Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnnyRoyale
How do conservatives justify a smaller government with a larger national defense? A national defense, like the one we had during the Reagan years, would require a larger national govenment to run and maintain it, wouldn't it? I don't think conservatives are necessarily for a "smaller govenment", but rather a government that doesn't get involved in peoples lives.
|
I, a conservative, would say that's right.
By smaller government we mean more laissez-faire socially. Conservatives want to see social security privatized, so that people can make investments in their own future on their own without the government telling them what to do. We believe people are better at making their own decisions for themselves, then having the government make decisions.
Now, there are limits to that. Conservatives are traditionalists so that is why gay marraige is a big deal right now. I personally am against a consititional ammendment barring gay marriages because when the nation was founded with a federal government (states governments and national government), the right to control how marriages worked was given to the states. I am of a younger conservative crowd so I can see the creation of civil unions being made for gay couples, but it would have to be on a state level. That's a whole other topic though, so I'll get back on track.
But yeah, the reason why a large national defense is a conservative ideal goes along with the isolationist thing. I believe in deterrence rather than disarming the country. The United States is in a vulnerable position as it is a very large, very well-off country. Therefore a strong national defense is something we need.