By Carol Lucas
It would seem these days that many on the far right, especially those in a decision making capacity, are putting forth legislation that permits the government to impose strict laws upon individual rights. Frankly, I find myself confused. Was it not too long ago that conservatives were striving to rid us of liberal “intrusion” by the government? This right wing of the political spectrum wanted, with few exceptions, the federal government out of Americans’ lives. They felt that it had overstepped its boundaries, and their goal was to invest more into state regulation, if there were to be regulations at all.
History tells us that this divide has always been present, beginning with the founding of our nation. We need only look back at the writing of the Constitution to see the contrast between those advocating states’ rights as opposed to those who wanted a strong, comprehensive federal government. So the division is hardly a new concept.
Before I get too far into my argument, however, I want to remind folks that I do not adhere to extreme liberal ideology. As an Independent, I believe I am a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal. While there may be those whose thoughts embrace an “all or nothing at all” attitude, I will stick to my position. I suspect that given the strident extremes of both parties, there are more of us out there than are accounted for who think the way I do.
But the thing that perplexes me is what the extremists, those who want the federal government “out of our lives,” are calling for. Consider the following actions that have been taken in the past year.
For months now, states all across the nation have been dictating what your children can and cannot read, thus the banning of books they consider “inappropriate.” Keep in mind that in many instances, only one parent has complained; yet the book is off the shelf or at the very least put into the hands of a “committee” that renders a thumbs up or thumbs down. Majority rule? I think not.
Then there is the governmental white-washing of history curriculum. Now children will learn that many “valuable skills were taught to slaves, thereby enabling them to become productive members of society.” Why it’s almost as if the early plantations were the roots of present-day trade schools. No mention of the conditions on the ships that brought these people or the whips that were used on them. Besides, those were just tools meant to develop and enhance these folks so they might advance to a better trade.
Consider, too, that there are words that are taboo, words you cannot say, particularly in Florida. Keep in mind that the governor of that state is running for President, and should he win, what takes place in Florida will certainly not stay in Florida. And since you can’t “say gay,” don’t even think about claiming to be gay, or bi, or, trans, or … you get the idea. So the government will not only tell you what you can’t say, but also what gender you cannot be. And don’t even think about who you can or can’t marry.
Even the very conservative Supreme Court, which doesn’t seem so supreme anymore, has gotten in on the act by telling what you can (and can’t) do with your uterus. Indeed, the lives of women that are endangered have been rendered secondary to that of a group of cells unable to live outside the womb on its own.
Recently, lower courts banned the sale of abortion drug Mifepristone in 31 states where the procedure isn’t 100% legal. Fortunately, the same Supreme Court had a rush of brains to the head and ruled otherwise this past Friday. Governmental intrusion, saying what approved medicines you can and cannot take?
In my effort to portray conservatism at least somewhat devoid of any bias I might have, I sought a compact and succinct summary of the core principles. What I found is this. Pure conservatism adheres to the notion of: limited government, rule of law, peace in strength, fiscal responsibility, free market, and human dignity.
Not knowing who may have organized the list, I can only say that I’m a bit disappointed that the last entry holds the position it does. However, I will deal with that, and that only.
We all want to believe human dignity is of primary import in anything the government may do. Those who rant against Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid must surely know somewhere down deep, that these were created to help those who are older and less able. Yes, there are some collecting in any of these categories who, perhaps, should not be doing so. Do we then throw out the baby with the bath water as an act of retribution? And let’s not forget that most of those collecting Social Security paid into the fund for the better part of their adult lives. Furthermore, let’s not be so willing to toss aside human dignity.
And so I return to my original question: which one is it? Less governmental intrusion as is the mantra of conservatives with a capital C? Or cherry-picked intrusion into the classrooms and the bedrooms of the country as touted by those of the far right? “The Democrats are coming for your freedoms,” proclaim many of the ultra right. Really? Have I missed something in the translation?
Carol Lucas is a retired high school teacher and a Lady’s Island resident. She is the author of the recently published “A Breath Away: One Woman’s Journey Through Widowhood.”
