Positive and evolutionary political ideas are active processes that are supported by innovative ideas instead of rigid, dualist ideologies. A political opinion does not break down to some range between light and dark but is instead one of an endless amount of precise sides in a political debate, supported with reason and intelligence.
In America, the people find it easier to break everything into camps for one reason or another. The ones who are most indoctrinated and have the taste for power design themselves as talking heads in the public realm through government position or media outlet. A perfect example is the hundreds of talk radio Rush Limbaugh sound-alikes that clog the airwaves. On the other side of the idiocy is about ten different Democratic governors with the same boring face and so-called moderate policy.
The wedge of the claim is the frame that hangs around the rhetorical discussion of the "size" of government. If you claim you are for "small" government, you are a conservative. If you are for "social programs," you are a liberal.
Of course, those same "small" government supporters want to put their nose in your business, shrugging at free speech, Christianizing the education system, issuing the fate of death on prisoners, invading your house with wiretaps and Patriot Act searches, destroying your civil future for drug use, forcing vouchers into small, urban areas such as Washington, DC in spite of local opposition, sending women into neighboring states for abortions, packaging your money and sending it to the Middle East for a useless war and bloating an already expansive security structure to astronomical proportions. As further proof that there is no use in debating whether or not this country has logical political labeling, consider that "liberal" members of Congress shared the same view on more than half those issues when the time to vote came. Sometimes it seems like every politician in this country makes it to the top by ensuring us that he hates terror and loves Jesus. The rest of the positions of candidates with party support come according to careful calculations of what will happen in their jurisdiction the next election day.
Meanwhile, the one third of the country that considers our selves independent and the 40-60% scream and shout about the inadequacies of the America. The House of Representatives is falling down and four hundred slobs are sitting on the couch covered in cheesy poofs.
Will Haun's article on the true definition is written as though he received help from the slobs of Team Republican. He breaks down Bush's rationale for the war as a fight against tyranny in contrast to a mission to build democracy. However, anytime the Western powers destroy tyranny, they put in their brand of so-called democracy. In actuality, the debates are usually thinly-veiled attempts at money and power, but the point I would like to make is that a US fight against tyranny ALWAYS turns into a quest on support of democracy.
Haun points at how No Child Left Behind is a combination of "conservative" and "anti-conservative" ideals. The interesting thing is that Haun would probably call Hillary Clinton extremely left wing. When No Child Left Behind Came Out, Hillary supported it. When Bush refused to refund the program, she criticized him for it. The icon of the left and the icon of the right clashed heavily over an issue that Haun claims is moderate and in the end the two switched sides of the issue. Not only is our country wrong in the assumption of only two arguments repeatedly dominating the field but those chosen to represent such ideas can't decide where they stand. No one's consistent so it's not worth it to pinpoint.
Haun continues that it is no longer the job of a conservative to make government smaller. He supports a fight for neo-con ideals in social and economic policy, home and abroad. Unlike the past, it's suddenly better and more realistic to support a government that is efficient rather than limited and yet wishes to support the fact that an "individual can handle himself better than government can handle him". which must ring true in this scenario in only tax matters, of course. The average American is expected to balance his checkbook but can't be trusted to stay off crack. Very rational bright line for conservatism.
Haun wants the world to know that opponents of neo-con have painted it as a dirty word. Funny how he opened the article with "The Bush Administration has been criticized by liberals."
Will Haun's article defines a man taking an illogical, consistent position that doesn't exist on an issue that is equally fictional. A government that sticks a religious ball and chain on secular citizens while they waste their money by declaring war on concepts that don't exist is not compassionate, conservative, liberal, limited or efficient. The policy of most politicians is thuggish power-snatching regardless of ideology. A person must appear to work for one of the two teams to gain support, but the labels don't define anything.
Haun's piece expresses itself as a diagnosis by a mind washed, voluntary White House mouthpiece cloaked as an independent conservative. Haun spins the same garbage that is pounded day and night by unoriginal radio morons. Does he have anything interesting to say?
Daniel Cohen is a senior in the School of Public Affairs.
