A True Conservative

MeMyselfAndI | 9/24/2004 | NCSteve

[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.

[exodus]

To: NCSteve; biblewonk
"... A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government ..."

If that's the definition of a conservative, how is a libertarian different? Or, for that matter, an anarchist?
# 8 by newgeezer
**********************************

A conservative is a libertarian.

An anarchist is not a libertarian.

A libertarian believes in the benefits of Law, and that a small, limited government is the best government.

An anarchist believes that Law is evil, and that government should be abolished outright.

A liberal believes in Law too, but unlike a libertarian, believes that the more "control" a government has, the better.

[tacticalogic]

If not, what in the hell does it mean?

I think the answer lies in putting the emphasis on "general" rather than "welfare". IOW, Congress should not exercise it's power to the advantage of a one group or constituency at the expense of another.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Being in the majority doesn't give us the right to co-opt government to advance our own agenda.

We should play in the free market of ideas, without subsidy or penalty.

I believe this because I believe our values are superior.

That's cute. Someone who believes that the free market of ideas actually is effective at selecting the best ideas.

The (Judeo-)Christian culture is not our own agenda, it is the one that has always existed and continues to exist in this country. It isn't arbitrary.

[Jaysun]

We should play in the free market of ideas, without subsidy or penalty.

Don't you see? There is a penalty now. Who decided that once you become a "government employee" (taxpayer employee) that you should also become agnostic? Who decided that the buildings that our dollars build should be totally void of anything Christian - even though many federal buildings of the past aren't? We're losing more and more of our freedom.

[tacticalogic]

It seems unlikely that we'll revert back to the original idea that states had the power over such things. The only other choices are to let it go to hell, or do it on a national level.

The ideas you have of what constitutes good government are yours to choose. Abandoning them for the sake of expediency is tantamount to surrender.

[Repairman Jack]

If we can use public dollars to advance our Christian agenda and the Great Commission, then what do we say to the Mohammedian or Hindu who wants to use those dollars - your dollars - to advance their religions?

[Jaysun]

The ideas you have of what constitutes good government are yours to choose. Abandoning them for the sake of expediency is tantamount to surrender.

We have to start somewhere if we're to get back to where we should be.

[EternalVigilance]

I always find it gratifying that, because of its intrinsic truth and value, the label 'conservative' is an honorable one; one which many aspire to carry whether they deserve it or not, especially when running for office.

Meanwhile, politicians run from being tagged as 'liberal' like scalded cats.

[Repairman Jack]

That's cute. Someone who believes that the free market of ideas actually is effective at selecting the best ideas.

Yes, I do believe that. I'm sorry you think force is the best way to advance an agenda - since force is the only alternative to the free market of ideas.

The (Judeo-)Christian culture is not our own agenda, it is the one that has always existed and continues to exist in this country. It isn't arbitrary.

And it doesn't need government support.

[Ohioan]

Your definitions fit most American traditions quite well. You are entirely right in concluding that there is no conflict between the three focuses of Conservatism, that you suggest. I would make one other point, and that is this: None of the focuses, which you suggest, involve any major departure from the concept of recognizing history and the historically demonstrated truths of human nature; hence they are consistent with the foundation for all Conservative thought--i.e., the recognition of historic achievement and truth.

Outside the American experience, there may be other aspects to Conservatism. But for the purposes of us, as American Conservatives, your points are on the mark. (I recognize that some others have expanded on them, and am not suggesting that that is in anyway inappropriate. My point is that there is no conflict between American political, social and economic Conservatives. Those are simply three different focuses of the same phenomena.)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Repairman Jack]

I disagree. There's plenty of conflict between social, political and economic conservatives on this web site every day - ranging from social programs to education to blue laws to First Amendment issues.

[WhiteGuy]

To sum up: Anything beyond the limited powers expressly delegated by the people under the Constitution to their government for certain limited purposes creates the danger of tyranny. We stand there now. For an American conservative, better one lost election than the continued empowerment of cynical men who abuse conservatism through an exercise of power unrestrained by principle through the compromise of conservative beliefs. George W. Bush claims to be conservative. But based upon the unwholesome intrusion into domestic life and personal liberty of his administration and the local governments who imitate it, George W. Bush is no conservative, no friend of limited, constitutional government—and no friend of freedom. The Republic would be better served by his defeat in November.

From a now pulled thread that deserved more honest debate.

WF Buckley would be ashamed that this was removed.

[NutCrackerBoy]

If we can use public dollars to advance our Christian agenda and the Great Commission, then what do we say to the Mohammedian or Hindu who wants to use those dollars - your dollars - to advance their religions?

Under the original correctly limited government, there was no need to expend significant funds on anything of a religious nature. There were little things like recognizing Christmas and Thanksgiving as a national holiday - perfectly reasonable steps.

Today, the absence of federal dollars being spent in certain ways actually punishes institutions that are ineligible due to this wildly mal-interpreted separation of church and state.

[Jaysun]

If we can use public dollars to advance our Christian agenda and the Great Commission, then what do we say to the Mohammedian or Hindu who wants to use those dollars - your dollars - to advance their religions?

They already do! They've got kids reading the damned Koran in school and reenacting prayers to Mecca. They're attacking Christianity specifically, and we're allowing them to do it by subscribing to their propaganda. We adorn our buildings with Christian symbols because we're overwhelmingly Christian and we always have been. The people in those dreaded Muslim nations adorn their buildings with Muslim symbols for the same reason. Hindu nations and every other nation I can think of (save the communist mind you) does the same thing.

[dirtboy]

A "true" conservative is a political, a social, and a fiscal conservative. Simple as that.

I'm the only true conservative. Everyone else is either a liberal or a far-right nutbar.

[exodus]

"... Libertarianism is the heart of conservativism ..."
- Ronald Reagan

To: Repairman Jack
"... Even if he did say that Libertarianism is the heart of conservatism, I'm sure you'd agree that the late great Ronald Wilson Reagan wouldn't advocate legalizing illicit drugs, allowing homosexuals to debauch marriage, or other such nonsense. Those are some things that the current Libertarian nominee has in his platform.
# 19 by Jaysun
**********************************

A libertarian isn't necessarily a member of the Libertarian Party, Jaysun.

Also, a member of today's Republican Party isn't necessarily a conservative.

[Repairman Jack]

You missed the point. If we can adorn government buildings in Christian symbols, then we have no ground on which to stand to say no to the Americans who are Mohammedian who want their symbols in our government buildings.

[tacticalogic]

We have to start somewhere if we're to get back to where we should be.

That we do. And history dictates that we give serious consideration to the unintended consequences of the means, regardless of the ends. Don't get so focused on getting the water out of the boat that drilling a hole in the bottom seems like a good idea.

[Jaysun]

I'm the only true conservative. Everyone else is either a liberal or a far-right nutbar.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I'm the only true conservative. Everyone else (which, sadly, would include yourself) is either a liberal or a far-right nutbar. LOL!

[killjoy]

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 consider myself a hawkish libertarian at the moment so I guess my opinion is valid. Yes, the US was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. There is no denying that. What people might argue about is if this means that the government was founded based on principles contained within these religions or with the intention of being a Christian nation. I think it is the former.

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.

There is a difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian. I think immigration should be open to all. This is the original intent of the founders of this county. We have open immigration for some nations, Cuba, by why not others? I can name numerous nations that are just as repressive as Cuba but they would be turned around instantly at the borders. Unfortunately, they don't have the votes in Congress to let them all in.