Posted on 10/31/2003 8:00:17 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
Does a Republican equal a conservative? There is an entire spectrum of beliefs embodied within those elected officials that have an (R) after their name, and most of us assume that if someone is a Republican, they are conservative. However, political parties die when they are stagnant, and so there is constant change.
To answer the conservativism question, first we have to know what the basic beliefs of conservatives really are.
Historically, their most common belief – the one issue that typically unites them – is a belief in a limited federal government. Conservatives in American tend to believe that power is best left to state and local governments – the governments that are closest to the people. They believe that these smaller governments know better what their own communities need than the more distant federal government.
Conservatives also believe that the government should have a limited fiscal policy, and that the economy runs better with as little government interference as possible. We believe that most government regulations on economic issues serve to stunt growth, and that the capitalist system works best when it is allowed to work as freely as is possible.
Conservatives believe in the rights of the individuals over the rights of the government. They also deeply believe in the idea of personal responsibility. They believe that with individual rights comes individual responsibility. With a limited government comes a limited amount of assistance for its citizens, and conservatives embrace this, because it encourages individuality and freedom from dependence.
Conservatives believe in a strong national defense, and they tend to believe that our borders should be tightly controlled. They support the military and tend to believe that our military is not well served when it is spread all over the world on peacekeeping missions.
These make up the core of conservative values. While there is room for argument within any of these, they are the foundational tenets.
Now, let’s get back to our original question. Does a Republican equal a conservative? There isn’t a simple answer, but the most obvious one is no. There is no Republican that can say that he has held to these values without fail. The problem occurs when the leaders within the Party stop making conservative values their goal.
When the foundation of a belief system is taken away, the entire system wobbles. When one tenet is taken away, the rest threaten to crumble. If Republicans cease to believe in the idea of a limited central government, it becomes easier to justify more regulation and restriction on our market system. When our troops become less of a defense force and more of a peacekeeping force, it becomes easier to justify spreading them out from country to country, which tires and stresses our military. When personal responsibility stops – anything can happen. If no one is to blame, then no one must fear consequences of what they do.
Perhaps the question really is – Should a Republican equal a conservative? For those of us that believe in the GOP, that answer is a resounding yes – but this question will be answered by the people, over a period of decades, who will give their money and their votes to the Republican Party. As the GOP moves closer to the center, there will be a day when conservatives must decide whether the Republican Party is still the party that represents them best; and if they conclude that it is not, they will have to find an alternative.
Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas.
Well stated and my experience, as, after 32 years (16 election cycles), I could no longer support the GOP political machine. I was not naive enough to accept that any third party was going to go anywhere at the national level in the limited time I have left on this planet, so I opted to re-register, for voting, with "Party Affiliation - NONE".
In the main, on election day, the GOP candidate eventually gets my vote as I am staunchly anit-Democrat. And from time to time as a GOP candidate that at least expouses "conservative" (as defined in the artilce above) values I might even contribute to his personal campaign chest. But the days of my un-questionable support with affiliation, time as volunteer party worker, and money for the national GOP machine are gone, and I fear not to return.
I don't push my thoughts on others, but I can say it was quite liberatiing to vote in the last two election cycles without "party" affiliation.
My personal view of the current GOP machine and a vast majority of their elected representatives is that the GOP today has become of the party of and for "compassionate ModeRATs" and is not even remotely "conservative" nor holds many of the stated conservative values.
One of my conservative values is that others' judgements are as equally of value to them as mine are to me. Of course around FR these days "conservatism" has been translated into political power for the GOP where no values are sacred or etched into stone.
Sad.
In theory, no. In actuality, it's measured against the liberals (prescription drugs, for example -- nothing conservative about it).
I disagree.
Partisanship, or factionalism, establishes an us versus them mentality where the strength of one's argument or the good one intends to do with that argument means nothing compared to the other guy losing. Partisanship encourages a cult of personality; a demonization or at the very least, a dehumanization of one's opponents, who happen to be one's countrymen. I don't think much good emerges out of conflict after conflict after conflict, and as a matter of fact, you can probably find as the source of much government bloat, redundancy, and sheer waste a Democrat's determination to stop a Republican, or a Republican's determination to stomp a Democrat.
LOL. In fairness, I think we should let Dane decide if he wishes to advocate that the Constitution be ignored or evaded. I don't think he wishes to do that.
Your contribution, tpaine (and it's not a small one, in my view), is that you consistently insist that Constitutional issues be considered when public issues are discussed. I'm sure that you find both people who agree with you and who disagree with you about some of the important nuances of Constitutional construction, but I think that most everyone around here will agree with you that we must always be mindful of the limits placed upon us by the Constitution.
You do a great job of keeping us honest, tpaine. ;-)
Lofty idea, but isn't flamming the favorite pastime for the bots on FR these days?
No and No. I feel like we've been through this before, but why confuse a political party or political affiliation with a value system? There have been and are today Democrats more conservative than some Republicans (Nunn was and Z. Miller is). Conservatives have congregated around the Republican banner, increasingly since the Goldwater/Rockefeller convention.
If we establish a "baseline conservatism" or litmus test for membership in a political party, does that adhere to the conservative value of individualism? Why respect Zell Miller's individualism, but not Specter's or Snow's?
I am most amazed that conservatives tend toward cookie-cutter acceptance rather than accepting that conservative values are a way of life for an individual, easily recognized by others. I don't demand all politicians meet my value system to belong to a political party and I vote for the politicians who do regardless of their political party.
I wonder, if I limit my own dependence on government, how active must I be, as a conservative, in denying others of dependence on their government to keep it small? Is my stake in the debate only the amount of taxes extorted to support ignorant, lame and lazy? Is my only option to make the dependant-prone dependent directly on me instead through charity, perhaps helping them to their own independence and conservative value system?
One of the least acceptable aspects of modern American politics is the wholesale use of rationalizations to justify whatever the individual politician thinks may sound good, whatever he thinks may serve his interests, rather than the duty imposed by his oath of office. The abuse of the "Commerce Clause," is an excellent example of the use of rationalizations to defeat the clear intent of the Founding Fathers, and undermine the Constitutional limitations and protections.
I do not intend this, in anyway, to be seen as an attack on what you wrote. I agree completely with the perspective on the issue raised, and again applaud your good efforts on behalf of our cause.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Actually, Clinton did a pretty good job at that by emasculating the military, don't you think?
In theory, no. In actuality, it's measured against the liberals (prescription drugs, for example -- nothing conservative about it).
Conservatism is about preserving the values that are seen as enduring; about preserving heritage; about the continuity of a people. As such, it will vary from people to people. But by its very "conservative" nature, it may be a little less dramatic in some of its reactions to those things which it opposes than are the forces of destruction and social turmoil--those Socialists euphemistically called "reformers."
There is indeed nothing conservative about the proposal to have the Federal Government subsidize prescription drugs. The idea is not only Unconstitutional, it is about the most economically unsound idea to be put forward since Lyndon Johnson rammed through the original Medicare. When you combine unconstitutionality, with economic madness--denial of the obvious realities involved--you have something which no Conservative, moderate or prudent person, should countenance.
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.