In the State of the Union Address on February 2, 2005, President Bush presented his agenda for solving the looming Social Security crisis -- privatization. But as soon as the president finished outlining such an actual conservative agenda, he then betrayed it with his speech's very next agenda item -- "government marriage" and a federal marriage amendment.
In the speech, President Bush accurately presented the conservative foundation for privatization of Social Security. He said, "Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and/or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."
That is the conservative way -- individual freedom through privatization, removing big government socialism.
True conservatives view big government Social Security as "Socialist Security" -- a simple "Ponzi scheme" pyramid which will inevitably fail, just as all such pyramid systems fail. Moreover, without saving anything whatsoever for the future of the young, the system coercedly takes money from the young to directly transfer to retirees. Compared to that example, a purer definition of applied socialism -- even communism -- could not be observed.
However, just as the president finished making his conservative case for such privatization, he betrayed that conservatism -- moving on to promote big government marital socialism.
President Bush presented the "New Liberal" reason for big government involvement in marriage by opening up with what would otherwise be -- if spoken in its own isolated context -- a legitimate conservative statement. He started, "Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges."
As a declaration by itself, that opening sentence would be exactly correct. Marriage is indeed a very sacred institution -- so much so that not one person in the Bible (including all the holy men with more than one wife) was ever married "by government." Truly, activist judges should not ever re-define marriage.
Yet, President Bush's "New Liberal" support for a federal marriage amendment is completely based upon a precedent of past liberal activist judges who did just that. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. United States, those liberal activist judges in 1878 unbiblically "re-defined marriage" by liberally affirming big government, unconstitutional anti-polygamy laws.
However, because the president's opening sentence in this speech's point was not stated in isolated context, he instead transformed it into a pretext for big government socialism. He continued, "For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
But no one in the Bible was ever married "by government." The amendment "protects" nothing from the Scriptures whatsoever. Instead, it would un-usefully codify "government marriage" to dictate the unbiblical marital socialism of "one man, one woman."
Consequently, President Bush's deferrence to "the good of families, children, and society" in order to justify such big government involvement in marriage was actually pure liberal rhetoric -- not conservative at all.
Indeed, when justifying privatization, the argument that it is "necessary for the good of the people" is typically true conservatism. But when justifying big government socialism, that same argument is actually pure liberalism.
Ultimately, therefore, as conservatism promotes privatization, while liberalism promotes big government socialism, the true conservative solution is obvious.
Privatize both Social Security and marriage.
###
Bibliographic URLs:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2005/index.html#2
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html
