The Diary of a Secular Conservative

Warning: The following could be considered a rant. Those of you who read this blog for the dry, thoughtful, “just the facts” tone of my posts may want to look away.

I try not to take sides in the ongoing debate between labor and management. I do this for a number of reasons, but the big one is this: I don’t like to see people getting screwed over. If unions are bleeding a company dry, they’re the problem, not the solution. If management isn’t paying a living wage, then I support the union struggle. Granted, I’m pro-business and I’ve personally had to face off against strikers when I was working security, but I’m not ideologically opposed to people getting what they deserve. There’s give and take and people deserve their fair share as long as there’s enough shares to go around.

My problem with the auto bail out (on top of my problems with bail outs in general) is that the companies are not financially viable – and they’re not viable for a reason. Everyone who has anything to do with them has a sense of entitlement. The news is making a big hubbub over the CEOs using private jets to get to Washington. The CEOs barely batted an eye when congress asked them why. The simple truth of the matter is, they feel like they deserve it. GM’s CEO was given over $15 million dollars in compensation in 2007, when the company lost $2.7 billion. Their vice chairman made over $9 million.

The United Auto Worker’s Union is no better. Last year, after a brief strike, GM was forced to sign a four year contact to pay $30 billion in health care costs to retired union workers for unrelated illnesses, hire an additional 3,000 workers, and maintain production levels at 16 plants regardless of what market forces dictate. GM’s employee benefits fund is currently estimated at $170 billion, and the company is reduced to going to Capital Hill and begging congress for a loan.

And if that weren’t enough, the big three are still not producing cars that people can actually get excited about. They don’t have a Prius. They don’t have a Scion tC. They don’t have a Civic. What they do have is gas guzzling SUVs and those killer 10-wheeled 2 ton trucks that wouldn’t see off road driving if their owner’s lives depended on it.

You can’t point a finger at any one part of these companies and say, “well, there’s your problem.” The problem is an arrogant sense of self-entitlement. The CEOs run these companies like government institutions. They completely ignore the fact that they’re part of a competitive market and just do whatever the hell they want to, regardless of cost or options. The UAW keeps drinking like well will never run dry. And congress, God help us, is going along with it.

Run away unions plus insolvent companies plus government bail outs equals communism. The government, if it decides to throw more money at the problem, is literally taking money from the tax payers and giving it to people who are over paid to do a job that doesn’t need to be done at a company that shouldn’t be in business in the first place.

If the government wants to get involved, here’s what I think they should do: Buy a piece of the big three. Not stock. Not loans. Actual factories. Retool them to be of value to society, fire off all the spoiled brats that work there, and sell them to an enterprising widget manufacturer. The auto manufacturers get their money, the unions get their comeuppance, and we don’t have to deal with incompetent management again. The government, I’m sure, will waste a ridiculous amount of money on the transaction, but at least we’d be done with it.

If we just give them more money, we’ll be right back to where we started. In a year, maybe two, maybe five, they’ll be back again, asking for another bail out. If we’re going to bring pain upon ourselves, we might as well make it a pain that doesn’t come back.

I do not believe in moral relativism. That said, I do not believe that religion, or god, or faith is the source of moral authority. I do not believe that men with pointy hats, or shiny hats, or powdered wigs, or slick hair are the experts on moral authority.

The source of all moral authority is deeply personal. Morality is deeply introspective. Morality is almost selfish. Some people like to use the golden rule but I don’t see it as that simple. I see morality as something akin to respect. My morality is based on love for myself and hatred for that which does me harm. My morality is based on the understanding that I am someone’s neighbor. My morality is based on an understanding that hurting one’s neighbor is unambiguously wrong. My morality is based on a universal truth: no one wants to be a victim. My morality is not based on faith. My morality is based on knowing, truly knowing, that there is a right and a wrong.

No one wants to be hurt. Morality dictates that no one cause harm to others. No one wants to be stolen from. Morality dictates that we not steal from others. No one wants to be manipulated. Morality dictates that we keep our word.

Religion is not something that is integral to this process. Belief in karma, or hell, or divine retribution is not an important component of morality. What is good is good, with or without validation. A good person will do good things, with or without encouragement. An evil person will do evil things regardless of their spiritual beliefs. A man who fears hell will not hesitate to murder in the name of God. An Atheist who commits murder is not vindicated by an absence of retribution.

I can point to the victim of murder. I can point to the victim of theft. I can point to the victim of slander. I can point to the victim of deceit. I can point to the victim of slavery. I can point to the victims of evil. Where is the victim of worshiping the divine as I choose?

Who do I hurt by not worshiping as others worship?

Evil is evil. There are evil people of all faiths. If faith is the source of morality, how close does one have to be to that source before they stop being evil? Popes, prophets, and priests have all commissioned campaigns of war and genocide, committed infidelity, and indulged in the most immoral of behavior. Mother Teresa lamented in her writings about how distant God was with her and at times questioned His existence and yet she was one of the greatest examples of compassion in our lifetime.

Good is good. Even Atheists are capable of love, compassion, and charity. There are millions of Atheists who do not murder, lie, or steal. They live good lives. They raise good children. They work hard and leave the world a better place than it was before they were born. I find it unimaginable that any god which claims to be just and merciful would ever favor a pious villain over an unbelieving philanthropist.

The idea that a god would cast away a good man who was brought up to worship in some other faith and embrace an evil one who said the right incantations and made the proper offerings is one that I cannot accept. The notion that a person who is able to kiss the right ass and offer the right bribes is morally superior to the person who doesn’t sickens me. That isn’t morality. That’s not even faith. That’s feverishly contacting otherworldly beings and making pacts with them for personal protection – it’s magic and bribery.

Morality isn’t about obeying one’s master. True morality requires doing what is right, regardless of the consequences. True morality means understanding that one’s actions have an effect on others. True morality means understanding those effects and not causing others to suffer as I doubtlessly would if someone were to do those things to me. I don’t need prayer to know what it means to go wanting. I don’t need to find religion to find a respect for my fellow man. I don’t need faith to know pain. I don’t need god to tell me what is or isn’t moral.

My morality comes from me.

Much is being made of the future of the conservative movement and Sarah Palin’s role in the election. To my amusement, many are claiming that her ultra-religious views alienated voters and her lack of preparation (dare I say, experience?) for debates was an embarrassment to the ticket. Palin’s pick was one aspect of the overall campaign strategy. Her selection was designed to do three things: 1) do no harm to the campaign, 2) win over disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, and 3) placate the religious base. She failed at two of those three things. The thing she succeeded at, she wasn’t needed for.

The first rule of professional politics, like medicine, is to do no harm or, as Machiavelli put it, “above all, avoid being hated.” The whole point of the vetting process is to ensure that the nominee doesn’t have any skeletons in their closet. Sarah Palin brought two major controversies and a dozen minor ones to the campaign. Troopergate and her daughter’s pregnancy (pregnancies?) both created firestorms in the first week of her nomination. Book censorship, dismal interview performances, and religious pronouncements about war being God’s will all piled on to apply drag on the momentum of the campaign. We can quibble over McCain’s vetting process all day long but at the end of the day, the controversies sandbagged her announcement and provided recurring ammunition to her opponents.

Intellectually honest Hillary supporters would never in a million years support an ultra-conservative Republican nominee. Feminists would object to Palin’s abortion and birth control stances. Progressives object to her religious stance. Liberals who support Hillary’s leftist agendas would never support a pro-business, pro-drilling, pro-war candidate. So basically, unless the only reason a woman supported Hillary is because she’s a woman, Palin wasn’t going to steal any votes from Obama.

So, despite all that, Palin still could have been an acceptable pick for the number two slot because of her influence in securing a higher degree of party loyalty. Indeed, after her nomination, McCain raised far more money than he had been able to prior. In this regard, she did what she was intended to do. Unfortunately, she wasn’t really needed for this. Since securing the nomination, McCain had begun to move steadily towards the religious base. McCain’s strategy was to appease religious Republican voters by showing his support for issues they cared about. McCain needed to do one of the two: either nominate a religious vice president and remain in the center or move to the right himself and nominate a center vice presidential candidate.

Only a third of Americans identify themselves as conservative. A quarter of Americans consider themselves liberal. Elections are won or lost on the middle ground. To appease both, a candidate basically has to be all things to all people. Most people, even polished political superstars, have a hard time this off without being called waffling hypocrites – especially given the amount of media attention they receive. That’s part of the magic of a vice presidential candidates. They’re a perfect opportunity to play up two angles at once. When McCain chose to move to the religious right and nominated a religious right vice presidential candidate he effectively doubled up on a constituency that already supported him.

I, personally, don’t like Palin. I like her more than Biden and I like her more than Obama, but I disagree with about two thirds of her political agenda. That said, I think she could have made a perfect running mate if McCain had simply been himself – the maverick – rather than the generic Republican he turned into. Instead, her pick was a blunder of strategy. She’s probably not ready for the national stage but that’s not what tanked the campaign.

She was just the wrong person for the job.

All indications are that Barack Obama has won the election with more than 350 electoral votes. Republicans will likely retain 41 seats in the Senate, the Democrats will likely get 56, two are complete toss ups, and the polling is still open in Alaska. I’m taking bets on how long it will take for the Democrats to exercise the so-called “nuclear option” and change Senate rules to only require 51 votes to override a filibuster — but that’s a completely different rant.

Let the opposition begin.

Today is your last day to vote.  Go do it.