Winston Churchill once said, “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” This has been one of my favorite political quotes for quite some time as it truly expresses the differences between the two ideals.

On the one side the liberal movement is about feel good emotions, it is underlined by the premise that the government should take care of its people by any means necessary. To someone under the age of 30 who either currently lives under the shelter of their parents roof, or has just recently left the nest, the idea of the government acting as a second parent is a popular one. They feel the government should act as a safety net in the event one of its citizens fails to achieve the American dream on their own. A liberal gets a warm feeling in the pit of their stomach when they talk about social issues such as welfare, Medicaid, and their newest cause célèbre of universal healthcare.

Conservatives on the other hand follow a much different political path. Having progressed from their 20’s to their 30’s they have seen first hand the consequences of too much government intervention. When conservatives hear things like “universal healthcare”, they cringe at the thought of a new government program. They worry about the prospects of the government having a say in their children’s health care, knowing that will also allow the government legislative authority over how that child will be raised. Similar to the way the government currently dictates what can or cannot be taught in public schools, conservatives worry about the day when the government dictates what foods can or cannot be eaten, or mandates X amount of hours of exercise per week.

In short, liberals wish to expand the “Nanny State” as it has come to be called, while conservatives believe in self reliance.

Lifelong liberal George McGovern wrote an editorial today for the Wall Street Journal which for the first time would confirm that he has a brain (at least according to the aforementioned Winston Churchill quote):

Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

McGovern has expressed the same concerns about choice as I did when I wrote about the United States National Health Insurance Act last year. In that bill is a stipulation making it “unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act”.

Ed Morrissey at HotAir has a rather good theory as to why McGovern finally had a political change of heart:

After McGovern had to stop justifying his existence as a legislator, he discovered that legislators don’t need to intervene in the markets anywhere near as much as he presumed while in office.

Of course, the main thrust of his argument — that government regulation unnecessarily burdens choice — is a recurring theme for conservatives. McGovern, in fact, dares to go where Republicans apparently don’t, which is to question the entire notion of a massive bailout for people who got themselves stuck in bad loans, and the lenders that love them. He notes, properly, that no one forced people into these badly-structured loans, and certainly no one forced the lenders to offer them. It’s called taking risks, and that means sometimes those risks fail. If we regulate industries like lending and credit to such an extent that no risk exists, then neither will any reward — and the markets will disappear.

In reply to that last sentence I must wonder out loud if that is not the goal of regulation. Many on the left criticize the free market as being unfair because not everyone succeeds. The abolishment of the free market may actually be the explicit goal of these types of regulations on business. With industry completely run by the government all Americans will be guaranteed an equal share of the pie, or so they say. Just ask Fidel Castro, I am sure he will be happy to explain it in more detail.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Features, Health Care, Liberals, Politics, Taxes