Sounds to me like your mind is pretty much made up geauxto.
I'm not college educated though I consider myself curious about alot of things in life. My best friend has PHD, and thought I would take almost anything he says seriously, I would not trust him to use a tire jack.
I believe that a distinction between Conservatism and Statism goes back to Alexander Hamilton, on one side with his form of Federalism, which he used as a tool to construct his view of the empire, and James Madison with Thomas Jefferson on the other side of the equation believing in a different form of federalism, focusing on Inalienable Right, Government by the consent of the governed, and to guard against the threat of tyranny, enumerated powers, with expansion of power through constitutional amendment. Any idea how many times tyranny was refereed to in the federalist papers?
Hamilton believed that our voice as citizens was limited to whom we vote for on election day, and that our primary responsibility was to conform to the laws of the empire. He also believed that the end justified the means, no matter who got hurt.
Madison was principled and purpose driven, seeing a conflict with purpose for being and the construct of the federal mechanism to serve the purpose, actually valued the purpose over the structure and was inclined to bring the structure into compliance with it's reason for being. The blind cannot lead well.
As alien as this concept is today, inside and outside the beltway, it is necessary to better serve truth and justice.
This division between the statist, which may actually believe that government is the answer to everything, and the conservative that believes that Life, Liberty, and Property (John Locke), are the best defense against tyranny. Government by consent requires us to be informed, not spoon fed.
Choice V.S. Control
That said the left does dominate education, higher-education, and most of the media, with the exception of talk radio.
These two philosophies are opposed, and have divided us from the start.
First of all, to clarify, I don't think you have to have a college education to be intelligent, successful, decent, or any of the other niceties of pleasant society. I grew up on a farm, and some of the smartest people I have ever known barely (if even) finished high school.
However, it's statistical fact that earning potential correlates with years of education. That was my point.
For the point on hand, I've never bought that college is a liberal conspiracy. I wonder how many parent inadvertently prejudice their kids from striving for a higher education due to their (or some radio host, who probably didn't finish college) rants about something that is over stated.
For the larger point, I reject the term "liberal" and "conservative" as they are applied today in contex of history.
First of all, to clarify, I don't think you have to have a college education to be intelligent, successful, decent, or any of the other niceties of pleasant society. I grew up on a farm, and some of the smartest people I have ever known barely (if even) finished high school.
You are who you are. When does one stop learning? Formally or informally? Foundation and structure go a long way on education, and when misdirected, damage severely. Vigilance is the point here, not partisanship, or substituting ideology, for fact. There are aspects in our nature that tend to slant and influence, whether we are aware or not.
However, it's statistical fact that earning potential correlates with years of education. That was my point.
Maybe that is because we are no longer a free market economy? Small business is in many ways inhibited by government over control. Government manipulation effects the value of products and services in a big way. Government partnerships and joint interests with top corporations squash the up and coming competition. Immigration policies which have flooded the lower skilled work force since 1965 have insured the elite, a low wage pool that has stifled even cost of living increasesin non government and non union workers. When the deck is stacked, so are the statistics. Government subsidies corrupt the understanding of the actual value of almost everything we touch.
For the point on hand, I've never bought that college is a liberal conspiracy. I wonder how many parent inadvertently prejudice their kids from striving for a higher education due to their (or some radio host, who probably didn't finish college) rants about something that is over stated.
I don't think that College is a liberal conspiracy either. I do believe that the system is severely corrupted by unjustified selfish interest. to clarify, unjustified self-interest, not self-interest. The education universe is not immune from the scamming and scheming, that the unsuspecting pay for in one form or another. My kids are in college, and I support them, I would never council them to by-pass or avoid higher education.
It's true that Rush didn't do college, he is an exception to the rule, and I value his council. Mark Levin did do College, if he is hard for you to listen to, and you are open to giving him a fair hearing, may I suggest "Men In Black" and "Liberty and Tyranny". Uninterrupted, with less tangents.
Regarding Tyranny and the loss of Liberty, or the failure of a Government to recognize Inalienable Right, A Principal which it was founded on, there is no overstatement, only individual voice.
For the larger point, I reject the term "liberal" and "conservative" as they are applied today in cont ex of history.
I see the political Liberal different from an ethical liberal. One is determined to control everything, the other generous, tolerant, patient, and reserved in judgment.
The term to describe the polarity we face today, and did also 200+ years ago Mark Levin would refer to as a Statist. It is not a derogatory term, it merely implies accurately that one side of the equation See's government intervention and control, as the solution to all of our problems.
True Federalism respected the Sovereignty of the Individual States, in relation to enumerated powers, it respected us as citizens and people too. I agree whole heartedly that in relation to expanded realization of Individual Liberty, and equality under the law, the Federal Government plays a very necessary and needed role, however poorly it does, then and now. The same applies to the clearly designated and mandated powers of the Constitution. For the sake of argument, something new is tried at the local or state level, it is tested and refined, and retested, and retrofitted until it is made right, then it is ready for mas distribution. Maybe it works well in one climate or environment, but not another.
One size does not fit all. If something needs to be recalled or costly changes need to be made, better small scale than National or global.
Control V.S. Choice.
Equal outcome and Liberty do not coexist. It is not the place of Government to control the outcome of the game, but to maintain the integrity of the Field and play, and to show no partiality as referee.
