2007
Week 1
January 6, 2007

Hello to All -

Welcome to the Nebraska Legislature, 2007 session. And to my quirky views of what is going on behind the scenes For those who are new, I try to get a newsletter out each weekend during session, with occasional papers the rest of the year, all hopefully limited to 2 or 3 pages. You can get off the list at any time with an email to me, or add others, from anywhere in the web world, in the same manner. You may forward and there is no copyright. All newsletters are also on a link of my website: www.lowenkruse.com

The news so far is quite public in Nebraska. We have 22 new senators, two of whom have served before. They are excellent people, representing a great variety of work experience and interests. Just what we need. I have visited with each one by phone ahead of time and am impressed with every one. Amazing. We are at a terrible loss of experience due to term limits but we have a new group determined to do the best they can and well equipped to hit the ground running.

Some felt that effort should include some key positions for senators relatively new. Which caused most of the comment this week. The notable one was the election of a senator with two years experience as our speaker. He is a strong senator, but the other candidate was one who had 18 years experience and had observed six speakers, their styles, their wins and losses and especially how they dealt with Senator Chambers. Wow. We all fervently hope it works, but he starts in a hole and Chambers will challenge him without mercy. There is a quiet pecking order in doing our business.

Also obvious is that the new senators do not agree with the governor's stated agenda of cutting income tax. He is already changing his rhetoric. They want property tax relief. I have not had one constituent contact in the last year complaining about income tax. My home property tax went up 73% last year, so I will join the many objectors on that. We will get the budget and revenue job done, but there will be extended and emotional debate!!

The rest of my comments today will focus on the use and abuse of the terms "conservative" and "liberal." One has become a term of virtue, always good. The other is a swear word, almost never used except to ridicule. This is abuse of words.

Conservative - adj - 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 3. Moderate.... (as) ‘a conservative estimate’ 7. Tending to conserve .... (as) "the conservative use of natural resources."

Liberal - adj - 1a. Not limited to or by established traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, dogmas; free from bigotry. 1b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. 4. .... based on the traditional arts and sciences (of a college curriculum, as) "a liberal education." (from the American Heritage dict.)

The conservative may be seeking change. The liberal may want stronger recognition of traditional values. Each had better evaluate both views. When we quit using the words as clubs we have better communication. In the legislature, at present the two words are nearly useless.

George Washington was about as conservative (traditional) as they come. However, he conducted a revolution. Lincoln's major thrust was to conserve the union. The huge change for which he is remembered is the Emancipation Proclamation, which as he stated plainly to an abolitionist, was not done to free the slaves (change) but to create enough chaos in the south (change) that the union could be preserved (tradition). Slavery was promoted by many Christians as conservative, both in religion (and scripture) and in economics (to prevent bankruptcy and improve the economy.) To the conservative mind, scripture does indeed support slavery. The liberal mind finds textual support for personal dignity and worth.

Our President speaks often of spreading democracy in the Mideast, and specificially in Iraq. It is apparent he considers this to be conservative. O my. The best word for it would be neo-liberal. It was a radical concept when placed in our constitution. Much about democrary was experimental. He and frankly many of our leaders assume a liberal thought: that the desire for democracy is implanted in every person and is simply looking for a means of expression. That is an unrecognized idea in most world politics and does not connect with the traditions of many religions and nations. It is liberal theory at best.

Both words depend on the interpretation of tradition. Shall we take tradition of 200 years ago or 100 years ago ... or 50 years ago? In interstate commerce, President Eishenhower touted the interstate highway as a conservative way to enhance economic development. President Jefferson, who wrote our early paragraphs on interstate commerce and who refused to allow it to trump states rights, would be appalled. A cargo boat on a canal could be stopped at state lines for evaluation, taxation, or refusal. Times change and so does tradition.

Concealed carry is spoken of as a conservative value. It is actually a very liberal interpretation of our constitution which allowed for use of individual weapons to defend the country. General Washington needed those guns. Now we make something else of it.

Public education was basic in almost every state constitution. This morning's Public Pulse has a letter labeling a public school as a "socialist enclave." Another weasel word. Social Security is seen as a help for seniors to "pursue happiness." Yammering on about whether it is conservative or liberal is useless venting. The question for both conservatives and liberals is how to make it work in future years. Claiming the stock market as a conservative value in that strategy is a strange use of the word -- especially in a climate when an exec of a major stock company is paid $230 million for being fired. Some would dare to call that liberal. Others: irrational conservative business polity.

Recognizing rights of homosexuals is a liberal value, as it would be a change. But consigning them to hell in the name of religion is a liberal interpretation of scripture, which makes no reference to homosexuals. Reading in that homosexuals always and only practice same sex relations, so that is what scripture means, is just that: reading in. Reading in that scripture approves heterosexual activities is just that: reading in. We have here a good example of how emotional feelings of present readers take original texts away from the meaning in that day, to fit our poorly informed heated rhetoric.

My conservative Republican grandfather insisted that it was in the public interest to treat the poor with dignity, providing a roof, food, work and education. Now some would call that liberal. Is it not both? I can assure you that if we do not provide education for children of immigrants it will cost us real dollars down the road. Not to deal with drug addiction today costs us dearly in the future. When we pay those big future budgets is it because we are conservative now or liberal later? Neither. Or both.

Both Hitler and Saddam would claim to be conservative, mandating tradition (and bigotry) in an authoritarian manner. When you kill people in order to change ideas, are you still conservative?

The conservative Muslim follows the tradition of Mohammed. Right? Which includes death to all infidels. Right? Only if you substitute present emotions for his tradition. The prophet gave three alternatives for handling infidels, including second class citizenship in an Islamic state. The fervent supporter of Jihad who claims to be conserving traditional values needs to be involved in more communication about tradition.

Let us quit using the terms as weapons. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but in many ways I am open to change and will promote a new way of handling an old problem. I will not call myself "liberal" at that time, as the term has been robbed of dignity. So I will speak of being open, or of progress, and know I will find very conservative senators who consider the plan for change the best way to move forward.

Cheers

Lowen