What is a conservative? (Why Williams may not become a Republican, says the naive idealist)

worldnetdaily ^ | June 14, 2003 | Kyle Williams

[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.

[MeekOneGOP]

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.

So if Kyle Williams is not going to register as a Republican, does that mean he'll vote against the GOP, thus handing power to the 'RATS ? You know, they're the ones obstructing Conservative judicial pics in the Senate. They're the ones running off to Ardmore to prevent legitimately needed and proper redistricting in Texas. And so forth ad infinitum. Is that what he wants? More of that ? The DemocRATS don't have a sound platform that I'm aware of. Mostly what I see are objections to the current administration, and plain Bush-bashing ala Robert Byrd, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, etc.

Debate within the party is one thing. To sabotage the party and hand things freely over to the 'RATS is yet another. I'll be voting GOP in 2004 all the way !!

Or maybe I'm missing something here ?? Enquiring minds want to know . . .

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest or Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Sir Gawain]

Why don't you just ask him?

[JakeWyld]

I agree. You say things much better than I could have.

[Dane]

JohnHuang2, I know how much you enjoy Kyle and his truth....

When I was 15, I actually was pro-Libertarian and debated for the Libertarian candidate for President(Ed Clarke) that year(1980) in High School, because I thought his ideas on drug legalization were so cool.

Todd, when a person is 14 it isn't the "truth", but idealism, IMHO.

But what the hey when you find someone who shares your malcontentism, you have to proclaim it to the highest mountains.

[tpaine]

Sir Gawain wrote:

I'm changing my strategy. Constitutionalists need to infiltrate the Republican party and take it over. JR is right. Only the money in the Republican party can beat the dems, so let's use it.



REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

I'm changing my strategy. Constitutionalists need to infiltrate the Republican party and take it over. JR is right. Only the money in the Republican party can beat the dems, so let's use it.

Hear, hear. I've come to much the same conclusion.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks !

[TLBSHOW]

Todd, when a person is 14 it isn't the "truth", but idealism, IMHO.

...

How about opinion? In fact lets go with opinion instead. Even if it is the truth. LOL

and when you get to be Rush Limbaughs age

White House Throws Principle Out Window


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926558/posts?page=


or Robert Novaks age what do you call it?


While Republicans shrug off their departure from principle as inconsequential, it is no isolated event.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927408/posts?page=

[Dane]

How about opinion? In fact lets go with opinion instead. Even if it is the truth. LOL

and when you get to be Rush Limbaughs age

Huh? You can LOL all you want, but idealism is idealism and even Rush will admit that political factors have to be considered.

But what the hey, you go by article titles and one sentence sound bites to make your point and world view.

[templar]

Only the money in the Republican party can beat the dems, so let's use it.

Do you really think the money in the Republican party would still be there if the party was taken over by Constitutionalists? Personally, I kinda tend to doubt it. Reason I doubt it? If the money was for Constitutionalists, that's where it would be going now.

[tpaine]

Wow, -- devastating retort. You and Dane must stay up nights practicing such wit/wisdom.

[templar]

Wow, -- devastating retort. You and Dane must stay up nights practicing such wit/wisdom.

Well, I asked a logical question of you, politely stated my belief about the probable outcome of your proposal, and gave my reasoning for the basis of that belief.

You do seem to display your intellectual capacity rather well with this reply, though. No need for you to stay up all night to do that; it seems to me that it shouldn't even require a measurable amount of time.

[billbears]

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.

No, no, no say it ain't so!! I've been told high and wide I'm, how was it put again, a a nut and an irritant for believing such things? Come moneyrunner, tell us all how it really is. Straighten us out for thinking we should even believe such 'nonsense'

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."--Thomas Jefferson

"Either force or corruption has been the principle of every modern government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1796

"There is in the nature of government an impatience of control that disposes those invested with power to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations. This has its origin in the love of power. Representatives of the people are not superior to the people themselves." - Alexander Hamilton - Federalist Paper No.15, 1787

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man--Thomas Jefferson

Wow even one by a good little statist like Hamilton. Note again none of these spoke against either party, rather politicians as a whole!! And a quote I think we need to see a bit more of as politicians lead us down this primrose path, either fast or slow, it will lead to the same thing unless we stop thinking along party lines and start on what an elected official believes. Because here in the South there are Democrats currently in office at the state level that are more conservative than some Republicans. Simply shocking...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Alexander Tyler

An excellent article Kyle, and hope for a future that we may return to a Federal Constitutional Republic

[tpaine]

Whatever

[lizma]

Constitutionalists need to infiltrate the Republican party and take it over.

I wish. Voted for them the one time their candidate was on my state's ballot.

But I live in a world of soccer moms who are very conservative yet vote for the democrats.

I'd say in all, Americans are too apathetic to to pay much attention to what is going on in our government. Most vote based on where their emotions a few weeks prior to elections and that's where propaganda rules.

Bottom line, it's now all about who controls the media and whose propaganda can get the biggest emotional response.

[TLBSHOW]

Great thread~

[TLBSHOW]

Just so you know the title on top is not what I put there it was changed by someone here. I just found out, so just that you know I did not add this part above..

(says the naive idealist)

I just wanted to let you know I did not do it. As you can see from my post 1.

Hey K

Great story...and good luck with the new book.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Sir Gawain]

Some joker changed the title. Cute.

[Sir Gawain]

That's one way to run a conservative off the site, I guess. Who cares about great thinkers that are wiser than their years anyway?