Religion & Law

A question for my conservative friends . . .

By Rob Vischer

I know Rush Limbaugh does not speak for all conservatives, but he does seem to speak for a lot of them.  National Review, for example, quoted a long excerpt from Rush's show yesterday with praise for this "steady voice of conservatism."  Here's a snippet:

But if we're going to keep this notion that everybody's entitled to have whatever they want medically paid for by their neighbors, then we are finished. We are finished as a country; we are finished as a society. You can talk about my wealth, but let me tell you something, sir. I don't depend on anybody else for anything, and it was one of my objectives when I grew up. I didn't want to be obligated. I didn't want to be dependent. I didn't want to owe anybody. I don't buy into insurance plans because it's a hassle! Now, I know a lot of people don't have that freedom. I used to not have that freedom, either. But I do now because I worked for it ? and if I can do it, a lot more people can do it than think they can, and that's conservatism again.

Here's the question for my conservative friends: Is Rush correct that conservativism stands for complete self-reliance and independence?  I understand -- and agree with, in many contexts -- conservatism's skepticism toward government as the most effective provider for human needs.  But Rush seems to be taking that skepticism to another level, turning it into a principle that stands in direct conflict with the nature of the human person, as expressed through the ideas of solidarity, reciprocity, subsidiarity, and the common good.  I know there are many different currents within the mighty conservative river, and so I'm likely to get many different answers, but let me try to simplify the question: is Rush disconnected from mainstream American conservatism, or is mainstream American conservatism disconnected from an authentic understanding of the human person?

Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on January 16, 2008 (boomark / email).