RochesterConservative.com

posted by phantomlord on the D&C Forum

On the Editorial Page of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

As for the overall tone on the editorial page, I think there’s a difference between local editorials written with our region in mind and the syndicated columnists that appear on the same page. Kudos to the D&C for putting people like George Will or Bill O’Reilly on the same page, but lets not pretend they’re as relevant to our reason as the editorials written by the D&C.

The local editorials consistently promote certain ideologies (more government spending for example, be it a democratic idea (fast ferry) or republican idea (ren square). Both are of the same mindset and neither of them are fiscally conservative). They don’t try to dig in depth about what really goes on behind the scenes with those projects (where are the details of Ren Sq and why didn’t we know about the port lease deal when it happened?) because it might conflict with their preconceived bias on the project. IMO, it’s an example of them willfully refusing to seek out the facts because if they did, they’d lose more credit by continuing to push their ideology in light of them… and at that point, what’s the point of an independent paper? We could do just as well with government press releases.

Even then, if the slant was just on the editorial page, I’d probably still complain about the slant of the editors, but the problem is the slant affects the other pages too (ignoring columnists like Mark Hare, I’m talking the actual news). Call me traditional, but all I want from a news source are the bare facts; The 5 Ws if you will. The D&C (and most news outlets today) try to spin the facts a their own way so they can evoke a certain reaction in their readers. They also like to conveniently omit facts that would neutralize the spin on their articles (there were lots of gushing articles (off the editorial page) about Hillary in 2000 which talked about how she was going from town to town soliciting opinions but it neglected to mention the events were by invitation only and the questions people were allowed to ask had to be pre-approved. It completely changes the whole perspective of the tour but the D&C wanted her to win so it didn’t report those facts).

“”More than likely, our own biases probably maximize and minimize the differences between the two. To a liberal, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are the same thing, to a conservative, they’re vastly different.”

Can’t argue this, though I wish I could figure out how to bridge it”

As we become more polarized as a nation, it’s only going to get harder to bridge. The two parties are growing further apart and the amount of rhetoric spewed by leaders of both only polarizes the people more. Republicans proclaim Democrats to be against personal success (ie, you’re punished with higher tax rates for working hard and earning more than someone else) while Democrats run to the microphone to say Republicans want kids to suffer (because they only supported a $5 billion increase in SCHIP (which actually seems to be trying to achieve middle ground versus the conservative position that the program doesn’t belong at the federal level) instead of the $25 billion increase the Dems wanted).

John Edwards is right that there are two Americas, though it’s got nothing to do with wealth. I’ll try to put this in as neutral terms as I can. There is the America that supports our traditional ideals (that people should be free of government interference in their lives and should succeed or fail based on their own abilities) versus one that wants a more progressive state (government should be a pool that protects you from failure even if it means you have less economic freedom (ie, mandatory socialized health care)).

There are positives and negatives to both, but there isn’t much room for a middle ground. For example, either you support the government forcing you into a mandatory health care plan or you support the right to choose your own plan (even if that means deliberately going without insurance - yes, I’m in that category despite the fact that I’m anything but wealthy).

However, this is where the ideal of a limited federal government and states rights comes into play. The federal government’s role is to serve as a framework of basic rights (such as making sure you have the right to life, liberty, property, to pursue your own happiness, etc), to regulate affairs between states and to regulate international affairs. States can then implement whatever additional protections they want on top of that. Maybe NY wants socialized health care and welfare, so they implement it. Maybe Utah wants to be a dry state so they limit intra-state alcohol sales. Maybe New Hampshire lives up to it’s motto and there is no additional government interference there. You pick the state that suits the type of government you want and move there.

But that isn’t good enough for the left because they believe their solutions benefit everyone and that nobody should be left out simply because they live in a different state. I believe they also fear that if only some states implement things like socialized medicine and welfare, they know that they will tend to attract people who want to leech off those programs while simultaneously encouraging the economically successful to flee to a state with lower taxation where they will benefit more. So they use the clout of the populous states they control to try to impose their ideology at the federal level. That’s also why they want to get rid of the electoral college (focuses the power on populous urban states (which tend to lean left) and the flyover states (which tend to lean right) become pretty meaningless).

Personally, I distrust government power of any type and think the Constitution was near perfect (my biggest issue is that it didn’t ban slavery, but I can understand why that happened). Every bit of power you cede to a government is a little freedom you lose yourself… and even if you support your guy having that power, you have to realize that sooner or later, someone you don’t trust with that power will come to control it. I think it is inherently dangerous to let people become dependent on the government because it will make them slaves to the government (at which point, we’re back to the feudal system where the government grants you your rights rather than the revolutionary ideal espoused in the Constitution where the people grant the some government rights).

Alas, I’m not sure the two positions can be reconciled. To get back to the original point, that we maximize and minimize the differences between viewpoints depending on our own biases. A baby step toward one’s ideology (limited to try to make it more palatable) is seen as a huge change and a baby step while the other side sees it as just as extreme as the full blown ideology and as an incremental step of pushing all of us toward the full ideology (ala the boiling frog idea).

So, how to bridge the gap? I think I already explained that. A broad, limited universal framework that leaves further powers up to the states, counties and people. Accept that not all people will subscribe to your ideology (whether it be liberal or conservative) and stop trying to force it on others in broad ways. That still has two problems. One, it reduces the power of the people you elect (and they ALL love more power, regardless of party). Second, it means one might have to face the fact that their ideology will be rejected. But at the end of the day, that’s what we deserve right? That power and freedom should belong to the people and not the ideological flag bearers.