Home › Blogs › Charles Signorile's blog ›

The First Principles of Conservatism

Submitted by Charles Signorile on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 16:53

Ed Morrissey has a reminder today to those of us here at The Next Right, and although he does not mention this website by name, I think we should heed his advice.  For the last several months I have read numerous Conservative bloggers (myself included), who have condemned the Republican party for their fiscal recklessness, and poor immigration policies, but most of all what I have witnessed is a large group of Conservatives who are disgusted by the fact that the Republican party has abandoned it core principles.  As Ed reminds us today, it is this core principle of Conservatism that will allow us to recapture a majority:

What is the first principle of conservatism? Limited government. Our founders understood this, which is why they tightly constrained the jurisdiction of the federal government in the Constitution. Henry David Thoreau famously wrote “That government is best which governs least”, and that encapsulates what has been the overarching philosophy of conservatism as applied to governance. Furthermore, it exists in opposition to and as a counterbalance for the competing philosophy of socialism, which postulates that government improves as it governs more.

How did conservatives lose their way? They focused on everything but the core principle of limited government. Issues like gay marriage and mottos on coins took precedence. It’s not to say that there aren’t other issues that should concern the citizenry, but it is a matter of priorities, and the first priority of the “conservatives” who ran DC from 2001-2006 was re-election and spoils, not reducing government to a manageable and affordable level.

The point Captain Ed is basically making here is that the more issues we have attached to the Conservative movement, the more we will find those who oppose those issues, and they will then oppose Conservatives in general.  Our focus on abortion has us labeled as anti-woman, our focus on affirmative action has us labeled as racists, and our focus on same sex marriage has us labeled as homophobic.  While those labels are untrue, they are a marketing strategy being pushed by the Democratic party, and it is working because those labels are beginning to stick.

Luckily for us, politics is all about "what have you done for me lately".  Just as voters have forgotten that the KKK was an arm of the Democratic party, and it was the Republicans who were responsible for the Civil Rights Act, so shall they forget about our stance affirmative action once we pull it off the table.

As a party we need to move past affirmative action and focus on earmark reform, and forget about same sex marriage and worry about balancing the budget.  Once Republicans can prove to America that they can be trusted with fiscal issues, Americans may be more receptive to social issues as well. 

 

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

Comments

Sounds more like compromising principles to me

Submitted by davejmyers on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 17:46.

Would you advise a man who is neck deep in debt, has an alcoholic wife, a drug addict son, and a daughter who is sleeping with every boy on the high school football team that he just worry about paying the bills and forget the "social" issues until later?  I feel that is the advice we are getting here.

Yes limited government is an important conservative principle but it is not the only conservative principle.  Should we really sit idly by while children are murdered until we can reign in government spending?  Are we to just sit back and allow our national security to be compromised by unsecured borders until we can get a handle on earmarks?  To me that sounds more like giving up all of our conservative principles except for one. 

The problem isn't that conservatives are gaining too many enemies as a result of their stances on these issues but that most of our representatives in congress have not truly held these principles.  They pay lip service to them but their actions speak loudly otherwise. A return to all of these principles is going to be necessary to regain the peoples trust not just a return to the principle of limited government and fiscal responsibility alone.

Not compromising

Submitted by Charles Signorile on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 18:00.

It called choosing your battles.  Same sex marriage and other similar issues should be decided by the States according to the Tenth Amendment, it should not be part of a Presidential Debate.  National Security and Immigration are actually issues which should be legislated on at the Federal level, and I am not advocating compromising principles on either of those issues by any means. 

With regards to your anaology of the man in debt, if he were to ignore his debt and focus on his wife's alcohol abuse, he would find that debt growing out of proportion.  That is what has happened under Republican control, they have ignored fiscal responsibility and now the alcoholic wife (i.e. Democrats) are taking over the household.

 

Choosing Battles = Good Idea

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:01.

 

Dave, you write:  Should we really sit idly by while children are murdered until we can reign in government spending?  Are we to just sit back and allow our national security to be compromised by unsecured borders until we can get a handle on earmarks? 

For awhile, yes maybe.  I was told that the Republican Party is the party of "reality" as opposed to the party of blindly irrational idealism.  Reality is based on what is possible, not what is ideal.  I was told that we should always hold our ideals as goals and work for what we can achieve on a day to day basis.  I always thought that compromise meant changing one's ideals.  Accepting reality does not compromise my ideals, although it may mean that I will bide my time until the time is right to strike. 

Which is more strategically important in the order of priorities? Identifying  a core principle such as "limited government" is as good a place to start analyzing our priorities as any.  It provides needed direction that in turn provides needed momentum. It's like painting by numbers, only a lot more important when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of people who vote. 

Nice post, Chas.  I seriously hate killing babies but as far as the first battle we choose in the general, I'm with you that It's The Earmarks, Stupid.  Bring on the Reformation. 

Whose reality?

Submitted by davejmyers on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 23:16.

The last figures I saw on abortion was 22% of pregnancies end in abortion. If there was a 20% chance that you would be shot by a criminal If you walked out your door would you want the mayor of that city to do something about out of control spending or crime first? 

I do not believe the reality of the situation is  that we have to give up on important issues such as immigration control and abortion on demand in order to do something about fiscal responsibility.  This is just another side of the same argument that "The era of Reagan is over" and "The Republican party has to rebrand itself".

The freshman class of 1994

Submitted by David Hinz on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:19.

The freshman class of 1994 came into Congress with the Contract with America.

Unfortunately, along about 1998 they forgot who "brung them" to the dance. We have had a Conservative Movement, without a conservative leader.  I talked a little about it on this piece;  The Conservative Movement -- Bold Colors, Or Pale Pastels? 

Borrowing from President Reagan who said:

Four years ago we raised a banner of bold colors—no pale pastels. We proclaimed a dream of an America that would be "a shining city on a hill."

Briefly, from that blog:

I would postulate that the Conservative Movement is still very much alive, but it has simply become a banner of pale pastels. It takes a leader with a vision for the future to achieve those bold colors.

 

 

 

Ronald Reagan was such a leader. He stood for smaller, less intrusive government. He stood for lower tax rates as a means of stimulating the entrepeurial spirit that founded this great nation. Reagan stood for strict constructionalist judges who would not legislate from the bench. (That is what he stood for, regardless of the judges he was able to nominate by way of a Democrat controlled Congress.)

 And finally, this;

Long before he became president, while campaigning for Senator Barry Goldwater for president in 1964, Ronald Reagan gave what has come to be known as his A Time For Choosing speech. From that speech;

 

 

This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

 

 

More than forty years later, those words are even more accurate today than they were at the time he spoke them. As a nation we have strayed even further from those unique ideals set forth by our founding fathers. Our people need a leader; someone who will once again articulate the conservative message of Ronald Reagan.

 

This nation hungers for that leader. This nation hungers for BOLD COLORS, not the pale pastels that both parties are offering.

 

The Tenth Amendment would be great if

Submitted by Pastor Dan on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:58.

The Tenth Amendment would be great if we'd follow it, but when has that happened in recent memory?  The Tenth Amendment would give us limited government -- very limited -- if it was paid more than lip service.  Captain Ed is quite en pointe with the Thoreau quote; limited government is what we need.  It's also what we have, on paper, but we seem to keep electing those who govern more and more.

Having said that, I must say this: same-sex marriage and abortion probably do belong at the state level, but with the recent foolishness in both California and New York, we're seeing an alarming trend in the marriage issue that will snowball and mushroom until frustration becomes resignation and nothing is done to slow the runaway train.  In the era of "I'm OK, You're OK" and "If it feels good, do it," it is easy to say that this is an issue that can wait, or is someone else's battle to fight.  The truth, though, is that the family unit established in marriage has been the basic building block of civilization as long as there has been civilization.  In just the past half-century or so, that unit has been so badly neglected and abused that the result is the dysfunctional materialistic society in which we're holding this discussion.

Compromise does not mean we abandon some principles in order to progress on one or two.  Frankly, that approach strikes me as a lack of principle.  Compromise is picking one's battles, but that does not require surrendering the ones that we should fight.  Fighting for the strengthening of the family, rather than its redefinition, and fighting for the protection of the most vulnerable human life on the planet are, IMHO, battles that will have significance long after the bills are paid.

How to carry out those fights in the context of a federalist system may be another matter.  The concept of the existing federal DOMA, for example, which allows states to ignore one another's attempts to redefine marriage, is a very good one.  It imposes nothing on the states; it merely prohibits them from imposing odd social experiments upon one another.  However, the most obvious concern with the present statute is that the validity of any statute is always one stroke of a judge's pen from nullification.  Voters, given the chance, support traditional marriage by 60 to 70 percent, roughly, but the state supreme court cases that have so far swung against the will of the people have each been decided by single-vote majorities.

 

Time to go rant on another topic, I guess.  Peace to all.

Crisis has resulted to

Submitted by Jaidyn F on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 04:13.

Crisis has resulted to several predicaments. President Obama has promised a great change, and that’s what we’re waiting for until now.  However, the issue regarding Wall Street isn’t over. It seems like a lot of people don't have the greatest faith in Wall Street at the moment.  Well, the economy seems to be on the rebound.  Principal protected notes are expected to be a big seller this year, as they are low risk, but as with low risk, generally low return.  But they do return, so perhaps safe and long term products to invest in will begin Wall Street's credit repair.