IS THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH REALLY: "LIVE FREE OR DIE?"

...A regular on Fox News, Mr. Mark Steyn

"Live Free or Die", the official motto of the state of New Hampshire, is from a toast made by the state´s most famous General, John Stark, in 1809. However, I don´t think his phrase applies to how it is portrayed by today´s American conservatives.

Mr. Mark Steyn, is a published author, a conservative columnist and a Blogger that appears regularly on FOX News and in several major publications such as the National Review, the Washington Times, the Orange County Register as well as articles for far right publications in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Mr. Steyn is also a visiting fellow that teaches a journalism course every Spring at the private, conservative, Hillsdale College in the state of Michigan.

In a recent lecture at Hillsdale, Mr. Steyn really went to the well for trying to demonstrate that the progressives around the globe will eventually deliver the world to its final ruin. The name of his lecture was "Live Free or Die", and no it won´t be re-written for a new film script for the next Bruce Willis, "Die Hard" movie.

Mr. Steyn´s premise seems to be that because the world´s societies are going more and more away from what he refers to as the "primal impulses to live free or die". He apparently believes that all the progressive societies will just die of massive indolence.

He even takes the example of Hillary Rodham Clinton´s book; "It Takes a Village", and compares the concept of the community being involved for the betterment of the "village", to being strongly against his personal concept of a "free individual, entrusted to operate within his own societal space".

As with most conservatives, Mr. Steyn rails against the idea that the community´s government should have any responsibility for providing its citizens with; health care, child care or care for the elderly. And as with most of those from the far right, he has no suggestion as to how these individuals should be cared for or supported. Based on his approach, it appears that if their families are unable to provide support, these citizens should just be turned loose into the jungle, and to let the "survival of the fittest" do its thing.

In his lecture, Mr. Steyn criticizes all of the European countries that have taken the progressive approach for taking care of their citizens and their communities and he of course, demonizes their higher taxes that pay for this care. (And remember, these Europeans all voluntarily voted to take their progressive approach.)

He also fails to admit that for the past 20 years, the countries whose citizens that have been documented to consistently proclaim that they were the "most contented and pleased with their environment and their life-style", were all from the progressive countries that he criticizes the most.

In fact, the World Bank´s Human Development Index (HDI), which determines which countries provide the most development and desirable living environment, wasn´t even available until 1990. However, by their looking back even earlier, America was consistently in the #2 spot in the early 1980´s, right behind Switzerland. Canada then held the top slot in the mid 1980´s, and by that point, America had dropped to the 6th position. By 2006, the US had dropped out of the top-10 to the 15th spot, where it is today.

And even though the US still holds the #2 position in terms of "income per capita", per the HDI, America´s society is "less developed and less desired" than it should be in other aspects, based on the population´s opinions and the available resources within the country.

The issues that the HDI uses for determining their ratings are based on their criteria from each country´s areas of health, education and income.

The decline in America´s HDI position can be traced as starting with the Reagan Era and continuing through Clinton and both Bush administrations.

One might then surmise that the decline was most likely due to the Republican´s past eras of massive deficit spending, which by-the-way, was not for spending on dealing with a virtual Great Depression, as is the situation today.

However, per the HDI, the decline is instead due to issues that go well beyond the actions of whichever political party happened to be in control.

One key American issue that was immediately revealed by the HDI is the health issue. And of course, Mr. Steyn is strongly against any government sponsored or government provided health care. That key negative health issue, as compared to other "developed" nations with universal health care, is that America currently has nearly 50 million citizens without health insurance. And consistent with most US conservatives, Mr. Steyn has made no suggestions for dealing with this dilemma.

Add to that negative issue, the American education system, for which the number of students completing college in the US has flattened since the late 1970´s.

And for just one of the income issues, the wages for the bottom half of the American population have stagnated since the mid 1970´s.

Yet Mr. Steyn has nothing to say about any of these issues.

In other words, as with most of America´s GOP members, Mr. Steyn only has negative comments for progressive issues, but suggests nothing for dealing with the country´s negative issues.

Unfortunately, it must be noted that the most negative HDI issue in regards to America´s declining position, is in the category of "America´s income inequality".

The best way to define, "income inequality", is by using the past presidential candidate, Senator John Edwards´ definition of his "two Americas":

"One privileged, the other burdened...one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks."

The continued shrinking of the American middle class has caused the spread between these "two Americas" to increase at an alarming rate over the past 40 years.

"Income inequality" in America today is considered to be greater than in any other "developed" country. According to Dalton Conley, Dean of Social Sciences at New York University, "With such high degrees of ´income inequality´, America´s HDI is closer to that of Turkey than that of France."

And of course, Mr. Steyn´s lecture has nothing to say on this issue. His approach is only to speak out against any attitude that might suggest that what´s best for the individual is also what´s probably best "for the village" and its citizens as a "functioning and healthy community".

Human beings are societal animals. They are not like separate islands or a loose collection of lone animals protecting their own. Nothing says that a societal person, working for the betterment of the whole "village" cannot also be a free individual to develop and grow to whatever he or she chooses to be.

But there are some basics that cannot always be provided by the individual or by their immediate family. And that especially applies to those that become involved with a disaster that was not of their own making. Should we just abandon those that were unfortunate enough to be born, or to live or work in the wrong place at the wrong time?

According to Mr. Steyn, he makes no comment for what the society should do in these instances.

It appears, as it seems to be for many in the conservative party, that once you are born, no matter what the circumstances, you should just be left alone to survive on your own. In other words, you should just, "Live Free or Die".

And yet I also find it highly ironic that these are usually the same conservative individuals that claim to be, "Pro-Life".

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01