"Conservative".. Does Not Mean Stupid.

Think About It

Every day we boot up our computers or turn on the television to watch some sanctimonious liberal like Jon Stewart or Rachel Maddow insulting anyone who has a conservative idea and dismissing them as knuckle-dragging idiots.

And it angers us, as it should.

Because it just isn't true.  There are in this world doctors and lawyers and university professors (not a lot of the latter, perhaps) who are, in fact, conservative. 

Beyond that - to "sell" conservatism to our electorate, it is extremely important that we acknowledge this perception, and be at least somewhat sensitive that we don't provide further fodder to the left-side attacks upon conservative thought.

So.

Yesterday, in response to my blog criticizing the current Harper "tough on crime" legislation, "Alex" left this comment:

"Turning simple ideas into complex moral/logical/financial calculation is what got us to this point in the first place."

Now - don't get me wrong - I have a sense of what Alex is trying to say, but I think while it's understandable, it's misguided.

"Conservatism" does not mean that we discount expanding our knowledge.

"Conservatism" does not mean turning our back on electricity and penicillin, going back to the dark ages.  Does it?

No.  To me "Conservatism" means a few things.

It means the prudent use of knowledge - not the ignorance of knowledge.  It means not responding to every crackpot theory by some liberal knee-jerk as if one PhD. thesis gives us a reason to spend millions of dollars on some new course of government spending to "wipe our noses". 

So.

Crime.

Alex comments about how we "got to this point".  What point is that?  The point the media likes to portray, making every crime they report into an epidemic, creating fear and paranoia to sell papers?  Why is it that we clearly see the dishonest hand of the sensationalism in media when it portrays conservatives as dangerous and misguided - but we accept without question when they portray our streets as dangerous and unsafe?  In both cases, they are selling fear - because it sells papers.

Don't get me wrong.  When we read about a crime committed by someone who didn't serve their full sentence, it's real.  It impacts on the victim and their families - but as lawyers at least used to understand, "sad facts make bad law".  In other words, the answer of the legal system isn't to make everyone perfect - because it can't be done.  It's to do the best with an imperfect situation - making effort to help the most people, the best that we can.  And if putting more people in jail saves ONE life, but costs 2 more - is that a good plan?

The facts, fellow conservatives, because I know, as conservatives, we are open to thinking about the facts, and not just knee-jerking to new government policy like our Liberal friends are wont to do.

As reported in a CBC article of July 18, 2007, referencing data from Statistics Canada:

Driven by a decline in non-violent felonies, Canada's crime rate reached a 25-year low in 2006, with every province and territory recording a drop, Statistics Canada said Wednesday.

Lowest crime rates in 25 years.

That equals fewer victims.  Fewer people being hurt.

And, as Alex suggests, our current legal system "got us to this point".

Think about that conservatives.. really THINK about that.

We have moved to the lowest crime rates in 25 years, doing what we are already doing.

We didn't need a gun registry to do this.

We didn't need some new sentencing legislation to do this.

Just doing what we're doing.

And, if there is a simple description of what "conservatism" means, it might be this:

If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

And we certainly don't throw away 8 billion dollars to fix something that isn't broke.

We leave that sort of thing to Liberals.

Don't we?