I believe that the concern, no matter what the case, should be a concern for the entirety of the government; especially in the aspect of terrorism because that is a world problem, not just the ones effected by it. The statement mentioned above by Schneider is a very bold statement. I do agree that small issues can be resolved by the states themselves, but bigger issues should not be quarantined to the area effected. Any concern or problem big enough to be a national issue, should be a national issue no matter what. Conservatism is very appealing because any human being struggles with change. They do not like difference in their lives and have a hard time adapting to new …show more content…
Without the support of other countries, the fight to end it would be at a standstill. The conservative aspect of this is every man for themselves, and that would only grow the issue. This is why I believe that Schneider was wrong about how problems should only be solved by the ones directly affected. Big, influential, social and economic issues should be a national issue. There are many examples along the lines, like terrorism, on how a majority of problems can be noticed by the government as a whole. Without a more liberal side of government, our nation would not be the way it is today. The world changes every day and the way our society adjusts should be parallel with it. These major social and economic issues, mostly ones concerning multiple countries, would have better support under this concept. Therefore, more issues should be a concern of the entirety of the government due to the fact of the massive support. The more support, the easier it is to resolve these problems and make a better world to live in. A better world to live in means less problems and issues, and ultimately a better and safer environment for