Conservative Ideology

[TheKing]

definitely an opinion piece

[58ford]

I would add
Citizen Elected Officials, people who serve a term or two and return to what ever their livelihood is. Do away with "Career Politicians".

[carsalesguy]

need hubbucks?

[zorro]

I agree with SMT on this one: this was a well thought out post and written very well. It is definitely a keeper. :yes:

I tried to give rep, but was told that I needed to spread a little around elsewhere first.

hubba needs to check this out!

[Conveyor Belt]

Moral values - conservatives aren't different from other people in this regard. Anyone with a notion of how society should work will believe that other people should follow the program he favors.

True Conservatives believe moral values should be determined more by the traditions and feelings of the people than by theory and formal decisions. They should typically prefer to rely on informal social sanctions rather than enforcement by government. Here is where I believe most so-called conservatives screw up. I do not believe it is the job of the federal government, or any government for that matter to legislate morality. And I cannot stand “evangelical” conservatives who want to force Christianity down the throats of every American. Jesus certainly did not do this during His ministry.

Nonetheless, I believe that government should recognize the moral values on which society relies and on which our nation was founded. As such, government from a moral values aspect should be run on the assumption that certain universal moral beliefs are good things that should not be undercut by government regulation. They should not force morality on society, but they should not limit the ability of society to be exposed to high moral standards.


I don't understand how you would plan to accomplish this. Lets say you have free reign to fix the problem. Adhere to the 'limited government' philosophy, how would this be addressed? Other than abortion, what current moral philosophies are being undercut by the government?

[wilebill]

If I have to hear another political ad for someone trotting out the name of the Lord Jesus Christ one more time, I might puke. They would do well to return to the teachings of Jesus where we are instructed how not to proclaim His name for our own personal gain and for the esteem of men.I've always taken the commandment not to use the Lord's name in vain as talking about this sort of thing, rather than just saying "GD". I mean, we ask him to bless something or someone, why can't we ask him to damn some things too?

[Conveyor Belt]

Marriage is the first thing I think of. In my opinion, the federal government needs to keep their grimey mitts out of this issue. I believe the federal courts should stand down as well.

When you enter into a social contract of setting moral standards, I believe that it is the duty of individuals and local and state communities to determine the standards. Therefore, I say let the people vote on this issue, which is happening in many states.

So, how would you deal with states honoring contracts made in other states? If states start denying marital rights because they don't agree with the state that formed the contract, then whats to stop them from expanding that so that if they don't agree with a states social makeup or economic policies, they'll deny contracts based on those things?

Are there precedents set that allow states to deny rights of this nature to visiting citizens?

Are you saying that you support the right of gays to marry if that's what the state chooses?

[Conveyor Belt]

but would you expect your state to honor it as you expect the other state to honor yours?

[Conveyor Belt]

On the surface, I would say that I do not expect one state to honor the laws of another. That would be a way to circumvent the will of the people in an individual state.

I'm not sure if the power will ever be returned to the states. In a way, we feed off one another. If not for other states, we in MS wouldn't have the infastructure that we have. You couldn't drive on an interstate highway to move you quickly away from danger, or to a needed destination. I'm pretty sure we recieve more money from the government than we're paying in. I could be wrong about that one, but it seems that I've heard that somewhere, before.

I do expect states to honor laws and contracts. I expect for my license to drive to be valid in another state. I expect for my marriage to be recognized by other states. I'm not sure what the answer is or should be.

[dollfus46]

Now, these are all my opinions, so I am not posting in an attempt to be the authority on conservative ideology, but I believe that a true conservatism is found in the writings of John Locke. At the core of conservative political philosophy resides the deep conviction that property rights are the basis of human freedom and government exists to protect them and to preserve public order. I believe that a fundamental conviction of a true conservative is a deep disbelief and lack of faith in what government can actually accomplish.

I agree with Locke’s notion of Natural Law, under which man had Natural Rights, not given to him by any ruler. Under Natural Rights the right of property is paramount. Men came together in an organized community under a Social Contract between every member in order to gain advantages they could not have individually in a state of nature.
Here is how I think this applies to our country. First and foremost, we are a land of liberty where natural rights of individuals precede and supersede the power of the state.

We are a constitutional republic in which government power should be limited and employed for the purpose of providing legitimate public goods rather than for the benefit of insiders and narrow interest groups.

We are a free market in which persons, individually or collectively, should have the natural right to sell goods and services to willing buyers, and in which the individual pursuit of economic opportunity benefits all.

And we are a free society where citizens should solve social problems not only through government but by working together in families, neighborhoods, churches, charities, and other private, voluntary organizations.

Here are a few topics that I think are core concepts (in no particular order):

Strict constructionalism – a conservative believes what the Constitution actually says and tends to reject attempts to contextualize and find “implied meaning.”

Limited government – as I said earlier, government should exist solely to guarantee property rights and uphold order and national security. Conservatives believe that individuals much better than the government in making their own personal decisions. As such, conservatives trust people and distrust government.

Reigns in wasteful spending – a true conservative strives to cut the fat out of government spending in an attempt to find the most effective and efficient use of our funds.

Values principle over politics – a true conservative should stand on his beliefs and not on what will garner a few votes in an election.

Champion of free enterprise – a true conservative views economic liberty as one of the traditional liberties of the American people that has served that people well. Many are skeptical of free trade and most favor restraints on immigration for the sake of permitting the existence and development of a reasonably coherent national community.

A true conservative definitely doesn’t portray himself as a champion of free enterprise while handing out billions in contracts to cronies who are campaign contributors and letting corporate criminals name their own regulators. A true conservative recognizes that an impartial government free of corrupting influence, and the absence of corporate welfare, is essential to the proper functioning, fairness, and survival of the free enterprise capitalistic system in which we believe.

Reign in the size of federal government – conservatives believe that a smaller, more efficient federal government would be of more benefit to our country.

Moral values - conservatives aren't different from other people in this regard. Anyone with a notion of how society should work will believe that other people should follow the program he favors.

True Conservatives believe moral values should be determined more by the traditions and feelings of the people than by theory and formal decisions. They should typically prefer to rely on informal social sanctions rather than enforcement by government. Here is where I believe most so-called conservatives screw up. I do not believe it is the job of the federal government, or any government for that matter to legislate morality. And I cannot stand “evangelical” conservatives who want to force Christianity down the throats of every American. Jesus certainly did not do this during His ministry.

Nonetheless, I believe that government should recognize the moral values on which society relies and on which our nation was founded. As such, government from a moral values aspect should be run on the assumption that certain universal moral beliefs are good things that should not be undercut by government regulation. They should not force morality on society, but they should not limit the ability of society to be exposed to high moral standards.

Respects international law, but does not allow it to come before the sovereignty of our nation - for example, it is outrageous in my opinion that we wish to pick and choose which parts of the Geneva convention to follow, but the notion of American soldiers taking orders from United Nations personnel is equally outlandish. A true conservative does not have hand picked lawyers give him legal opinions that as commander in chief he has the prerogative to “set aside” laws at his personal discretion, and then claim he’s spreading democracy.

Rejects the notion of “nation building” or “empire building” - this is in reaction to the current Iraqi war. A true conservative recognizes that the rise of our democracy was very unique, therefore attempting to spread it throughout the world with a cookie-cutter approach will likely fail miserably.

In a nutshell, true conservatives:

Oppose government corruption and wasteful spending.

Believe in providing a sound, basic education to every child.

Desire crushing tax burdens on families and businesses.

Wish to truly reduce crime and fight the demise of safe, civil communities.

Strive to completely overhaul the costly, immoral, and destructive welfare state.

Seek to revise the oppressive rules and regulations on business.

Support economic opportunities for all citizens.

And rage against the decline of individual freedom and promote self-reliance.

Sorry it’s so long. And, again, this is merely my opinion

Hard to pinpoint it. You've included Liberals in much of this. Also, Rebublicans, Democrats and Libertarians. I think the definition of Strict Constructionalism is at the basis of conversative thought. This does more to separate and define Conservative and Liberal differences.

[dollfus46]

definitely an opinion piece

Unless I misunderstood, the "piece" by John Locke was not an opinion, per se. Doc's opinion was to agree with it.

As I stated earlier, it was too broad and inclusive to define Conservative Ideology. Right of center to be sure, but not pure consevative.

[dollfus46]

Doc, well done! Reading that illustrates, to me, how far left the so-called right has drifted.

There are still a few of us around, who still demonstrate atavistic behavior.

[dollfus46]

I don't understand how you would plan to accomplish this. Lets say you have free reign to fix the problem. Adhere to the 'limited government' philosophy, how would this be addressed? Other than abortion, what current moral philosophies are being undercut by the government?

Right on, CB. Doc said this is where the conservatives screw up. This is the liberal/Libertarian philosophy, I think. Not conservative. JMO

[dollfus46]

I support the notion of states' rights. If the majority of a state's population were to adopt something I morally disagreed with, then I have the right to move.

Ah, now we're back to a discussion of the War Between the States. :) Blacks immediately will call you a racist if you mention "States Rights". But it is supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution. That is, until the U.S. Supreme Court hears about it.

[Buggy]

99% of my convictions, in my opinion, line up with the philosophy of John Locke, which is as conservative as you get.
John Locke was pretty liberal, if you use the term "liberal" in its pure sense, rather than in the modern political nonsense.

[big john]

<CENTER>The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

</CENTER>A family is out for an evening walk when little Timmy decides to throw a temper tantrum, sits down on the curb, and refuses to go any farther. What do his parents do?

If his parents are conservatives, they bid Timmy a cheerful "B-Bye!" and keep right on strolling. Within a couple of minutes, Timmy will decide that coming along is more fun than sitting alone on the curb, and will run to catch up.
If his parents are liberals, the whole family will stop while the parents console and encourage Timmy until he is ready to proceed once more. This will only take a couple of minutes, and the stroll will continue.
Apparently, both methods work. The difference is what happens on the next walk. Y'see, the Timmy with the liberal parents has now learned that throwing a temper tantrum gets him attention, so he will do it again -- and he will continue to throw bigger and more elaborate tantrums as long as it works. Meanwhile, the Timmy with the conservative parents will never pull that shit again.
Yet, while the method used by the conservative family is clearly the one with long-term results, they are constantly berated by liberals for being cruel and heartless. "You just left Timmy there? How could you? What if he never caught up? He could have been emotionally scarred for life! There oughta be a law prohibiting such mistreatment!"
Would the conservative family have reacted differently if little Timmy had fallen down and broken his leg? Of course; they're not heartless, that's just liberal propaganda. Will the liberal family ever learn how to get Timmy to quit throwing tantrums? Sure -- and that's why people tend to get more conservative as they get older: because they learn.
lol

[Buggy]

...
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142722231554

[Buggy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

[Conveyor Belt]

buggy... you're referencing wikipedia to make a point??? c'mon... I know we have our differences, but I would have given you a bit more credit that that one...

[Buggy]

Fine, here's something from a "real" encyclopedia- a whole section on John Locke: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552311/Liberalism.html#s4

[Buggy]

This encyclopedia says that Locke's philosophy would be considered to the "radical right" of today's mainstreat conservatives.
I can't find where it says that, but I admit I haven't read the whole thing.

BTW, personally I'd consider libertarianism more of a liberal (in the "classical" sense) philosophy than a conservative one. But today you could just as easily say that libertarians were "true" liberals as you could say they were "true" conservatives. Personally I prefer to think if libertarianism as a completely seperate philosophical axis from liberal/conservative (in the "modern" sense).

Anyway, it looks like this discussion is starting to focus on just semantics. "Classical" conservatism/liberalism, "true" conservative/liberalism, "modern" conservative/liberalism, "social/economic" conservative/liberalism... just labels that have all but lost their original meaning these days anyway.

[Conveyor Belt]

I thought the point of this discussion was to define the semantics.

[dollfus46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

I'd say Social Liberalism is what we know today as "Liberal." What Thomas Paine and Voltaire thought centuries ago, as Classical Liberals, is irrelevant today.

[dollfus46]

Fine, here's something from a "real" encyclopedia- a whole section on John Locke: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552311/Liberalism.html#s4

That's interesting. Like John Kennedy would be a Republican today.

[dollfus46]

If I may, dollfus and Buggy, I think that many people are distracted by what they believe to be conservative economic philosopy and liberal social philosophy. I believe this is an error. A "true" conservative wants to limit the size, scope, and abilty to remove rights of the federal government. Today's GOP conservatives are down with this logic economically. When it comes to social policy, however, they're more than happy to give the federal government tons of stroke.

When you are speaking true conservatism, then it must apply to both economic and social philosophy. The term "libertarian" has been applied to this line of thinking over the last few decades.

Speak adultese. I have no idea what "down with" and "tons of stroke" are. You sound like you're from da hood.

[dollfus46]

I can't find where it says that, but I admit I haven't read the whole thing.

BTW, personally I'd consider libertarianism more of a liberal (in the "classical" sense) philosophy than a conservative one. But today you could just as easily say that libertarians were "true" liberals as you could say they were "true" conservatives. Personally I prefer to think if libertarianism as a completely seperate philosophical axis from liberal/conservative (in the "modern" sense).

Anyway, it looks like this discussion is starting to focus on just semantics. "Classical" conservatism/liberalism, "true" conservative/liberalism, "modern" conservative/liberalism, "social/economic" conservative/liberalism... just labels that have all but lost their original meaning these days anyway.

Yep. Happens. I looked into switching to the Libertarian Party, but they are so far right that they become left when it comes to their thoughts on government intervention. They like John Lennon's "Imagine". It's pretty much anything goes without restrictions from the Federal Government. That's too extreme even for me.

[wilebill]

Here's Charley Reese's take on what a conservative is. (http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20061030/index.php)

I like reading his opinions, usually.

[dollfus46]

Here's Charley Reese's take on what a conservative is. (http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20061030/index.php)

I like reading his opinions, usually.

I couldn't get there without "joining"

[wilebill]

I couldn't get there without "joining"
That's really odd. I just googled charley reese and went there and it came up. But when I clicked my link I got the same results as you.

I finally got in, so I just decided to copy and paste his opinion piece that appeared in the C-L yesterday:

No Conservative Party
The Republican Party is not now, never was and never will be a conservative party. It is what it has always been — a representative of the rich and of big business.

It might have become a conservative party in 1964, when Barry Goldwater was nominated as the presidential candidate. The Rockefeller wing of the party, to which the Bush family has always been a part, conducted the most vicious character assassination campaign against Goldwater in modern political history. The liberal Rockefellerites preferred a crook from Texas to a conservative.

The Rockefeller wing never lost control of the party again, co-opting Nixon, Ford and even Ronald Reagan, who was forced to take George Bush as his vice president. The Bush people, within two years, ran off nearly all of the original Reagan supporters.

There was a famous quote by James Baker, the first Bush's hatchet man. He was quoted as saying: "Who else are the conservatives going to vote for?"

Well, Mr. Baker discovered that the conservatives had three choices in 1992. They could stay at home, they could vote for Ross Perot, or they could vote for Bill Clinton. I hope he thought of that while he watched Clinton's inauguration.

The hard truth is that if you are a genuine political conservative, you don't have a party. The Democrats are practically socialists; the Republicans are closer to corporate fascists. Neither one offers conservatives anything but rhetoric.

But let's define our terms, because it is my belief that not many Americans today are really conservative. Political conservatism has nothing to do with such social issues as abortion or gay marriage. Those are moral and philosophical issues that properly belong to the state legislatures.

A true conservative recognizes that the Constitution is a binding contract that should be interpreted literally and in the context of the time at which it was written and ratified. A Constitution that means anything a judge says it means means nothing. Abraham Lincoln and his Republican Party were the first to violate it in a blatant manner. One of Lincoln's cronies referred to it as "a worthless piece of parchment."

A true conservative is fiscally responsible. Laying debt and interest payments on posterity is neither conservative nor liberal. It is just obscenely irresponsible.

A true conservative believes in noninterference in the affairs of other countries. Regime change is a policy favored by fascists or communists, but it has nothing to do with American conservatism. Americans have the right to govern only one country — their own. Americans have an obligation to defend only one country — their own.

A true conservative believes in a free economy and that beyond protecting the public from force and fraud, the government should not interfere in private affairs.

There are a lot of other things that define a genuine conservative, but suffice it to say that the Republican Party, with its imperialistic foreign policy, its disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law, its fiscal irresponsibility and its erosion of personal liberty, is not by any stretch of the imagination a conservative party.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for people to sit down with a pencil and paper and list what they actually believe. Clarifying their own political philosophy might make them less susceptible to the demagoguery and political propaganda that characterize our present age.

When the Founding Fathers laid the burden of self-government on us, they didn't do any favors for the ignorant and lazy-minded. Tom Jefferson observed that those who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.

(Write to Charley Reese at P.O. Box 2446, Orlando, FL 32802)
(c) 2006 by King Features Syndicate

[wilebill]

If Charley Reese is correct, then I'm a conservative. However, I feel the definition that he uses is not the definition that most other people use.

I've never felt that Republicans were "business-friendly", a term that they love to use. The are definitely "big business-friendly" but most people in the US don't work for or own a big business. They're big business friendly because big business has the big bucks and don't mind spending it in a big way on politicians to get what they want.

[wilebill]

Oh, and the part about being fiscally responsible: I'd heard all my life that was the Republican/Conservative mantra. And I think it was the case up until Reagan, when he ran up a huge debt to bankrupt the USSR out of existence. In hindsight this was probably the best way to defeat them - without firing a shot (thank God!). But apparently everybody that followed him misinterpreted that to mean you should spend money you don't have and it's just spiraled out of control. It's changed from being responsible to doing whatever it takes to make people spend more money on stuff that we don't need.

[dollfus46]

That's really odd. I just googled charley reese and went there and it came up. But when I clicked my link I got the same results as you.

I finally got in, so I just decided to copy and paste his opinion piece that appeared in the C-L yesterday:

I loved it. Sounds like he's got it. Thanks Wilebill. That's exactly why I've stated here that I'm not a Republican, but a conservative. It usually means I vote against the Democrats, but I'm not Republican. We really need a third party. The two party system is destroying us.

[Conveyor Belt]

Here's my problem:

My mother, raising two kids on her own, making about $37,000 a year with only a high school diploma.

We didn't get anything from the government. When I applied for grants to go to school, I didn't get anything, because my mother made too much money. $37,000 for two kids is too much money???? WTF??? Luckily, I was smart, made a good ACT score and went to school for free, earned scholorships in college, and ended up making money off of it.

My wife and I made about $1000 too much to get WIC. The lady at WIC was suprised that we didn't qualify. I'm not sure we would have taken it if we had, because we really didn't need it.

I've got a question about your 'anti-family' work hours. I would hope you work more than 20 hrs/wk now. Do you consider your job anti-family? Do you consider jobs that require you to be full time to obtain benifits to be anit-family?

I've been standing in line, counting my pennies to buy a bag of rice and chicken quarters, while those on food stamps were buying oreos, steak and coke. That shit pisses me off to no end.

I don't know if Jesus would have advocated the government of the citizenrey over individual help. I think Jesus was more about the individual sacrificing for his fellow man than the government having people jump through hoops for a handout.

[Conveyor Belt]

And I never said the job was anti-family. I said the policy of forcing low-income families, most of whom are single mothers, to try and balance education and working large amount of hours is anti-family.

How is it any more anti-family than someone working 50-60 hrs/wk? What's the standard for anti-family? How many hours constitues enough family time? why is the standard for working singles with children different than other working people not persuing a degree or on welfare?

[Conveyor Belt]

I don't see how you find it difficult to grasp valuing family time differently between those trying to better themselves, and those who already have and are contributing to society.

[Conveyor Belt]

Given that the original post has nothing to do with the latter, perhaps you could better articulate just what you are implying. So, you do not favor supporting lower-class citizens, especially working single mothers who are trying to improve their lots in life?

I'm not in favor of supporting anyone. In your original post, you are the one who brought up policies which you thought were anti-family, I'm just trying to point out that in the real world, away from school and poverty, people work as many hours away from their families, and their time away isn't considered anti-family, or wasn't in your original post.

I don't think it's the government's place to support people, politicians included.