Why not
e-mail us?

The Voice

Topping the News

Speaking Out


Spare Time


Free Box







Faculty/Staff directory

Search Engines

What Are They Conserving?

Todd Kelley
Commentary Editor

   Every new headline leads me to the same conclusion; I cannot help but be amazed that Conservatives call themselves such unless I am misinterpreting what they are conserving.

   From an outsider’s standpoint, I have always felt they use that name to insure us "simple folk" that our way of life would be preserved. Yet, everyday there are stories of negligence, lies, and illegal activity abound. I do not want to cover all of them today, nor do I wish to cover my belief that both parties do such, so I will focus on just one instance.

    Alexander Hamilton, and other framers of the Constitution, gave us a three-part government. For those of us who may have forgotten, they did this so no one branch could create an aristocracy and take over as absolute controller.

   I know we all learned this in high school Civics classes, but what I cannot understand is why we are watching an aristocracy form and are not lifting our voices to battle it. Now, I would like to ease your mind about crackpot conspiracy theorists with a bit of something I like to call fact. Helping me today will be the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

   While we sit in the media circus surrounding her nomination to the Supreme Court, two important facts are overlooked due to misdirection I am sad to say comes from the mouth of First Lady Laura Bush.
Mrs. Bush remembers the fond letters Ms. Miers sent to her husband when he was governor of Texas. She remembers their friendship so well she spoke on Ms. Miers' behalf. But, it was a nasty card she played when she stated her hazing stems from sexism.

    After all, we could not possibly be rejecting this nominee because she has never ruled from a bench. We could not possibly be remembering that the judicial branch, by nature, should conflict in small ways with the executive branch. We could not possibly remember and hold dear the idea of checks and balances or that the Senate has the power to reject judicial nominees so there is a check on the spirit of favoritism to the president (look it up - that is the reason they can do that in almost exactly Alexander Hamilton's words).

   All of that does not constitute a viable argument, does it? I suppose when you have all that power, it gets hard to remember; some people realize this country operates through the idea of controlled chaos (see system of checks and balances for details).

   Yet, through all of this, Conservatives give their unconstitutional reasons for what they do, viciously attacking any who oppose their policies. They gloat on national television over the majority they hold. Why do people not see that this gloating destroys what Americans supposedly fight to uphold?

   I understand wanting to see one's friends do well, but at the cost of everything we claim to hold dear? What is the motive if freedom is what is said and control is what actions are shown?

   If we live by the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, how can this happen? I suppose one would tell me basing my arguments off old and outdated ideals holds no credence, that I should not feel my freedom is being infringed upon because the Constitution is open to interpretation.

    Perhaps the time has come for us to just accept what we have allowed to happen. America’s apathy and faith in this self-serving government has allowed a detrimental flaw to be observed by those astute enough to perceive it. Though we have not even begun the election process for Ms. Miers, her nomination proves politics today center around control and not the well being of us "simple folks."

Have a comment? Please e-mail us.

© The Voice 2005
09/17/2007 02:16:21 PM — http://www.uamont.edu/Organizations/TheVoice/3_6/commentary.htm