Democrats are popularly credited with being the party of caring, compassionate people who look out for the little guy and help those in need. I say “popularly” as this is the commonly held belief that is reinforced at every turn by the mainstream media. Surprisingly (or not), actual statistics do not support this stereotype. Studies show that it is the conservative portion of the American people (most of whom tend toward the Republican Party) who give more, whether it is donating blood or contributing money to charitable causes.

In May of 2008,
Gallup conducted a poll that measured the level of giving by political ideology. Gallup found that the more conservative a person is, the more she or he contributes to charity and that the more liberal a person is, the less she or he contributes to charity. The chart below shows just how marked the disparity is.

Also on the chart, you will notice the level of charitable giving reported by Misters
Obama and Biden for the four years prior to Obama’s appearance on the federal payroll. You will notice that their donations are very consistent with Gallup’s findings. Not shown on the chart, as the numbers are less readily available, are the charitable contributions of Bush and Cheney. I was able to find specific information for a couple of years, where it was reported that their donations ranged from 9% to 26% to 35% to 77% of their adjusted gross income.

While Gallup did not investigate why the differences exist, it is easily explainable by principles of the political ideologies surveyed. Conservatives believe in small government, confined narrowly to the functions authorized by the founding fathers in the Constitution and other documents. Conservatives recognize that government is generally incompetent, corrupt, and inefficient. With this in mind, it makes more sense for caring people to donate their hard-earned funds to organizations that are best equipped to provide the help and relief intended. Almost always, these are private organizations.

Additionally, conservative principles call for a solid work ethic and self-reliance. Yet nearly everyone has required help at one time or another to bridge a gap. By donating to private charities, conservatives are more confident that the recipients who actually need the help will indeed receive temporary gap-bridging assistance and not a permanent subsidy.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to view the government as the source of solutions and remedies – the government has the responsibility, insight, ability, and resources to fix society’s problems. Additionally, the government has the ability to force or coerce people into giving. By delving a bit deeper into liberal thinking, we find that liberals are also motivated by controlling help and assistance to achieve their political aims. If a liberally inclined government can set up a social program to meet real or imagined needs, the liberals are able to better control the social agenda and reap the political benefits of creating a dependent class of people. This all leads liberals to prefer imposing taxation on everyone, forcing all to support their agenda, rather than willingly giving of their own personal funds.

Hundreds (if not thousands) of Tea Partys were held this week around the country to demonstrate popular objection to Obama’s massive spending and the anticipated equally massive tax increases to pay for it. In advance of this grassroots activity, the mainstream press announced that it would not report on the protests because it was a “non-event.” Conservative pundits were hardly surprised given the mainstream press’ reluctance to report on anything that runs counter to their cheerleading for Obama.

Once again, though, Obama and the press are out of step with the American people, while conservative sentiments continue to align with the citizenry. Recently, a
Rasmussen survey found that 75% of America (a super majority) is distrustful of government, while only 7% support the “political class.” Specifically, the study found that most of the country:

• Trusts the judgment of the American people more than they do the judgment of America’s political leaders.
• Believes that the federal government has itself become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interest(s).
• Believes government and big business work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Underscoring these sentiments is another Rasmussen survey that found only 14% of Americans believe that the federal government will do a better job running the big three automakers than private industry. A full 67% believe the automakers will be worse off with the federal government in charge.

It should be noted that in each of these studies, a majority of Republicans AND a majority of Democrats side with the majority of Americans – these sentiments cut across party lines. This supports my assertion that most Americans do not understand conservatism and that most Americans hold views consistent with conservative principles.

In apparent contrast to this opinion, yet another Rasmussen survey found that barely half of all Americans believe that capitalism is better than socialism.

Looking deeper at capitalism/socialism preferences, the study found that people with investments, Republicans, and Americans with more life experience (older than 30 years) are decidedly in favor of capitalism. Even a small majority of democrats and people without investments prefer capitalism. The one demographic group that overwhelmingly prefers socialism is adults under 30 years.

Given that only 53% of Americans recognize the benefits of capitalism, how is it that 75% are distrustful of the government’s management of the economy? One possible explanation is that many/most people do not understand what the two terms mean or how they differ. The survey simply asked which system people preferred, capitalism or socialism; it did not attempt to define the two terms. Perhaps simple ignorance explains the apparent disparity between this survey and the others cited.

On this disparity, Rasmussen opines: “The fact that a ‘free-market economy’ attracts substantially more support than ‘capitalism’ may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.” They support this position with added evidence that only 15% of Americans prefer a government-managed economy (a popular definition of socialism).

Which brings me back to my assertion that most Americans don’t understand conservatism and that most Americans hold views consistent with conservative principles. This is a lesson we conservatives can take to heart. When speaking with non-conservatives it is best to assume a certain level of political naiveté and find common ground, which usually exists since most people hold conservative values in their heart of hearts, and then build agreement on the underlying conservative principle(s).

Then, most important of all, resist the urge to accuse them of being a closet conservative!

China is the single biggest debt-holder of the United States Government. Over the last several weeks, China (not to mention several prominent members of the largely socialist European Union) has expressed growing concern over Obama’s handling of the current economic crisis and his administration’s push for increased economic globalization. Their concern, not surprisingly, is not altruistic but is at root a concern for its own economic welfare. Since China has vast holdings of U.S. government bonds and is hugely dependent on product sales to the U.S. economy, they are rightly concerned when something threatens the economic viability of our country. In other words, if our economy is sufficiently damaged, the U.S. will default on its debt and reduce trade, which will damage the already precarious Chinese economy.
 
Speaking from this position of concern, and likely trying to strengthen its role in global economic matters, China recently proposed the creation of a new global currency to replace the U.S. dollar. Russia is of like mind and has not only called for an international currency to replace the dollar, but is taking the next step of convening an international conference to discuss the creation of that currency.
 
For the last several decades, the dollar has been the most widely used currency in the world, largely because the U.S. has the biggest and strongest economy in the world, and the U.S. political system is one of the most stable around the globe. However, as the Obama administration has taken bold steps to dramatically change the U.S. economy, many abroad have seen such action as reckless and threatening to the overall global marketplace. Premier Wen Jiabao of China recently appealed to Washington to avoid taking any action that would weaken the dollar or threaten the ability of the U.S. to repay its debt.
 
This concern is not being expressed only by communist China. Many governments around the world hold a large portion of their financial reserves in U.S. dollars and rely on them as stabilizing factors in their fiscal planning. Additionally, nearly all countries are reliant on the dollar for numerous commodities and international business transactions. These countries are also at risk should the dollar or the U.S. economy falter or fail. Knowing their welfare is dependent in large part upon our welfare, leaders of many nations have warned the U.S. about its plan for the federal government to spend its way out of the recession. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have all joined the chorus in expressing their doubts and concerns about Obama’s spending plans.
 
Normally, I’m not one to give much ear to socialists and communists who try to tell the U.S. how to run its business. But when voices of socialists and communists around the world speak in harmony with each other, together with American conservatism, such harmonics do catch my attention. This is especially true when the choir members have already traversed the road Obama is now embarking on. These nations boldly marched the socialist road to the brink of economic collapse and are deliberately backing away from socialism. (Russia excepted here. The Soviet Union drove off that economic cliff and ceased to exist as an empire.) These nations know the terrain and the landmarks and they are saying, “Stop!  There is a cliff ahead!”
 
As Obama moves the U.S. economy squarely into the realm of socialism (in some ways further left than where most of socialist Europe and communist China are today) we need to ask ourselves:

• Has a socialist economy ever succeeded in consistently raising the standard of living for its people?
• Does socialism inspire innovation and foster efficiencies?
• Does socialism preserve individual liberties?
• Has government ownership of business improved profits, products, choice, availability, or fostered healthy competition?

To date, the world has yet to witness affirmative answers to any of these questions.
 
As for replacing the U.S. dollar with another currency as the currency of trade and national reserves I am rather agnostic. There are pros and cons either way. Personally, I’m inclined to focus on the health of the dollar rather than the national ego of printing the international currency of choice. Of much more importance, however, is that nations around the globe are expressing strong concern about the U.S. government’s handling of the economic crisis and the likely outcome. Add to those voices the 60% of Americans who doubt the efficacy of Obama’s plans and a rational person must ask why Obama et al are running at full steam without pausing to listen to reasoned and experienced voices of caution?
 
Well, maybe it is the audacity of arrogance or the audacity of ignorance. Most likely, though, it is the audacity or power-mongering and the audacity of Marxist ideology.
 
Let us each bolster our hope for America’s welfare with the resolve to play a role in changing the direction our nation is currently headed.

---

As a point of clarification, we can always have a different global currency (the Euro, the Sterling Pound, etc.) and retain our dollar for mainly domestic use. This is what the rest of the world does today. It is a quite different matter to surrender autonomy by adopting a new national currency as Europe did via the Euro. This is not what is discussed above.

Following on the heels of massive stimulus and bailout plans, Congress has voted to give the government an 8.7% spending increase. Last fall, the Democratic Leadership in Congress approved a government budget for only half of the year (the government’s fiscal year runs from October through September), hoping that Barack Obama would be elected and that he would be more open to increasing annual government spending. For the Congressional Democrats, this bet paid off.

With only a half-year’s budget approved, the federal government is set to run out of money this month unless a budget for the remainder of the year is passed by Congress (which just happened) and subsequently approved by the president (which he will sign soon). Given the tax and spend history of the Democratic Party, it is no surprise that government spending is increasing much more than inflation and much more than can be justified in an economic environment where everyone else is tightening their belt.

Conservatives, by definition, advocate for less government, because the cost of bureaucracy is a heavy burden on the people and this burden directly limits their prosperity. So, it is no surprise that conservatives find such spending increases both unwarranted and harmful to the people of this country.

By its very nature, taxation is coercive: the government demands money from its constituents under the threat of force – you don’t pay and you are fined and sent to jail. Few would argue that this is an abuse of government power. In fact, it is a necessary evil for any functioning nation. That said, those wielding this power have a moral obligation to be wise and prudent stewards of government revenues (money taken from the pockets of fellow citizens). Unfortunately, too many elected officials have come to believe that all money belongs to the government and that the government should decide how much the citizenry really needs.

To be fair though, not all the blame can be laid at the feet of the Democrats. Under President Bush, spending also increased imprudently. Many pundits gave Congressional Republicans a bye, assuming they had voted for the spending out of a political obligation to support the leader of their party. Theoretically then, the shameful increases in government spending could be blamed on Bush – until this week anyway. Republicans offered little resistance to the spending increases and, more offensively, joined whole hog in pork spending (pun intended).

Included in the Omnibus Spending Bill (the official name for the government budget), were 9,287 pork projects at a cost of nearly $13 billion. As a reminder, pork (also known as earmarks) is a congressional tool used to fund pet programs and projects while protecting funding allocations for serious scrutiny. Most of the time, earmarks are used to reward supporters and improve an official’s odds of reelection. However, knowing how offensive the citizenry finds this practice, both Obama and McCain campaigned on eliminating such practices.

While the nature of earmarks limit scrutiny, reports indicate that 60% of the earmarks in this half-year budget are attributable to democrats and 40% are attributable to republicans. Indeed, 6 of the top 10 pork spenders are Republicans. Given the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in Congress, both parties appear to be equally guilty in fleecing the American People. Once again, Congress demonstrates that preservation of power and privilege trumps their concern for their country.

Following is a very brief sample of this bill’s pork spending:

• $332,500 to build a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas
• $225,000 for Everybody Wins!
• $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California
• $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming
• $237,500 for theater renovation in Merced, California
• $1,049,000 to combat Mormon Crickets in Utah
• $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii

For a larger sampling, please visit Heritage.org.

For me, the most important lesson is that there are far fewer authentic conservatives among congressional Republicans than many people thought. Increasingly, it seems that the “Republicrats” run Congress. Whether Republican or Democrat, members of Congress are all about what is in it for them and have precious few principles that they both espouse and adhere to. The silver lining, though, is that we have a much better idea about which self-proclaimed conservative Republicans are imposters. For these, their constituencies deserve better and should elect truly conservative candidates during the next round of congressional primaries.