Politics is so very often categorized into the "Haves" versus the "Have Nots" in an attempt to make politics into a "class warfare" type of deal, however from everything I've seen and read that is more often than not both an exaggeration at best and plain disingenuous at worst.

However, through out the past couple of weeks, I've noticed a trend when arguing with people of a liberal tendency or that have a leftist over all nature: the statement "Why not?"

I don't know if I've just never paid attention to the terms in usage, or if this is a new development, or what, but it seems to be the over arching theme with just about any ideological or systemic argument over political and cultural issues.

On the subject of economics: "Why not raise taxes for the rich? They don't pay their fair share anyways." Of course this is historically inaccurate and has been proven time and time again that raising taxes on the upper crust of society (speaking strictly on a financial basis here) mostly only hurts the middle class and the poor, but that's besides the point. The point was, when I asked, "Well, why do it in the first place? What are you trying to solve with raising taxes, especially when it has been proven (like I said above) that it doesn't really help?"

On the case of gun control, amnesty, you name it, the argument is almost always the same. Historical data and figures trump many liberal arguments regarding reform, while the conservative minded individual will acknowledge that sometimes some form of reform is needed, however sweeping changes are most often detrimental to the over-arching goal and amount to hurting one group to help another. Which is why right leaning people are most often the "Whys?"

Why pass an amnesty bill? What will that do to stop illegal immigration, which most conservatives and liberals will agree is a problem (a problem that Democrats continue to have ample opportunity to address)? Won't that create incentive for illegal aliens to continue to come over our borders? Why pass more gun reforms? Hasn't statistical data, which shows that major cities that have hand gun bans as well as larger European countries that have similar bans haven't seen a drop in gun violence in the least, shown to the intelligentsia that such efforts are futile and only help the criminals by disarming those that follow and obey the laws?

Unfortunately, there aren't enough conservative intellectuals to make these cases. Sure, we have many that write for the National Review and the Weekly Standard, and we have Thomas Sowell and a handful of other great conservative thinkers, but I miss the Buckley's and the Kissinger's and the Kirk's that helped to make the conservative movement a strong, intellectual base of intelligent arguments and legislative ideas. I hope that there are some out there, writing and forming ideas and working behind the scenes, because I would hate to think that we'll never be in the position to ask "Why?" again, but only to rebut the "Why Nots?" and seem like sniveling children. Not saying that that is what we are, sniveling children, but only that when we aren't in any position of power that sniveling children is what the media and many so called moderates perceive and label us as.

Am I to be so bold as to place myself into this category? Not yet. I have much more schooling and reading to do (not to mention the process of living life instead of just writing about living life in order to put a few gray beards on my face) before I'll consider myself a conservative thinker and philosopher (and even then I'll never reach a level that Burke and Addams reached as innovators and intellectual explorers). The point of this? Sometimes yelling is needed, sometimes it's good to get pissed off, but it doesn't always accomplish the ultimate goals of expanding conservative thought. It's always good to be level headed, calm and collected, in order to properly convey one's message. Hell, this is advise that I should try and take more often, to be honest.