Social conscience is apolitical
In Ms. Quast’s recent letter, she erroneously posits my position to be that of right versus left. Not so. She also indicates that one requires a declaration of one’s own political positioning in order to speak of social conscience. Again, not so. She then attributed to me; “socialism was bad and social conscience was good” which was, as is the prerogative of Editor, a title given to my untitled letter. Those are not my words, so, wrong again.
The comment “defending conservative ideals”, pointing to my statement about social conscience, is an odd response. Why reference conservatism? Why would one presume to know another’s politics, or assume how others vote, or if they choose to vote at all? This tactic (tacit or not) is an example of what we call a diversion, a distraction from the initial premise put forward. To suggest social conscience is a political ideal in the first place indicates that Ms. Quast has missed the point yet again, that being; exercising one’s social conscience is APOLITICAL. Yes, it has the same root word as socialism, but it is not the same as socialism. Socialism is a political construct. This is not a difficult concept yet Quast shares with Jackson, another local socialist politician, in the opinion “that without a political framework the impact of exercising one’s social conscience is diminished.” That is just daft.
It appears Ms. Quast does not reserve high regard for her fellow citizens when she infers people are not generous enough, referring to the existence of charities as societal failure. Charities are the epitome of social conscience and arose out of empathy and caring for one another. Many citizens who are overwhelmingly supporting charitable organizations, and have done so for years, are now faced with juggling the high cost of socialism with their ability and desire to give.
Yes, this is a societal problem but not in the way Ms. Quast thinks. Socialism is hurting charities by over taxing society. Citizens are experiencing a high cost of living and an overburden of taxation at all levels of government and point-of-purchase transactions, to the point where some are unable to make ends meet, especially the elderly. Some have already been pushed into, or are close to, financial liquidation.
Government has become bloated in size and blind to its own exorbitant cost to citizens who, for the most part, are not high-income earners. These hard-working taxpayers need to put food on their own tables without guilt or interference from government and if government “donations” to charities are mandated (taken from citizens by force) it will mean even more taxes. But it does not have to be this way. It is time to cut the fat at the top and stop blaming hard working taxpayers for the continued folly of government. It’s time to stop the bloat, stop the waste, cut red-tape, and address regulation that strangles independent business from providing jobs for people. It’s time to free the free-market system, and it’s time to get government out of the intricacies of people’s personal lives. Some may call this political; I call it common sense.
I would like to add that no, unfortunately I do not have a posse as was suggested, although I think it would be fun. If I did have one, I could ask them what the “false or misleading narrative with distraction and populist writings” were that Ms. Quast is talking about. All I can offer is that she is still unable to comprehend my initial premise. The premise about the difference between socialism versus social conscience. The premise of which I extended a public invitation to her for further discussion. She did not decline — instead, she completely ignored my gesture.