Somehow GOP Needs Face Lift, But Cosmetic Surgery Might Not Be Enough
by Daniel T. Zanoza
After nearly 15 years of attempting to describe how the mainstream media has often negatively portrayed conservatives, I have found there are some basic truths which have prompted such coverage. Certainly those who fall on the right of the political spectrum are not fairly represented or reported on by many journalists in the dominant press. However, the dynamics of conservatism and the varied views which make up this broad political idiom has, at times, fostered the coverage it receives.
It must be acknowledged all conservatives do not think alike and are not driven by the same motivations. In the past, I myself have been critical of views espoused by some on the right. For example, fiscal conservatives, seemingly, only care about issues related to the almighty dollar. In fact, many fiscal conservatives hold liberal views on social matters, including public education and abortion. Then, there is a category of conservatives who want people to do things their way. Often, they are highly judgmental and lack reasonable tolerance. I do not use the word tolerance here in its corrupted form. Today tolerance connotes the blind acceptance of all types of behavior--no matter how anti-social or morally corrupted. This group of conservatives I speak of simply cannot tolerate viewpoints which stray from their own and they do not demonstrate the willingness to look at opposing viewpoints. These conservatives are not willing or able to put themselves in their brother's shoes.
The mainstream media has used the opinions espoused by these two groups to label all conservatives as mean-spirited and uncaring. A third branch of conservatism includes individuals who acknowledge America was primarily founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Included in this group's thinking are the concepts held within the Judeo-Christian ethic which embrace charity and compassion for one's fellow man. They hold on to this philosophy because it is required by their faith and, though they do not agree with opinions contrary to their own, at the same time, they demonstrate love for their neighbor.
Sadly, during a decade and a half of pro-family advocacy regarding the dominant media, I have found there are many individuals who do not embrace the faith-driven edicts held by this third conservative faction.
A perfect example of what I call "conservatism without compassion" was illustrated to me during a recent discussion with a director of a conservative organization. Purely by happenstance, this individual brought up an issue currently being debated in the federal courts regarding the fact different denominations of U.S. currency cannot be distinguished by the blind and those suffering from dyslexia. The director of the conservative group suggested I write a column on the subject. This individual somehow believed I would share the opinion that having access to readable currency for the blind or dyslexic would represent another form of false victimization.
Forgive the pun, but I have special insight concerning such matters. For most of my life, I was legally blind with partial vision. I could distinguish between different denominations of currency, by bringing the bills very close to my eyes.
However, earlier this year, I became what is called functionally blind. This means I cannot pursue normal life functions without mechanical aids or the assistance of others. For example, I would walk into a wall without the use of a cane, I could not read a utility bill or any other printed document(s), I would be totally lost if I were placed in an unfamiliar area, etc. The abilities possessed by unsighted individuals vary. Those in the military who have recently lost their vision--as casualties of war--would have a much greater problem negotiating their new world than someone who has been blind from birth and trained--at a young age--in the use of functional aids, like Braille.
For years, I had been operating on a false assumption. I mistakenly believed those who were functionally blind identified currency on which physical cues existed. During a recent rehabilitation session, to my amazement, I learned this was not the case. The only way for the blind or dyslexic to distinguish one denomination of currency from another is by either arranging bills in sequence, folding bills in differing configurations or depending on the assistance of a friend or loved one or to trust a stranger to be honest. But, of course, from the beginning, every blind or dyslexic person has to depend on the honesty of the original dispenser of said funds. There is no way to get around this fact. No matter how well a physically challenged human being has mastered the art of self-reliance, the bottom line is: At one point in time or another, I must rely on the honesty of a complete stranger.
The more I thought about this issue, the more I understood my Constitutional rights are indeed being violated by the U.S. Government. If not for the help of my loving wife, I literally would be unable to live a productive life at this point.
But the director of the conservative organization felt I was not entitled to such rights because they were not provided for within the U.S. Constitution. This individual did not stop there, saying: Buildings did not need to be accessible to those in wheelchairs, the same goes for street corners which, in the past, prevented wheelchair access and on and on.
To my amazement, the individual, who I was quickly losing respect for, asked, "What did people do 200 years ago who were blind or handicapped?" I was also told, "You could use your credit card to make purchases." I was stunned and, frankly, I felt personally attacked. According to this person, because of conditions beyond my control, which have an impact on myself and others, a significant number of Americans do not and should not have the same access to essential goods and services for our livelihood as those without physical handicaps. Remarkably, this prominent individual in the conservative community apparently does not believe in the Declaration of Independence which states, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The draconian beliefs of this conservative leader reminded me of those advanced by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, an organization responsible for millions of abortions in America since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court's ruling titled Roe v. Wade, which legalized the practice. Sanger's motto was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit." It was a philosophy later advanced by leaders in Nazi Germany to "dispose" of undesirables, which included the handicapped, among others.
The director of the conservative group tried to legitimize the position taken against the court ruling involving access to readable currency for the blind and dyslexic.
This individual claimed such legal decisions only helped to create more victims in American society and the courts did not have the right to create such laws. "Then you would support actions taken to level the playing field for the physically handicapped, if it were strictly done through legislation," I asked. "Yes," said the conservative "leader"--in a totally unconvincing tone, "but there is no constitutional right to create these kinds of laws."
No wonder conservatives often take the brunt of criticism from the dominant media. If this position were drawn out to its ultimate degree, Blacks would still be considered as three-fifths of a human being and American Indians would not be considered human beings at all. Liberals say conservatives lack compassion and I would be standing in line with them to agree--if indeed all of us held the views of the person who prompted my writing of this column.
I speculate whether this individual would have a different opinion, if circumstances dictated he, she or a loved one had to live their life in a wheelchair or was surrounded by total darkness. I found that the ideals held within the faith this person claimed to believe in were trumped by conservative political dogma.
Years ago, the deaf, blind or those without the ability to walk were institutionalized or, in some cultures, left to die--at an early age. In my conversation with this individual, who often waxed eloquent about the rights of the unborn, I was hearing nothing about the rights of those who live.
If this were the only person who felt this way about such issues, it would be a sad anomaly within the social conservative movement. Unfortunately, there are far too many others who share similar views and demonstrate the same lack of compassion and mean-spiritedness which the media accuses social conservatives of.
Thankfully, a vast majority of those who call themselves social conservatives are compassionate and giving individuals. I do not contend that everyone who disagrees with me on such issues is a heartless human being. There is room, or at least there should be room, for honest discussion among conservatives concerning most every issue that does not violate the tenets of the collective viewpoints of the Judeo-Christian faith we embrace.
I do not say these things because I am blind. I have been legally blind all my life and I have never used what God has given me for a crutch or excuse. I do not use my physical limitations to get special treatment either. In fact, I stand firmly against affirmative action--especially concerning the use of quotas or set-asides. To the contrary, most people with physical or emotional handicaps try their best to be unobtrusive on our society. We wish to be productive American citizens, although it is sad to report out of the three per cent of all Americans who are either legally blind or functionally blind, 70% are unemployed.
I wrote this column because I believe my faith tells me I should treat others as I would like to be treated.
Perhaps some of us need to search our hearts to see if we really are truly compassionate conservatives. And, if we demonstrate that we are, just maybe our message regarding other issues would be more readily accepted or, at the very least, understood by others, including the media. What a wonderful political ideology that would be.
This column originally appeared December 6, 2006.
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org
Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.