Bush v. Obama - Governing Philosophy

"Hey, I'm on the right side this time!"

It's time to talk about everyone's favorite president, George W. Bush!

I actually wrote this article back in December and left it with loads of typos (which I've corrected here).  However, with the opening of his presidential library, this seems like a prudent time to rehash this.

That and it will actually get an audience without me begging endlessly this time.

Alright, back to the president.

You see, something that bothers me a lot is
just how much the man is criticized, even four years out from his presidency.  President Obama still uses him as a scapegoat (despite making the country demonstrably worse in his tenure).  Liberals constantly scream and cry about how Bush was a moron, two-steps away from becoming a tyrant (not sure how that works; idiots generally don't have the wherewithal to become tyrants).  Some conservatives even (particularly more libertarianish ones) believe he and Obama are equal amounts of bad.

So where does the truth lie?  Was President Bush some horrible, idiot man-child given hell bent on maliciously expanding the government until we became serfs?  Or was he something less than that?

On some level, I am actually inclined to agree with those libertarians who see Bush's "compassionate conservatism" as bad policy.  His solutions for many problems was bigger [federal] government.  Following the September 11th attacks, the solution was the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, both of which granted large of amounts of power to the federal government.

However, this does not make Bush comparable to Obama in any way.  Each are governed by a different set of motivations for what they do.  When Bush pushed for the Patriot Act and DHS, he was not doing it in some crazy attempt to massively expand the government or curb our freedoms.  If you believe that was his motivation, you live in some other world entirely. 

What he believed is that it was the right thing to do to keep us safe.

Now, that is not to say it was not ill-conceived.  It most certainly was.  In the hands of 43, however, it was relatively benign, designed and used to protect us.  However, what he and others failed to realize is that such power, in the wrong hands, could easily be abused.  Even now, the current administration is using defense bills to try and grant itself power to spy on American citizens.  Not overseas foreign nationals suspected of terror ties, but Americans themselves.  The slippery slope strikes again.

Same goes for any other big government initiative proposed by Bush.  His heart was most certainly in the right place for things like "No Child Left Behind," the proposed (and passed) solution for the many failing schools around the country.  Like the Patriot Act, it was just as ill-conceived and constitutionally dubious.  These actions do not make him equal to President Obama, however. 

President Bush, as far as I can tell, believed the government was capable of doing good things for the people.  It was a tool that could serve the people and better their lives with its reach and power.  President Obama, on the other hand, clearly believes that the government is better and/or smarter than the people; thus it should be doing things it is assumed they cannot, regardless of the people's actual ability.

To Bush, government was the tool for a solution; it could help the individual improve him or herself.  To Obama, the government is the solution, all the time.  It subsumes the individual in its infinite wisdom and benevolence.

I think that is a very distinct philosophical difference.

On Uniting as a Nation

Last week was stressful and heartbreaking. With deadly bombings and industrial accidents, it seemed an endless barrage of horrible news until Friday came around.  The very kind of week that could bring a fractured nation together.  Just like after September 11, 2001, when, for a time at least, America's resolve and will was united and unshakeable.

At least, in theory.

It seems as though we live in an era where such unity is impossible.  This sad reality once again held true in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.  It started with the rampant media speculation that the attack was related to "right-wing terror" (whatever that is; evidence of such terrorism is scant).  Leftists in the media and elsewhere wished the suspect to be white and on the right.  A Christian, a Tea Partier, a conservative of any sort; that's what they wanted.  Well, they got the white part of their wish, at least.

Then, the disunity was buoyed by President Obama's petulant and whiny Rose Garden appearance on Wednesday, immediately after the failure of gun control legislation in the senate.  He accused his political opponents of desiring the deaths of innocents and children simply for not backing his proposals.  Apparently, taking symbolic and useless legislative action that only hampers the law-abiding is the only way not to be an accessory to murder.

You'll have to forgive me if I am not particularly open to unity right now.

Of course, this all boils down to the mentality the left approaches the right with.

To us, they are wrong.

To them, we are evil.

Unity is rather difficult when people automatically assume one is a heartless, child-killing terrorist.

And yes, I do blame the left, president and all, for this disunity.  Call me biased, but speaking for myself, I would be more than willing to unite on those things on which I agree with the left.  They may be few, but solidarity in the face of terrorism is most certainly one.

But then the left demonizes and defames.  It is leftism that pushes others away, by turning their opponents into enemies, into the "other."  People not to be touched or associated with.  Of course, there are some on the right who do the same to the left.  However, how many "mainstream" conservatives do this compared to "mainstream" liberals?

Speaking from personal experience, I can say I rarely shun and cut ties with people I befriend simply for their personal and moral views, even when I have found those views to be reprehensible.  However, I have had two friends in the past three weeks shun and slander me (out of the public eye, for which I am grateful) for articles I've recently written or things I've recently said.  And I would not have treated them the same.

The roots of the disunity in this country is the left.  One may deny it or try to pass it off on both sides.  However, when one side consistently treats the other as degenerate and evil, it brings the reality into much clearer light.

How much longer can a nation stand once pitted against itself?

On "Keeping it in the Church"

Stay! Stay here and like it!

That (in the title, up there) is one of the favorite phrases used by liberals to silence Christians.  They say we should keep our faith out of the public square, behind our church doors and in the pews.  It should be "private."  They tell us that Jesus and God wouldn't approve of our engagement in the general discourse.

Were it not so dangerous, these kinds of comments and demands would be funny.  Let's use an example.

Let us go back in time and recall the Civil War again.  Ulysses S Grant attacked Robert E. Lee in 1864, he pushed the Confederate army back to Richmond and Petersburg.  Unable to abandon the capital, Lee dug in to prepare for Grant.  However, the Union did not attack, as the positions were well fortified, and instead besieged the cities.  Lee's forces began to dwindle.  He had dug into a strong position, but lost the ability to maneuver or resupply effectively.  The Confederate army grew weaker as the winter wore on, spelling doom for Johnny Reb the following spring.

Now, why do I bring this up?

Because, according to liberals, that's what we, as believers in Christ, should do.  We should dig into our churches and stay there, never moving.  Instead of going out into the world to preach the gospel, we should remain where we are with our "private" faith.  This idea appeals to some; it's not easy to leave our comfort zones.  Of course, what would happen to our churches if we were to do that?

Much like Lee's army, they would wither on the vine, unable to grow, and ultimately die, like so many houses of worship in Europe.

We are commanded to spread the gospel all across the Earth.  How can we do that simply sitting in our church pews?  If we sit idle in our houses of worship, how do we spread the message of Christ's love and redemption?  Obviously, we can't.  The faith cannot spread without evangelists going out into the world to bring people to Christ.

We are to be movers and shakers, transforming hearts and minds that are broken or mired in sin. We are to come to them so that they may be healed in Christ's love.  We can't wait for them to come to us.  Some may be so stubborn, they'll never be moved to approach a church, even at their lowest point.  We must go to where they are, no matter where they are, so we may minister to them.

Because Christ transforms.  Transforms our hearts, minds, opinions, and the very way we think.  However, to bring the message to others we must leave our pews and represent Christ in all we do.  And all we do includes politics and the culture at large.  It would be two-faced to behave one way in private and another entirely in public.

Simply put, Christianity is the antithesis of a "private" religion.

Whether they realize it or not, the leftists advocate for the slow destruction of Bible-based churches with their claims that faith should be kept in the pews on Sunday morning.  Instead of seeking robust debate about our faith or our values, they desire to silence us.  Whether we do it voluntarily, allowing ourselves to be shamed into staying in church, or involuntarily through the legal system does not matter.

This is something we should all be wary of.

On Working Full-Time

While filling out some job applications in our increasingly bleak economy something caught my attention.  Many applications ask how many hours one would like to work for a particular company.  Normally, it brackets them as "Less than 20"; "21-30"; "31-40"; and "40+".  However, I saw something interesting while perusing the applications.  From time to time, would run across one that would stop at "31+" hours.

Now why would they do that?  After all, we generally consider full-time work to be 40 hours.  Why would the list stop ten hours short of normal?

Well, for the attentive and intellectually honest among you, it is because of Obamacare.  Under the law's provisions, employers must start providing health insurance to employees once they hit 50 full-time workers or pay the penalty for failing to comply. The catch, however, is that the law considers employees who work 30 hours per week full-time.

In other words, the government arbitrarily declared what constitutes full-time work, ostensibly to force more companies to provide health insurance to their employees.  Of course, considering providing insurance adds considerable expense to any company's payroll, whether it can "handle it" or not, this is serving to have the inverse effect.  Instead of giving insurance to their workers, the companies drop workers or reduce them to part time hours.

This move has had several effects.  Most obviously, it reduces the amount of jobs available to people.  In addition to companies hiring less to ensure their payroll does not blow up, many employees who have had their hours cut must take on additional jobs to maintain their standard of living. However, I believe this move will have another, even worse effect on the population at large.

It will further devalue the concept of the full time job.  As the more or less defunct Occupy Wall Street demonstrated, there are many youth out there who believe they do not have to work.  Or worse, they believe they don't have to work hard or in undesirable conditions.  Working for a living has become a dated notion and, indeed, they owe the world nothing.  They go so far as to believe that the world owes them something.

They are both wrong and right.  They're wrong in believing the world owes them something.  It owes them nothing if they fail to produce something of worth and then it only owes them that which they have earned.  But they are also right in their angst against the idea that they owe the world something.  They don't.

Are they seriously trying to say lounging about in public squares...

Progressivism has done much to obscure the true purpose of why we work.  We work because we owe ourselves a good living.  Working for a living is not some nebulous, unknowable notion.  We produce to better ourselves and our families.  If we can better the lives of others (and very few people don't) through our labor, all the better.

This odd concept that earning a living is somehow "outdated" misses the point.  People have to produce to live, survive and thrive.  What that mentality fails to take into account is that everything we use, whether we created it or not, was created by someone.  Our food, our clothes and our devices did not appear on the Earth by magic.  They were created by someone who needed the money to live.

We're just fortunate to live in a country where we can easily pursue goals beyond basic subsistence living.

When we don't work, we become stagnant.  We don't grow when we don't work and aren't challenged.  Even worse, we become leeches.  If we do not provide for ourselves, often someone else provides for us.  And demanding someone else provide for us, whether the parent or the state, robs us something else.

Dignity.

...is more dignified than working hard? Collecting trash may not be glamorous,
but at least they aren't demanding something they haven't earned.

On Head Knowledge and College

As a gamer, I have often had opportunity to speak with people who I might have otherwise never met. In particular, I know quite a few people from countries across the Atlantic. From these, I've gained a different perspective (albeit, in a limited fashion) of the thoughts and feelings from those in Europe.

Much as President Obama touts here, many of my EU friends love the universal university education provided by their countries. For many, it is seen as a right (or close to one). To them, higher education is virtually guaranteed to afford better opportunities, something which is statistically true. These conversations, at some point, tend to lead to a little America-bashing, where we are mocked for the perception that we are ignorant.

Several months ago, it occurred to me just how arrogant this mentality is (ironically, arrogance is the very thing many Europeans will accuse Americans of). While it is true there are many ignorant people in the United States, why would this not hold true of Europe as well? The only reason it is obvious in America is that we, as a nation, attract more attention.

However, it also begs the following question: what exactly is intelligence? I have addressed this before, however, today I talk more about “head knowledge.” This is the information you learn in school and in universities. Physics, history, literature; the subjects university students plan to use to make careers for themselves.

Of course, head knowledge varies from individual to individual. Often, people are mocked for not knowing simple information, such as locating France on an unmarked map or identifying the man on the ten dollar bill.

But is this indicative of stupidity? Or is it, as I believe, indicative of differing priorities?

After all, how is it bad or a waste of a good mind if the plumber who is fixing my sink can not find France on a map? Who would want to? It's France.

French-bashing aside, why would it matter to the plumber? He is there to fix my sink, not teach me the map of the world. If he's making $100,000 yearly by being a practical, useful human being, why would knowing where France is help him in his job? It wouldn't. Why would the man seeking to do well so he can feed a family sit down and figure out that Alexander Hamilton graces the bills I paid him for a job well done?

Ultimately, I believe that it boils down to the conceit caused by universal college. That conceit is two-fold.

First, in propping up universities and universities alone, people place undue importance on higher education over other career paths. People who go to college often grow arrogant, feeling that they are, in some way, superior to people who have not. Many of those people are blissfully unaware of their ignorance. That is not to say there is no need a need for scientists, historians and linguists, but these fields also do not teach much in the way of practical skills which one could use in a normal job.

Additionally, it implies that other careers and jobs are somehow not fulfilling. Not that it is glamorous to pick up trash, but it's also a job that needs doing, regardless of one's level of education. And I'm sure there are some who get a sense of fulfillment out of the dirty, gritty jobs that academics would never do.

The other problem lies in the fact that “college for everyone” assumes that everyone is cut out for college. Being a university student requires a certain type of person. One who hungers and thirsts for knowledge is a must. It requires a focused mind as book-learning can become quite tedious. To assume that everyone can do this sort of thing is silly, not because some people are inherently superior to others, but because people are different. Some people absorb knowledge early, while others take time. Some have the patience to read large textbooks while others do not. Some have the ability to memorize maps of the world and do complex algebra in their heads while others cannot. It's not necessarily because some are stupid and lazy while others are smart and quick; our brains are just wired differently to do different things.

This sort of thinking also trivializes other kinds of knowledge and intelligence. Why does one need to attend university when he or she is perfectly capable of starting a business without the education? Learning the nuances, struggling to turn a profit and make payroll, and succeeding or failing on one's own merits is learning as well and no less useful than understanding the ins and outs of the American Civil War. Both have their place and both aid those who know them.

I say none of this to suggest we should discourage people from attending university. What I am saying is that it is okay to attend university, just as it is okay to attend a trade school, join a company and work your way through the ranks or start your own business. All are noble pursuits worthy of respect.

People will learn information as they need it.  They don't learn based on some arbitrary assumption of information's necessity, but because it will be useful to them in their jobs or their lives.  And college is but one place where one can seek out knowledge.

Europe, in all of its glorious, fully labeled splendor!  I, once again, apologize to the Poles.