Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A True Conservative
MeMyselfAndI | 9/24/2004 | NCSteve

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: conservative; libertarianizethegop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-268 next last
To: NCSteve
"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?"

Which is why I included personal responsibility without mentioning God. :-)
41 posted on 09/24/2004 1:31:52 PM PDT by NJ_gent (Conservatism begins at home. Security begins at the border. Please, someone, secure our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Well, I guess I was addressing his first statement:

"A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government."

And I will add to that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I believe a conservative should respect the founders' intent and design for limited government. The government as established by the founders derives its power from the people and its purpose is to defend our God-given unalienable rights. This is not only from foreign invaders, it means defending our rights from all enemies foreign and domestic.


42 posted on 09/24/2004 1:36:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
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.

That's incorrect. Sodomy was a criminal offense and was forbidden by the laws of the original thirteen states when they ratified the Bill of Rights.

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

I don't know where you get the notion that the Founding Fathers were "live and let live" in their thinking. They weren't faced with the same flagrant debauchery that we are today. One reason might be that in those days committing such flagrant debauchery might find you with each limb tied to a different horse, with one of the Founding Fathers yelling "getty-up!"
43 posted on 09/24/2004 1:37:09 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve; Jim Robinson
Defining conservatism is a moving target. Jim has well defined what conservatism was when citizens were fearful of a big powerful, controlling government. Today big government is welcomed by both parties to control the citizens.

I believe the earlier citizen believed he could control government by the Constitution. The Constitution is now something that politicans just wave from their suit pocket.

The earlier concept of citizen control of government has been replaced by special interest cash. Today whoever controls the politican, controls the government and controls the latest definition of Conservatism. Conservatism today has morphed into 1930's socialism. It has been re-baptized neo-conservatism.

44 posted on 09/24/2004 1:37:29 PM PDT by ex-snook ("BUT ABOVE ALL THINGS, TRUTH BEARETH AWAY THE VICTORY")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack

Can you cite an example? I honestly cannot think of a case where social and political conservatism would be at odds?


45 posted on 09/24/2004 1:38:50 PM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve
Can you cite an example? I honestly cannot think of a case where social and political conservatism would be at odds?

I saw his post and have been pondering the same thing. I also can't think of a conflict.
46 posted on 09/24/2004 1:40:25 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve


Some social conservatives might support blue laws.

A political conservative would not.

Some social conservatives might support a federal law against the gays marrying.

A political conservative would not.

And so on.


47 posted on 09/24/2004 1:41:16 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
That's incorrect. Sodomy was a criminal offense and was forbidden by the laws of the original thirteen states when they ratified the Bill of Rights.

How is it incorrect? The Founders enumerated and transferred to the federal government an explicit, limited set of powers. The existence of any particular state laws did not constitute an implicit grant and transfer of power.

48 posted on 09/24/2004 1:42:49 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
How is it incorrect? The Founders enumerated and transferred to the federal government an explicit, limited set of powers. The existence of any particular state laws did not constitute an implicit grant and transfer of power.

Oh, Federal government. I stand corrected on that point.
49 posted on 09/24/2004 1:44:41 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: snarkpup

Disestablishmentarian Sceptic works for me. ;^)


50 posted on 09/24/2004 1:48:33 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
One thing to consider is that the Founder's idea of power to the states has been long extinct. In the absence of state power, they might very well advocate federal laws against such things. But, that's merely speculation and we'll never know.
51 posted on 09/24/2004 1:48:34 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun



What you said in that post conflicts with this from the initial vanity.

"A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government. "


And that is how the social conservative agenda and the political conservative agenda can conflict.


52 posted on 09/24/2004 1:50:46 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack; NCSteve; Jaysun; tacticalogic
Some social conservatives might support a federal law against the gays marrying.

A political conservative would not.

OK, I buy that for starters as a conflict. I would have said virtually all social conservatives would vehemently believe in preserving the existing definition of marriage, and some political conservatives would not.

53 posted on 09/24/2004 1:51:04 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy


Just about the same, but the difference would be those who lean more politically than socially conservative would support preserving the existing definition of marriage, but not necessarily by federal law.


54 posted on 09/24/2004 1:53:24 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: killjoy; NCSteve
To: NCSteve
Your description sounds more like a libertarian.
# 2 by killjoy
**********************************
A true conservative is a libertarian, even if they refuse to admit it.
55 posted on 09/24/2004 1:53:48 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
I saw his post and have been pondering the same thing. I also can't think of a conflict.

Here's a couple of examples to consider:

1. The meaning of the Phrase "to regulate trade" must be sought in the general use of it, in other words in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be applicable, when the Phrase was inserted in the Constn.

2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.

-James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell 18 Sept. 1828

3d. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen), which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.

-Thomas Jefferson, on establishing a national bank.

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

-From George Washington's farewell address.

Now consider the multitude of federal programs and agencies (including the DEA) that exist on the authority of the Commerce Clause, as defined by FDR and the New Deal and in direct conflict with these statements, many of which are supported by "social conservatives".

56 posted on 09/24/2004 1:53:50 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack; NCSteve; Jaysun; tacticalogic
There are conflicts but also resonance between the social and political conservative. Ever read de Tocqueville? It has long been held that what makes limited government feasible is a strong morality among the people. Social conservatives believe that the federal or state government can and should act, despite the other limitations on their power, to support institutions that tend to engender a strong moral character, such as church and marriage.
57 posted on 09/24/2004 1:56:11 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Repairman Jack
What you said in that post conflicts with this from the initial vanity. "A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government."

I looked over the article again and realized that. I'm not sure, in retrospect, that most conservatives would agree with the definition (government's only role is to provide defense..trade..) of a political conservative.

Nevertheless, you're point is well taken. Thanks.
58 posted on 09/24/2004 1:57:14 PM PDT by Jaysun (Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy


Yes, I read de Tocqueville.

I just happen to believe the conservative and religious values I have no need of government support, nor is it government's place to support them.


59 posted on 09/24/2004 1:58:01 PM PDT by Repairman Jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
OK, I buy that for starters as a conflict. I would have said virtually all social conservatives would vehemently believe in preserving the existing definition of marriage, and some political conservatives would not.

Some political conservatives might not, but no political conservative would support changing it by decree of the federal government.

60 posted on 09/24/2004 1:59:28 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-268 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson