[IronJack]

I think you're essentially relabeling conservatism. Sure, there may be a Libertarian flavor to your particular brand, but nothing you've stated is inconsistent with the definition of conservatism, which is to CONSERVE (and preserve) our national roots. I believe many Libertarians have a credo that supersedes the Constitution, in many cases exceeding it. And where the two philosophies collide, it is the Constitution that suffers. This is only true in the extreme cases, however, and that same argument could be made about any extreme.

In sum, I think that "restoration" -- large or small "r" -- is simply a facet of conservatism, in fact, one of its defining characteristics.

[EternalVigilance]

"In sum, I think that "restoration" -- large or small "r" -- is simply a facet of conservatism, in fact, one of its defining characteristics."

Very well put, and exactly on the mark.

I was going to respond similiarly, but thought I better read the thread first...glad I did, because you expressed my thoughts perfectly.

I often make reference in my FR posts to those of us who endeavor to 'restore and defend the Constitution'...because a large amount of erosion has occurred (hence the need for 'restoration')...but there is still much intact which needs defending.

As an aside, but still very much in keeping with the intent of this thread...the best thing we could do to put the governmental monstrosity back into its constitutionally mandated box would be to repeal the 16th Amendment...and while we're at it, let's do the 17th as well.

Regards...EV