To Conservatives...how can you have it both ways?

[bcubed72]

I'm gonna pick on George Will here, but I know this viewpoint is embraced by many conservatives.

Back when I was working for the USPS, Hatch Act reform was a big issue. Until this point, gov't employees were prohibited from aiding a campaign (on their own time and out of uniform). Will was adamantly opposed to any liberalization of the law, due to concerns about corruption. Although I failed to agree with him I just figured he placed corruption concerns ahead of free-speech rights and left it at that.

Fast forward to 8 years later or so, when campaign-finance refom was a hot topic. Mr "anti-corruption" Will now comes out AGAINST limits on spending, as such would be an infringement of free speech! I had a hard time grasping how, if free speech was more important than corruption concerns for rich people, how it suddenly became LESS important for government employees. I don't suppose the fact that rich people are predominantly Republican and gov't employees are predominantly Democrat had ANYTHING to do with his decision, did it? I mean, I can't expect to always agree with somone, but shouldn't their arguments at least be logically consistent?

I would invite anyone sharing Will's viewpoints to argue here for your beliefs in a manner that does not leave you open to being branded a hypocrite.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I would invite anyone sharing Will's viewpoints to argue here for your beliefs in a manner that does not leave you open to being branded a hypocrite.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this is possible sice you place no restraints on who you might brand with such a title, but here is why. Whose vote is more likely to be "bought"? A poor person of course, it is simple economics, buy a bum a beer, drive him to the polls and have him pull the Democratic handle, total cost = $1.75, much more cost effective than wining and dining a rich business leader. Rich Republicans are better informed than poor government employerd Democrats, pretty simple really. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Jimbo

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
Whose vote is more likely to be "bought"? A poor person of course ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is more likely to "buy" votes? A rich person of course ...

Buy a bum a beer, get a no-bid contract in Iraq, pretty simple really.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whose vote is more likely to be "bought"? A poor person of course ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is more likely to "buy" votes? A rich person of course ...

Buy a bum a beer, get a no-bid contract in Iraq, pretty simple really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely why I love capitalism. Plus this is a good indication that Reaganomics works.

Jimbo

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whose vote is more likely to be "bought"? A poor person of course ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is more likely to "buy" votes? A rich person of course ...

Buy a bum a beer, get a no-bid contract in Iraq, pretty simple really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely why I love capitalism. Plus this is a good indication that Reaganomics works.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that show Reaganomics works?

[wdcbooks]

Will is clearly inconsistent regarding these viewpoints. I view myself as a conservative and I am adamantly opposed to campaign finance restriction as an obvious and unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Prohibiting government employees from engaging in political activities is an equal infringement.

I find it endlessly frustrating that we are willing to give away our rights because the wrong people are gaining an advantage from the exercise of those rights. Conservatives are willing to give away privacy rights with warantless wiretapping and similar national security programs. Liberals are perfectly willing to limit speech in the guise of limiting corruption.

Honestly with campaign finance reform I don't care if it actually achieves its goal of reducing the corrupting influence of money in politics. I consider the right to purchase time to express your viewpoint to be a clear exercise of speech. I would rather the government had nothing whatsoever to do with the financing of campaigns, but if they insist on being involved I would equally insist that limiting and regulating that speech should not be allowed.

The OP seems to think conservatives all agree with each other. I admire Will as an excellent political writer, but I sometimes feel like he argues a point just to show he can. I think he was wrong on the fist issue and dead right on the second.

[xorbie]

wdc,

I'll have to completely disagree with you here. Campaign financing sucks right now, it sucks real hard.

[wdcbooks]

[ QUOTE ]
wdc,

I'll have to completely disagree with you here. Campaign financing sucks right now, it sucks real hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah it does. I just think that a complex web of government regulations that are inevitably built to favor the party in charge of writing the regulations is a good recipe for a reduction in freedom and political speech.

I think the crux of my problem with 'reform' is that I refuse to acknowledge a difference between speaking on a street corner to espouse a political belief and giving money to someone else to advocate that belief on my behalf. They are both 'speech' under my definition.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
How does that show Reaganomics works?

[/ QUOTE ]

That quip was a bit tounge in cheek. Many think Republicans are evil rich people who buy votes with their wealth. Reagan liked the trickle down theory so if a rich guy buys a poor mans' vote it is Reaganomics in action. You'd think the Democrats would approve of this method of wealth redistribution. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Jimbo