Op-Ed: Second Debate Shows Need for Consistent Conservative

I call myself a conservative. I also call myself a classic liberal. In both cases I want to conserve the original intent of the US Constitution and the fundamental rights described in the Declaration of Independence with limited government intrusion while at the same time recognizing that some government is required.

At the same time I would like to conserve the traditional family because the data is in on non traditional outcomes. Urban America being the classic example of the heavy hand of government wreaking havoc by destroying the traditional family.

While doing all this I also want people to be free to live their lives as they will even if we are not in agreement.

I am pro life, pro God, pro gun, pro warrior, pro family, a nationalist and most of all pro freedom but with freedom comes responsility.

So there you have my definition.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Part of the reason for the Left’s seeming dominance in so many areas is becasue I think there are so many who don’t know what the heck they are for (only what they are against) and/or just followers of the crowd.

I don’t like the term either, as I said, because it implies keeping the status quo, keeping things as they are, which is not at all what we need. In that sense it is an entirely subjective term because the status quo is always changing and thus changes theoretically what a “conservative” wants to “conserve.”

I think the Right needs a name change. I don’t call the Left “liberals” becasue they aren’t. They are socialists or tyrants or lovers of government, but certainly not “liberal.”

I think what “conservative” probably is really trying to convey is the unchangeableness of Truth. But I think they have a hard time applying that to our every day issues.

The fact is, the Right should be for the reinstatement of the Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land, the only legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny o the federal government. That is political freedom - what conservatives should be for.

The Right should for the voluntary cooperation of the market economy free of government interference. The free market economy is the only source of economic growth and wealth. That is economic freedom - what conservatives should be for.

The Right should be for spiritual freedom which is not a political issue except when government tries to interfere with the freedom of religion. Spiritual freedom is believing in Jesus Christ and his grace for salvation and eternal life. That is personal/spiritual freedom and is a personal issue but one the Right should favor.

I think Lovers of Freedom or its equivalent should be considered as a new name for “conservatives.”

To me “Conservative” means someone who will stand to defend, preserve, and conserve our Constitution as intended by our founders. Someone who is a good steward of the taxpayers monies and the nations resources. Someone who stands and defends our countries Christian heritage while limiting our Federal government to the powers and responsibilities given it by the Constitution and allowing the States to carry out their Constitutional powers and responsibilities and the People (individuals) to carry out there lawful pursuits and rights while being secure from enemies foreign and domestic. Or to be brief, Senator Ted Cruz.

Isn’t the consistency you see in Cruz what we want and why we distrust Linsey, Chris and Jeb.

Yes

Jindal has shown it as has Carson.

Yes

Walker is honest and at the edge of conservatism and honest about it as is Rubio.

Walker I would trust not Rubio.

Russel Kirk was a true conservative in the sense of depending upon tradition as a backstop for society. I’m not that kind of conservative.

Edmund Burke was a conservative, but he was also a classic liberal. He depended upon tradition as a backstop for preserving liberty.

But American conservatives are (mostly) not traditionalists except in the sense of wanting to preserve constitutional liberty... but that is never anything static, there is never anything static about liberty.

I occasionally point out that an American conservative (Bible-thumping classic liberal that he is) is in the modern era a revolutionary. It would be so nice if the status quo was something we could fight to preserve but unfortunately the status quo is going over the falls in a hand-basket.

An American conservative, just by existing and breathing, will tend to flip over the statist card table. So he is not about stasis, in no way.

So I agree that “conservative”, in American terms, is not a very satisfying expression. We most certainly do not want to preserve the status quo, we most certainly do have a North Star we are trying to move toward and that is freedom under God.

Because of that you can see at 100 leagues the difference between what we call a conservative and what we call a RINO, who gets dragged along by events always arriving late like the tail of the dog who is last through the door.

I’m not sure I’m happy with the left-right model either. They always put the communists on the left, the fascists on the right, and I always point out that we are not the half-way point between those two, we are no where on that continuum. Communists and fascists are two sides of a single coin; we are a different animal altogether.

So, I like classic liberal, like John Locke. The word “libertarian” has come to have other connotations, so I stay with classic liberal. Like the founding fathers. But while a lot of people at FR understand what that means, I’m not sure a lot of people outside of FR have a clue. :)

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.