In the state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker came into office with the state having a surplus. He used that surplus to give a very large tax break to the wealthy and to corporations. The surplus was not sufficient to make up for the reduction in state income, so Walker cut benefits to the poor and the middle class. For instance, he made various municipal and state employees pay more for their fringe benefits. Thus a school teacher making $50,000 a year was required to pay $600 a month more for health benefits. In effect, he reduced a middle class worker’s income by $7200 annually and gave a several thousand dollar tax reduction to someone making $500,000 or more. Now, we discover that, because of these tax reductions, Wisconsin has a two billion (2,000,000,000) dollar deficit. Walker’s solution? Cut middle class income more and give the wealthy another tax break. And, when that tax reduction causes yet another deficit, … Well, the rest follows logically.

It is, however, not the logic that is in question here. It is the principle that gives birth to that logic, a principle that those who pursue such logic are loathe to discuss. One would assume that this principle is the time-honored shibboleth of conservatism, namely, that smaller government is better government. To put it another way, if we have a choice of doing something through government or through private industry, then we should choose private industry because it is more efficient and effective. That principle has been proven true far too many times to be doubted. Private effort, whether driven by profit or by charitable dedication, has time and again provided results that no governmental bureaucracy could possibly have accomplished.

You will notice, however, that the conservative principle is only effective if we have a choice. It is universally admitted and goes without question that there are areas where we do not have a choice. The most obvious of these is the area of military defense. It is simply incovceivable that we could provide anything approaching an adequate defense of this country by use of private armies. Even in defense, however, we use private industry to equip our armed forces, because private industry can do that more effectively than any kind of state-run manufacturing system.

So now we can come to the real issue for discussion between rational conservatives and rational liberals: in what areas do we not have a choice? The answer depends, ultimately, on what the ideals are that constitute your form of government. If, for instance, your form of government is based upon the ideal of an all-powerful state, then you likely will never have a choice. Government must do everything, must nationalize industry and control communications and eliminate the profit motive altogether. Such was the disaster of the Soviet Union.

What, then, is the American ideal? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” To put that another way, to be an American is to be unconditionally dedicated to seeing that all human beings are provided with those rights fundamental to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Herein, I propose, lies the difference between true liberal and true conservative. Both camps must, on pain of losing their right to be called American, believe that every human being deserves these fundamental rights. I think it obvious from the fact that they are the constant topic of conversation, that these rights include the right to basic medical care, the right to a living wage, and the right to an education befitting their abilities. A rational discussion between liberal and conservative would be about the best means to provide these rights to all Americans. There are those rational liberals who make a good case that, for instance, on medical care, it is only the government that can implement a program of adequate medical care for all Americans. There are rational conservatives who make an eloquent case for the argument that private industry could do a better job of providing that care.

The logic of each of these positions is both formally and substantively sound, because both positions honor the fundamental ideals that constitute what it is to be an American. There is, however, rampant in the public fora, a far less sound logic, a logic that, while specious, is diseased by its founding principles. How else can one explain a policy of cutting education, cutting health care, cutting wages and benefits? The principle driving such policies can only be: that is good which profits me. This diseased logic, this ill logic, is fatally flawed at its core. It is flawed because it is an abandonment of the American ideal for the ideals of self-interest. It not only serves itself; it promotes itself by encouraging others to serve themselves. It promises its advocates to reduce their taxes, eliminate their need to be safe and to protect the environment and honor the rights of others.

This appeal to self-interest is, I put it to you, is a core problem in American politics. It may not be new, but I doubt that it has ever been more pervasive or more loudly and openly promoted. Taken to its logical end, oligarchy, it would end with the abandonment of the American ideal that stands in such stark contrast to it. I know that every human being deserves basic medical care, basic education and a basic living wage. I am convinced that every rational conservative in American agrees. I fear that liberals and conservatives alike are being ignored and their ideals rejected in the name of self-interest.


I am not a scholar of either the Koran or Islam in general, so I have no idea whether Islam is a religion of peace. I do not know whether the formal doctrine of the religion of Islam is to respect the right of non-Islamists to exercise their own religions without interference. I do not know whether the formal doctrine of the religion of Islam recognizes the fundamental right of every non-Islamist to life and liberty.

I do, however, know two things for sure. First, the vast majority of Islamists have repeatedly insisted that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Islam condemns absolutely the conduct of those who, in the name of Allah, have crashed planes into skyscrapers, blown up ships, murdered innocent people, shot and killed Muslim children in a school, captured, raped and sold young girls into prostitution, planted bombs in crowds, kidnapped and beheaded toursits and journalists, and condemned to death anyone who, in their minds, has insulted the Islamic religion in any way. The vast, vast majority of Islamists, both in Islamic countries and in other countries around the world, live their lives and raise their families and pursue their careers in the same spirit of peace and cooperation and good will with which the vast, vast majority of non-Islamists do. Whatever may be the formal doctrine of Islam, the conduct of those who claim Islam as their religion certainly evinces an attitude diametrically opposed to the vile, cowardly, monstrous acts described above.

The second thing I know for sure follows directly from the first. The men and women who espouse, direct or carry out these acts are not warriors, either spiritual or secular. They are thugs. They are criminals of the worst kind. To call them beasts would be an insult to the world of beaasts. No greater political mistake could have been made than to announce that we were at war with these perverts. Even Hitler and his psychopathic cohorts were sufficiently clever to convince an entire nation to turn over the national reins to them. Absent that endorsement, however, would we have gone to war with a gang consisting of the likes of Goebbels and Goring and Hitler and Himmler? Of course not. We, and all the nations of the world, would have hunted them down as the heinous criminals they were. The monsters who engaged in these desecrations deserve absolutely nothing more than to be pursued and they and their kind removed from society.

The conclusions we should draw from these two sureties are obvious, but it’s my blog, so I’ll express them anyway. First, we need to stop calling these people Islamists, extreme or otherwise. You don’t become an Islamist just by shouting “Allah ou akbar!” every time you commit one of these hideous crimes. Using the name of Islam in any way in connection with these ogres tends to give them the credence of which they do not deserve one shred.

The second conclusion is that we need to preserve the place of Islam among the great religions of the world. It would be a tragedy, and it would be considered a howling success by the adherents to this cult of monstrosity, if we were to exclude from our society this great religion and the the wonderful congerie of men and women who both espouse the tenets of Islam and contribute in endless ways to the betterment of our society. It would also deal a blow to the American ideal of the intrinsic worth of every human being from which we would not likely recover. Jefferson has often been quoted as saying that the price of liberty is constant vigilance. Undoubtedly he meant that liberty is preserved only by constantly assuring that liberty is not denied merely on racial or religious or nationalistic grounds. Those who espouse such exclusions are, either out of ignorance or ill will, lead us down a path to our own ultimate destruction.

In sum, then. Islam is to be no more condemned because of the crimes of these monsters than is Christianity for the equally monstrous crimes of the Inquisition and the persecution of Jews. It is far more appropriate to condemn these people for what they really are and allow Islam to flourish as another part of the great American rainbow.