Posted on 12/11/2003 9:27:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
What does it mean to be "conservative"? Is it simply the antonym of "liberal"? What core beliefs define conservatism? Are those principles still cherished today? Such questions continue to be debated within conservative circles.
Most who adhere to a conservative ideology will agree that defending our individual rights of life, liberty and property are of the utmost importance. In other words, we need to see to it that the government is kept from encroaching upon our inalienable, God-given rights. In truth, the sole purpose of government is to protect those rights, and the restraints on federal power provided by the U.S. Constitution were given to ensure that the government functioned just effectively enough to serve its intended purpose.
The defense of life has been one of the fundamental pillars of conservatism. Naturally, this deals with the abortion issue. Protecting those unable to protect themselves is important, but it goes beyond that. Our founding fathers believed in the primacy of our right to life, which includes our right of self-preservation. One of the ways they sought to protect that right was through the Second Amendment to the Constitution. As written, this amendment was to prevent the federal government from restricting our ability to protect ourselves.
It was once believed that a well-armed citizenry was the best defense against foreign invaders as well as an oppressive government here at home. The founders knew that it was natural for government to grow, and they hoped that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would serve as a hindrance to that growth.
Defending liberty has also been a major facet of conservatism. While "liberty" covers a wide variety of rights, one of particular interest to conservatives has been economic freedom. A strong economy is vital to the well being of a free nation, and people should be able to function in the free market with little or no government interference.
Such interference is not limited to the mere regulation of the exchange of goods and services; it includes government taxation that inhibits an individual's ability to engage in free market activity. Some will argue that taxes are, in essence, payment for services provided by the government. That may seem like sound reasoning, but the vast majority of tax dollars collected by the government go toward services that benefit people other than the ones who fund them.
The inevitable result is the forced redistribution of wealth, something one would expect to find under a socialist regime. This is not only incompatible with conservatism, it is in direct opposition to it.
Yet another important part of conservatism is the defense of property rights. This is not meant to imply that everyone is entitled to property; rather, it means that everyone has the right to work to own property and, once they obtain it, the right to keep it.
Property ownership was key to the growth of this nation. It gave people a sense of importance and purpose, and encouraged them to be more productive. For example, London investors who helped sponsor the Pilgrims' voyage to America in 1620 stipulated that all wealth and property in the new settlement would be shared. They argued that was the only way for everyone to benefit, but in reality they knew that insisting on communal property would better serve their financial interests. Fortunately, after years of struggling to even feed themselves, the Pilgrims privatized land ownership, and the colony began to flourish.
With the birth of the United States of America, the founders knew that property owners had much more at stake when it came to determining government policies, so it was at one time perfectly acceptable to allow only those who owned property the privilege of voting. (Not a bad concept when you consider that those living off the productivity of others can now vote to give themselves more of your hard-earned money.)
If you believe in the basic rights of individual liberty as described above, then you are not a conservative--that is, you are not a conservative as defined by the actions of those currently in power. Modern (or neo) conservatives are team players. Safeguarding individual liberty is of little or no concern. They are primarily interested in the preservation of the Party, and they know exactly how and when principles should be sacrificed for political gain.
When it comes to the protection of our God-given rights, conservatives today only seem to give the appearance that they care. They have already resigned themselves to the fact that our government will never be returned to its constitutional limitations, so they have given up trying. This defeatist attitude is clearly evident in the policies coming out of a so-called "conservative" administration.
On the right to life issue, many believe that the Bush administration has taken the proverbial bull by the horns by enacting a ban on partial-birth abortion. Unfortunately, the bill was passed under the flawed assumption that the "interstate commerce" clause of the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government jurisdiction in the matter. This not only opens a gate for Congress to intrude on other more private matters, but it won't necessarily reduce the number of abortions performed. Doctors who have their hearts set on murdering innocent children will merely find alternative procedures to get the job done.
Claiming to "draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide," the bill ignores the fact that abortion is infanticide, leading one to conclude that the practice is justifiable as long as the baby is killed before it enters the birth canal. So much for the fact that life begins at conception. The partial-birth abortion ban is more symbolic than substantive.
The administration has also been vocal about its support of the current assault weapons ban, which only serves to undermine our inalienable right of self-preservation. If Congress votes to renew the ban in 2004, President Bush promised to sign it into law. It would seem that the new "conservative" position on the right to keep and bear arms is to make sure that criminals continue to out-gun law-abiding citizens.
In defense of liberty, the Bush administration has essentially been focusing on the war on terror and the doctrine of preemption. Protecting liberty here at home has been of little interest. In the realm of economics, the policies coming out of Washington have been anything but conservative. The tax cuts passed earlier are scheduled to expire within the next several years, while non-defense discretionary spending is at its highest level since the Johnson administration. On top of that, the president just signed a Medicare bill that is expected to cost another $400 billion over the next decade. Can anyone call this wealth redistribution "conservative"?
The expansion of government power has also served as an attack on liberty. The Patriot Act, for example, a law that was supposed to help the government crack down on terrorism, has already been stretched beyond its original intention. FBI agents in Las Vegas used the new powers granted them by the act to obtain financial records in a public corruption probe, hardly something that can be deemed a threat to homeland security.
Defending property rights has also been low on the Bush administration's list. During the Clinton years, millions of acres were brought under federal control, the latest addition being about a million acres of national monuments in California, New Mexico, Montana, Arizona, Idaho and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (And this was done only days before George W. Bush was inaugurated.) A Bush spokesman promised a review of Clinton's last-minute executive orders, but nothing ever came of it.
The federal government currently owns about one-third of all the land in the U.S., and the Bureau of Land Management is the largest single holder of public land with 261 million acres in the western states, including Alaska. In addition, federal regulations continue to severely limit the ability of landowners to work and develop their own property. One would expect that a president who believes in the importance of private property ownership would at least try to reduce the government's role in this area.
For many conservatives, issues like these seem to have vanished completely from the radar screen. Conservatism today is defined by an exuberant support of the war on terror, not by a strong defense of our individual rights. No wonder people are confused about what it actually means to be conservative.
Conservative words that are not supported by conservative actions are little more than hollow promises and campaign sound bytes. A politician's effectiveness as a conservative cannot be defined by how mad liberals get when he opens his mouth. A policy cannot be deemed conservative simply because it irritates groups like the ACLU. And a particular philosophy cannot be called conservative because it just happens to be the majority view in the Republican Party.
What is needed in the conservative movement is a back-to-basics approach. Once we understand the importance of the right to life, liberty and property, we will understand that true conservatism means defending those inalienable rights for every American.
Great job.
Regards,
" Our Mission Launched in 1993, The American Cause is an educational organization whose mission is to advance and promote traditional American values that are rooted in the conservative principles of national sovereignty, economic patriotism, limited government, and individual freedom."[Buchanan's Mission Statement for publication American Cause]
As contrasted with neo-conservatism rooted in foreign intervention, bigger government, patriot acts, and job exporting.
Buchanan was correct. America succumbed to the propaganda of those greedy neocon nitwits. We shall all pay dearly for the moment of stupidity.
On top of that, the president just signed a Medicare bill that is expected to cost another $400 billion over the next decade. Can anyone call this wealth redistribution "conservative"?
Of course not.
Ping to an article from long ago.
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.