We talk so often of the struggle between the left and the right. How many of us have clarity about the core value pillars of each side? We can all rattle off policies and laws that sit on one side of the argument or the other but can we articulate the underlying values from which those policies and laws are derived? To argue about the policies and be ignorant of the principals is akin to arguing about weight loss programs without understanding nutrition and exercise.

I believe that the Right seeks to preserve Traditional American Values. I understand those values to be the ones established by our Founding Fathers and reflected on our currency. They are:

• Liberty
• In God We Trust
• E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One)
• Limited Government

I believe the Left desires to replace these values with other values. Ones that are more secular, European, and socialist. Their replacements would be:

• Equality
• Secularism
• Multiculturalism
• Big Government

Liberty means preserving as much authority and agency for the individual as possible, only curtailing that liberty when the liberty of another or the nation is under attack. The Left believes that Equality, ensuring that life is fair, is more important, and they are willing to take from those that have in order to provide for those that have not.

In God We Trust means that there is a Divine Creator of man and it is from this Creator that we gain our rights, powers, and authority as individuals. This is a philosophy, not a religion. It is a principal that means governments cannot take our rights away because they are not the author of them. Without this principal the question of authority and where it comes from is suspect and ripe for infringement.

E Pluribus Unum (or Out of Many, One) means that we welcome others into our nation but expect that they will honor our American Values. It does not mean they must abandon their cultural roots. It means that they will learn of us, our history, our language, so that we may together build a common future using the values of our past as a common foundation.

Limited Government because Big Government corrupts and controls. The free market as an extension of the people and private property rights is the innovative engine of the nation, and government should be kept within clearly enumerated and restricted powers. A government not of entitlements, depts, and deficits.

The move from the traditional values of the right, to the new values of the left, represents a fundamental transformation of America. I do not want a transformed America, I always want an improved America, but there is so much to retain.

Define: Transform -- to change something dramatically: to change somebody or something completely

As a final thought you will note that I have omitted the term 'liberal' - that is because the historical meaning of the term has been hijacked. John F. Kennedy was a liberal, but not the left of today:

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.

-John F. Kennedy, Sept 14, 1960

This is not the language of the left today which has taken over the leadership ranks of the Democratic party. I am not saying that JFK would be a conservative, but he was far from the leftist liberals of today that speak of ‘social justice’ which is simply a euphemism for economic equality, an enemy of liberty. JFK was unlike his leftist brother Senator Edward Kennedy as he himself points out:

In another sign of lukewarm support from his own party for Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s reelection campaign, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy today branded the Connecticut incumbent as “a J.F.K. conservative, a relic of another era. "I’m not sure we need someone in the Senate who’s still mired in the provincial, hawkish John F. Kennedy ideas about U.S. military power,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The bottom line is this nation is the greatest success story the world has ever seen. It has enabled individuals to increase their standard of living and the standards of the world more than any other. It has sacrificed for the good of the world time and time again, through the sacrifice of our military strength in the face of evil and through the generosity of our citizens in the face of natural disasters, which was made possible by our prosperity. This was all made possible by the principals that our Founding Fathers put into place: Liberty, In God We Trust, E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), and Limited Government. If we abandon these and replace them with a different foundation we will lose that which brought us to this magnificent place in human history. We will be transformed into something smaller, less hopeful, less free, less capable, and more dependant – I pray this transformation of America does not happen.

Yesterday the Federal Government grew considerably larger as 2,700 pages of new laws, taxes, and regulations were passed by the United States Congress. What many Americans fail to appreciate is that at the same time, you as citizens became considerably smaller. The United States Congress – the only place where one can have an approval rating of 19%, still get your annual salary increase, and have a 97.9% chance of keeping your job. As citizens of a nation there are two mandatory authoritative influences in our lives. One is ourselves, and the other is the government. (We can enter into other relationships that give authority to other entities, like a loan for a house gives some authority to the bank, but those are voluntary and we can choose not to enter into those relationships.) The government relationship and the authority it has is a consequence of our living in this nation, like it or not. So the question becomes, how much authority should the government have and how much should I as the individual have? Our founding fathers recognized that there were certain things that we as individuals would not be effective at doing ourselves and delegated that authority from the citizens to the government – national defense being a good example. The founders were careful to list, as enumerated powers, those things that the government could do in the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to serve as a protection of the peoples rights. It states that all powers and authorities that are not specifically granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved for the states and the people. This means that if the Constitution doesn’t specifically state that the Federal Government can do something, then it cannot do it.

Let’s explore an illustration. Let’s say we are like a shopper going to the grocery store. There are lots of choices to make at the grocery store. Upon entering we are given two shopping carts. One that we can fill up, and another that is already filled with all sorts of items. We must checkout with both carts. Who filled the second cart? Uncle Sam. He took about 40% of your money and filled it for you, isn’t that nice? Maybe. You go around and fill your cart with the items you need. While doing this you start looking through the cart Uncle Sam filled. There are diapers in there, but they are for a boy, not a girl like you have, so you will have to buy diapers anyway. There are frozen pizzas which is nice you wont have to buy that, but there are also frozen peas, yuck. You notice bread in the second cart, that’s nice, but Uncle Sam bought the one that is $8 a loaf, not the $2 a loaf bread you would prefer. There is a bunch of stuff down in the bottom of the cart that you can’t see and your not allowed to look through it all. It doesn’t matter anyway, you have to buy it regardless of the contents. The good news is, in four years you can vote for a different Uncle Sam that will fill your cart, hopefully more to your liking. Maybe you will get those Cheerios you wanted instead of the Frosted Flakes your current Uncle Sam put in the cart for you. Unfortunately for you, Kellogg’s gave your current Uncle Sam a lot of money to (i.e. campaign contributions, bribes, call them what you like) get that Frosted Flakes in there. And your future Uncle Sam gets his money from Post with the expectation that Raisin Brand will make it in the cart. You see where this is going.

I am not saying that it’s bad that Uncle Sam has a cart, which he gets to fill and for which you have to pay. As long as there is a government, he will have a cart. The question in my mind is how big is his cart, and should it be that big? With every new law, the size of Uncle Sam’s cart gets bigger and yours gets smaller. Your cart gets smaller for a few reasons. Every choice he gets to make is one less choice you get to make. The bigger his cart gets, the more of your money he has to take to fill it. If he crams a bunch of store brand cheddar cheese in his cart you will be less inclined to buy that Tillamook cheddar cheese you prefer. Also, because of regulation you might not be able to pick your favorite brand, the entire cheese section might be designated Uncle Sam shopping only (the FDA does this all the time with medicine that never makes it to market and you can't buy if it did.) The problem isn’t that Uncle Sam has a cart, it’s that his cart has gotten way too big and ours way too small.

The government isn’t choice, it’s force. The government doesn't innovate, control spending, increase quality, or reduce costs, just look at the Postal Service, Medicare, or Social Security. This experiment of government control has been done over and over again throughout Europe and it doesn't make things better. Competition in the free market is the only thing that does, with, of course, proper government oversight to ensure abuses are not taking place. The founding fathers would be shocked at the amount of government control we have allowed in America. There is one reason that America has prospered like no other nation in the history of the world, strict limits on government power. This allows the individual citizen to reach his or her fullest potential – it is as simple as that.

To explore this idea more, start here.

We humans consume a lot of goods and services: cars, homes, food, healthcare, vacations, tech support, security systems, electronics, movies, video games, and the list goes on and on. We have three places to go to in order to get these needs and wants fulfilled. First, we can provide them for ourselves, make our own car, grow our own food, etc. Some items are more practical than others to provide for ourselves. Second, we can purchase these goods or services from a business that provides it. Lastly, we can get the good or service from the government.

Providing for ourselves is a wonderful route to take when possible and practical. But in modern society it is often not practical to provide for ourselves in all the areas we desire. Building our own car, for instance, while very impressive would be impractical for the majority of us. The big question is what is the trade off between turning to business or government to be a provider of goods and services? When we enter into a relationship with a provider of a good or service there must be power on both sides of the relationship to ensure that one party does not exercise undo influence on the other. If one side gains too much authority the other party can be abused or neglected in ways that are inappropriate.

Given this, here are the reasons why keeping our goods and services in the hands of business rather than government is better for the people:

1. Business cannot compel someone to purchase. Business cannot pass laws which would require a citizen to become a consumer of any given product or service. Governments have the power to pass laws requiring citizens to act in certain ways.
2. If business sells a harmful product a citizen can appeal the matter to courts for retribution. Businesses are incented to avoid this costly event which could put them out of business. Governments are difficult and sometimes impossible to sue. Governments have no incentive to avoid this because the tax payer will foot the bill for the defense costs.
3. If I fail to pay a business they can cancel my service, take the matter to court to recover costs, or reposses the product. Government has the ability to imprison me for such offences. Government has the power of the police force at their disposal. This service costs them nothing to use; it is fully funded by the tax payer.
4. Businesses are incented to be cost effective and efficient. If they are not able to offer a product or service worthy of buying and do so in a way that allows them to make a profit, then they will go out of business. Government has the power of taxation. Government is unconcerned with being cost effective or running deficits and debts now and in the future. There is no penalty for doing so. Whereas a poorly run business can and will go out of business the government cannot.
5. Business can be regulated by government agencies without a conflict of interest. In this way the government can act as an advocate for the citizen ensuring ethical practices by the business. Government has a terrible record at regulating itself. This is due to the pervasive political nature of the organization. Everything in the government involves politics and partisanship. The government will rarely be effective at regulating itself on behalf of the citizen, its own interests get in the way.
6. The possibility of making profit incents many people to create businesses that compete with one another in the attempt to gain the patronage of the citizen and thereby make profits. This creates the marketplace of choice wherein many flavors, styles, and sizes are created by many businesses. This allows the consumer to find the best product or service available for their needs and wants. The government does not have this motivation. Since the government cannot be put out of business they have the ability to offer only those products and services they want to, regardless of the desires of the consumer.

There is a very important role for government – to protect and preserve the rights and freedoms of the people. The government should do this from enemies foreign and domestic. The armed forces and intelligence agencies should be focusing on enemies foreign and other government agencies like congress, the courts, the FDA, the FCC, and many others should be focused on domestic enemies including businesses that would participate in unethical practices. This will allow ethical businesses that are seeking fortune through innovation and efficiency to thrive. This would keep the critical balance of power between those who consume goods and services (the people) and those who provide goods and services (businesses) and keep those who should be representing and protecting us (the government) from having conflicting interests and politicizing the marketplace.