If you ask anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, if they want the United States to remain the world’s largest economy, the greatest force for good and justice, and the overall strongest nation in the world, they would answer with a resounding “Yes!” The key issues for the election would also be mutually agreed upon.  Reduce the national deficit, lower unemployment, improve the overall quality and availability of education, move people into working and contributing roles rather than dependent on society…etc, the list goes on from here. There are actually only a few social issues that have complete opposite viewpoints, so why is there so much animosity between the parties?

They key factor, in your friendly neighborhood Cow’s perspective, is the fundamental difference in approach to reconciling what ails the country. The baseline difference that drives the conservative and liberal perspective is the role Government plays.  Should a central authority prioritize and plan the country’s way forward, or should Government act as a facilitator to remove impediments in the way of each citizen’s creativity?

Liberals favor the concept of central planning via Government, while conservatives support the individual and assuring fundamental rights and removal of barriers to opportunity. From here you can follow the core beliefs into the more European-style socialist society, vs. the traditional American capitalist existence.

Who is right?  What is the better path to achieve all of the high level objectives of lower unemployment, a strong nation with a robust economy, and most other national goals? Which path is the most sustainable, and natural order to human interaction and values?

Consider the idea of central planning, which has been articulated over and over again during the Democratic National Convention for 2012.  All DNC speakers have focused on a central theme of the public buying into Government to lead the future path, and to be the source of economic growth. At it’s root, and the key flaw in this perspective, is the reliance on a non-representive subset of individuals who cast judgement on the best course of action for all communities accross the country.  This is a key reason State’s Rights has continued to be an essential component of the Union, along with the electoral collage.  The assurance is that all groups within the country are given the opportunity to voice personal concerns, and make decisions based on individual and local need. The central planners of the liberal authority dictate the assumed best course for all, and do not necessarily allow for the natural order of individual and community development.  It is not only counter to the fundamental principals that formed our nation, but gives the impression of a type of elitism.

Contrast the liberal elitism with the conservative ideal to focus on the individual.  The entire concept of community is a set of common individual interests.  Everyone demands protection of life, liberty, and property (among other things).  These are all individual rights, and values shared within the broader community.  The natural order of human interaction and development is encouraged, and is supported by the removal of impediments that stifle progress and innovation.  The foundation is provided to construct an improved society, but the exact answer is not dictated to the populous.  For instance, a goal may be for everyone to have proper health care. The conservative perspective would be to remove barriers, and possible bad behaviors preventing the achievement of this goal.  At the moment, there is a considerable amount of regulation that prevents competition between States, and from foreign based insurers. Why are these rules in place?  They promote higher costs, and a lack of innovation due to a lack of competition (keeping in line with the capitalistic ideals). Removal of these barriers will result in a natural development of improved health care availability, and reduce overall costs.  This is not to say I am providing the smoking gun for resolving the health care crisis, but to at least underscore the mindset of the conservative approach.  There is a focus on individual development and personal contribution, not a requirement of action demanded by Government. Don’t get me wrong, bad behavior is exactly what the Government is responsible for weeding out. What Government should not do, however is necessarily define good behavior in all circumstances.

Another example?  Consider the following imperative:

It is good if one exercises and eats well, otherwise a special tax will be levied on those who do not work out for at least 5 hours a week, or who consume a meal that contains more than 400 calories.

A clear example of central planning.  “I know what is best for you.”

Keep these themes in mind during President Obama’s acceptance speech tonight. The DNC 2012 will be closing with Obama accepting his parties nomination, and will again yield this concept of an elite community driving the lives of each individual in the country.

Again, at it’s core, everyone can agree on over 90% of the objectives.  The value system utilized on how to achieve these national goals is where the two parties differ.