Posted on 09/24/2004 12:33:11 PM PDT by NCSteve
My definition of a "true" conservative is pretty simple:
A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government. A political conservative believes the only valid function of the US Federal government is to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate trade. A political conservative believes that anything more than this leads to tyranny and must be resisted at all costs.
A political conservative also believes that the sovereignty of the US is sacrosanct because it was purchased with the blood of her children. A political conservative believes that treaties and trade agreements that violate that sovereignty are anathema and those who support them are treasonous.
A social conservative believes that the US was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian values. A social conservative believes that personal responsibility is second only to fealty to God in importance as a personality trait. A social conservative believes that the traditional family is the most important social construct and is fundamental to the survival of our society.
A fiscal conservative believes that you have first rights to the fruits of your own labor. A fiscal conservative believes that just as we all must live within our means, so must the government. A fiscal conservative believes that it is immoral for the government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens in order to redistribute it, no matter what the reason.
A "true" conservative is a political, a social, and a fiscal conservative. Simple as that.
In most cases with some notable exceptions, I agree.
And their design for government is the one I'd like to pursue.
I would too for the most part, but the question is about conservatism, not government. The author of the vanity is trying to define the term.
PS, I wish your chosen party agreed with you. But that for a different thread.
I have always thought this section of the Constitution should be tattoed to the foreheads of every member of Congress.
Great post don't let the nit pickers drive you nuts.
I'm not so sure that most libertarians believe that we were founded on Judeo-Christian values, though they themselves could probably answer that better than I. I do know for certain that the Libertarian party doesn't believe in true American sovereignty, as their official platform calls for the elimination of all immigration restrictions, which is basically tantamount to saying that we're not really a country.
If an agnostic or atheist believed that personal responsibility was second only to fealty to God, I can't see how this would exclude them. But that's not very likely, is it?
This would lead me to believe that you'd exclude an atheist or agnostic who believes in political and fiscal conservatism, and in person responsibility, from your category of "true conservatives". Is this the case?
My answer would be no. The definition is apt, but atheists and agnostics are not necessarily excluded. NCSteve may feel differently, of course.
It is possible to be an atheist or agnostic and have a religious orientation and strongly support religious institutions.
I think you can agree President Reagan was speaking of libertarianism, not the Libertarian Party.
As to the two specifics you mentioned, I wouldn't presume to speak for the Gipper.
But I think Mr. Robinson spelled out the proper powers of the federal government, and I don't believe either of those two issues are covered by Article I, Section 8.
The fallacy is the implicit assertion that the Libertarian Party platform defines libertarianism. I have yet to see this kind of association made implying that the Democratic Party platform defines democracy, or the Republican Party platform defines republicanism. Why is that?
LOL, I guess so. It is Miller time. Have a good one.
huh?
Zowie, nailed it on the first reply of the thread. Good job!
The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
It would be a huge mistake to confuse the platform of the Libertarian Party with classical libertarianism and even moreso with conservatism. I don't think someone who considers themself a card-carying Libertarian or an Anarchist will find much to like in my definition.
I can't really give you a point-by-point breakdown because I don't pay enough attention to them to tell you. Their immigration and foreign policy positions make it pretty hard to take them very seriously. As far as the two issues you've cited, whatever the Founder's position on these issues would have been, they would not have considered them to be the concern of the federal government.
What's interesting is when social conservative issues come in conflict with political conservative issues.
Which side a person roots for there is telling of their character.
In fact, since you posted the definitions, which do you think should take precedence when there is conflict?
Don't confuse Reagan's referance to libertarianism with a referance to the Libertarian party. The Libertarian party is as far removed from libertarian ideas as the Republican party is from conservative ones.
In that respect, he's right. At this point achieving a constitutional republic with a limited federal government would have to be characterized as reactionary.
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.