Posted on 03/03/2010 7:14:12 AM PST by massmike
This is not about the libertarian freak-show that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has become. (“See the bearded lady pushing gays in the military and fighting the war on terrorism the way the French fought World War II.”)
Nor is it meant to be an indictment of Congressman Ron Paul — who is to serious political debate what Comedy Central is to philosophical inquiry.
Neither is it about Grover Norquist’s attempts to make the conservative movement jihad-friendly. Norquist — who sits on the board of the American Conservative Union, CPAC’s parent organization — is the godfather of the Islamic Free Market Institute, a past CPAC co-sponsor. (Do they cut your taxes before or after they cut off your head?)
Rather, the foregoing serve to illustrate widespread ignorance and illusion regarding a word — and it is a word whose correct understanding is essential to America’s survival — conservative.
(Excerpt) Read more at grasstopsusa.com ...
Grover Norquist who thinks McCain is taxpayer friendly?
That’s a joke.
This is a damnation of conservatism. What’s the conservative problem with freedom? :-(
Bzzzt. Wrong answer.
"That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages."
--Patrick Henry , June 7, 1788
Ping for your interest!
Sorry, Mr. 'conservative'. It doesn't work that way.
Awful piece.
If we fought the war on terrorism the way the Americans fought World War II, it would be over by now.
I've said it before: too many conservatives have forgotten what they are supposed to be conserving, which is the radical spirit of liberty laid down by the Founding Fathers, and not the social norms of 1950's middle America.
For all his faults, Ron Paul is closer to being a genuine conservative than most of his critics are.
There were a few worthy speakers at CPAC, but most seemed to fit into the “other reality” corner...somewhere between freak show and ridiculous. If the Tea Party movement dissolves into this, we have no one more to blame than our selves. After reading some of the speeches I was apalled that things seemed to be in shambles and disarray. Some people are trying to take over the tea party movement for their own gain. We need to beware that some who join us have designs on our support for their own purposes, and not necessarily things that would help America. They talk out of both sides of their mouths...we all now the types.
Tell that to Patrick Henry,
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Simple fact of the matter is, if people won't self-govern, then they will be other-governed.
Bravo, Mr. Jeeves! :-) But the ultimate problem, in my view, lies with the term “conservatism” itself. Good people need to rally around a term and concept which clearly means freedom, liberty, individual rights, etc. “Conservatism” doesn’t cut it.
I think that Feder makes a good overall point, however, and one which a lot of "conservatives" here on Free Republic need to (re)learn.
There are a lot of people who seem to think that "liberty" and "moral conservatism" are opposites - and this seems to underly the "conservative-libertarian" divide. This supposed dichotomy is completely untrue. They are contiguous elements of the same fabric of self-governing freedom.
So the Founders supported homosexual marriage, abortion on demand and pornography?
The term that fits best, Liberalism .... Classical Liberalism, is what conservatives were originally conserving. That form of Liberalism that was ruggedly individualistic, pro-natural rights, natural law etc.
LOL, this hits it exactly.
It should come as no surprise that part of the blessing of liberty that conservatives should be conserving includes...drum roll please...the sort of "social conservatism" (as it is termed now) that restrains our baser instincts and enables us to actually function as a commonwealth of self-governing individual citizens.
One of libertarianism's many problems is that it doesn't truly understand the concept of "self-government." The average libertarian thinks "self-government" means "doing whatever I want to do, whenever I want to, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, so long as I'm not putting somebody's eye out while I'm doing it." The Founders, as well as the entire series of philosophical ground-layers upon whom the Founders rested from Algernon Sidney and John Locke all the way back to Marcus Tullius Cicero, would have disagreed.
Self-government involves voluntary restraint of our own desires so that we can function within the commonwealth in a way that facilitates civil society among us all. Or at least that's the way John Locke would have defined it. Libertarians, on the other hand, want to take us back to Locke and Hobbes' "state of nature" in which there is no commonwealth.
Because man is what he is, the unrestrained fulfillment of his every whim will ALWAYS end up infringing on the natural liberties of other individuals. To see the truth of this in our society merely requires us to read the news with at least a modicum of understanding of human nature. Hence, man always needs government. The issue is, then, whether that will be self-government or other-government. To the extent that we do not exhibit the former, we will have that much greater a proportion of the latter.
I absolutely agree, Runninglips. What a HORROR that the anti-freedom, soft-socialist Left has stolen the term "liberalism". True liberalism, as a philosophy, barely exists today. Only with the libertarians, Austrian economic thinkers, and Objectivists.
“Grover Norquist who thinks McCain is taxpayer friendly?
That’s a joke.”
Grover is a traitor to the United States and agent of a foreign power. His presence on the board is why I no longer donate to the NRA.
On the outskirts of society, that which seems “strange” was not only tolerated, but considered “normal” during the early years of our country. It was not that govt promoted it, but allowed local law to rule. Centralizing power is the way of the tyrant. When the “strange” grab control of this tyrannical power, they promote it. Much better to allow local govts to do as they please on the local level, keep centralized govt to a minimum, and tolerate the differences.
If gays want to marry, shouldn’t it be up to the voters in a State, county or city? Ditto for abortion, and porn. As for gay marriage, govt caused this problem, when it took unto itself MARRIAGE itself.
I’m fine with ‘moral conservatism’ and I don’t think it’s the opposite of liberty. However, it isn’t liberty when the government is deciding what the morals are. When government decides what’s ‘moral’, that’s how we end up with transfat bans and forced crappy light bulbs as part of our ‘morality’. That ain’t liberty.
I’m tired of liberals forcing their morality or lack-thereof on me. I’m tired of them trying to indoctrinate my children. However, that doesn’t mean I think that the answer is more of the same, but with new management deciding what’s moral.
I would be willing to bet that the argument that people are incapable of “self government”, and would devolve into anarchy, hedonism and reduced to a crying baby state, without a govt that seeks to CONSERVE traditional life, was the self same one voiced by King George in 1775.
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.