’t support strikes because they are less interested in their wealth than they are with the time they spend in the classroom. Others choose not to support them for political reasons. As with any issue facing a large group of people, opinions run the gamut.
  • ct-karen-lewis-ctu-reelection-met-1007-20151006 (1)
    The new, more-attractive and less-intimidating Karen Lewis

    However, it is in Karen Lewis’s best interest to lead a strike. She seemed to relish the spotlight last time around, and now she has a new appearance to show off. A favorable contract quietly negotiated might be good for teachers, but it will not return the spotlight that was stolen from her when her illness made her forfeit a momentous mayoral campaign last year. We can assume that she will be back to take on Rahm again next cycle, and a bold second strike will be an asset in recognition and fund raising.

CPS and the Mayor’s office are aware of everything written above and will discount this practice vote as a public relations stunt. CTU is aware of this but hopes that it will start unifying the front and maybe – just maybe – start swaying public opinion in their favor. The pawn has been played.

You can support your teachers and you should. But this does not mean you must unconditionally support the union. CTU, CPS, the Mayor, and Karen Lewis really do play this like a game. The facts are real, the implications are real, and our kids’ educations are real, but when an issue is this emotional both sides will try every trick they can to pluck at your heart strings. Fools swallow this hook, line, and sinker. Don’t be a fool. Observe objectively. Listen, read the opposing sides’ positions, and make up your own mind.

Discussing same-sex marriage

Curt Conklin2 Comments

I stand in favor of same-sex marriage and equal rights for homosexuals, including adoption and reproduction. I have many gay friends and have attended all of their weddings. Those were some great parties! As a result I have historically been intolerant of religious conservatives who do not share my view.  From my perspective as a non-believer, there was no consequence to them and their enmity just seemed mean spirited if not wholly bigoted. Furthermore, I was intolerant of the argument that this is a religious freedom issue.  It made no logical or Constitutional sense that one person deserves the freedom to worship while another person is denied the freedom to marry (or buy a cake without prejudice).

But I have come to the realization that to some believers, there is a reasonable foothold for opposing same-sex marriage. They believe there is a consequence for their support and it is based in their respect for the laws of their church and more importantly in the penalties for breaking those laws.  They believe acting to support that which their church opposes will cause them real harm. Of course from a secular perspective it is difficult to understand what that harm could be. Yet the church is clear: obey our laws or your internal well-being in danger: you will go to hell (no kidding).

Most of us went to church as children and were educated with two sets of laws. There is the law of the land – or the government – and there is the “law of God”. The law of the land promises penalties for violation, including fines and jail, but the “law of God” promises penalties in the form of the disapproval of our peers and punishment in the afterlife. To many people, these are just as powerful.

Ideally the law of the land and the law of the church would correspond perfectly, but on a few issues they do not. Some believers manage the conflict by cherry picking the church’s laws that work for them. But others do not believe they have the right to decide which of the Church’s laws can be ignored. A good number of religious Americans believe that you follow the rules of the church as dictated or there are severe penalties. We are not in a position to tell them that they are wrong, and I believe the Constitution supports that.

I continue to disagree with my religious friends who cannot support same-sex marriage, but I no longer question their motives. I accept that they have been educated by a wrathful teacher and have genuine fear of breaking their church’s laws. My hope is that their religious leaders come to a more rational, fair, and contemporary position. In the meantime, I think the religious right would be well-served to re-frame the discussion to underscore the penalties they genuinely fear rather than relying on a lopsided and prejudice-charged argument of religious freedom.

Let’s start with “we want the same thing”

Curt ConklinLeave a comment

Welcome to the first A Common Sense Conservative blog post. I am aware that Conservatives often do themselves no favors when they talk about things in ways that seem exclusionary and mean spirited. My posts will take these positions, and hopefully, reframe them so that they sound as they should – generous, fair, and based in intellectual foundation. In other words, I am going to be making the case that no matter what you have heard, Conservatives are not mean – or at least no meaner than anyone else.

But first we must acknowledge that all Conservatives are not alike. Just like all Liberals are not alike. There are those we care about and those who care only about themselves.

Lobbyists are a very public group of conservatives with whom we are not concerned. They believe their lives or those of the people they represent would be better with the passing of a certain agenda. Believe it or not, politicians are another public group for which we care little because they tend to believe that their lives would be better off if they were re-elected. Lobbyists and politicians are often hired guns. Lobbyists work for the betterment of the small interests that support them. Politicians work for the betterment of themselves.

This blog is about ideas and the group of people that it cares about is idealogs. I consider myself a Idealogs and if you are reading this, you may be one also. An Idealog is someone who is interested in ideas and the ways those ideas can change society for the better. Certainly there are lobbyists and politicians who are also idealogs and hopefully their ideas line up with the agendas for which they are fighting.

Idealogs on both side of the political spectrum ultimately have their goals in common. They both want the strongest economy, the most jobs and the greatest wealth for everyone. They both want a better, free-er, more open society where everyone is better off. Where they differ is how to get there.

Idealogs on the left believe the way this can be achieved by Robin Hooding the economy. If we take from the rich and give to the poor then the people who had nothing will have something. Meanwhile the people who are rich won’t feel it because they had too much anyway. No one is really hurt. Society is better.

Idealogs on the right believe that the way you create more jobs is by helping businesses to create them. I.E. reducing their taxes and eliminating unnecessary regulations and obstacles to trade. More jobs means more working people, means more disposable income, which ultimately means greater tax revenue. Society is better!

So I ask you to follow me and keep an open mind. If you really believe that all conservatives are greedy or that all liberals are stupid or lazy, then your mind is too broken and your soul is too dark for understanding. But if you can start with the simple premise that idealogs on both side want a better world for everyone, then what I am going to say should make sense.

And I hope this can be a dialog as it so often has been on Facebook. If you think I’ve cut a corner or missed a fact, then I hope you will let me know. So thanks and let’s get started!