The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day.

— U.S. Supreme Court,?Citizens United (2010)

I am 63 years old, a registered Democrat, and an unabashed liberal, or I thought I was.  Why then are my views increasingly becoming those viewed as conservative?  I don’t think my opinions have changed that much over the decades, though I must admit experience has made me even more suspicious of power than when I was young.

I must also say that I learned early that government benefits typically more benefit the government than the public.  I have always believed in society providing a safety net, but one that hurt when you fell into it.  A net that one would want to suffer no more than a few weeks.  Long-term “welfare payments” become a corrupting influence upon beneficiaries and society as a whole.  There is no such thing as “an entitlement.”

I also have always viewed public help of the poor as an ill-fated venture.  When I entered college, I was encouraged to participate in programs to provide services to poor families.  Somehow, we were supposed to impart our wisdom to ghetto residents.  That seemed a noble endeavor, but at 18 I knew I wasn’t supporting myself and could scarcely provide practical advice to urban families.  Time suggests I was wise before my time. 

Perhaps my liberality was already obsolete.  I welcomed new experiences, complained of excessive government, and enjoyed sharing my wealth and knowledge.  I profoundly objected to other folks telling me what to do or taking my money for their purposes.  I smoked pot, bought grapes  during the boycott, and thought government welfare programs tended to discourage prosperity. 

Today, I twist in the wind.  I support gay marriage, but I don’t believe it can be justified on Constitutional grounds.  I consider our drug laws and the incarceration of so many to be a horrific crime of our society.  I accept but am appalled at the level of government surveillance.  Sure it may make us a bit safer from terrorists, but I fear much more danger from the whims of society.

The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government.  The rag that frames this Nation is a remarkably liberal document.  But the courts provide slim protection. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo ruling that governments could, without violating the Fifth Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”), take property for the “public use” of transferring it to persons who would pay more taxes to the government.  George Will November 1, 2013

The federal government has engaged in practice that would be anathema to the Founders.  They would shrug at our current state and speak of citizens’ responsibilities to limit the breadth of the federal state.  But can there be citizen involvement without free speech?

The quotation at the heading raises a particular conundrum.  As a liberal I found the opinion a breath of fresh air, as opposed to the fart that was the Kelo ruling.  Yet liberal government practitioners, news organizations, and activist groups find the Citizens United decision to be anathema and the Kelo decision to be uninteresting.  Conservatives join me in supporting Citizens United (and free speech) and in hating the Kelo ruling. 

I was scarcely surprised at the Supreme Court decision concerning the AfCa Act although I found the argument absurd that the law was OK because it was just a tax.  The Supreme Court failed to protect my individual freedom and last week my health insurance company informed me that my policy is ending.  Their “good news” is that the policy will be extended for a few more months with additional benefits (that I don’t need) and a 10% increase in fee.  The President informs me that my policy must have been a bad one.  How liberal is that? 

Are liberals fighting this wholesale intrusion into the federal government into the health insurance business?  Yeah, just like they fought to keep the government out of the mortgage and student loan business.  Many want “a single payer health care system” by which they mean the government providing insurance directly.  Perhaps they failed to notice how successful the federal flood insurance program has been.  Does one bad idea lead to another? 

I may throw in the towel on health insurance and take my chances until I am 65 when I will be forced into Medicare which was supposed to be a single payer system.  That has worked so well that most folks buy “supplemental” insurance.  The cost of Medicare has been going up so quickly in recent years that I expected it to exceed that of my private insurance in five years.  One wonders how this can be given that Medicare is supposed to be a benefit program.  I’m sure there is an explanation, probably similar to the one for the cost of college going up after the influx of federal money. 

I find it ironic that I feel more threat from the federal government now that I am old than when I was young.  Health care runs neck and neck with taxes each year as my largest expense.  I thought I could deal with that, but now I don’t know.  What policies will be available next year and at what cost?  I guess I will find out, but is it illiberal of me to be angry that the government has taken control out of my hands?  I guess I always confused liberalism with a love of freedom. 

So, I still call myself a liberal, but find myself opposed to “the liberal agenda.”  My love and trust of people to manage their own affairs and my instinctive distrust of “central planning”  seems to make me a 21st Century conservative.  How sad.

Chuck Strehl