Agree and think this is the goal of the article...to properly define terms.
Conservatives (self included) generally promote the idea of a “limited government” whatever that means. But as soon as policies supported by republicans are challenged, why then I’m a progressive, turn-coat, etc which couldn’t be farther from the truth.
I’ve come to realize that conservatives have been raised on a diet of Republican politics, Heritage Foundation training and talk-radio hyperbole. Rarely stopping to think of whether ANYTHING the republicans have done while in or out of power has ANYTHING to do with the Constitution. An elementary assessment would suggest NOT.
So, what we really have as a measure of “conservatism” in the 21st century is personality driven politics. And right now, the flavor of the month is Herman Cain regardless of his comments about entitlement programs, taxation. Never mind those Framers, let’s get him in office, he’ll fix everything! Next month it will be Perry, then Newt and so on and so on.
Like I said, PRINCIPLE of politics, party or politician.
Sorry, I meant “Like I said, PRINCIPLE OVER politics, party or politician.”
I have had a number of heated arguments with a few here about certain laws that GWB pushed and signed and how they expanded the federal governments role by setting new 'consitutional' precedents that can lead to things like Obama-care mandate once Republicans are out of power. The sames ones call everything Obama does unconstitutional.
After much back and forth and probing they make the case that the issue is so critical to conservative values that our goal should be to get the courts to find a rationale in the constitution for it, much like Democrats do to get their's.
It's the "Fight Fire with Fire" principle.