Not really the people's republic

College students I know very rarely label themselves as “conservatives” or “Republicans.” Scandals in recent years that link the terms “Republican” and “corruption” have made it socially unacceptable to identify as a member of the Grand Old Party.

This stigma has contributed to Bloomington, as a bastion of liberal thought, gaining the moniker “the People’s Republic of Bloomington.” However, it is my firm belief that many nonpolitical IU students — when they truly examine their beliefs about the size, scope and purpose of government at all levels — will more strongly identify as conservatives
than liberals.

The Founding Fathers of the American experiment trumpeted the aptitude and capabilities of the “individual” as a member of a participatory democracy. Founding documents placed the ultimate power to alter (or, if circumstances merited, to abolish) their governing institutions in the hands of the individual, indicating a profound trust in the competence of the American character.

Arising from these ruggedly individualistic foundations, the notion of the “American Dream” — in which any American citizen, originating from any set of circumstances, possesses unlimited potential to elevate himself (or herself) to anything he (or she) wishes to become — became the archetype of our society.

As students enrolled at an institution of higher education, we are firmly entrenched in our confidence that we have control over our own paths of life; a cornerstone of conservatism.

As a conservative, similar to our nation’s Founding Fathers, I have tremendous faith in the American citizen. I trust the individual’s enterprising spirit — the same spirit that begat the mass-produced automobile, the personal computer and the Post-It note.

I believe in American ingenuity — the same inventiveness that fostered a vaccination for polio and genetically-modified agricultural products that have minimized environmental impact as well as malnutrition worldwide.

In contrast, the Liberal maintains that government intervention is a panacea to cure all societal ills — poverty, homelessness, hunger, inequality and discrimination — and that private organizations and philanthropic individuals cannot suffice. I am a conservative because I subscribe to President Reagan’s belief that “government is not the solution to our problem, [but] government is the problem.”

IU students are pragmatists; we understand that there are many programs that our government could provide, but a line has to be drawn at some point.

When I got my first job and began to pay taxes, I began to realize the true cost of bloated government. After the local, state and federal governments had finished carving their slices out of my paycheck, the meager skeleton that remained infuriated me.

The dogma upon which the American tax system is founded claims that governmental institutions are better stewards of the public funds than the public itself. Instead of allowing the free market to decide where capital is best invested, Congress and the President (both this and the last) have constitutionally influenced the flow of capital by regulatory intervention and governmental rescue of floundering and inefficient businesses.

This arbitrary expansion of their role and concurrent abdication of their responsibilities is symbolic of the Liberal’s vision of an omnipotent federal government that seeks absolute control over all facets of American life.

Young people “stick it to the man.” Why, then, do we permit our government to continuously expand its control over our daily lives?

Conservatives advocate personal freedom — that the government should only act as a defender of individual rights and national defense in order to allow individuals to determine their own destiny. Government’s growth since the Great Depression has threatened the survival of our American republic, inciting an unprecedented national debt, a decreasing responsiveness of our elected officials, and an increasing reliance upon government entitlement programs.

This has shifted the balance of power from the people to their government, allowing politicians and bureaucrats, rather than the country’s citizenry, to become the supreme arbiters of American destiny.

As a proud American, I recognize the absolute necessity for our nation — especially members of my generation — to advocate and promulgate the principles of conservatism — smaller government, individual freedom, compassion through self-improvement and the protection of natural rights. Our survival as the world’s moral and economic leader depends on it.

So, while to remain in good graces with your social circles, it might be necessary for you to remain a closeted conservative. I implore you to remember your gut instincts about shrinking government, lowering taxes and protecting our national security when it really matters: at the ballot box.

IU, you’re not as liberal as you think you are.


E-mail: jkingsol@indiana.edu