What is a conservative? (Why Williams may not become a Republican, says the naive idealist)

worldnetdaily ^ | June 14, 2003 | Kyle Williams

[TLBSHOW]

What is a conservative?

by Kyle Williams

What is a conservative? This is a question that has recently become an issue in the conservative movement.

Many pundits have separated conservatives into two groups: paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives. The former being described as the "old right-wing," being more constitutionally conservative, and the latter being the more moderate side of the conservative movement. As a side note, some conservative pundits say that "neo-conservative" is really code word for pro-Israel, considering the trouble that the far right has gotten into with some bashing Jews. That, however, is not the original meaning of the "neo-conservative" word, from my point of view.

Another issue arises as to whether you can truly be a conservative and forget morality. A recent column by David Horowitz blasted some on the religious right for their criticism of the Republican National Committee and Marc Racicot meeting with leaders from the Human Rights Campaign. With homosexual pundits – like Andrew Sullivan – and organizations, such as the Log Cabin Republicans, the debate becomes fiercer.

These two issues come back to the real question: What is a conservative?

A true conservative is one who observes the governmental philosophy of the founders and the forgotten document called the "Constitution." The philosophy of self, limited government – a constitutional republic – goes hand in hand with morality, based on God's guidelines. That is what a conservative is, at its root.

Delving into issues, conservatism is an approach that is against abortion – with great respect for the sanctity of life, is for less taxes, and for less government, with a philosophy of government which always allows for more freedom.

This is in contrast to a definition of liberalism. It is easy to define conservatism because it basically conserves the freedom-loving ways of America's heritage, but liberalism is a completely different word that does not attach itself to anything tangible. However, those who claim to be liberal tend to support bigger government, more taxes, abortion and socialist ideas – all mixed with a lack of morality.

For many, a big reason for not being a conservative is looking at those who claim to be conservative. The political figureheads of the conservative movement become hypocritical at times. Unfortunately, many in national politics claim to be conservative, but are not, and continually misrepresent what it really means to be a conservative. Conservative leaders have nothing to hide behind, but liberal leaders can and do hide behind emotionalism.

National politicians tend to be somewhere in the middle. Many adopt conservative ideals when it is convenient, and some adopt liberal ideals when it is convenient – all in an effort to gain more power.

As a nation, we debate politics, not principles. That's the problem. After so long, we tend to forget what our real agendas are and the only driving goal is power. After politicians gain power, all they work for is a goal of re-election. Thus, when the only goal is to get Republicans in power in an effort to deprive the Democrats of power, they sometimes forget why they wanted change in the first place.

That is the reason I have a problem with the Republican Party and that is the reason why I doubt I will register as a Republican in four years. The national platform is that of a goal of political power, compromise and lack of conservatism. When you get so far up on the political totem pole, power corrupts – this is evident in many who claim to be conservative, but whose only goal is power.

Some policymakers, political consultants and politicians within the GOP need to be reminded what a true conservative is. At its core, conservatism is the conservation of the limited, constitutional republican form of self-government, mixed with the morality of God's laws and guidelines.

[TLBSHOW]

As a nation, we debate politics,

not principles

That's the problem.

After so long, we tend to forget what our real agendas are and the only driving goal is power. After politicians gain power, all they work for is a goal of re-election. Thus, when the only goal is to get Republicans in power in an effort to deprive the Democrats of power, they sometimes forget why they wanted change in the first place.



That is the reason I have a problem with the Republican Party and

that is the reason why I doubt I will register as a Republican in four years.

The national platform is that of a goal of political power, compromise and lack of conservatism.

Kyle Williams

[Jim Robinson]

Been politicin' long?

[Iconoclast2]

And just how do you "work from the inside to turn them to the right?" In my experience concerning Western environmental issues, they all have no principles and no interest in fixing things once they get to D.C. And I specifically mean the Bush Administration higher level appointees in D.C. . .

[TLBSHOW]

No.

[dogbyte12]

Todd, you don't need to cut and paste a 14 year old, articulate as he may be, but instead answer Jim's question. What democrat do you see that is fit to remain in office?

There could be an intellectual argument here ya know. One could say that Zell Miller has a lifetime 54 rating from the ACU, which puts him to the right of a few GOP senators. One could say that some of the blue dog democrats in the House work with the President to get things done.

But, one must say something with their own mouths. Shouting weeper weeper ratty rat Islam is Satan, Bush=Traitor does not win you any debate points on either style or merit, so you attempt to argue by cut and pasting. Perhaps it is time to put more of your own opinion in the comments on the thread rather than editorializing in the title header.

[Jim Robinson]

I plagiarized that last comment. There's the cartoon of a couple nine or ten year old hayseed farm boys leaning on a fence chewing on straw. One turns to the other and says "Been farmin' long?"

[TLBSHOW]

look up

[nunya bidness]

Lemme' guess: time to run the dogs?

[cmsgop]

Oh No, he has been......

To: Uncle Bill Now I know why Bush and Blair get along so well. Both are socialist. 50 posted on 06/14/2003 4:05 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[TLBSHOW]

to 124

[agitator]

Todd, my point in asking that was Jim didn't have to ask Kyle to modify something you modified. You'll notice I didn't comment on the content one way or another. I was only curious about who did the edit because there's usually a notation to that effect. Now I know how the edit happened and why. I'd just suggest posting the article title as is, and putting your comments below it. You'll get just as many hits.

[Thumper1960]

Kyle's got a good head on his shoulders. He's just got to learn the value of pragmatism. While the Republican Party isn't my ideal of the defenders of the national soul, it's a damned sight better than the socialistic Demoncrat Party. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Destroy and utterly obliterate the Demoncrat Party, and all their adherents, in all walks of life and positions of power....then go after the less than acceptable who infest the Republican Party.

As with the "war on terror", the fight will be very long and the battles bloody. The end game, though, is important to realize. Take a long view of history and cowboy up.

[TLBSHOW]

Good thread but you forgot the link.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/928891/posts?page=

which includes the FR mission statement? Here is part of it.

"A return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment. The Tenth Amendment will again be in effect, which will bar all federal attempts at legislating social issues.

This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and

Medicare be repealed."

[TLBSHOW]

I just would like to see less or no socialist agenda and more conservative ones. Is that really too much to ask of the President?

[Thumper1960]

When you wake up each morning....do you recognize the fact that you're looking into the maul of the Beast?

You can ask for anything you wish. You ain't gonna get it until the Demoncrats are destroyed.

Is it really that hard for you to understand???? Why do you waste your time and resources tilting against windmills??

[TLBSHOW]

I have never questioned or said the rats must not be destroyed, but I have said that the republicans must be held to the fire or stories such as Kyle's here will be all over.

[Thumper1960]

And Kyle, among others, must learn the art of politics. He must also read Sun Tzu. Politics is a form of war. It is fought with polemics and policies. Propaganda and machinations. Idealists are usually among the first casualties.

[roughrider]

"And Kyle, among others, must learn the art of politics. He must also read Sun Tzu. Politics is a form of war. It is fought with polemics and policies. Propaganda and machinations. Idealists are usually among the first casualties."

And it could by YOU who is the victim of these techniques, not Kyle.

[roughrider]

"Kyle obviously misses the point that this is a pretty good reason to get the Pubbies in and then we can work from the inside to sway them more to the right."

Now, you people say this election after election. It is a variation of the "hold their feet to the fire" argument. Well, "holding their feet to the fire" means nothing if all you want people to do is BLUFF the Republican Party. Just by posting the remarks you made, you TELEGRAPH to that party that any attempt to "move them to the right" is just a BLUFF on your part. You'll never get them to move right by saying: "I'd sure like you to move to the right, but if you won't, I'll vote for you anyway." Your desire for them to "move to the right" is hollow in their eyes if there are no consequences for continuing to move left, which only incites the Democrats to move FURTHER left, as the GOP has given them the excuse, and the reason, to move further left to maintain their voter base.

If the Reagan victory and the 1994 takeover of Congress did not convince these professional vote seekers that "moving more to the right" brings success, then a TOOTHLESS demand from voters that they do so will not impress them at all.

Besides, when anyone TRIES to hold their feet to the fire, you people tell them to STOP, at least until the next election cycle starts, when we are all told how "possible" it is to reform the Republicans, even though there are never supposed to be any real consequences for them if they don't.

[Chi-townChief]

OK - then vote for Nader next time.