Who Is Pushing a Social Agenda?
So many decry the attempt of some conservatives to impose their religious and social beliefs on the rest of Americans. How could they?
How could they attempt to legislate against abortion and for fetal right to life?
How could they oppose the shift in definition of marriage from an institution to protect the union created by a man and a woman, and their children, to one for every type of couple?
How could they discriminate against gay people, pregnant women, the poor, illegal immigrants and, surely, others?
How could they think personal gun ownership should continue in our country, when people use them at times to kill others?
How could they wish to govern their own healthcare choices?
How could they object to programs such as drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, not to mention in-state tuition for their children?
What righteous, cold, insensitive, uncaring people conservatives are! They obviously don’t care about others.
“How could they, indeed?”
In reality, conservatives are the least of the purveyors of a personal social agenda in America.
The liberal side of American society has definitely pulled a fast one in making it seem so, as they are the ones responsible for more social agenda- pushing than any conservative.
The conservative mantra may sometimes be excessively pro status quo in a changing world; but, really, they just want to leave what they consider a good thing alone.
Although social change is a constant, it became most notably institutionalized under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Federal programs and intervention in the business world during the Great Depression, although they appear to have been beneficial, could, according to some scholars, have prolonged it.
Social Security, another progressive institution, certainly has its good points compared to some historic abusive employment practices, but it also has a downside. It is a required withdrawal from personal paychecks, has been overspent by the government without the control or knowledge of the people who paid in, and may have contributed to the decline in personal savings in our society.
Medicare, started under President Lyndon B. Johnson as a government response to the difficulty in finding health insurance among the elderly, is also generally considered good. But it also has a downside. It certainly, along with the other social agenda item of employer paid health benefits, has put great distance between people and their own healthcare, as well as contributed enormously to wasteful spending and treatment in the healthcare industry. If one were paying, wouldn’t a morbidly obese person choose the lesser cost item of fitness coaching rather that knee replacements?
Now, after the failed Clinton-era attempt to bring the government more into healthcare, comes Obamacare, the most unwieldy and flawed government takeover ever. Having the federal government take over personal health care is a huge social change. Perhaps its deep flaws will make people think about how much federal government involvement they really want in their lives.
Whatever happens, it is definitely an example of societal change to have the federal government in charge of personal healthcare.
Another social agenda item is the persecution of people who use politically incorrect words. Of course, some of them are definitely inappropriate. But, please, don’t give them weight they don’t deserve.
Two quotes from Vladimir Lenin seem appropriate here: “One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.” “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
Don’t blame the conservatives this time.