Site menu:


May 2015 Policy Study, Number 15-5


RED or BLUE…Which View Is Best For You?


Exposing The Conservative Hidden Agenda



Bobby Kennedy repeatedly said, “The future lies before us.” That sounded so obvious. Of course it lies before us. Where would we look for a future if not in the future?


However, the heart of those words asks where we, indeed, look for the future.


Conservatives—whether political, economical or theological — are apt to try to return to the fantasy of an earlier time, whether it existed in reality or not. “If we can just go back to the values of the fifties.” But we can’t. There are no trains to 1954. The Cleaver Family was not a true depiction of every family.


However, we do need to hang onto, or bring back, virtues from the past that were time tested, worked well and produced happy, healthy citizens. We need more Americans who are assets to society and not a drag on our economy.


An acquaintance told me he was the only child of divorced parents in his ‘50’s era junior high class. He attended the largest junior high in his state. Today, nearly the opposite proportion is true. The majority of kids live in divorced households. This one fact is another little clue that we do not live in the same social setting our parents did.


Where have we gone wrong? We will find out, as we continue to expose destructive worldviews.


A friend speaks of conservatism as the attempt to conserve, to keep, and preserve what is good from the old. While pragmatism alone cannot be the determining factor, we do have to ask, “Will this work in the current situation?” That has to be tempered by asking, “How do we make this work in this generation?”


Clearly, not all conservatives wear white hats and not all liberals wear black hats. Charley Reese, in a December 26th, 2001 article wrote that “James Madison put the problem so well when he said that if men were angels, they would not need a government, but since they are far from angels, where do you find people you can trust with power? You have to dip into the same bucket to get both the rulers and ruled. The pragmatic answer, and our Constitution is a most pragmatic document, is to scatter the power among competing interests.”


Probably the most vicious of dirty tricksters was a Republican, Lee Atwater, who after becoming fatally ill, faced his behavior, confessed to God and apologized to those he hurt. More recently, John McCain’s 2000 campaign manager said, “Make the (untruthful) charge, and let the other guy spend $1 million dollars to explain it.”

So my reliance on the terms “generally,” “tend to” and “more or less” is not just fair but fairly true –– generally.




Conservatives usually advocate a strong military, pro-business policies, full employment at meaningful, self-supporting work, strict interpretation of the Constitution, tough and prosecuted laws, sensible use of the environment and gun ownership. Fiscal responsibility is important to them, as are lower taxes. Most conservatives would reject abortion on demand and some want to see public prayer in schools as well as the freedom to display the Ten Commandments in public places.


Conservatives tend to dislike and distrust big-government. Big-government is seen as a possible intruder upon personal rights and not to be trusted with too much information or control over personal and private life.




Unlike liberals, conservatives tend to accept people and situations as they see them. They tend not to read ulterior motives into others’ actions. Therefore, they are often naive and suffer the consequences of that naiveté.


While it’s not true of all Republicans, conservatives tend to put people on a continuum –– everyone is more or less trustworthy (TW). If a person is very trustworthy, that person may earn leadership. If a person is much less trustworthy, they could end up in jail, because they are not trustworthy enough to be on the streets.


To a conservative, everyone has differing degrees of trustworthiness in different areas. A person may be very trustworthy as a parent, but very untrustworthy in getting places on time. In the conservative model, everyone starts out being trusted. Each has the freedom to help determine by their actions and attitudes where they end up along the continuum. No one has the authority to put people in a slot, as liberals do. The conservative worldview puts everyone on a horizontal plane.




In this model, being a true champion-of-victims does not mean being an enabler. Remember, enablers are people who may think they are being helpful but they actually perpetuate the victim’s problem. A true champion is one who sacrifices and invests resources in an intelligent way, with knowledge of human nature, to help a victim transition into a non-victim. He encourages others to be successful and empowers individuals, whether disadvantaged or developing, to think of themselves as trustworthy and valuable.


True champions accomplish this by providing opportunities for others to prove themselves trustworthy, with no limits assumed because of race, creed, gender, or preferences. Proven trustworthiness is the criteria. No one needs or receives special privileges or rights. Empowerment gives the disabled and disenfranchised a reason to live above a victim mentality.


A good example of a true champion-of-victims is a mother of a small child. If her goal is to work herself out of a job by helping her child become a responsible, self-sufficient, trustworthy adult, then she is a true champion. The good mother becomes a not-so-good mother when she coerces the child into remaining dependent on her into adult life to satisfy her own needs and her identity as a “mother.”


When George W. Bush stated, “I trust people. I don’t trust the government,” I believe he meant that he trusts a system where people are considered more or less trustworthy. If you listened to his interaction with rescue workers at the World Trade Center, you heard him say specifically how he trusted people, as he strode confidently into the “bully pulpit.”


When Bush said, “I do not trust government,” I believe he meant that he does not trust a government run by self-proclaimed champions-of-victims, where everyone else is deemed either a victim or a victimizer. Most conservatives do not trust a government where the ruling elite (CV) gets to decide where you fit, how you fit, and how you are going to be treated.


The conservative view has an “I’m okay, you’re okay,” outlook. The liberal view tells the world, “I’m okay because I am a champion-of-victims; you’re not okay, because you are a victim and need my help; and you’re not okay, because you are a victimizer and need my control.”




About 20 years ago, we bought a timeshare in Florida near Disney World. It seemed like a good deal at the time, but with maintenance fees, cost of transportation, food and entertainment, we would have been much better off going on our all-inclusive vacation elsewhere. Therefore, we decided to sell.


At most places in the world, if you want to sell a property, you list it. Then after the real estate person sells it, they get a percentage of the sale price. In this common scenario, the salesperson has an incentive to advertise the property at his expense and work hard to find a buyer. It is then in their best interest to negotiate a fair price for both the seller and buyer.


I have been told that according to the law, at least in Florida, the situation is different with timeshares. You have to pay about $600 up front. What do you get for your $600? You get a promise that they will advertise and a promise that they will work hard to sell your property.


In reality, there is no real incentive to find a buyer because if they sell your timeshare, they cannot get another $600 from you a few years later. Even when I offered one third of the selling price as a commission after the sale, they turned me down, saying this was not possible under current law. Over the past 15 years, I have paid this $600 on three occasions and I presently still own the time-share.


Any time there is a choice, I will always hire a person who has an incentive to work for both my best interest and his own. Accordingly, conservatives have a vested interest in helping everyone, even minorities and those trapped as perceived victims in government programs to rise above the victim mentality and become happy, healthy, and prosperous individuals. These people tend to vote for conservative candidates.


On the other hand, liberals build their base and get votes from people who are mad, sad, sick, needy and poor. These people tend to vote for liberal candidates. Liberals have a vested interest in keeping people sad, sick, needy, and poor.


Voting for a liberal politician is like hiring someone who has no incentive to do the work you hired him to do. A liberal leader’s only incentive to do anything constructive is for his or her own job security.  Columnist Charlie Reese well said, “Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.” With this in mind, it is puzzling that anyone wanting the opportunity to do better in life would vote for a liberal candidate.




In the liberal system, the government demands taxes and then uses the money to buy a person a fish. That person eats for a day and then has to come back to the government for more fish. Conservatives want to let everyone keep enough of their own money so they can buy fishing equipment and in turn, feed and take responsibility for themselves and their families. The question is, how long can we as a nation keep taking from the fishermen (producers) and give to the non-fishermen (non-producers) before there is no one left to fish and no money left to buy fishing equipment?


Ayn Rand wrote a book on that subject several decades ago, “Atlas Shrugged.” The proposition was that at some point the producers stop producing because the return on their effort would be negative. At some point, production is not worth what it costs, nor is there incentive adequate to the labor involved. Is the rhetoric wrapped around the liberals’ demonizing of the “top one-percent” of producers a trip-trigger causing Atlas to Shrug?


Looking at the consumer end of the “take from to give to” redistribution of wealth pipeline, one does question whether it is kind or responsible to take from the producers to give to the non-producers, thus giving the non-producers no reason to produce.


You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. This statement has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln.




When talking about origins, the age-old question of nurture or nature comes into play. Are worldviews in our genes or is a worldview a learned way of seeing the world?


On the one hand some babies seem to be born trusting everyone. They will let anyone hold them and they give everyone a smile with no reservations. This seems to be their nature. Other babies seem to inherently fear everyone except for a few familiar faces. Most small children vacillate from acceptance to fear in stages as they grow up.


On the nurture side of the balance, whichever behavior gets reinforced may end up becoming a life’s temperament. Dangers are everywhere but parents can be overly protective by constantly warning their children about the dangers both inside and outside the home.


Is the fear of strangers, fear of the street, fear of the weather and the environment reinforced every time the little person goes out the door? Is the child encouraged to go outside and enjoy the nice sunny day and feel the wet grass on his feet, or is he warned about the harmful rays of the sun and the remote possibility of glass in the yard? Over-emphasis on imagined dangers can make a child feel like a victim with everything and everyone out to victimize him or her.


In a traditional family a child usually obtains a balance with the mother being mainly responsible for the “be careful” side of life, and the father being mainly responsible for the “be tough, you can take care of yourself” side of dealing with life. In the now common single-parent family, the parent needs to be careful to balance these two sides of the equation for the child with a goal of the child having a healthy respect for strangers and the dangers in our environment but not living a life of fear.


The two opposing worldviews were first mentioned in history in the story of Adam and Eve. This story is in the Bible to describe the introduction of sin into the world but it also introduces the victim/victimizer/champion-of-victims scenario.


God trusted Adam to enjoy life, take care of Eve and the garden, to populate the earth and enjoy fellowship with God himself. God considered Adam to be his friend. In the cool of the day they talked and walked together shoulder to shoulder. Adam trusted God, his Creator, to provide everything he needed. God trusted Adam with the responsibility to take care of his creation. All Adam had to do to prove his trustworthiness was to do his job and not eat from the tree of the “knowledge of good and evil.” Things went great with Adam and Eve enjoying each other and their work and responsibilities as gardeners. Trust ruled.


Then Satan came on the scene with an opposing worldview. He convinced Adam and Eve that they were victims. God, the victimizer was holding out on them. God was preventing them from having something they wanted and needed, the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, Satan portrayed himself as their champion-of-victims since he was offering to help them take care of their needs. All they had to do was eat of the forbidden fruit. The Bible then describes the consequences.




Do we want a country where hidden political agendas are allowed to remain hidden? Do we want a country where citizens are used by their leaders instead of served? Do we want our money and our power to continue to flow into the hands of a Washington elite?


Or do we want to dedicate ourselves to Abraham Lincoln’s resolve that “this nation, under God, should have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth?”


Unless present trends are stopped, we, the people, will not remain the worlds’ best example of a free nation. Hidden political agendas must be exposed and addressed.




Click here for pdf copy of this Policy Study


All of our publications are available for sponsorship.  Sponsoring a publication is an excellent way for you to show your support of our efforts to defend liberty and define the proper role of government.  For more information, please contact Public Interest Institute at 319-385-3462 or e-mail us at