I am, at the least, leery of all of this. It feels too much like the government trying to standardize more and more of our lives.
All those questions you raise are valid, but I particularly am concerned in two ways about the last: "Is service still service when it's coerced? Does this point belong in the debate?"
I don't believe it's true service, at that point. If it's forced, unpaid work...isn't that slavery? Or indentured servitude? It's one thing, potentially, if it's an aspect of punishment for a crime, say as part of a jail sentence. But for every child in America? Not only does it reek of "Free labor! Dude!", it also has worse potential long-term affects.
Recall when you were a teenager (varying amounts of time for us all). Often, when you were forced, one way or another, to do something, you resented it. Put as little effort as possible in it. Did the absolute minimum required. Is this the attitude we want to engender in a whole nation of teenagers? Certainly, not all of them will have this. But many likely would; I know I'd have been likely to do so. Adding to this is potential frustration from having to juggle hours if, as you fear, not all service is "government approved".
In fact, the very idea of "government approved service" should set up warning bells.
As for the money for tuition: yeah, that's actually a pretty good "wage". I would love, absolutely love, to make half of that with my full time job right now.
Making 5 completely new groups, and notably expanding 2 more? Yeah, not so much.
"How much will it cost?" Lots. Millions, if not billions.
"How will it be paid for?" Taxes. Lots of taxes. On us. At every level. Ah well, not like I needed a paycheck to pay my bills or anything, right? (Note: some hyperbole used in the last sentence.)

This can be summed up as: Nice idea and intent, bad methodology.

It's kinda creepy from two angles:

a) The only way to pay for all this is higher taxes.

b) I love the idea of service, but I hate the idea of government making these decisions for my children. Their schedule belongs to me, and if this service can be done on school time, assuming it doesn't compromise their education, I'm guessing it could be a good thing. But if outside of school hours they're going to start deciding how families must spend their time . . . um, that's not democracy.

What about homeschooled kids?
Who decides what counts as community service?

The questions this raises require answers that result in more and bigger government.
---

Oh, and all the mentions of Bush are so that when things don't work out or tank, they can still shift the blame.

I think that, overall, this is a good idea, excepting the college-level tax break.

My reasons for disliking the tax break are the same as yours - they're for pragmatic reasons. Frankly, there isn't a part of the government I dislike more than the IRS and doing anything to emphasize, expand or encourage their role in anything I am against. Unless we're talking about taxing the crap out of abortions or eliminating it altogether, I don't even want to think about the IRS. (Please, oh please, where is my FairTax?)

While I think that the idea of college students doing service work is a great idea, I think it can be required, similar to middle and high school, within the curriculum, at public universities, of course. If Obama wanted to go full-bore, he could make it a part of the school's requirement in order to receive accreditation, affecting all schools.

I think it would largely be an unfunded mandate, but it wouldn't be expensive to implement at a basic level in the middle and high school arenas. The Federal Government issues lists of what qualifies, initially being vague and ambiguous and getting more and more specific over the years. The counselors for each grade (who, in my schools, weren't overtaxed for time) can oversee student submission of service. They could have a form signed by the service leader stating how many hours and doing what.

This would be pretty basic and, honestly, somewhat cheatable, but the student would be forced to think about what to do. I don't think it's a bad idea, personally.


As far as the Bush thing goes: If you want this country to heal like you think it should, then shutup about Bush. Don't tell me you want to be my friend and then punch my other friend in the face over and over again. Another blog I read with a strong liberal readership had commenters speaking in one sentence about a renewed sense of unity they feel and then in the next about how they couldn't wait to see the evil Bush leave office. Sigh . . .

"I love the idea of service, but I hate the idea of government making these decisions for my children. Their schedule belongs to me, and if this service can be done on school time, assuming it doesn't compromise their education, I'm guessing it could be a good thing. But if outside of school hours they're going to start deciding how families must spend their time . . . um, that's not democracy. "
This too.

In regards to Jared's question about how the requirement may apply to homeschooled kids: don't worry, I imagine they will try to eliminate the option of homeschooling your kids. Afterall, the government knows better.

This whole thing is an awful idea, for all the concerns mentioned and more.

For any one that doubts it, remember the Boy Scouts. A group that is 99% totally independent of government, but who occasionally uses government lands or buildings to meet in. And look at how that 1% of government 'involvement' has given gay rights advocates, etc. the ability to try to enforce their doctrine on the Boy Scouts.

Can you honestly think that any federal mandated or funded program (especially with creative lawyers and Democratic appointed judges) won't result in similar issues? And will Christian charities be able to reject the appeal of massive federal money, even if it means they have to 'adapt' their beliefs a bit to comply?

An awful, awful, idea in so many ways.

Unless there is a way to opt out of the program, how would the middle/high school service plan not be considered involuntary servitude?

Shauna, I'm guessing it will be tied into the education mandate. Kids are required by law to "go to school," so I'm sure it will be lumped into school credits and what-not.

I just don't know what they're going to cut to make room for community service in the school day. And if it falls outside of the school day, it is just further government encroachment upon the lives of its citizens.

I love community service. I do it, both individually and with my church community. And I'm trying to instill the value of it in my kids.
But I don't need the government telling me what to do with my kids and when.

Did anyone not think an Obama presidency with a Democratic Congress would mean bigger government?

Quaid, you wrote: "I think it would largely be an unfunded mandate, but it wouldn't be expensive to implement at a basic level in the middle and high school arenas. The Federal Government issues lists of what qualifies, initially being vague and ambiguous and getting more and more specific over the years."

How do you know it wouldn't be expensive? It would be a new requirement of paperwork and accounting for every school, for every student. At my daughter's high school we're talking about probably 3,000 students.

And this is a government mandate, meaning it would require specific federal reporting requirements. We have to do regulatory reporting at my work for various things. It's a huge pain.

In addition, I found this statement kind of ominous: "initially being vague and ambiguous and getting more and more specific over the years."

Maybe I'm alone in finding that, to use Jared's term, creepy.

A side note: Liberals often wonder why conservatives seem so leery about these kinds of things. "C'mon" they say, "Let's just try it!"

The reason to be leery is because federal programs like this never go away.

great.... now in addition to the lovely required fundraisers... when my kid hits middle school i'll also have to be dragging them around for 100 extra hours a year.

do they really think parents arent going to resent this about as much as the kids? especially those that have multiple kids not yet old enough to drive themselves around.

First of all, I think that we'd all be better served if we stopped referring to "slavery." Schools require students to do lots of things. The question of whether community service should be part of that is legitimate, but I don't think that we're served by hyperbole. Now, if we're referring to gym class as torture, that's entirely reasonable ...

Moving on ... I'm not really bothered by schools having some kind of service requirement, but it might be made unmanageable by trying to figure out which service counts and which doesn't. I would need to see those details spelled out before I'm willing to come down on one side or the other.

Wickle - I agree. The slavery talk is hyperbole that clouds the issue.

As others have stated, I'm good with community service being a part of a school district's curriculum. I'm very wary of it being federally mandated.

Our schools do lots of community service. It's voluntary and lots of kids take part.

It gets more creepy when Obama truly begins to define "service." The reason it doesn't set right with Americans is that it has, at its foundation, Communist intentions. We find our value in service to the state. We do not exist as individuals, but as integral (and indistinguishable) parts of a whole.

This is exactly why I can't go along with the prevailing "Christian" idea that, "Well, now that he's the President, and the people have spoken, I'll line up and support him." Why? He's still the same charlatan he was before, only now he has unlimited power. With the Congress marching in time along with the liberal court, we don't have a president anymore. We have an Emperor. When enough people wake up to realize that, it will be too late.

Les,

I take issue with some of your criticism. First off, President Obama hasn't actually done anything yet. I believe Christians are called to respect the office of authority above them, while, of course, maintaining our core and primary allegiance to God.

Secondly, President Obama does not have "unlimited power" and he's not yet an "Emperor".

I plan on remaining vigilant, but I'm not going to start going unhinged on a man who hasn't enacted on policy yet.

Trust me, there will be lots and lots of loyal opposition coming from these quarters. But I believe we need to be praying for Obama more than we're criticizing, at least at this stage of the game. The man is going to need wisdom.

The question of whether community service should be part of that is legitimate, but I don't think that we're served by hyperbole.

And I think the question of whether federally mandated community service is constitutional is legitimate.

Bill
Point taken. I still don't trust him. Our system is supposed to be a balance of powers. When all of the powers have an identical agenda and a history of pushing that agenda on the country without considering the will of the voters, the checks are gone, the balance is gone, and we have an empire. It may be too early to tell, and I'll try to calm down.

But what evidence is there ANYWHERE to trust them?

To defend my thoughts:

While the system could end up being expensive, it doesn't have to be. Asking students to sign and fill out a form (I see something similar to what CFISD does for their NHS application, but less involved) and turning it in wouldn't add an enormous work load for anyone. Even if your school has 3,000 students, it likely has about 8 - 12 counselors plus their administrative staff who could be responsible for accruing such things.

I honestly don't think it comes out to very much money, relatively speaking.

Schools make students do things they don't want to do all the time. I didn't want to read A Tale of Two Cities, but I did and I was better off for it. I didn't want to take physical education, but I did and I was better off for it. I now recognize the value in reading literature and living a physically healthy lifestyle. Should the government be telling me what subjects are required? Perhaps not. Or perhaps so. If we're going to have a federal education system, then let's do it right. I'm okay with scrapping the whole department and letting states do their thing. But, as far as this program goes, I just don't think that it's as bad as everyone's making it out to be.

The vagueness, in terms of development, is not meant to be creepy. To enable a new program to be initially successful, it might help if more things are given the benefit of the doubt as qualifying for service than less. I would argue that playing in a church band, with practice at home and everything would clean out a 50-hour requirement in about one month, or so, and should qualify. Start with a broad acceptance for what qualifies as service and narrow as time goes on, as necessary.

As far as trusting Obama, give the guy a chance. Don't follow blindly, don't be naive, don't give the man undue credit, but give him at least a week on the job before you go shock and awe on him. He's just seen classified intelligence for the first time in his life. Maybe he sees things differently today than he did five days ago. Maybe he doesn't - let's find out before we throw the towel at him.

Aaaah, I don't know. The towel couldn't hurt him that much.

Quaid,

I'm not throwing in the towel. The whole purpose of these posts is to respectfully examine the Obama agenda, point out things I agree with, and things that I don't.

"While the system could end up being expensive, it doesn't have to be."

Quaid, we're talking about the federal government here. Of course it doesn't have to be. But it will be.

I'll meet you halfway - as I've said before, doing community service is a good thing. But I simply cannot join you in the "it won't cost that much" statement. Think of the millions and millions of middle schoolers and high schoolers in this country. Now, put together an administrative program to keep track of it all. And do this at the federal level.

Not that we're not already spending billions. We are. This would just be one more thing thrown on the pile.

"Start with a broad acceptance for what qualifies as service and narrow as time goes on, as necessary."

You are assuming that the people doing this would be as fair-minded as you are. Plus, and I'm not sure you caught this, it would bother me a lot if, in the first year, church work counted. Then, by the third year, it didn't, and by the fifth year it had to be community service under a very strict list of Government-approved activities. This seems to be what you're saying, and I'm not sure why that's not a problem.

Here's where I land, and this based is on personal experience that I've recounted elsewhere. You have never worked for the Government. I have. I worked for a municipally owned electric company for the first four years of my career. I learned what sloth and inefficiency was. There simply aren't incentives to reach for excellence.

The private sector, in general (and usually in specifics) always works better than the public sector, unless said private sector is given bizarre non-market driven perverse incentives to do dumb things - see recent FMae FMac idiocies.

Our schools do a pretty fine job of community service already. Which is another thing that bothers me - to many liberals, if the Government didn't mandate it, it didn't happen. Hence Obama's criticism of Bush (and, by extension, the American people) that after 9/11 Community Service wasn't made a priority. I think that's balderdash, but because the Government didn't institute a bunch of Government-mandated post-9/11 community service activities, it "didn't happen".

Do I think this part of his agenda is the most egregious? No, I don't. This might be OK. But I'm a conservative :-) Does anyone remember what a conservative looks like? We are by nature averse to new Government programs, in particular when we're not sure what the driving need is for them. I'd like to see more of a cost / benefit on this. What I'm reading on the cost is - well, they don't talk about that here, do they? Do you ever buy something without knowing what it will cost you?

Regarding benefits, they don't mention that there's a large set of problems in our society that only coerced volunteerism (whatever that is) can fix. What I'm reading on the benefit is the idea that Americans need to learn more and will learn more about how to serve their community. That's possibly true. Now, what other behaviors does the Government think Americans need to start emulating? Well, wait for the list (it will be a long one).

It brings me to my final point. Liberals are commonly heard saying that Government shouldn't "legislate morality". Yet in cases like this, that's what Government is intending to do: The American people would be a more moral people if they did voluntary coerced public service. Thus let it be.

One reason the Republicans lost is because we've lost our conservative core. We line up behind these programs almost as enthusiastically as liberals do. What the heck happened to us? A conservative doesn't see Government as the solution to all problems. He/she certainly doesn't see the Government as the solution to problems ("Americans don't do enough community service") that don't exist.

If our school district at the local level wanted to expand their already existing community service opportunities, that's great. I would probably be for it. But I'm closer to our school board and can have a voice there.

Interested in your thoughts.

There are already existing things in place for high schoolers (and in our area, middle schoolers) to do community service in plenty of places. WHY would we want the federal government mandating MORE of anything?
In Florida, if you want to work toward the Bright Futures scholarship there are required community service hours in order to qualify.
FOR THE KIDS THAT WANT TO.
Plenty of kids don't. Mine will. In Florida, a kid can work hard, make good grades, serve the community and then they will be rewarded with pay for college. What parent wouldn't make their kid do that?
Oh, plenty. But that's their choice.
Cuz we live in America. You're supposed to be able to choose - even if our choice is unwise.
Without the government telling you what to do.
But once again, the conservatives will get to look like "meanies" because we don't want the government telling us the "right" thing to do. After all, who could be against community service?
No one. We're just against government MANDATED community service.
And aren't these ideas coming from the same people that scream about the idea of a draft? I don't see how this is all that different, frankly.

Regarding the towel comments - those were directed at Les. I think we're on the same page - I apologize for not being more clear.

"Now, put together an administrative program to keep track of it all. And do this at the federal level."

At no point did I see that Obama was suggesting a new Federal program to oversee all of this. A federal requirement for service is much the same as a federal requirement for physical education. There isn't a program that I have to send proof that I ran a mile under eight minutes or something. I don't think the federal government should expand and this doesn't necessary call for that - right? What am I missing?

The reason I disagree with the college thing is that it expands the IRS and tax law. I don't see the added requirement for service at the high school level doing anything close to that.

Also - GinH, wouldn't the work your student already does for community service serve the requirement suggested by Obama? I don't see where he is saying, "Whatever your kid does already, add 50 hours to that." It's just, "Do 50 hours." You say, my kid already has done sixty. Then you're fine.

Am I missing something?

Quaid,

We're not on the same page :-)

First, you're assuming that schools have plenty of bandwidth to administer a new program. I'll grant you that it's *possible* that there won't be a federal reporting requirement (but surely there will be some federal oversight, right?) You've mentioned already that the counselors at school have plenty of time to take on this new requirement. I wonder if they feel the same.

And I don't think it's going to be as simple as just "if your kid is already doing fifty hours, that's fine". Won't there be some proof needed? Wouldn't a lot of kids just say "yeah, I do fifty hours a year" even if they don't? I think they'll want to keep it "simple" by making it Government approved community service. Probably 6 or 7 Saturdays a year is my guess. Teachers will need to take part as well (to chaperone and supervise). Etc.

"Also - GinH, wouldn't the work your student already does for community service serve the requirement suggested by Obama?"

I'm going to make an assumption here that doing work for the church won't count. Perhaps I'm wrong. You yourself have mentioned that it would start out real loose and get tighter. I don't think it would even start out loose. My guess is that schools will be required to administer the whole thing - will have to organize the community service, etc. Just like the do for PE :-) - more time spent doing that means less time doing other things.

I think where we differ is that you are taking a really optimistic view of this thing, whereas I am not.

Also - GinH makes a good point: for kids who don't want to do this, this will be coercion. Maybe that's ok (as you've said, we coerce them to do PE). That's the debate we'll have to have, I suppose.

But everything (and I mean everything) costs something. Every dollar spend doing this is a dollar spent not doing something else.

Agree 100% Bill.

Having personally also worked for a government contractor, I can also relate there is nothing simple with the government. In fact, after a few years working there and hearing the press accounts of other contractors bilking the government for things like $900 toilet seats, my opinion was there was no way that any contractor could actually make them that cheap for the government. If you doubt me, spend a few months reading the thousands of pages of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).

Also, as a CPA I am required to something somewhat similar to this 'volunteering'. I have to attend and document 40 hours of continuing professional education (CPE) each year. Many other occupations have similar requirements. If you think this is a simple exercise, guess again. There is massive amounts of time and money spent getting the CPE, documenting it, submitting it to the proper state boards, making sure your CPE qualifies, keeping records of it, submitting to audits of it, etc. And CPE is normally paid for by the adult professional, who is largely responsible for doing most of the paperwork themselves. I can already see the new army of goverrnment bureaucrats we will have to hire to do this for minors whose 'volunteer' work will likely have to be scheduled, tracked, and supervised by other adults. Not to mention the myriad of rules for what will be 'acceptable' volunteer work and necessary supervision of that work.

And if you think the federal government is going to 'OK' community service for things like local church work when the church discriminates against homosexuals and gay clergy, well, I think you are pretty naive. Once the government gets involved, all the government rules are mandated. Just ask the Catholic charities who receive some federal funding that are being told they have to offer adoption services to gay parents, as well as offer condoms, birth control pills, RU486, etc.

The government has already screwed up agriculture, banking, education, retirement savings, medical care, housing, transportation, energy, disaster relief, etc. Is that STILL not enough for people to realize that government almost always worsens whatever it touches? And now we want to to get them even more heavily involved in our childrens lives, as well as all our charities?

Also, as far as I'm concerned, this move (along with many other by both parties in the last 50 years minimum) violates the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I see nowhere in the Constitution that this Amendment has been repealed, or where this type of thing is the business of the Fed.
That's ultimately my problem with it. Even education isn't really a Fed thing.

This comment is not directed at anyone, specifically:
I guess I'll be happy on my page then . . . :)

Seriously - I don't think I'm being too optimistic. Obama has stated that he is in favor of continuing Bush's push towards faith-based cooperation, so I'm not so certain that he would blackball certain churches based on their theologies. That's pretty far-reaching for someone wanting to unite the country. I don't think I'm being naive. It's not as if I'm covering my eyes during certain parts of others' comments.

I don't know why everyone's assuming that there will have to be teacher supervision. I did a correspondence course in high school. I wasn't supervised at any point in time. I took a test at the end of the course in a closed room at the school and received credit for a federally required subject. It cost me $70 for the materials for the class. It cost my school nothing. The counselor updated my profile to note I had received credit when the scores came back in the mail. Done. End of story. I said I completed the class and took a test. That's it.

How is it I'm in the wrong for assuming things will be one way, but no one else is in the wrong for assuming things will be a different way? I realize that he's crazy liberal. I realize that the government fouls up most things it touches. I also realize that there isn't anything that has happened to offer credence to either of our positions in this situation so maybe we should back off of accusations of being naive.

I'm not really offended - just puzzled at how many people know that they're right about something that hasn't even been proposed in a formal fashion. If we're going to give the President-elect a fair shake then let's do it.

I'm not really offended - just puzzled at how many people know that they're right about something that hasn't even been proposed in a formal fashion. If we're going to give the President-elect a fair shake then let's do it.

Quaid,

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and wait and see?

But please understand: I am giving the President elect a fair shake. I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Should I stop these posts, going off his formally posted agenda, until he actually takes power? If that would be better, I can do that. I kind of wanted to get ahead of the game, though. I believe I'm treating this subject respectfully.

Part of our respective reactions come from viewpoint. Please don't be offended: but a) you're young (and so less jaded than I am) and b) that I know of you've never worked in either a Government-run business or a for-profit enterprise (the Private sector). I can't overemphasize what an impact seeing both of those first-hand had on me. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but what you're looking at with hope is something I'm looking at with "I've been down this road before".

It doesn't mean I hate Obama or think everything he's going to do is wrong. But I seriously would like this particular aspect of his agenda to go away. I don't see the benefit (unless we are to believe that our kids aren't doing enough community service and need to be coerced into it) and I see some large potential costs, both in money and Government meddling into charitable behavior. I may be wrong, which means I'll be very, very pleasantly surprised. Perhaps it just means schools will need to attest that their students did community service, and it will be a very no-muss, no-fuss thing. I hope so. But I also know that federal mandates to schools hold a threat that funding will be withheld if they don't comply. And that compliance can be audited. And just for ethical reasons (and to cover my behonkus), if I was running a school and had this requirement I'd want to setup some assurance that kids are actually doing it. Will I need to call their churches and get attestation? Well, that's not feasible, is it? What I would do would be to setup community service Saturdays (or after school events) and take care of it then. It's different from your example because you at least had to take a test (which proved you had learned the material). Under your scenario for community service all a student would have to do is just say he/she did it. I just don't think that will fly.

But, of course I can be wrong on this. If I am, I can guarantee you that I will post on it and admit that I was wrong, and praise the new program if that's possible.

And I will be very glad to be wrong.

Should I stop these posts, going off his formally posted agenda, until he actually takes power? If that would be better, I can do that.

No no no. Don't stop - I think the posts are valuable. I think that you can post the topic and put up debate. But, not having personally seen the entire site, I'm interested to know which part of Obama's platform/agenda won't look too much like the one you've suggested. I'd imagine that the bulk of what he'll propose include more government programs/initiatives/taxes/spending, etc.


Regarding the topic at hand, I completely understand where everyone is coming from. We've all been down the road long enough to see that more government, in general, is never really a good thing.

But, from the perspective of this one issue, due diligence can occur at minimal cost, in the best-case scenario. Also, there are potential benefits that, in my opinion, far outweigh the costs, in the best-case scenario. You're right - I'm looking at this hopefully from an optimistic standpoint because all of my analysis occurs in the best-case scenario.

Obama ran on a platform of words - hope and change chief among them. He talked a big game. While it appears that he will likely use his executive power on the first days in office to expand abortion rights, re-introduce stem-cell research and other abhorrent things, I will allow him in other arenas to back up what he said. I will allow him room to cash the check that his mouth has written over the past 15 months.

Peggy Noonan wrote in a column last week about one of Obama's main problems entering the Presidency when she stated, "If everyone thinks you're Moses, they're going to expect you to part the Red Sea." What we're talking about here is a fundamental change to government that we've never seen. In short, a miracle (or, best-case scenario). Already, Obama has destroyed stereotypes and surpassed expectations to get where he is. Even though I disagree with him on so many levels, I remain impressed. So, let's see if this can be done well. I'm waiting to walk through to the promised land (without the sea coming in over my head or walking around in the wilderness).

Another road we've been down is seeing Obama come from relative political nowhere to the top in about five years. Maybe there's another "miracle" up his sleeves . . .

Thanks Quaid.

Another question for you (and this may sound loaded but it's not meant to be) - what has happened to conservatism? I'm nervouse because a lot of conservatives feel the way you do on this kind of stuff. There was a day (not too long ago) when, based on philosophy alone, a conservative could look at the 50/100 hours of community service and say "No. Even if it's a great idea, that goes beyond what the Federal Government is supposed to do."

We're not center-right anymore. We're not even center anymore. This country has, almost stealthily (because it's sure a surprise to me) gone left-of-center. Even people who I would reliably consider conservatives (you, for instance) can look at these expansionist, statist policies and say "Well, it sounds like a good idea to me!"

I don't think there are too many people left who have a core, conservative philosophy anymore. I may be alone, but I find that troubling as heck.

"No. Even if it's a great idea, that goes beyond what the Federal Government is supposed to do."
...Hence my reference to the 10th Amendment. ;)
That's ultimately my beef, Quaid. Doesn't matter how good this sounds, the federal government isn't supposed to do this. They already do too much. I realize that this kind of opinion likely wouldn't be widely popular, but I don't really feel like that matters.
I realize it may be a bit over the top, but I like to think of the following quote, regarding my stance:
"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." " - Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man #537
That, ultimately, is the attitude I try to take with my stances. Cheesy, I know, but still.

It would be ironic if the first black President brings back involuntary servitude.

Even people who I would reliably consider conservatives (you, for instance) can look at these expansionist, statist policies and say "Well, it sounds like a good idea to me!"

That's funny - I was thinking about this earlier today. Here's how I'm approaching the next two (to four) years:

There's nothing I can do about the liberal white house or congress - nothing. The conservatives had their chance, primarily from 2000-2006 and we blew it. (By "we" I mean the "people we elected") We blew it big time. (To co-opt a phrase I heard on a radio beer commercial) We typhooned it. This liberal federal government is what we deserve for being so lousy at communicating and enacting conservative principles.

So what shall we do?
1. Hope for the best for our country and its leaders. After all, regardless of who is in power, our safety, health, success, etc. as a nation is more important than being right. (To clarify, I'd rather be wrong about Obama and our country be successful than be right about Obama and see our country suffer greatly, as I fear it might)

2. Recall who we are and go back to our basic principles. Let's fight for basic conservatism and not waiver in a gracious, respectful, but honest, manner. When I did bill analysis for the Texas Conservative Coalition, we focused on four main principles:
a. Limited Government
b. Individual Liberty
c. Free Enterprise
d. Traditional Family Values

We ought to fight for these principles and do what we can to bring about change in their direction.

3. Learn from what is enacted by our liberal government to see what works best for them/us. Unfortunately, because we lost our power, our ability to accomplish change with #2 above is quite limited. So, during this time where government will expand, individual liberty will be more limited, free enterprise will be taxed and infringed upon and family values will be trounced on and dragged through the proverbial mud, let's do all that we can to glean what works well from the liberal proposals.

No one party has everything down perfect. What can we learn from these years of Obama's Presidency? What new things will they try that might actually be a good function of government? Certainly, while we want government to be limited, we don't want it to be non-existent. We're not anarchists. Let's see what they do. 90% of it will probably stink, but maybe this one proposal will work. And maybe it works well. Maybe high school students will learn more from playing games in nursing homes with the elderly or serving homeless people in a kitchen than they do in the classroom. Maybe not.

When we get back into office in 2012, we can scrap most of the newly enacted expansion, but keep what works. Let's go into this with an open mind, while maintaining our principles, and see what we might be able to take for our own. If Obama can make a tax cut the central point of his late push for his candidacy, certainly, we might take better education and make it the central point for ours in four years (but done, perhaps, on the local level).


Maybe this is a better conversation to have in person, but, rest assured, I still stand by the LIFT principles until someone can prove to me that there's something better out there - and so far, as we've mentioned time and again on this thread, the proof has yet to surface. I've not jumped ship on conservatism. I assume that this venture into government expansion is happening regardless, so I've mentioned a way it can happen in an ideal theorization in hopes of the "dream" being realized without significant sacrifice of our principles.

I'm open to thoughts . . .