With all the conjecture about Hillary Clinton in 2008 and the recent re-publication of her formerly lauded book, “It takes a village”, (lauded by some that is), I thought that I would take a moment to look at what her book tells us about what Hillary believes.

Let me start by saying that as she claims, I am certain that Hillary cares very much about children and wants only what is best for them. I would never presume to accuse any politician of not caring for children. I would even go so far as to say that some Politicians may care a little too much for children, but then perhaps we shouldn’t go there and I certainly wish Mr. Foley hadn’t

I also think that we can certainly all agree that there are many ills currently plaguing America. The problem as I see it is that Hillary is a “True Believer” amongst Liberals who thinks that any and all of societies ills can be solved through bigger, better and grander governmental programs, whereas Conservatives think that not only can society’s ills not be solved through bigger government but rather that such “Big Government” programs can actually exacerbate society’s ills by fostering dependence.

In reading her book, if I were to pick one thing that in my mind sums up the essence of her philosophy in this regard, and which further highlights the seemingly overwhelming divide between Conservatives and Liberals, I didn’t need to look any further than the introduction, where she asserts;

We cannot move forward by looking to the past for easy solutions. Even if a golden age had existed, we could not simply graft it onto today's busier, more impersonal and complicated world.

The problem, in my mind is that in life, it is rarely a question of what we cannot do, but rather a question of what we simply will not do, and in this regard, I don’t think that Hillary would want to go back even if she perceived that we could; it is simply completely inconsistent with her world-view, and therein lies one of the critical differences between Liberals and Conservatives.

Hillary sees a busier, more impersonal and complicated world and put quite simply, she approves. That is the way that she thinks that the world should be, and because of that we obviously need different solutions for this brave new world. Alternately, Conservatives tend to see the impersonality and complications as symptoms of larger problems that need to be addressed rather than simply being embraced.

In many ways, the divide over religion is much the same in that for the past 2,000 years, Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular have sought to remain unwavering beacons of truth for all mankind. Now, however, many in this Country are saying that times have changed, and that religion needs to change with the times if it is to retain its relevance. One might as well argue that because many people are getting heavier, gravity needs to change to remain relevant.

Unfortunately however, the central reality of Christianity is that it represents the unwavering Truth, and Truth in any form is inconvenient to Liberals as it conflicts with their “all choices are equally valid” mantra.

Conservatives see America in Norman Rockwell terms and want to find every possible way to go back. True Liberals scoff at this idea, but Conservatives fervently believe that America can and must return to her roots, and I will let you in on an even more closely guarded secret; in the deepest recesses of what Liberals regard as “Fly Over Land”, in places with names like Lebanon Ohio, Boone North Carolina, Indianapolis Indiana, and Lexington Kentucky, many Americans never left.

Similarly, Conservatives see Religion both as a Constant Truth to be embraced, and as a tool to regain much of what America seems to have lost or is trying to reject. In Conservative’s eyes, we don’t need more Big Government Social Programs. We need to return to our fundamental values and everything else will naturally work itself out like a complicated knot that falls apart when you simply pull on that one right string.

So how did we get here, and what did we know during “The Golden Age” that might point to solutions that could work now.

If you look back to American History, however, it was not so long ago that in much of America, the Village or Town was the center of the Universe. That was why America was founded as a Republic of “United States” and the Constitution was written such that the Federal Government had limited powers, where “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In “Norman Rockwell America”, the community looked out for its own. Young women who engaged in “tacky” behavior were quickly set straight so births to unwed mothers were rare. Word quickly got around about a young man who did not treat women with respect and his dating opportunities quickly dried up. If his behavior got worse, then the other men of the community would teach him the error of his ways. There was no enabling behavior, so men did the right thing.

Predators stood out and parents kept their children close so there were neither serial killers nor serial pedophiles. In a tight and caring community, there were consequences to people’s actions so their actions were much more deliberate.

Education was the community’s responsibility and the emphasis was equally on knowledge and morality so children grew up having the knowledge to be productive, coupled with the moral compass that drove them to use that knowledge in furtherance of the community as a whole.

Hillary may think that these qualities are impossible in a city the size of New York, but the reality is that what made New York City great was that it was always a blend of smaller ethnically diverse communities that looked after their own and contributed to the greater community as a whole. Some of the communities that make up the greatest City in the World are still like that, but others are not. Why that should be is a topic for another day, but it is clearly not because of the numbers of people involved. Either you care about your neighborhood, and protect your neighbors, or you do not, and no amount of Governmental Programs are going to change that.

Ironically, Hillary is correct in that it does take a village. What it does not take, however, is the Federal Government.

I have been all over this Great Country, and as much as I love every bit of this Great Land of ours and the Federal Government that binds it all together, none of it is what makes America truly great.

What has always made America great is the American People. Whether they be direct descendants of the original Mayflower Passengers, or newly Naturalized Citizens, whoever embraces the ideal that everyone in America is special, and that they are the sole possessors of any and all rights and powers that are not specifically delegated to the Federal Government will continue to make America great.

If you are prepared to take care of yourself, your family and your community, then you will always be able to keep your children safe. If, on the other hand, you expect the Government to take care of you, you will likewise assume that it is the responsibility of the Government to take care of everybody else, even your own children, and you will hardly lift a finger on anyone else’s behalf, even that of your own children. When you reach this point, your children are already lost.

If we can only teach people this one thing, everything else will fall into place.