P
robably the most accurate definition of what a conservative is, happens to be one of the shortest, that I have ever come across. All of our policies, docrine, and dogma spring from this fundamental belief. Paraphrasing President Theodore Roosevelt: The ability and right of the American People to rule themselves, to govern themselves, to control themselves.
Social Conservative or Fiscal Conservative, it makes no difference. Our allegiance and love of the Republic stems from this one fundamental value. Indeed, it is this basic value that was the seed and groundwork for the idea and ideals of the Republic. It is only when we have forgotten this basic principle, that we have gotten ourselves into trouble. It is when we as a nation have not truly believed in this foundation of all else, that we have allowed racism, class warfare, and all other forms of bigotry; cultural, religous, and social; to rear its ugly head and cause the nation calamity. When we as a political movement, and as a people, have steadfastly conformed to this single belief, we have prospered both culturally and economically.
The Constituion. The belief that the American people have the right to rule themselves, to govern themselves, to control themselves is manifested in the Constitution which itself was developed and is developing from the foundations of our judeo-christian ethic. The Constitution is no pretty collection of personimious phrases and archaic platitueds, but is the shield and blueprint by which the sacred rights of every individual are preserved and all laws enacted for governence. It is the bedrock of our Republic from which the sacred rights of the people from the poorest to the richest are protected. The Constitution protects each of us, not only from the encroachment of government but also the potential of the rich and powerful, and other elites to bring us into tyranny. Hence, the conservative supports judicial decisions based only upon the strictest interpretations of the Constitution. There are ways to change the document, albeit difficult; And difficult for good purpose, because if it were easy to change, some individuals and groups that would rule us "for our own good", those who think that they are better than most (due to training or economic status, or educational achievemt), would use their money and their power, to change it at will, using sweet promises and pleasant sounding moral arguements, and then line thier own pockets with the people's wealth and become autocrats with absolute power over all of us, as sadly, to a larger and larger extent, is happening today.
Fair Play. If this sounds too corny, then replace the phrase with "sensitivity", "fairness", "caring", or whatever pimply hyperbally that may be in vogue at the moment, and is more pleasing to you. But the fact of the matter is, fair play must be used by the conservative in the public debate or the very things that we are fighting for are degrated and denigrated to the point, that if certain means are successfull, the ability then to rule or to force thru a truly patriotic agenda is doomed to failure. We become what we abhore, both morally, and the results of we ruling are no different from a socialist, had he been in power. But, there is also the other side to fair play. The second half of the definition, that if not vigorously persued, makes the first irrelevant. That is, to call the opposition on every vote that they have supported or cast, every consquence resulting from thier actions, and every cheap shot that they throw. It is this second part of fair play, that conservatives have forgotten. To a large extent we have become too "good" to engage in a good political fight. To a large extent, we have been more comfortable to loose and then "advise" or betters on the left and to cry in our beer or kool-aid when things go from bad to worse. To a large extent, we have gone from defending the high moral ground, to beleiving that we have achieved it, and hence cannot stomach dirtying our hands to do what must be done, to call the enemies of the Constitution and our Republic to task. This must change, or we shall get our wish of not having to dirty our hands in politics.......... permanently.
Limited Government. The job of government is to govern. This means to enact laws based upon the governments authority as granted by the Constitution. A conservative then would be against "government solutions" to problems. The Constitution gives the federal government only so much authority. State governmental authority is tempered by the bill of rights. Indeed, the bill of rights was originally passed in order to avoid "a tyranny of the states". Also there is a practical side to this position, which was best put by Senator Crocket. At the time, the Congress was debating authorizing charitable sums of money to be distributed to war widows. Senator Crocket vigorously opposed the measure, and offered to give what savings he had to this worthy cause, if every other senator would do the same. The reason that he was against it was..."Any government with the power to give us everything that we want, would also have the power to take away everything that we have." And, as we move further into the welfare state, the merits of his position are everywhere to be seen, perhaps coming to a head, with the recent Supreme Court re-definition of eminant domain. Every conservative should have been appalled at this ruling, as it strikes at the heart of the protections that the Constitution with which the Constitution shields us all. Now, of course there are those Americans, who are truly in desperate straights, thru no fault of thier own. Compounded with this fact, is that it is the welfare state that has taken literally millions of our citizens and locked them into the cycle of poverty. So, a conservative, cannot just say, abolish welfare today, and let them all fend for themselves. Fair play again, as for many, government is what has gotten these people into the straights they are in, in the first place, no matter how well intentioned social programs may have been. So, since the government "broke it", then the government needs to "fix it". President Reagan wanted to solve the problem with enterprize zones. That is, businesses would recieve huge tax incentives for locating into poor areas, training, and educating those that are below the poverty level or working poor. This was pure conservativeism. Social Security. Again, where conservatives vary on thier opinions. From a purist conservative outlook, the government had no business becomming involved in a pension plan, voluntary or otherwise. However, most would settle now for a voluntary program, in which one could invest the mandatory funds taken by the government, which of course they could leave to thier hiers. Had FDR gone this route, many impovershed areas would simply not exist today. It would mean instant middle or lower middle class for the recipients of such an inheritance. As an aside, the great social security trust fund exists only on paper, as the congress raids the fund regularly for other programs.
Reality. Because of the huge welfare state that we find ourselves in today, and the consequential damage that it has done; Yes some good, but the damage far exceeds any good that has come out of it; Most conservatives want a gradual receeding of dependence to be replaced by independence. This would mean that instead of getting a small percentage of other peoples wealth, they could earn a great deal of wealth themselves, and get to keep it. In following this line of thought then, a conservative will cut back the rate of increase in certain programs, give tax incentives to replace others (for training, etc), and abolish some programs alltogether. What programs remain, would be run efficiently....that is, actually easing the problems that they were set up to deal with in the first place.
Religon. The conservative is usually religous. This is because, the basic foundations upon which the Constitution was written, and the Republic founded was based upon the bible. The Judeo-Christian ethic. A great deal is made over Religous vs Secular Conservative, which is for the most part nonesense. One who is a Conservative follows the principles set forth that founded the Republic, and guides her, despite actively practising those principles in Religous Ceremony. It is the belief and the adherence to these principles that make us conservatives. Ronald Reagan understood this, and managed to forge and keep forged the alliance of Christian / Jewish Conservative, and the non-religous conservative. No conservative, no matter how agnostic in his personal religous belief, would ever adhere to the fantasy of the wall of separation between church and state.
Patriotism. By definition, all conservatives have a deep love for the r
Republic. Conservatives understand that the Republic consists of plain people who have the right to rule themselves. The Constitution, and her people are what make the nation great. Government is allowed to exist, only as a necessity, and only at the pleasure of the citizentry. But, as has always been, and probably always will be, there is an abiding hatred of this country by many without and from within, for exactly this reason. The conservative understands that freedom is not a gift, but must be earned and then defended. A conservative will gladly give his life for his country, because he does so for his loved ones, and would die befor letting his own, live in tyranny.
The Neocon. Mainly a term coined by the opposition, and the enemies of the Republic, it does have some legitimacy. There can, and should be, debate about genuine differences of opinion as to how stringent the definition of conservatism be applied in actual governance. For example, President Bush touts his no child left behind program as a great success, because of consistant higher test scores, since the program was implemented. Facts are fact. But a more stringent conservative, may point out, how much higher those test scores would be if perhaps the states totally ran the program (and hence paid for it) or, if vouchers were a reality for all of those who wanted them, how test scores would far exceed even the progress under no child left behind. Another example of debate within a conservative framework, is of course, how deeply to cut into programs, how much one should shore others up, to what point to comprimise with the opposition, how to balance cuts in programs with incentives to move the poor from slavery to working for themselves into prosperity.
Conclusion. So, boiling it down a bit. A conservative is one who believes in the ability and the right of the People to rule themselves, to govern themselves, to control themselves. A conservative believes in the strict interpretation of the Constitution, and narrowly defined limits of the the three branches of government, as defined in that document. It goes without saying that the judiciary must be held accountable to following the constituion, and only the Constitution in the ruling of cases befor it. A conservative is a patriot. A conservative believes in freedom of religon, and not freedom from it. A conservative knows that the wall of separation between church and state is a fantasy. And lastly, a conservative will run a campaign with fair play. Not stooping to gather mud on opponents' personal lives, but hit the line hard on issues, the actions of the opposition, and thier consequences. If these actions are repugnant (ie Micheal Moore's seat of honor next to former President Carter at the last Democratic Convention), a true conservative will not blink, but hit them again and again and again.
