Conservative explanations contradict

Thank you, West Hawaii Today, for sparking a genuine debate about the meaning of “conservatism.” (My Turn, Sue Nimms, June 13 and Bill Hastings, June 14.)

Thank you, West Hawaii Today, for sparking a genuine debate about the meaning of “conservatism.” (My Turn, Sue Nimms, June 13 and Bill Hastings, June 14.)

Following Mr. Hastings lead, let me explain the background that I believe informs my opinions on these issues. I am a registered member of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, and would describe my political philosophy and life experience as “centrist.” For example, I volunteered to serve in the Peace Corps in India and when I returned to the United States was drafted out of law school and served in Vietnam. After law school, my wife and I went to Alaska as “VISTA” volunteers. I benefited from all three forms of service. When I went to undergraduate school I also benefited from about $10,000 in government subsidized loans and finished law school on the G.I Bill— two forms of government “entitlements.”

Both columns are permeated with what I would call beliefs unmoored from Constitutional principles. I was hopeful when Ms. Nimms stated that conservatives believe in preserving the Constitution. I thought this might be common ground, but was disappointed to find that by the end of the column, conservatives also believed this to be a Christian nation, despite the fact the Constitution says it is not. Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Then, of course, there’s the first clause of the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting laws either promoting or prohibiting any religion. That conservatives would value first “preserving the Constitution” but then hold beliefs wholly inconsistent with two of its most significant provisions causes me to question Ms. Nimms’ other unexplained and unexamined conservative beliefs.

Mr. Hastings’ explanation was more helpful, even though it too rests on principles unmoored from a Constitutional core. Sifting through Mr. Hastings’s discussion, I found several assertions that are helpful to understand the conservative point of view as being generally that “personal satisfaction comes from personal effort — not from government handouts.” This translates to lower taxes, fewer government regulations and a conclusion that “privatization works best.” All of which he finds consistent with conservative support of the “principals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”

These words caused me to take another look at the Constitution as a point where we might begin to discuss the proper role of government in the life of the nation and its citizens. It seems significant that the first two of the 17 powers the Founders specifically delegated to Congress under Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution are the powers:

“To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States [and]

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States[.]”

I expect conservatives, centrists and liberals, might all agree that at some point Congress should raise and use taxes to “provide for the common Defence.” We probably diverge when it comes to providing for the “general Welfare,” but it would be helpful to acknowledge that Congress at least has the power to raise taxes to provide for it. Nothing in the Constitution says, however, that the government should pay for the “common Defence and general Welfare” by privatizing it. Even if as Mr. Hastings says, “privatization works” it is not among the specific options the Founders stated when they delegated these 17 powers to Congress. As a centrist, I am skeptical of this sort of departure from what the Founders expressed as the means to provide for the common defence and general welfare.

Let me conclude with one example of where I think privatization of funding for the general welfare has led us astray — student loans. When I took out my student loans in the ‘60s, they were directly funded by the government at about 2 percent APR. Repayment was deferred during the five years I was in some form of lowly compensated government service. When I began to work, I was not penalized with accrued interest on the loans and easily paid them off at 2 percent APR.

By the time our son went to medical school in the early 2000s, some of his loans were from the government, but most were financed with government guaranteed loans from private banks at 7 percent or more APR. His loan repayments were deferred during his seven years of medical school, internship and residency, but the interest was not. When he finally was employed as a doctor, his loan had ballooned from about $200,000 to more than $400,000. Government financing of a doctor’s education arguably contributes to the general welfare. My question to conservatives is whether privatization of these loans through banks does.

David S. Case is a resident of Kailua-Kona