While I would agree with you that people should not be arbitrarily held back because of their racial or other inherited traits, but allowed to achieve as their individual abilities and efforts warrant, that does not mean that a Society with diverse groups can just blithely imagine that everyone is the same. Nor is there anything wrong with Whites preferring Whites, Blacks preferring Blacks, Red men preferring Red men, etc., in their own private dealings. Republicans from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt, certainly did not ascribe to a need to imagine that racial consciousness was wrong.
That said, it is very unfortunate that either party would want to pour gasolene on a smoldering problem, today, by politicizing it--read "demagoguing" it. Certainly there have been times when each party has done so, but latterly the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party has taken such demagoguery to a new low. But that said, there is neither virtue nor conservatism in pretending that there are not differences between us. It is far better to discuss them in a spirit of good will, than arrogantly pretend there is virtue in not doing so.
Other than that, I applaud what you have to say, except for the suggestion that we should pass judgment on how others employ the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Clearly, the essence of freedom has always been the right to use your freedom in a manner of which others do not approve. When George Washington spoke of our system being dependent upon "private morals," he was not postulating Federal dictation of morals, but the individual responsibility of a people to make their own decisions and to respect the right of others to make their own decisions in all matters that were not part of the limited common sphere established.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Obviously, though, this does not include the freedom to oppress others. I will repeat my earlier statement, that the purpose of the 9th and 10th ammendments is similar to other provisions which separate power into the various branches of government, executive, legislative, judiciary, so that if one branch becomes oppressive, other branches can intervene.
State and local power must stand as a corrective to federal power, which must also stand as a corrective to state and local power. State and local authorities are the closest to the individual, and in a perfect world should be most responsive to local concerns. They are, however, also most easily corrupted, and most likely to exert abuse on an individual.
Anyone who has ever been hassled by corrupt inspectors, or deputies, or has seen the inner workings of local government, will know what I am talking about.
In the present world, it is the federal government that is out of control, using its unconstitutional authority to seize lands and dictate their use. Local episodes of corruption, and police criminality certainly exist, but are at levels one could consider "normal", in the sense that public jobs are always held by humans, and these things are always going to be with us. But there are sufficient correctives available, so that if you or I are beaten or unfairly prosecuted, we have options, and will likely eventually get a fair hearing.
This was not always so, particularly where black citizens were concerned, and when abuses occurred, local correctives were not always available or effective. These were the bad old days. If you believed in liberty, these days had to come to an end. Thank God, they have come to an end. If you listen to the racial entrepreneurs, you might not think so, but anyone with a memory for how things once were must recognize that the old days are gone.
The love of liberty, and the ability to live as a free man, is rooted in moral character. The ability, and desire, to govern oneself cannot be separated from morality, which means that culture, and character, and religion, matter.
But these things do not reside in the genes. Much of what we love about America comes out of Anglo-Saxon tradition, and Western philosophy combined with the Judeo-Christian prophets. The early revolutionaries who articulated these beliefs were largely English, or European. So its easy to conflate the love of liberty with European culture. But classic liberalism is a very special subset of European tradition. Other strains of European philosophy have opposed liberty at every step, sometimes with astonishing brutality.
The Brutes can certainly lay claim to their roots in Western Civilization, as can we. But they are rooted in precisely that part of Western Civilization that we have fought to put an end to. Remeber, the Pilgrims escaped from Europe. The Founding Fathers declared war on European political philosophy, and won their freedom from European philosophy by killing the agents of that philosophy. By force of arms, they rejected the legal tradition rooted in English tradition, to establish a new tradition, rooted in a special subset of English revolutionary thinking.
The lovers of liberty are conservatives, only in the American context, because liberty is embedded in the founding of the country. But American conservatives are not conservative in the larger context, but revolutionaries. If you look outside the US, we continue to upend whole societies just by our presence on this planet. A conservative outside the US may very well be our blood enemy, if he comes out of a tradition that does not value liberty.