Conservative
The conservative political block has been called many names, some nicer than others: hillbillies, country bumpkins, the religious right. In general, it’s associated with bluegrass, down-home, good ole’ tradition. Conservatives focus on tradition. It’s an effective guide: traditional values, thoughts, and opinions are often tried and true. Of course, not always, and this is true as well. As we near the next Presidential election, take some time to consider what the Republican Party stands for and how they propose to reign in the perilous policies that have left our nation on the brink of bankruptcy and socialism, among other things.
To start, the incredible rate of spending must stop. It’s come to the point that the federal government must continue to pass debt-ceiling increases almost every few months to prevent bankruptcy. The Republican Party supports a minimalist government—if you don’t need a higher entity spending your money or limiting your freedoms in certain areas, why create it there? Thus Republicans such as 2012 Presidential candidate Rick Santorum call for a drastic cut of $5 trillion in federal spending within 5 years, through freezing spending in areas such as Medicaid.
One of the pivotal issues in the next Presidential election is how to reconcile past promises such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security with current fiscal realities. It will soon be impossible for out nation to honor its promises as the Baby Boomer generation begins to retire—there is nowhere near enough money in the national budget.
What is the logical solution? We must gradually wean our way out of these past promises, since they probably shouldn’t have been made in the first place. True, some people depend on these benefits, so the cutback should come slowly, giving individuals time to adjust. The alternative is national bankruptcy.
Looking at legalizing same-sex marriage, I would use the same term that many have used in the past and say that legalizing it would put us on a “slippery slope” socially. Individuals can run their private lives however they see fit, but if we fundamentally change the definition of a social building block as pivotal as marriage, would anything in our society be considered sacred and off-limits to change? What fundamental part of our makeup as a people would be changed next? Also, marriage as it is currently set up is arranged around a biological fact: one man and one woman create children. And that’s marriage’s primary purpose: to provide a father and a mother working together to raise good children.
Obama’s recent contraception mandate, which would require that all employers provide free contraception—including the abortion-inducing morning-after pill—to employees that request it, seems to disregard the fact that abortion and even contraception itself is gravely contrary to the beliefs of certain religious institutions, including Catholic schools and hospitals. According to a survey by The Pew Forum, 23.9% of the U.S. is Catholic, and 83.1% is affiliated with some sort of religion. Our President feels that it is somehow justifiable to single-handedly require, without even bothering to pass a legitimate law, that nearly a fourth of the country tread on its beliefs. All of this in order to push an issue (abortion) that is highly politicized and controversial in the first place. This attitude in government needs to change. Our Constitution espouses freedom of religion and religious practice, and this needs to be respected.
Liberal
Just as my colleague, the esteemed Mr. Gieske, has outlined some of the highlights from the politically conservative standpoint, I will offer you some from the liberal side. With the presidential elections just around the corner, I would advise everyone who is eligible not only to vote, but also to make an informed decision by looking up the platforms of the different parties. This article is not a representation of the Democratic Party’s official platform; rather it is a look at your typical liberal’s opinions on the national debt, gay marriage, and Obama’s mandate on birth contraceptives.
According to the U.S. Treasury, the nation’s debt currently sits just under $15.5 trillion. Now, no liberal out there would brush that off as chump change, but I do think that the economy is quickly improving. When President Obama took office, he was sitting on roughly 10 trillion dollars worth of debt, $5 trillion of which were racked up by President George W. Bush. Since then, according to President Barack Obama’s website, there has been 23 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector, an impressive feat. The President’s stimulus plan was effective. For example, General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford Motors were all circling the drain before the President extended rescue loans to them. Now, all three of these automobile companies are profitable, and the President effectively saved 1.4 million American jobs.
On to the topic of same-sex marriage! The most common liberal view on equal marriage rights can be summed up in the words of Anne Hathaway at the Human Rights Campaign dinner in 2008,”…love is a human experience and not a political statement.” Moreover, I think it is important to consider all the benefits of marriage that gay couples are being denied. Everything from financial benefits to joint-ownership to medical decision-making capacities are being withheld from couples who love each other. In a country where, according to divorcerate.com, over half of all marriages between men and women end, is it really fair to say that same-sex couples are the ones destroying the sanctity of marriage?
Finally, let’s talk about President Obama’s mandate on contraceptives. The mandate, as it is currently written, requires private health care insurance companies to cover the cost of birth control. This has caused much drama among conservatives, who reference the mandate as an attack on religious freedoms. Speaking as a woman and as a liberal, I completely disagree. This is not a religious debate, but one over women’s rights and access to basic health care. It is a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body and whether or not to have a child. But, more than that, women take birth control for all kinds for reasons, not simply as a birth contraceptive. According to Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student who testified in the House in February, birth control can cost a woman around $1,000 a year. Such economic burdens should not be placed on woman for exercising their right to freedom of choice. As Dawn Laquens, the executive vice president for policy and communications at Planned Parenthood said, “The people who vote against birth control and vote against health care- they are going to have boxed themselves into a very small corner,” and I must say, I agree! I mean, when was the last time we restricted women’s liberties and were proud of it?
