Cogito ergo sum

I've taken to saying that arch conservative Republicanism is a treatable ailment.  I'm working on a treatment protocol which I will roll out to market as soon as it's ready.  Here's the preview.

FIRST: Conservatism is not a free pass to speak hatefully.  By this I mean you cannot go around appealing to the lowest part of man - the troglodytic part - that needs, yearns even, for a person or group to point to as the cause of all their troubles.  While this may work in the short term, it will yield untold consequences.

It is said that in a court of law, an attorney never asks a question to which (s)he doesn't already know the answer.  The same should be true in politics.  Don't set something in motion unless you know exactly what it is you're setting in motion.  In short, don't be sowing the wind unless you are ready to reap the whirlwind.

SECOND: Underlying principles always rule. 

I certainly understand the worry about the deficit, but let me see if I get this right.  Deficit for war = good thing. Deficit for universal health care = bad thing?  When these ideas are juxtaposed, the underlying principle seems to be simply this: some lives are simply more important than others. If you can't afford or through some unfortunate series of events, cannot receive insurance then, tough, sorry, you lose.  If conservatives have a different argument they should really bring it but right about now, this is all I've been able to draw from what I've heard to date.  No one has said anything that makes sense and that doesn't sound like there's some human utility litmus test which some of us have failed abysmally.  Conservatism is not a free pass to deem some people less worthy than others.

In short: 'Conservative' cannot become a euphemism for 'hater'.  

I'm recommending that conservatives try and come up with some reasoned positions that appeal to thinking people - people like me who are ripe for the picking.  It is far too easy to fall back on traditional 'them vs. us' thinking and speech.  That's pretty much what started the ugliness in Germany and gave rise to Nazism.  Since we know how that turned out, perhaps we shouldn't try that whole "it's their fault we're in deep doodoo" approach here?   That's an approach that encourages hateful behavior which, quite frankly, is beneath thinking people and a thinking nation.

I am myself, fairly conservative fiscally, though you probably wouldn't guess that from anything I've written thus far.  I too believe in responsible spending and in spending what you have and no more.  Debt has its place, but great gobs of it only create stress.  At the same time though, I believe in the sanctity of life.  This means that if I have to balance debt against death, I'm going to have to grit my teeth and live with the debt.  A right to life necessarily means that people also have a right to health care.  If that means that something else has to give (maybe a war here or there, particularly one entered into on spurious grounds), then that's how it has to be.

This political system is, unfortunately, built on a two bookends premise.  Either you're a 'this' or you're a 'that'.  Even Independents are either 'thises' or 'thats' in the voting booth.  If you don't like how the 'thises' are functioning, you vote for the 'thats'.  It seems to me, that there's a middle ground, where people want responsible (not reprehensible) representation; a middle ground where representatives appeal to our highest aspirations for ourselves (which should also mean that our aspirations for each other are equally high); a ground where we spend what we have, make hard choices about what gets cut and each take on our share of the burden for what's left.  That's a pretty conservative credo if I say so myself, and not once did I say, "Death Panel".  See how easy that was?