The Great Disconnect of The Rank-And-File Conservative Base

While listening to one of the conservative talk hunks the other day a caller made the following statement, “I am not going to vote for Pres. Obama this time because he did nothing to save my home.” She indicated she had lost her home in foreclosure. She didn’t indicate why nor how Pres. Obama should have saved her home or what were her economic circumstances when she purchased the home and under what conditions.

I have gone on record indicating that in the long run, the US economic system would’ve been more healthy if no government intervention would have been undertaken. However in the short run the economic misery and ruin would have been overwhelming for many, many Americans. This seems to be what most of the conservative base argues should have happened. However, it doesn’t appear to me that any of them would have appreciated what the consequences would have been nor would they have praised Pres. Obama for letting the market make it adjustments.

It is therefore incongruous and considerably hypocritical for thousands of members of the conservative base who I hear complain about what Pres. Obama should have done to rescue them from their financial woes. Isn’t it a tenant of conservative ideology that the government should not intervene and allow the market to make adjustments?

Moreover, I am also puzzled by many of my conservative friends who have had enormous government backed student loans, have taken out bankruptcy, have benefitted from unemployment, have benefitted from food programs, have benefitted from Medicare and Medicaid, have defaulted on their home mortgages and felt the government should have helped them, have benefitted from the Veterans Administration governmental benefits, have received workers compensation, and have benefitted from numerous other “progressive,” and “liberal,” policies.

Let me also go on record and state that I worked and paid for almost the majority of my college and law school education (including a small private loan that I paid off with interest) and that I have never had to access any governmental welfare programs. This is partly due to sheer luck or happenstance and partly due to living within my means and being responsible. I also received some minimal financial support from my family.

Why do so many in the conservative base access, rely upon and benefit from progressive and liberal policies, and yet think that the government should rescue them from bad and often profligate economic decisions and yet claim to be conservatives?

Loren M. Lambert © July 1, 2012

The Conservative Paradigm And Its Ultimate Consequence

As I understand the conservative antipathy regarding governmental programs such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care reform, unemployment benefits, food stamps etc., it is that: (1) Government should not have the power to create such programs and fund them, and (2), aside from the fact that this is a power that should not be given to a government, the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from creating and then funding such programs. Is this correct? Furthermore, I think most political persuasions can agree that charity is a good thing for many reasons on many different levels. But let’s get beyond that and discuss more fundamental issues.

In a society in which governments either do not have, nor exercise a right or power to establish such economic safety nets, conservatives appear to believe that charity would be sufficient to prevent illness and death due to starvation, malnutrition and to provide medical care to those with preventable or treatable illnesses and injuries? If this is correct, then I can understand their position, though I do not agree with it. If it is not correct, are those consequences (suffering and death by members of our community) something that conservatives would find acceptable to live with and witness?

Personally I do believe that, 1) governments should have the power to create and implement very basic societal safety nets, 2) the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from doing so, 3) I do not believe that voluntary charity (in a large society) will ever be sufficient (no matter how minimal government was structured to stay out of the lives of its citizens), nor well organized enough to prevent illness and death due to starvation, malnutrition and to provide medical care to those with preventable or treatable illnesses and injuries, and 4) I am philosophically opposed to living in a large society in which members of that society die or succumb to illness due to malnutrition, starvation or the inability to access medical care–especially when they are required, when physically and mentally able to do so, to contribute to the accumulation of value and wealth within that society.

There is nothing abhorrent about this philosophy nor is it inconsistent nor incompatible with patriotic, Christian, Democratic, and civilized teachings and ideologies.

Comment 1: Loren M. Lambert - Fighting aside, none of the far right wing conservatives have addressed my question. (PS. The LDS Church does some very admirable work, but it doesn't always get it right--as is the same for many other religious organizations, but the simple fact is that Americas not quite ready for your suggestion D.M.M. They are not fully invested in the Temple thing along with a few other big money projects. Keep trying though, who knows. I recommend we all sit done with Bruce Hafen and D. Oaks--they might surprise you all on some of the middle of the road opinions on some subjects--not all)

Loren M. Lambert © June 30, 2012

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate and Much of Health Care Reform

Well it is official. Conservatives’ claims that Pres. Obama has acted unconstitutionally have turned out once again to be bogus and without any thread of substance. Pres. Obama was right on health care and you all were wrong.

Mark my words, there is going to be a lot of whining, teeth grinding and hair fires in the next couple of months. Heck, a few conservatives heads may even explode if they try to hard to get their minds around this. But most, most will just retire to their sanctimonious islands of intellectual desolation's and take a dip in their lagoons of small mindedness.

By the way, this is a sign of a judiciary acting independently, as it should, deferring to the legislative branch. So don't despair too much conservatives, the ballot box awaits you.

Loren M. Lambert © June 28, 2012

What did President Obama do during his four years, and is it any different than what he said he would do--whether you agree with it or not?

1) End the Iraq war, 2) Capture or Kill Osama Bin Ladin, 3) End don't ask don't tell, 4) Dramatically reform health insurance scope of coverage, 5) Avert a complete collapse of the US banking system, 6) Rescue the US Auto Industry, 7) Elevate US standing in the world, String several coherent sentences together, 9) Ad more cheese to your pizza, 10) All of the above.

Loren M. Lambert © June 27, 2012

Is President Obama to Blame for:

1) The Housing crisis? 2) The economy? 3) Cost of healthcare? 4) The Climate? 5) Iran, 6) The Deficit, 7) Skin Cancer or All of the above? And if so, what should be done, if anything, to fix them?

Loren M. Lambert © June 26, 2012

Native Americans

Program on NPR about claiming Native American ancestry or heritage. Interesting phenomenon is that many native Americans do not have a culture of proselytizing their religion or seeking to convert or induct members into their tribes. One of the commentators mentioned how unseemly western religions are for doing this.

Yet it's all about balance. If you were a minority and a non-member among a large society of Native Americans and felt excluded, you would find this approach to be elitist. Currently with our demographics this isn't a concern.

On the other hand, it is human to proselytize. We think our tastes, whether its music, food, style or entertainment choices are the end all and be all of fine living. When we abandon this desire to make all men in our own image, we will cease to by human.

Conversely, it is also good that there are cultures and groups that stand as unambitious refuges for those that are confident in their unique isolation from pop culture.

Loren M. Lambert © June 7, 2012

The Man Who Possesses a Set of the Largest Lungs and Biggest Heart takes on Big Tobacco.

Lance Armstrong, cyclist phenom, is taking on big tobacco in California, a state where it is the cheapest place in the US to get hooked into tobacco addiction. He is urging Californians to impose a $1 tax on cigarettes. I agree and disagree with one of the greatest athletes of all time and one who has done great good in the world. ( This was written before the revelations about his doping - yet I still think he has done a lot of good).

I do not agree that taxing legal behavior no matter how disagreeable to some segments of out society is appropriate, whether it's smoking, drinking soda pop, drinking alcohol or using a condom. Moreover, we should not become silent partners with the tobacco industry to take advantage of the addictions of the weak, unwise or naive to fund our schools and other pet projects.

I do believe that it is absolutely justified to "tax" products like tobacco and alcohol that cause known and predictable harm and that the money collected be used to pay for the costs from damages resulting from those products.

Tobacco has almost no redeeming qualities or value as a legal product. Yet, because of the entrenched political and economic power of the drug pushers/dealers who market it (yes they are drug dealers and pushers--just legal ones) and since its harm is largely restricted to ravishing the health of those who use it, we tolerate it as a society. Nevertheless, its cost in healthcare expenses and disability payments to treat and care for its many addicts are born by all of us.

Therefore, taxes are justified and should be imposed to pay for all of these costs so that the price it bears on the Market is equal to the harm it causes which is in fact its true cost. All I ask is that its users and dealers pay for that expense.

Loren M. Lambert © June 3, 2012

Supreme Court Statement

In B.R. v. West, 2012 UT 11 (February 28, 2012), the Utah Supreme Court made this Statement except for that in brackets which I have inserted, ""Healthcare providers preform a societal function of undoubted social utility. But they are not entitled to an elevated status in tort law that would categorically immunize them from liability when their negligent prescriptions cause physical injury to non patients [and of course patients]." I think this is true and legislation should not be passed that gives and profession or group "elevated status." Any tort reform should apply to all lawsuits. Our laws are riddled with laws that elevate the status of both government and some industries and their agents. This thereby reduces the liberty and freedom of those not so "elevated" but in fact, diminishes justice for all others.

Loren M. Lambert © June 3, 2012