Posted on 09/24/2004 12:33:11 PM PDT by NCSteve
My definition of a "true" conservative is pretty simple:
A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government. A political conservative believes the only valid function of the US Federal government is to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate trade. A political conservative believes that anything more than this leads to tyranny and must be resisted at all costs.
A political conservative also believes that the sovereignty of the US is sacrosanct because it was purchased with the blood of her children. A political conservative believes that treaties and trade agreements that violate that sovereignty are anathema and those who support them are treasonous.
A social conservative believes that the US was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian values. A social conservative believes that personal responsibility is second only to fealty to God in importance as a personality trait. A social conservative believes that the traditional family is the most important social construct and is fundamental to the survival of our society.
A fiscal conservative believes that you have first rights to the fruits of your own labor. A fiscal conservative believes that just as we all must live within our means, so must the government. A fiscal conservative believes that it is immoral for the government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens in order to redistribute it, no matter what the reason.
A "true" conservative is a political, a social, and a fiscal conservative. Simple as that.
My pleasure. :)
I see no conflict. Too many people see "least government" on the page and hear "no government" in their minds. Part of the problem with leaving the definition at limited government is the wide variety of interpretations of what limited means. I have argued with countless Democrats who think our current government is limited. You and I know nothing could be further from the truth.
I'll not defend least government as a complete solution, though. Snippets like my vanity will inevitably lead to varying interpretations and that is why I chose not to trumpet my thoughts as an exclusive definition (and why I scrupulously double-quoted the word true). Incidentally, the source for my twin criteria on limits are based on what I have read of the founder's writings and I believe Article 1, Section 8 is the inevitable result of those limits.
I agree with you completely that conservatives must hold the founders' intent in high regard. Conservatives must reject the tenet that the Constitution is a "living" document. That being said, the founders could never have foreseen things like the acceptance of "alternative" lifestyles, instant communication, and the rise of socialism. I believe if conservatives fundamentally adhere to what I have written, then their judgement in matters that are beyond the scope and ken of the founders' knowledge will still fall within their intent.
I'd like to think that they would rather start removing power from the federal government and returning it to the states.
I mean, IMO, two wrongs don't make a right.
Bahh.
That's "promote the general welfare."
And it doesn't mean social programs.
To: NCSteveI believe that the power of Judicial Review usurped by the Supreme Court in 1803 is a major cause of corruption, not just in the Judicial, but in the Executive and Legislative branches as well.
"... Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ..."
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.
# 5 by Jim Robinson
**********************************
Both Congress and the President excuse their actions by saying "if it's not legal, the Supreme Court will tell us so."
That gives them an "out," a way of passing and enforcing laws they know are illegal; they by pass the buck to the Judicial, and pretend they don't know when they're breaking the law.
But the belief that state judiciaries and the US Supreme Court are way overstepping their bounds, forcing new definition down everyone's throat, seems to be more fervently held by social conservatives than political ones.
By the way, I support the Federal Marriage Amendment as a political solution that gets the federal government more into the marriage business, only because impeachment is deemed overly nuclear at the moment.
I suppose a political conservative might believe in the concept that marriage was never legally defined (only assumed) to be between a man and a woman. Since the definition of a word is changing, the political conservative seeks to keep government out of it either way.
In reading of their various speeches and letters, I get the sense that, while they had definite social mores and strictures they considered important, they did not consider the enforcement of them an appropriate role for the national government.
I guess that's exactly the point. I was trying to posit a rounded definition of overall conservatism. It is my belief that social conservatives would balance their social mores against their political ideals. In most cases, there would be no conflict. A balanced conservative, I believe, would see the inherent risks of impressing their social mores on their neighbors. Howevever, I believe that social conservatism is what prevents political conservatism from degrading into anarchy.
Those of us conservatives who consider the heart of conservativism to be libertarianism have that yardstick.
Being in the majority doesn't give us the right to co-opt government to advance our own agenda.
We should play in the free market of ideas, without subsidy or penalty.
I believe this because I believe our values are superior.
Too, too true, sadly.
I fear that puts us on the path towards - "I don't believe government should promote an agenda, unless it's my agenda."
Just rubs me the wrong way.
I prefer to use persuasion when it comes to advancing conservative social mores, not the sledgehammer of government power.
Speaking broadly and metaphorically, if government can ban one of their books, then that same government in the wrong hands can ban our books.
IMHO, if there has to be a political solution at the federal level with regard to marriage, then an amendment would be the way to do it. I don't think I agree with it as an exercise in social engineering because it sets what I think is a dangerous precendent (not in the end, but in the means). But it may be necessary to define it simply because it has been incorporated into the tax codes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.