Posted on 06/14/2003 8:18:22 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
What is a conservative?
by Kyle Williams
What is a conservative? This is a question that has recently become an issue in the conservative movement.
Many pundits have separated conservatives into two groups: paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives. The former being described as the "old right-wing," being more constitutionally conservative, and the latter being the more moderate side of the conservative movement. As a side note, some conservative pundits say that "neo-conservative" is really code word for pro-Israel, considering the trouble that the far right has gotten into with some bashing Jews. That, however, is not the original meaning of the "neo-conservative" word, from my point of view.
Another issue arises as to whether you can truly be a conservative and forget morality. A recent column by David Horowitz blasted some on the religious right for their criticism of the Republican National Committee and Marc Racicot meeting with leaders from the Human Rights Campaign. With homosexual pundits – like Andrew Sullivan – and organizations, such as the Log Cabin Republicans, the debate becomes fiercer.
These two issues come back to the real question: What is a conservative?
A true conservative is one who observes the governmental philosophy of the founders and the forgotten document called the "Constitution." The philosophy of self, limited government – a constitutional republic – goes hand in hand with morality, based on God's guidelines. That is what a conservative is, at its root.
Delving into issues, conservatism is an approach that is against abortion – with great respect for the sanctity of life, is for less taxes, and for less government, with a philosophy of government which always allows for more freedom.
This is in contrast to a definition of liberalism. It is easy to define conservatism because it basically conserves the freedom-loving ways of America's heritage, but liberalism is a completely different word that does not attach itself to anything tangible. However, those who claim to be liberal tend to support bigger government, more taxes, abortion and socialist ideas – all mixed with a lack of morality.
For many, a big reason for not being a conservative is looking at those who claim to be conservative. The political figureheads of the conservative movement become hypocritical at times. Unfortunately, many in national politics claim to be conservative, but are not, and continually misrepresent what it really means to be a conservative. Conservative leaders have nothing to hide behind, but liberal leaders can and do hide behind emotionalism.
National politicians tend to be somewhere in the middle. Many adopt conservative ideals when it is convenient, and some adopt liberal ideals when it is convenient – all in an effort to gain more power.
As a nation, we debate politics, not principles. That's the problem. After so long, we tend to forget what our real agendas are and the only driving goal is power. After politicians gain power, all they work for is a goal of re-election. Thus, when the only goal is to get Republicans in power in an effort to deprive the Democrats of power, they sometimes forget why they wanted change in the first place.
That is the reason I have a problem with the Republican Party and that is the reason why I doubt I will register as a Republican in four years. The national platform is that of a goal of political power, compromise and lack of conservatism. When you get so far up on the political totem pole, power corrupts – this is evident in many who claim to be conservative, but whose only goal is power.
Some policymakers, political consultants and politicians within the GOP need to be reminded what a true conservative is. At its core, conservatism is the conservation of the limited, constitutional republican form of self-government, mixed with the morality of God's laws and guidelines.
See, the liberals have been defeated, as they can no longer control mass thinking as they could previously. Therefore, not being dummies, their tactics had to change by going over to the conservative side, and changing the rules and the jargon there.
Their way of thinking is "neo-con," meaning "new," and thus appeals to the more youthful to lure them away from their parent's "liberal" dogma.
However, got to keep them away from conservatives at all costs, so the ex-liberals name them "paleo-cons" to keep the youth away from those dinosaurs. Then paint the "paleo-cons" with the anti-Jewish brush, and the "paleo-cons" have to defend that slander; therefore, the real conservative issues and ideals cannot be discussed having to defend against lies and hogwash.
And, "it's deja vue all over again," with the same ol' folks still playing the tune for we the people to dance to...
Is Free Republic too "Republican?"
Jim Robinson
Posted on 06/13/2003 3:55 AM CDT by Jim Robinson
Is Free Republic too "Republican?" I've been receiving a lot of complaints lately that FR is not really conservative, it's Republican. Is that a bad thing?
When I started FR (see the wayback machine) I don't think I even used the labels conservative or Republican. But, even though I was a registered Democrat at the time (I registered when I was very young), I was definitely anti-Democrat. And definitely anti-big government, anti-government corruption, anti-government abuse, anti-liberalism, etc. And I still am.
The former being described as the "old right-wing,"The former being incorrectly described as the old right wing.
As for the inane name calling, that many have lately fallen into over the use of the term: It is becoming more and more clear, that that is an outgrowth of the panic that many of the trendy conformists to Academic dogma, in the public eye, experienced when it looked like Ronald Reagan really had a Conservative majority in the voting population in place; a growing force, actively seeking to roll back the big mess--the harvest of big government & collectivist egalitarianism.
I wish that instead of worrying about the name calling, my fellow Conservatives--and no modifier is necessary if you are the real thing--would simply hone in on the issues, with a sense of proportion, tradition, common sense and most important, of all, an understanding of how people are really wrapped mentally.
The reality is that almost everyone has at least a partial Conservative side. It is our job to learn better how to appeal to it. We learn that when we begin to appreciate the complex of images that are in other people's heads; when we begin to perceive how the Left evokes only a limited part of those images, those which stoke their furnaces of envy, resentment, jealousy and guilt, while neglecting all the images that may be used to ween others from envy, resentment, jealousy and guilt.
No political party is now, or ever has been, the key to the ideological battle. Quite the contrary! Political parties move in our direction, when we win the ideological battles. They move away from our position when we lose the ideological battles. They really move away from our position, very rapidly, when for some stupid reason, we do not even engage in the ideological battles.
What do I mean by a stupid reason: Trying not to embarrass those we deem our political friends. Anyway you slice it, that makes not one bit of sense. Those who really have Conservative tendencies--even if they are showing them at the moment--can only be helped in those tendencies, if we stand up and persuade as many of the public as possible to a true Conservatism. Those who really do not care at all for our values, but merely pretend to, on the other hand, need to be intimidated or defeated. There is no element whatsoever--no decent element or decent purpose--which will ever benefit from our silence.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The distinction is very vital. George Washington, for example, pointed out that our system was rooted and depended upon private morals. That did not mean that he advocated a host of new laws intended to make people more moral--exactly the opposite. He understood that people who did not have the moral fibre to regulate their own conduct in accordance with a system of moral values, could hardly be trusted with the affairs of State--or with handling your business or commercial interests, either.
There is no need for you to explain a conflict between your traditional Conservatism and Libertarian values. There is none. Your family might have erred in the direction of going overboard in tyring to protect social morals, or they might not have. But that involves other issues. My point is that there is no reason for any divide between the Conservative and Libertarian bases of America, over morality.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
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.