5 Fundamental Values worth fighting for – According to Heritage Foundation

by | May 10, 2016 | Civics

According to the Heritage Foundation, there are 5 fundamental values worth fighting for – “Free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

This comes from the Heritage Foundation’s recently published “Solutions 2106.”  It is a great website and offers a lot of great information.

I also want to say that I believe this is a correct list and it is the 5 fundamental values conservatives believe are worth fighting for.

I will address each one in future posts, but for now let me talk high level.

 

What else they believe according to the Report!

Here is an important quote from the Solutions 2016 Report:

All Americans Would Be Better Off if America Were Governed According to Conservative Principles. All Americans—men and women; rich and poor; college graduates and high school drop-outs; whites, blacks, and Hispanics; religious and secular; young and old; native born and immigrant—would have more opportunities, live in stronger and safer communities, and face fewer hurdles if conservative policies were implemented at the local, state, and national level. Strong families, vibrant communities, a growing economy, a healthy culture, fiscal sustainability, choice in education and health care, democratic accountability, equal treatment before the law, the elimination of politico-economic cartels, and all the other pillars of the conservative agenda are not partisan or factional issues. They serve the common good. And they set the stage for human flourishing.

This is interesting because I don’t think they know for sure that “All americans would be better off.”  All Americans?  What about Gay Americans?  What about Americans that want an abortion?  How about Americans that want to smoke pot?  Would they be better off in a community governed according to conservative principles?

And, more importantly, I don’t even know if a a community governed according to conservatives principles have policies that make these groups unhappy?  Shouldn’t smoking pot be ok in a community governed by Conservative principles?

The list is:

All Americans—men and women; rich and poor; college graduates and high school drop-outs; whites, blacks, and Hispanics; religious and secular; young and old; native born and immigrant—would have more opportunities, live in stronger and safer communities, and face fewer hurdles if conservative policies were implemented at the local, state, and national level.

Again is this list exhaustive or does it include Muslims, Gays, pot smokers, atheists, and/or transexuals?  When they say “ALL” Americans, I don’t believe they mean “ALL” Americans.  As Hannity and Sarah Palin often say that the are “True Americans” and not.

The questions this raises for me are:

  • Why would Conservative Principles give all these groups “more opportunities?”
    • It seems to me that under Conservative Principles we live in a “meritocracy.”  And under a meritocracy not all of those groups are going to see more opportunities?  Some in those groups will have to see fewer opportunities.
  • Why would Conservative Principles result in “stronger and safer communities?”
  • Why would Conservative Principles ensure that “ALL” Americans “face fewer hurdles?”
    •  Is that because of fewer regulations?  If so, there are almost certainly “unintended consequences” of reducing regulations, what groups might be worse off.

This Heritage Foundation report is a great conversation starter.