Home › Blogs › mindyfinn's blog ›

Why WE are Conservative

Submitted by mindyfinn on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 08:30
in

Facing a deepening minority in Congress and high probability of a Democratic administration, one might say that conservatives are depressed, anxious, and frustrated. 

Meanwhile, Democrats are emboldened by a Vote for Change movement, culminating in Obama-mania, that grew fast and furious, while our own President’s approval ratings plummeted. 

What is a movement -- or lack of one -- to do when an R is the political scarlet letter in the eyes of the majority?  Our animal instincts drive us to grasp for secret weapons and guerilla tactics to fight our way back to the top.  And those are necessary.

Yet, we risk further eroding our core, our political soul, if we don't lay a strong foundation first.  The "Next Right" depends on a deep understanding of why being right matters and why right is right.

Any communications professional will tell you that the only way to conquer a Tim Russert-type interview is to constantly bring the conversation back to your core values.  This doesn't mean that when asked why lifting the D.C. gun ban was so important, you don't answer with the specifics of Constitution law and defense of the 2nd Amendment.  Playing it straight is honest.  

However, you will lose your audience, your persuasion power, if you don’t quickly bring the conversation back to your core values.  Values are more compelling, and defensible than specifics.  In this case, that's not the right to bear arms, but what that means -- living a nation where we are free to protect our families and ourselves; individual rights; freedom.

As the narrative that it's time for Republican re-alignment grows, I want to be sure that we, here at the Next Right, lead with our values.  

Recently, a reporter from a major paper called me inquiring for a story on how young Republicans are "feeling" right now.  Initially, I scoffed at her question, grunting silently that this reporter must have a background in psychology or counseling.

Feeling?  We're not caught up in feelings, I wanted to say.  We are focused on what needs to be done to rebuild our movement, what it will take reverse this season's liberal trends. 

Then it dawned on me.  The reporter was on to something.  We need to be comfortable with our values, solidly connected to why we cringe at an Obama presidency, and what qualifies someone as history's next great Republican leader, before we can extend our arms and outreach to independents and new Democrats.  We need to relate these principles to 2008.  And we need to be able to summarize our values in a few points. 

Trust me, this will come in handy when you're looked at incredulously by co-workers (if you're not working in Republican politics), friends, maybe even family and so-called journalists who wonder, "How can you still be a [insert Republican/Conservative/Right-winger]?"

So, I'll start, and I'm interested in hearing from you (from your heart, no research, a Google search won’t return anything too useful anyway).

Why am I conservative?

I believe in the strength of America, which relies on the strength of our people.

Americans thrive when we're able to own, and take responsibility for, the key aspects of our well-being -- our homes, our money, and our investments in goods & services.

We are inherently good, and each should take on the responsibility of caring for ourselves, our families, our communities, and those who truly can’t care for themselves.

We feel safe and free when there's order and rule of law, as decided by our local institutions, not by career lawmakers in Washington.

As a highly successful experiment in democracy, we are the target of imperialistic nations abroad -- particularly in East Asia -- and must have the resources to fend off attacks -- both militarily, politically and economically.

We achieved superpower status by working harder than our neighbors abroad. 

Excessive welfare, funded by higher taxes, and increased regulation, weaken our nation since they depress innovation and discourage hard work.  ...

That's just a start. Think it's easy? Help answer "Why WE are conservative." It will send a powerful message to inquiring reporters and young voters that not only are we sane, but also, that conservatism is alive and well. 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Comments

So you are saying????

Submitted by gunthestops on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 12:29.

Going point by point:

And because Democrats are weak!
 
And because Democrats are lazy and never take responsibility for them selves! 
 
And because Democrats are inherently bad and don’t care about anybody!
 
And because Democrats are inherently lawless and socialists!
 
       And because Democrats would like to steer clear of the imperialistic trap!
 
Well let’s see if this answers your question about the US being persecuted by imperialists.   Without a doubt we are an empire too, our influence has spread to every corner of the world, we have our military in over 120 counties and provinces. Our military spending this year will almost exceed the military spending of the rest of the entire world. And there is no concern that is too small that we do not stick our big nose into and try to influence.
 
 Here is just a few of our little adventures
 
1.      We can’t wait to invade Iran.
2.      Iraq war 2003, we took Baghdad (under false pretenses) not to mention Baghdad is one of the most sacked cities in the history of the world, heck we couldn’t miss that historical opportunity.
3.      Afghanistan 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom
4.      1996 King Abdul Aziz Air Base, American forces killed in barricks bombing. Point here is that once we get our military into a country we don’t leave!
5.      Balkans during the mid 90s
6.      Iraq 1991, Desert Storm (mostly air incursions into the country) 
7.      Mogadishu, 1993, Operation Gothic Serpent—most will know it as “Black Hawk Down” The movie version is so much cooler then real life!
8.      Panama 1989, Operation Just Cause.
9.      Bombing of Libya 1986.
10. Grenada 1983, Operation Urgent Fury.
11. Beirut 1981-84, 1983 over 150 Marines killed in barracks bombing, and why were we there?
 
Now this is just in the last 25 years and does not include all the CIA and NSA operations in South America, Far East, Middle East, African continent, and about every country on the planet. 
 
The morality or righteousness of these operations I will leave up to you. But the valiant efforts of the men and women that executed their duties for God and Country I will never question!!!   But I do question the motives of those leaders that wanted to get involved in these adventures.
 
 
No empire or country in the history of the world has ever debased its currency, ran huge debts and deficits along with trade imbalances and survived. As the Republicans run around the world waving their big foam finger in the air yelling “we are #1” I would like to remind them that we had fallen behind many developed countries in many areas such as; heath care, education, birth death rates, but keep patting yourself on the back!!!
 
 
And because Democrats don’t agree that the way the income and wealth are being divided up! Since the Reagan administration and under Republican presidents the national debt had grown 1,700%, 500 billion in 1980 to 9 trillion in 2007. Well, if you can disguise the tax cuts as under the cloak of “supply side economics” and keep telling the masses over and over that growth will pay for the tax cuts, apparently you don’t really need to pay for them. And because the top 20% of income/wealth holders in the US control over over 80% of the nations income and wealth!!!
 
 My point here is just this; start looking at how badly the new Republican party has conducted it self under the Neo-cons.  Both the Republicans and Democrats have been locked in a "death spiral"   and all Americans are at risk!!!! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Mindy Has Hit The Nail On The Head

Submitted by Allen on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 13:14.

Conservatives need to agree and understand the basic principles on which the conservative movement is based on. This lack of  agreement and understanding on principles has given rise to a movement that is in search of a coherent purpose. For a winning movement to have sustainability it must have objectives that are greater than electing Republicans.

The modern conservative movement that lead to an unprecedented string of important Republican victories began with statements of principle. Before he was a presidential candidate Barry Goldwater authored The Conscience of a Conservative -- the book became the foundation of  a movement that attracted millions of grassroots activists and principled candidates for public office. The founding of Young Americans For Freedom began with a statement of principles - The Sharon Statement. And National Review (along with Human Events and scores of books by conservative intellectuals) created the foundation on which the Republican Party rose to dominance.

If if we are to be successful again, we must go through the exercise of identifying our reason for being. My off the cuff manifesto follows:

I am a conservative because I believe in the principles expressed in the Deceleration of Independence and the United States Constitution. I believe we must commit ourselves to a government that is limited in its powers and a state that protects the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

A conservative movement must reaffirm our belief in the social structure that has been at the core of Western Civilization. We are a nation under God, which respects the differences of people but requires the sharing of a common commitment to the rule of law (not of bureaucrats and unrestraint judges), and a common language. We must recognize the central role the traditional family played in the success of our national experiment.

Our nation must be militarily strong enough to protect our national interest. We should be engaged in peacefully spreading our beliefs to the world and verbally advocating the cause of oppressed people.

We must be willing to work in concert with the nations of the world when it benefits our national interest but we must not recognize the soverignty of international organizations over our nation-state.

 

Why We Are Conservative: Because We Care

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 14:03.

We Care About Americans in Need

We believe that America is the most caring and generous nation in the world.  We care when people are suffering and their lives are damaged, when communities are compromised, when businesses fail, when jobs are lost, when homes are lost, when good health is lost, and when costs mean that families have to make hard choices not between having one optional item or another, but between one absolute necessity or another.

We Care About Quality of Life

We care in disasters and emergencies, but we also care about the quality of everyone's life from the very moment they are conceived.  We care about nurturing families and helping them deal with raising children.  We care about parents educating their children in the way they think is best.  We care about keeping communities safe from natural disaster and infrastructure threats as well as crime and dangerous predators.

We Care About American Diversity

We care about preserving the fine traditions, languages and histories of all cultures, while inviting and encouraging all Americans to co-create a distinctly American culture, with English as the core language.

We Care About Matters of Faith

We care about the right of all to practice faith in the manner in which they see fit - or not.  We show that we care by not forcing our lifestyle and opinions on others.  We care about leading by example instead of bending others to our will.

We care about inviting faith-based and private non-profit organizations to partner with our communities and provide assistance through private donations and fund-raising efforts.  We care about establishing a clearinghouse to make the services of these organizations well-known to anyone who needs temporary or ongoing assistance.

We Care About Arts and Minds

We care about providing school vouchers and supporting private, home school and public education options.   We care about supporting adult education and ongoing training so that people can become independent of assistance and reap the benefits of working hard to further themselves.

While we believe that all people are created equal, we realize that everyone has unique skills and talents that can be nurtured through the principles of competition, innovation and inventiveness.

We care about sports, arts and sciences, and we want to support private and public donations and internships for these pursuits so that they are available to students and appreciative audiences in all communities.

We Care About Moral Capitalism

We care about providing micro and macro loans to individuals, small businesses and growing businesses to nurture private ownership which elevates the quality of their lives and the lives of all who depend on them. 

We care about creating a renaissance of craftsmanship and self-employment by highly skilled, creative laborers working with metals, wood, tile, fabrics, culinary arts and other unique hands-on skills which rely on apprenticeship, experience, skill and certification rather than a college degree. 

We care about optimism, capitalism and democracy because we believe they are the most ideal ways for a society to thrive and govern itself.  We care about a moral capitalism and a moral democracy, free of greed, graft, corruption, special interests and self-aggrandizement.

We Care About The Wealth of Good Health

We care about making quality health care affordable to all Americans through sliding scale insurance, while maintaining the world's highest standards and quality of competitive health services.  We care about decentralizing and deploying prenatal, natal, hospice, elder, recovery and mental health care out to the community.  We care about encouraging doctors, psychiatrists, therapists and nurse practitioners to use Internet chat, telephone consultations and house calls to provide decentralized, lower cost services.

We Care About The New National Security:  Infrastructure, Energy and Borders

We care about simplifying taxation in a way that is fair and equitable.  We care about keeping taxes low, while carefully maintaining and securing our valuable roads, bridges, power grids, and water supplies.  We realize that our infrastructure is as much a national security issue as securing our borders and our independence on foreign energy.

We care about renewable energy for the health of ourselves, our planet, and for our ability to invent, create new economies and prosper in these areas.  We care about becoming independent of foreign oil for economic and national security reasons.  We care about carefully and safely exploiting all our energy options including oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, water, hydrogen, and nuclear power.

We care about bringing guest workers and immigrants into our country legally so that we do not create an immoral underclass of people who are paid low wages and deprived of the benefits of free and legal citizenship.

We Care About Good Environmental Stewardship

We care about being good stewards of our environment and keeping our waterways, beaches, air, and soil clean and free of toxins.  We care about managing our natural resources - our canyons, forests, deserts, coasts, bayous, lagoons, rivers, farm lands, fish, game and wildlife so that they will be here for generation after generation.

We Care About Liberty and Civility

We care about freedom of expression, and want to ensure that all Americans have the right to express their opinions even when they are controversial.  We care about our colleges and universities, our public airwaves, our print media, and our Internet supporting all points of view and debating all policies, topics and issues without shutting down or shouting down one perspective over another. 

We care about proliferating dignified and civil discourse.  We care about good manners and tolerant, respectful social interactions among children and adults of all genders, ages, cultures, income groups, nationalities, and perspectives.  We care about treating others as we would like to be treated.

We Care About Power to the People

We care about law and order.  We care about enforcing the laws we have, and relying on elections to change them.  We care about electing judges who are fair and unbiased in enforcing the laws we do have, and who will abide by the will of the people rather than legislating from the bench.

We care about free and fair elections, about ensuring that everyone has the right to vote and that no one violates that right through fraud, intimidation or corruption.

We Care About International Relations and Foreign Policy

We care about helping other nations insofar as they want and need our help.  We care about defending ourselves and our allies proactively with missile defense shields, good and legal intelligence methods, intellectual and financial cooperation and trade that results in good neighbors.  We care about maintaining a strong, voluntary military which will act as a deterrent to those who would wish to harm us, and about electing leadership who will commit to using that military might with extreme care and competence.

We care about rebuilding the nation of Iraq because we engaged in a military decision that broke down the nation, and we have a personal and moral responsibility to repair it.  We care about not wasting the sacrifices of our soldiers, the sacrifices of the people of Iraq, or the investment of the American taxpayers.   We care about partnering with the Iraqi people to create the same measure of freedom, security and prosperity that they are willing to work for.
As the world's major contributors to the United Nations, we care about holding the United Nations accountable for executing their mandate to stem the flow of murder, corruption, violence, oppression and inhumanity in suffering nations around the world.

We Care About Reaffirming the Conservative Brand

We care about rebuilding our party to attract candidates and voters of all cultures, regions and incomes who believe in helping others to help themselves through collaboration, equality of opportunity, hard work, education, good health, respect for family and community, pride of ownership, personal responsibility and optimism.  We care about working together to bring functional government that supports the quality of life in your family, your community, your state and your nation. 

We are conservative because we care.

 

Confused

Submitted by gunthestops on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 14:25.

So why have so many of those things you say you care about have been kicked to the curb by the Neo-cons?????

Since you asked,

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 14:52.

"those neocons" do not represent my values in the way that John McCain does.  At the same time, I do not hate "those neocons" because with all the mistakes that they made, they have still managed to keep this country from being attacked for 7 years - and that means a great deal to me.  It allows me to continue to draw breath long enough to post my values on this website.  That being said, there is so much more that conservatives can do, and should do. 

I watched "Tears of the Sun" this weekend on Blu-Ray.  At the end of this incredibly important and moving story, Antoine Fuqua chose to display Edmund Burke's famous quote:

The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke is often considered one of the fathers of modern conservatism.  I am a conservative because I do not believe that modern liberalism defines or even acknowledges evil.  Evil requires a judgment call, and liberalism requires withholding judgment and being open to all ideas, taking mitigating circumstances into account and conducting relativistic analyses.  Some of us call that navel gazing.  I'm open to listening to all ideas, but I'm not open to adopting them.  And of course you call us "rigid" and "resistant to change", which is fine with us.  "Those neocons" attempted to govern based on their (liberal in origin) ideals and principles.  Conservatives can learn from their successes and perhaps even more from their failures, and adapt a better strategy next time.  

I would really like to see liberals and conservatives work together.  That said, I personally believe the nation is better off when liberals participate on a  team that's led by conservatives.  Time will tell whether my opinion is shared by the majority of American voters.  Regardless of who is in power, I will continue to support worthy conservative candidates who work toward the goals that support my values. 

progressives DO have morals

Submitted by DanAncona on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 01:53.

By the way my post below was referring to your original principles post - not this subcomment, with which I have to disagree vigorously: progressives absolutely, positively acknowledge evil in the world. Greed, militarism, sexism, racism... what other word for it is there? I'm certainly open to listening but not open to adopting most ideas either!

I'd be curious to know where this idea of progressives as amoral got started. It doesn't seem to advance the argument of either side into any useful direction.

Rebutting your rebuttal

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 17:56.

Truthfully Dan, you sound like a reasonable, sincere and moral sort of fellow, so I want to acknowledge that you may be right to disagree with me vociferously.  I may be completely wrong about Progressives being amoral, but part of the problem lies in our respective definitions.   What you say and what I hear are so very different, and my internal concept of evil is expressed in words like "child pornography", "rape", "murder", "torture", "honor killings", "military dictatorship", "gulag" and "genocide" rather than in words like "militarism", "sexism" or "greed" per se.  The common evil word we both do agree on is "racism", except for one detail - that the meaning of the word racism has completely evolved into something new and different in recent times. 

To explain, let me cite the famous Gary Larson cartoon "What Dogs Hear" in which the dog's owner says "Ok Ginger, I've had it! You stay out of the garbage!  Understand, Ginger?  Stay out of the garbage or else!" and what Ginger hears is "blah blah GINGER blah blah blah blah blah GINGER blah blah blah blah blah..."

So please don't take this personally, but when you say "Progressive" I hear "Marxist".  When you say "Greed" I hear "Capitalism".  When you say "Militarism" I hear "Muscular foreign policy".  When you say "Sexism" I hear "Estrogen-dominant Feminism".  And strangest of all, when you say "Racism" I hear "Xenophobic, Caucasion-centric, anti-Islamic Homophobe". 

I've virtually installed a permanent Auto-Filter on rhetoric from the Left.  This filtering mechanism is the key reason I'm "open" but not "adoptive".  Perception is reality because perception fuels beliefs.  I do not believe that the way the press treated Hillary Clinton ("sexist") is evil; that the way General Petraeus prosecuted the successful surge in Iraq ("Militarism") is evil; that the way the oil companies raise prices because supply is lower than demand ("Greed") is evil; or that anyone who isn't voting for Barack Obama ("racist") is evil. 

I do appreciate your rebuttal, and I wish we could communicate using common language, especially because you seem like a person with whom I'd enjoy having a conversation. 

GOP_Rebel ...

Submitted by Calvin Jones an... on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 18:02.

So what do you say about people like David "Diapers" Vitter and Larry "Wide Stance" Craig? What about Jack Ryan(No, not the guy from the Tom Clancy books ... the guy that was orginally going to run against Obama in '04)?

Ugh.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 18:06.

People like you are what gives the left a bad name. Take your diaper and go back to DU.

 

I noticed ..

Submitted by Calvin Jones an... on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 18:36.

all you can do is whine.  Do you have an answer for the question?  I thought the Republican party was the "family values" party.  Or is that all just all talk?

I noticed

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 18:42.

that you cannot read. We have liberals here whose emotional maturity is above that of a seven year old. And then we have you, poopy pants.

 

I have an answer for the question, Calvin

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 19:43.

Vitter, Craig, Ryan, Gibbons, Bruce, just to name a few - these men have allegedly engaged in behavior which fits into the definition of evil as selfish, cruel, and/or unjust resulting from bad character or conduct which causes discomfort or revulsion to those who do not condone such behavior. 

Now the thing which intrigues me about liberal Democrats asking how Conservatives feel about Republicans engaging in this behavior, is that I seriously doubt that liberal Democrats find the behavior equally as discomforting or revolting as we do.  Either they don't think these men did anything to make a big deal about, or they might even get a kick out of the fact that Republican opponents have behaved so badly, or both. 

And this goes back to my previous post about the (general) relativism and amorality on the Left ("Left" meaning liberal as opposed to centrist/moderate).  Conservatives care about the pain and humiliation and betrayal of trust and happiness caused to spouses and children of these people.  Let's say the perpetrators suffer from what some might call "sexual addiction", just for the sake of argument - but if they do, I don't agree with Plato that "evil is merely ignorance" or view their lack of character or conduct as a mere social problem or a mental health problem.  I see it as a spiritual problem (or a combination of all of the above). 

Conservative Democrats would probably be about as revolted as Conservative Republicans with this behavior, which is why we (conservatives of all parties, including Independents) may find ourselves allied once again in this election as we have in several past elections.  I guess we'll find out in November.

 

You miss the point ..

Submitted by Calvin Jones an... on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 21:18.

the point is ..  who is the supposed "family values" party? .. Who are the nitwits introducing Constitutional Amendments trying to ban gay marriage? ..  why do you care what Ruffini .. or Henke do in their own home? ... that is my point .. Democrats(at least not since the Tipper Gore/"Holy" Joe Lieberman days) aren't interested in telling you what you can and can't do in your personal life(as long as it is between two consenting adults) .. do you like the government telling you what you can and can't do?  I don't.  What right do Vitter and Craig have telling people who they can and can't marry?

If you really want to know the answer, read Grand New Party

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 00:20.

And thanks for rephrasing so I could see the point of your question. 

Daniel Moynihan famously said, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society."  Being a liberal himself, he added that the "central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself".  But the central American truth is that there's no way to cleanly separate politics from culture, or to separate either one from economics.  Private virtue and cultural solidarity create economic security and independence; economic security enables people to persist in virtue; and wise public policy promotes both virtue and security at once.  The reverse is also true - cultural dysfunction breeds economic dislocation and vice versa, while governmental folly can shape both culture and economics for the worse."

That quote was taken from Grand New Party, by Ross Douthart and Reihan Salam.  You wrote about gay marriage as if it's a privacy issue regarding what people can and can't be allowed to do in their own home, but in that regard I think perhaps you miss the point...

Americans are quite libertarian about civil unions, and nobody really seems to care what Ruffini or Henke do in their own home so long as they don't threaten the health or safety of anyone else whilst doing it.  But when 3,000 years of Western Civilization are going to be cast aside, many Americans want to take a little more time to mull it over than you might prefer.  And if pushed hard enough, those same Americans might resist that pinnacle of cultural change completely through a constitutional amendment. 

Because politics, culture and economics are so entwined, pushing the cultural envelope can result in some significantly unexpected results - like the DOMA pushback.  Contrary to what some on the Left might prefer, it's entirely possible that the overwhelming majority of Americans are actually quite centrist/moderate and conservative.  Again, we'll find out more come November.

Well ..

Submitted by Calvin Jones an... on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 01:11.

the numbers are growing every day .. meaning in favor of gay marriage .. and it is only going to go higher .. as more young people become voting age .. besides .. things change over time .. salvery was once legal and all that .. it isn't anymore ..  so morals do change

You are absolutely right

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 10:47.

It's true, morals do change.  Again, the most interesting aspect of Grand New Party is how well it documents the cyclic nature of culture and morality, and their tight coupling (LOL - no pun intended) with economics and politics in American 20th Century politics.  I think that if we live long enough, we'll see the morality pendulum swing both ways (heh).

If and when the morality pendulum traverses back to the conservative side, I hope it's characterized by what we've come to think of as American virtues of hard work, sobriety, the 2-parent and extended family, individual and family fiscal responsibility, and self-sufficiency while retaining the tolerant Libertarian ideals that include keeping the government and anyone's rigid ideology out of our homes and personal lives.  I don't want to get a knock on my door every Sunday to go to church any more than I want to have to wear a burka and bow down to Mecca five times a day.  I just wish all of us could find common ground in these regards without some cataclysmic crisis waking us up to the fact that ultimately, we really are all on the same team. 

Liberty vs Coercion

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 11:37.

it's characterized by what we've come to think of as American virtues of hard work, sobriety, the 2-parent and extended family, individual and family fiscal responsibility, and self-sufficiency while retaining the tolerant Libertarian ideals that include keeping the government and anyone's rigid ideology out of our homes and personal lives.

Exactly...

The law should be there to protect peoples liberty, and deal with the aftermath of when liberties are violated.  I wouldn't have a problem with a President who used the bully pulpit to say we should go to church every Sunday and tithe 10% to our church.  But using the government to enact those ideals would be intolerable.

Some quotes to consider:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

"It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

"The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

What right?

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 12:39.

They have the "right" of elected representatives of the people. What other right do they need?

 

What right do the courts have to make their own law and strike down the peoples law, that is the question you should be asking.

evil

Submitted by DanAncona on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 19:27.

We agree on a lot here. All the stuff in your first list, I agree: that's a big pile of evil, no question. And that's one of my favorite Far Side cartoons ever.

But your second list is some odd examples. First, you're going to have a tough time red-baiting me (and a very great number of other progressives) as Marxists. I'm an entrepreneur. I work in the technology industry. I like money. I started a software company in 2001 that didn't go anywhere (bad, bad time to be doing that) and I'm presently working on another one. If all that says "Closet Marxist" to you, I'm not sure I can help you.

Maybe some more specific examples will get past the Auto Filter? Living in a society that spends what we spend on the military  but has millions of working poor: that's evil. (and keep in mind this "defense" system was defeated by two dozen lunatics armed with $50 worth of box cutters - although arguably, we were one ignored memo away from stopping it) There is a not-very-fine line between "muscular" foreign policy and militarism. I don't have a problem with Petraeus and I was deeply irritated with MoveOn for running that ad, but attacking a country that didn't attack us just because a small group of us wanted to do so for a while? That's evil: I would argue it's both racist and militarist. We probably disagree on this but in my book, torture is most definitely evil. Not doing everything we can to get off our sick addiction to oil (not foreign oil, folks. Any kind of oil.) is evil.

And I would never in a trillion years say anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is evil! If you don't vote for him because of the color of his skin, sure, that's pushing it. But I've campaigned in a lot of places and talked to a lot of people, and my feeling is there's just not that many folks who are outright, personal racists, even while I do think there are a great many people who don't understand the concept of and ergo aren't doing enough about structural racism and sexism.

Don't construe any of this as a personal attack on anyone. Maybe this makes me a weird progressive but I don't think George W. Bush or Dick Cheney are personally evil people. Evil happens in the interaction between the personal and the systematic, and we all have to take personal responsibility to fight evil wherever we can. I think the President and Vice President have made some lousy decisions, ignored some huge problems and have a whole lot to answer for, but that doesn't make them personally evil.

There's a great book on this, Walter Wink's Engaging the Powers. It's fairly dense theology and a tough read, but I've written up a humble first part of a summary of it here:

http://speakoutcal.org/archives/2007/01/engaging_the_po_1.php

Someday I really need to finish Parts 2 & 3 of that.

It certainly is interesting, I think we do have a lot of common goals & language here (while still certainly some big disagreements). Your posts and the rest of this thread has put Grand New Party at the top of my reading list.

Read Your Link

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 22:57.

And I found it interesting, as well as helpful in understanding Progressive philosophy.  For me, "Marxist" is shorthand for "has an idea that Soviet-style state socialism should pave the way for a government-free utopia for everyone".   Marx's dialectical materialism springs from the left wing of Hegel's philosophy of history being a story of reason coming to reason, of scientific and social progress through a dialectic path in which thesis and antithesis produce synthesis, which in turn becomes a new thesis, and so it goes (as Kurt Vonnegut would undoubtedly say).  Barack Obama channeled Hegel in today's call for Americans to serve, and to be more community- or nationally-minded. 

But on to Wink.  Wink's theory of the myth of redemptive violence could be seen as a thesis, while Jesus' creative nonviolent resistance to the domination system of his culture as told in the Gospels could be viewed as antithesis.  Historically the Christians would have been a synthesis of these two polar opposites, yet they themselves in turn became a thesis and were in turn resisted by the Protestant antithesis, and so it goes again and again.  What Wink refers to as those who hold power by forging order out of chaos, Marx refers to as a dominant class expropriating the surplus created by others.  Same thing, only different?  Only in Marx's world, nonviolent resistance is not necessarily the prescribed path for struggle - the prescription is for overthrow through revolution by any means necessary.  This permits terrorism and murder insofar as it is committed on behalf of the cause. 

The ultimate goal is a lovely communal society, an end to all government, a utopia where all men and women stand shoulder to shoulder in a free and fair world, collectively owning the means and surpluses of production, no need to dominate or be dominated.  Since Marx's earlier writings (pre-Engels) were closer to Hegel's dialectical idealism, then perhaps it's more appropriate to adjust my filter to refer to Wing and peace-loving Progressives as Neo-Marxists than as Marxists.  I sit corrected, but hopefully you can see how I'm able to equate the two as very close philosophical neighbors. 

The problem with Wink, with Liberation Theology and with some modern day Evangelical churches is a narrow focus on the Gospel and an exclusion of the values of the judgmental (and redemptively violent?) Old Testament.  The problem with all philosophies is that they help us classify and define frameworks for the mysteries of history and civilization and culture, but to find out just how unrealistic these philosophies are when we use them as models, we need only look to see how successfully they are implemented.   Two excellent examples of buggered-up utopian implementations are Jean-Jacques Annaud's Enemy at the Gates and Jonathan Berman's Commune.  

We find ourselves in a post-Christian Western world which is being violently resisted by radical Islamists.  Islam is not a malleable ideology, whereas post-Christian Western culture is so malleable that it practically defies all belief in the speed with which it has deconstructed itself over the last 50 years. Eventually there will be synthesis as these poles attract and repel each other.  Will the post-Christian Progressives creatively and non-violently resist when the redemptively violent Islamists come for their heads?  See...while I share your optimism that ultimately the world is headed in a very positive direction, (a) I don't want to be part of a brave new world based on the theory of some smart-assed intellectual, and (b)  I have a sincere desire not to be personally involved in the potentially messy dialectical path toward that happy end.  Even though the French Revolution worked out well for us in the long run, I'm quite content to be here now instead of there, then. 

(Sorry to hijack your post Mindy, but I was having too much fun to shut it down.)  Let's do it again some time, Dan.  You wrote some great posts!

"We will deal with your Rebel Friends soon enough." ~ Grand Moff Tarkin

hunh

Submitted by DanAncona on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 01:48.

This is the good stuff right here. This reminds me of McCain when he's at his best and most dangerous. If you don't already work for him he'd be nuts not to hire you: you're making the case for his worldview better than he is at the moment.

Don't get me wrong. I think there's a huge pile of unworked out details and implementation problems conflicting approaches in here - not to mention at least a handful of points that large numbers of the GOP base would find outright offensive. And there's the results problem: if this is the agenda, and the conservative approaches outlined here are the right approaches, why have things gone so poorly over the past eight years on so many of these axes?

Despite that, this is close to as strong and clear and reasonable-sounding an exposition of a big-tent conservative worldview that large numbers of people would find appealing as I've heard, maybe ever.

What this conservative believes

Submitted by Lynn on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 17:08.

This is probably incomplete but in my opinion the role of federal government was intended to be quite limited by the Constitution.

 

Broadly, we are conservative because we believe in following our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In greater detail conservatives support the following:

The federal government limiting itself only to the areas granted it in the Constitution.

Congress limiting spending and taxes.

Fair trade and putting America first in foreign policy.

Defense, closing the borders, and protecting the country.

They system of capitalism governed by the law of supply and demand.  Elimination of the red tape and regulations that hamstring economic growth and drive America industry offshore.

Accessing and using our energy resources and developing new ones. This is a national defense issue.

Limit the judiciary to interpretation only and not the making of law.

Charity is up to us as individuals and our churches. It should not be a function of the federal government through entitlement programs. Social issues are not the province of the federal government but instead should be determined by states where we as conservatives, and the GOP as a whole, should be promoting self-responsibility for those able to do so and  morality for all.

 

Well said, Lynn

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 17:56.

I based my values on the assumption that "all politics are local" and included many issues that could apply to the City, County or State level of government as well as the Feds - after all, I want conservatives elected to those branches of government also. 

And while I completely agree with everything you wrote, I'd like to put on my wish list that the Government would have some space on their website to list all the charitable, faith-based and non profit organizations who are willing and able to help with any and all issues that people need help with from housing to child care to violent abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health information, donations of food and/or clothing, temporary shelters, etc.  In other words, let not the government provide, but let the government point to all the many potential providers. 

And I want my taxes as low as possible right up to the point where I have a 6' sink hole in front of my home, and bridge collapse in the next county, and a highway that's so congested that it takes me an hour to commute instead of 15 minutes in off-traffic times, and sporadic police and fire support because there aren't enough officers on duty, and constant power blackouts, and the classrooms are overflowing with potentially disruptive and maladjusted kids - in other words, please go ahead and tax me when things reach that particular point (this is where I really believe Mike Huckabee "got it right" in Arkansas and was gravely misrepresented as a tax-and-spend "liberal"). 

I'd also like to see services that would provide some sort of family assistance to young couples and single parents who do not have the slightest idea how to raise their children.  Again, maybe faith-based and charitable organizations can help here but we've got to eliminate overregulation of business and overregulation of teaching socially responsible behavior as well.  I'd like to see as many initiatives to teach people how to be socially responsible and ethical as we currently see to teach them how to accept gay lifestyles, sex education and cultural diversity. 

I just wish we could expand our conservative values to include strategies to lift up the quality of life in communities, states and ultimately the nation along with keeping taxes low.  Maybe that doesn't sound so conservative to modern Libertarians, but I think Edmund Burke and Adam Smith might consider it so. 

Feds vs States

Submitted by Lynn on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 18:04.

(this is where I really believe Mike Huckabee "got it right" in Arkansas and was gravely misrepresented as a tax-and-spend "liberal").

Whatever Huckabee did in Arkansas was up to the voters of Arkansas. I just don't want him doing it at the federal level.

I'd also like to see services that would provide some sort of family assistance to young couples and single parents who do not have the slightest idea how to raise their children.  Again, maybe faith-based and charitable organizations can help here but we've got to eliminate overregulation of business and overregulation of teaching socially responsible behavior as well.  I'd like to see as many initiatives to teach people how to be socially responsible and ethical as we currently see to teach them how to accept gay lifestyles, sex education and cultural diversity. 

I just wish we could expand our conservative values to include strategies to lift up the quality of life in communities, states and ultimately the nation along with keeping taxes low.  Maybe that doesn't sound so conservative to modern Libertarians, but I think Edmund Burke and Adam Smith might consider it so.

These are local and state responsibilities, not federal. Since we are conservatives and Republicans on several levels we can advocate some things for locals, others for state government and still stick to constitutional given responsibilities for the Feds.

It's not that we shouldn't do some of these things, it's that we should do them at a lower level.

I have more to say on this but we are going out for Fajitas. Anyway, good thoughts as always, Reb.

Nothing too useful!

Submitted by DanAncona on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 20:37.

That google search returns a couple of links to Russel Kirk, who is a hugely important part of the history of the conservative movement. And this is coming from a progressive, who shouldn't know any better!

Let me throw out my pet framework for the base principles that drive our two movements. I think you conservative types are mostly about:

1) defending moral orders, and

2) the particular kind of freedom that comes from property rights.

while progressives are mainly about:

1) interdependence, and

2) expanding substantial freedom (which starts with property rights but doesn't seem them as absolutes, more as the first step towards engaging all the other kinds of freedom).

I've made an effort in developing this framework to do no disservice to conservativism. I'm not doing your marketing for you, but I feel like when you really boil it down, practically all of the items on your agenda relate to those two principles and practically all of the items on ours relate to ours.

A couple years ago I put together a long(ish) response to Russell Kirk based on this framework - you might enjoy vigorously disagreeing with this:

http://speakoutca.org/archives/2006/06/foundations_iii.php

Can I just say how great it is to see you all engaging on this. Progressives still aren't generally too interested in this stuff in an organized manner, despite my best efforts.

Re: Nothing too useful!

Submitted by mindyfinn on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 21:17.

Thanks for the comment.

I should have clarified, but the blog post had gone on for long enough.  You're right, the Google search does return writings by Russell Kirk; however, they are in broad, philosophical terms.

The post was about the need for conservatives to get a handle on the core 4-5 major values, applicable to the modern day, that support more specific policy agendas, before we can communicate and persuade the masses.

  

Getting a handle on core values should come from the public

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 00:05.

as well as the pundits, MIndy.  Why not do some professional polling in this area?  You might be able to mine some of the poll questions from this input, but before I collect core values in my work, I generally begin with a Mission Statement.  In our case, for example, I'd want to know whether the mission of the Republican Party is to (a) win the 2008 election, (b) improve the quality of life of the people of this nation, (b) regain the trust of the American people, or some combination of the above (or something altogether new and much better written than my ramblings).  I never compose the mission statement or goals myself, I elicit the intent and content from my "clients" - the people I work for.  Ross Douthart's new book, Grand New Party, presents a mighty fiine argument for who the GOP might really want to work for.  I truly appreciate what you're working on, and maybe the blog post has gone on long enough but I'd love to see your team conduct public research to generate (or confirm) the answers you're seeking to "communicate and persuade".  If it's actually their message, it will resonate fully and they will hear it.  

HTH,

Reb

Core values

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 09:51.

Our core value should be self government. That was a very radical idea two hunded and twenty-five years ago, and from what I see of modern America it's still a radical and controversial idea today. Both major politcal parties believe in rule by an elite. They have slightly different elites in mind but neither one is much interested in what the American people think. 

There have been several posts here commenting on the fact that the policy preferences of the GOP are unpopular with the public, and in many cases also with Republican voters. This is not what the Founders had in mind.

 

Partial credit.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 09:29.

I'm impressed that you took the trouble to read conservative writers, something I wish more conservatives would do. But your critique of Kirk was superfical.

 

FYI, "ideology" as Kirk uses it does not mean 'ideas". It means a particular type of system of ideas. And ideologues are people who expect the world to conform to their ideas. If people behave differently in practice than the theory says they should, the ideologue does not think his theory is wrong, but that people are wrong and need to be "re-educated".

 

Lynn is not a conservative, but a libertarian. Kirk had some harsh words for them.

 

Jon, you are out of line!

Submitted by Lynn on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 11:31.

Lynn is not a conservative, but a libertarian.

You are incorrect.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 12:32.

I thought you'd agree. Didn't you say on this thread that "personal freedom" was the core conviction of conservatism, in your eyes? If so, do you disagree that this is a libertarian view? No offence intended.

 

substantial freedom

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 09:41.

Dan, I'd be interested in seeing you expand on what you mean by that. My own observation has been that progressives are remarkably hostile to the concept of self-government, which was the fundamental freedom this country was founded on. So I'm guessing that "substantial freedom" is something which just happens to require lots of coercive government power and minimal democracy. But correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

no, not necessarily

Submitted by DanAncona on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 15:20.

Substantial freedom is a particular term put forward by Amartya Sen in "Development as Freedom." I may be doing something of a disservice to his term, but I think of it as being large, multi-faceted kind of freedom. Property rights are included but they're a starting point, not an end point. There's an element of self-actualization, an element of cognitive liberty, an element of finding your purpose in life, if you don' t mind me getting a little Rick Warreny. It includes control over your body, which is why I think progressives put such a priority on universal health care. (you can't go out and figure out your purpose in life if you're sick) It definitely encompasses sexuality.

Take self-actualization for example. This is why many progressives aren't anti-capitalism. Of course you'll find progressives that disagree with this, but in general the main and increasing thrust is generally pro-capitalism - with limits. The market is generally good for freedom, it's part of the answer.

But progressives also see a strong, effective government as being the only counterweight to the incredible power of corporations to set the agenda for society. As important as that counterweight is, investing in people is an even more important role. I don't see the taxes required for generating that investment as being coercive because we live in a democracy. Conservatives can (and have, very vigorously) made the case that more taxes means less freedom, and you've been highly successful in using that argument to win many, many elections.

But in the long run, starving our investment in people leads to less growth. This is especially true in an ideas-based economy.The reason there's so many Dems in places like Silicon Valley is that they're starting to see this. If you go talk to venture capitalists they will all tell you that there's plenty of good ideas and money floating around. The limiting factor is finding good people that can execute and build stuff.

In one sentence? Tax cuts don't create jobs, people do. Conservatives are right in that freedom and economic growth are tightly intertwined - you just have something of a limited view of freedom, in my analysis.

self-actualization

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 07/02/2008 - 20:02.

This is why many progressives aren't anti-capitalism. Of course you'll find progressives that disagree with this, but in general the main and increasing thrust is generally pro-capitalism

 

I'd say that many progressives are pro a certain sort of capitalism because they are members of what has been called the"new class", and they favor a society in which power is in the hands of a technocratic elite - namely, themselves. This is a variant of socialism, and it has points in common with Marxism with respect to "who calls the shots", if not what shots should be called.

 

I can't help but notice that the items you mentioned - universal health care, "sexual freedom", investment in people , "strong, effective government ", etc - all tend to suggest that I was correct in my initial comment about progressives favoring a very large and intrusive government. One thing absent from your agenda was any menton of democracy, or self government. I get the impression that your version of freedom is to be forced on people whether they like it or not. For their own good, of course. 

 If you go talk to venture capitalists they will all tell you that there's plenty of good ideas and money floating around. The limiting factor is finding good people that can execute and build stuff.

 

I don't think there is any shortage of people who can build and execute stuff. In fact, there is a surplus of such people. Silicon Vally is not outsourcing and in-sourcing like crazy because of a shortage of people, but because there are plenty of people abroad who'll the same job for less money.

Re: defending moral orders.

Submitted by Lynn on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 08:37.

1) defending moral orders, and

2) the particular kind of freedom that comes from property rights.

I disagree. Not all conservatives are social conservatives although many are. IFI had to limit it to two items I would say that conservatives are all about the following:

1) personal freedoms

2) personal responsibilities

You cannot have the first without the second.

Defending the moral order and property rights fall under those two broad categories.

I'll not attempt to define what progressives are all about since I prefer to keep this a friendly conversation. :)

All conservatives are social conservatives.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 09:34.

Not all conservatives are social conservatives although many are.

You're mistaken. Not all Republicans are social conservatives, but all conservatives are. To be conservative is to want to preserve a certain sort of social order. Or moral order, same difference.

The Founders did not believe in personal freedoms. That's a late 20th century notion.

 

 

Social conservatives...

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 11:56.

But do "Social Conservatives" as popularly understood, want to use the power of the government to enforce their moral order on the rest of the country, or what?

"Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante."

As opposed to who?

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 12:35.

Everyone involved with politics is trying to enforce their moral order on the rest of the country. Even the libertarians.

 

Libertarians trying to enforce?

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 12:50.

What moral order are the libertarians trying to use the government to enforce?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but, for instance, legalizing drugs, isn't forcing anyone to use drugs, and legalizing gay marriage isn't forcing anyone to marry a person of the same sex.

The libertarian moral order

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 13:38.

is that people should think and act as libertarians think they should. For instance, that people should not care about things like drugs or gay marriage. That is a moral argument, and one which libertarians feel should be government policy. That's their moral order.

You may approve of it, but that does not make it any less a moral order, and one which they'd like to enshrine in law.

 

 

 

Libertarians moral order...

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 14:47.

Libertarians moral order does not use the power of government to FORCE anyone to do drugs, or marry someone of the same sex.  Nor does it tell you how to think or how to live, only that your rights end where another persons rights begin.

The government preventing drug use, or disallowing gay marriage takes force, it coerces people into behaving the way certain other people want them to act.

I wasn't talking about the law, I'm talking about government coercion vs individual liberty.

You can't legislate common sense, nor can you legislate a people to be moral.

Fine.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 15:05.

I don't disagree with your description of what libertarians believe. But it is clearly a set of moral beliefs. I'm not getting into the discussion of whether or not they are good moral beliefs.

And of course they want to enforce them with law. Changing the law to enable gay marriage is enforcing your own moral beliefs via the state. You may think it's the right thing to do, but it is what it is. 

 

You can't legislate common sense, nor can you legislate a people to be moral.

I guess all those laws against theft, assault, and murder can be struck from the books then. So can the US Constitution.

Theft, assault, and murder

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 15:45.

Theft, assault, and murder are violations of someones rights, as well as being against religious moral codes.  How is preventing gays from marrying a violation of your rights?

Adultry is also against some religious moral codes, and yet is not the purview of government anymore.  I would think, punishing adultery and making a divorce harder to come by would do more for the sanctity of marriage, then preventing two people who love each other (regardless of their sex,) from marrying each others.

Whose moral code do we go by, because there is a wide range of disagreement in just the Christian faith.

Just because something is a right doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Nor does it mean the government ought to be used to enforce what one set of people thinks is moral.  You can refrain from drug use whether it is legal or not.  You can refrain from homosexual acts, whether it is legal or not.  The difference is, one set of "values" is preventing individual liberty, the other is enabling it.

So, is maintaining individual liberty the important thing, or maintaining "traditional" moral values?  Because to me, there is clearly a conflict here.

See, there's the problem

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 16:12.

Theft, assault and murder are considered violations of someones rights because of some religious moral codes. Your rights talk is a recent effort to come up with a non-religious basis for the same thing, one that is a direct spin-off from religion.  And it has the same problems all religions do - at bottom, it depends on people accepting some assertions on faith.

is maintaining individual liberty the important thing, or maintaining "traditional" moral values?  Because to me, there is clearly a conflict here.

 

There is no conflict, once you have a proper understanding of what an individual is and is not. An individual is not a stand-alone entity which exists prior to the establishment of groups. Individuals do not spring up out of the soil, and then form groups. An individual exists only as part of a group, and has "rights" only as part of the "moral code" of that group. The idea of individual liberty from a group is meaningless, except to a handful of people who chose to live alone in the wild.

Your own notions of individual liberty are simply things you have picked up from a group, a learned moral code. It's not a moral code that would have had any meaning until the rise of the modern mass state though. It's interesting and maybe predictable that the less individuality people have, the more importance they place on it. There were not a lot of libertarians in the Wild West. You tend to find them in big cities.

 

 

hmm

Submitted by DanAncona on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 01:31.

Well, you can't really just toss the social conservatives out because it makes your framework more convenient - not if you're talking about the big ideas that underly all of conservatism anyway. There has to be something that connects those two and the neo-cons, right? Unless the social cons and the libertarians and the neocons really are just all in the same ship out of pure political expedeniency at this particular historical juncture.

I don't think you all are, though. My hunch says there are ideas that underly and connect all of the branches. It might not be moral orders even though they're everywhere in Kirk. I'll give the personal freedom/responsibility emphasis some more thought.

As to not being able to (politely) define progressivism... what can I say. I feel like the course I've taken lately of taking conservativism really seriously, of reading your writers and really trying to get inside and understand the arguments has been good to me. I read Milton Friedman and disagreed with practically every word of it, but I'm glad I did. There's a lot of crap on both sides to wade through, that's one big problem, but at least trying to give the other side the benefit of a hearing does seem like a helpful exercise.

Rebuilding the conservative movement with a progressive?

Submitted by Lynn on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 08:48.

No, that doesn't interest me at all, so I'll make this one comment and leave the thread.

Well, you can't really just toss the social conservatives out because it makes your framework more convenient

I didn't toss anyone out. I said that moral order came under the two broad headings that I outlined for you. Naturally there are many sub headings.

 

 

Wary of Change...

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 12:04.

Conservative -  Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

I would say conservatives are cautious with regard to change.  The larger the change, the more cautious we ought to be.

I think there are many conflicting actions being taken by the various sub-parts of the conservative movement.  For instance, enforcing one's morals using the power of the government, just seems to be the opposite of standing for liberty.

What ought we be for?

Security, Liberty, and Prosperity, or put another way,  Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness.

Neocons and the rest

Submitted by Allen on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 11:47.

I don't think neocons are simply motivated by political expediency but they naturally look to government to solve societal problems and they do not have a grassroots constituency. Neocons generally do not get their hands dirty in the political trenches they are much more likely to be found on op-ed pages and tv interviews.

Then again social conservatives probably bring more workers to campaigns and votes to candidates. By failing to publicly address their deeply held concerned the conservative coalition is alienating the foot soldiers on the Right.

Finally, one note on What is a Conservative? Conservatives look to the past for guidance on how to deal with the present and the future. Liberals ignore the past or distort it to fit their incorrect world view.

 

Happy 4th.

www.ericcantorforvp.com

What?

Submitted by Calvin Jones an... on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 12:28.

Conservatives look to the past for guidance on how to deal with the present and the future. Liberals ignore the past or distort it to fit their incorrect world view.

 

 

Are you serious?  Do you have any idea of history?  Of why people said it was a bad idea to invade Iraq(For just one example)?