by Freddie Boisseau
The first step in fixing a problem is to identify the problem. To do that you have to be honest to yourself about what the problem is. The conservatives in this country suffer from the problem of ignoring the different types of conservatism and how those parts can work with and against each other. To resolve this problem we first need to be honest about who we are and resolve the conflicts between our different factions. Split asunder we are used against each other, and thus, made weak.
From my perspective, the three factions of conservatism are political, fiscal and social. They each have their good points and their own unique weaknesses. These weaknesses can and must be tempered by the strengths of the other forms of conservatism. This can only happen if we understand those strengths and weaknesses, and that is what I hope to develop with this article.
I would like to start with Political Conservatism, or what can also be called originalism. This group tends to believe in the principle of limited government that our Founders setup for us. They tend to support personal freedom and liberty, negative rights, and the free market system. They are the defenders of the Constitution and the Republic. They truly understand the ideas of John Locke and the republic that Madison designed, but they also understand the concerns the Founders like Patrick Henry expressed about that republic. Unfortunately, they do not have the whole answer to our problems, they have their own weaknesses.
The Political Conservatism policies are not necessarily bound by fiscal or social boundaries, and this is where they make their mistakes. For example a Political Conservative could be lead astray to supporting major military expenses, because they are authorized by the Constitution. Without the restraint of Fiscal Conservative principles, there is nothing to restraint their belief that the expense is legitimate. They need the beliefs of the other two to keep them from falling into traps like this one.
Fiscal Conservatives are the members of our society that watch the pocketbook. They tend to support limiting government spending and thus they prefer lower taxes paid to the government. They also seem to support other sound fiscal policies dealing with money, such as borrowing and rules dealing with banking. They also are the primary supporters of the free market and the principles set forth by Adam Smith. They understand the differences in views of Jefferson and Hamilton regarding the central bank.
But their primary weakness mirrors that of the Political Conservatives, they are not as beholden to the Constitution as their Political Conservative brothers. They can and have been led astray in supporting programs that are unconstitutional, because they sound good and the expense is zero or very low. For example, a Fiscal Conservative would have no problems with implementing regulations eliminating home schooling, as long as the additional cost to the government and citizens are low or non-existence. Since they are less bound by the Constitution, they have no problem violating the rights of parents to educate their children as they see fit. They need the Political Conservatives’ ideals to help them recognize when they go astray.
I left the Social Conservatives for the last, because, to me, they are the most important, though they are also the most likely to be led astray. They are the heart and soul of the conservative movement. They hold and promote the rules that we use to define how we treat each other and it is from these rules that we formed our Constitution and our republic. They are the ones that promote our morals and helping of those in our society that are less fortunate. They are the heirs of all great religious leaders that have shaped our world for the better. This is where we draw our greatest strength, and it is also our greatest weakness.
It is our greatest weakness, because while their beliefs were used to create our Constitution that the Political Conservatives hold dear, they are not bound by it. They are not also bound by the beliefs of the Fiscal Conservatives; they have a higher purpose to uphold. It is this purpose helping those less fortunate than them that can be very destructive. If they lose focus because while we should be a moral people and help each other, those charges are individual in nature. We cannot force people to live up to those standards, nor can we protect people from their own destructive behavior. We must realize that while some of the beliefs and values expressed by Social Conservatives are good for both the individual and society as a whole, each of us must come to those beliefs and values willingly.
Finally, I have been speaking as if these three type of conservatism need to be brought in balance in the group as a whole, but actually these three types of conservatism need to be in balance in all of us. If they are in balance in all of us, then they are in balance in whole. For example how many of you have not helped someone who asked for and needed help when you could? Have you lied to a police officer if you broke a law, even speeding? Is doing that holding to the principle of a Social Conservative, helping other people and upholding social norms?
How many you have promoted not allowing someone to express their opinion because you disagreed? How many of you have discounted or persecuted another religion because it was one you disagreed with? Is that holding to the principles of a Political Conservative, protecting the rights of others given to them by the Creator?
How many of you spend money that you do not have? How many of you live from paycheck to paycheck? Is that holding to the principles of a Fiscal Conservative, not building up debt and controlling spending?
I know that I cannot answer no to all of the above. I know that I have failings, but acknowledging that fact is the first step to recovery. I know that I have a lot of work to do to bring myself in balance, but I also know that I can count on you to help me do that, just like you can count on me to help you.
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Drifting down the Mainstream...by Julie Ranson
In late February, at the CPAC meeting in Washington DC, American conservatives met to experience and engage in conservative thought. The annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) meeting is sponsored by the American Conservative Union. The ACU brands itself as “America’s Oldest and Largest Grassroots Conservative Organization.”
In the straw poll conducted annually at CPAC, this year’s winner was Ron Paul (R-TX). According to CPAC’s poll data, 2,395 of the 10,000 attendees voted; 64% were male and 54% were aged 18-25. In addition to voting for favorite 2012 presidential candidates, poll respondents also indicated other priorities: a) 58% believe that Congressional Republicans should focus on cutting federal spending; b) 52% want to see a reduction in the size of government; and c) 80% identified their most important goal as “promoting individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens.”
The selection of Ron Paul in the straw poll has drawn a few disdainful observations. On Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday program, both Mara Liasson and Juan Williams stated that Paul is out of the mainstream and doesn’t represent most conservatives. (View their remarks around the 38 minute mark)
While I’ll refrain from tossing my support behind Paul at this time, I beg to differ that Paul’s chances of winning the presidency are nil because of these criticisms. Remember, the 2009 Gallop poll identified Conservatives as the largest ideological group with 40% of Americans self-identifying as conservative. On the other hand, only 21% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. Yet, Barack Obama won the White House even though he was ranked at the far left during his brief tenure in the Senate. Clearly, he represented even fewer mainstream Americans when he campaigned nor does he now that he is President.
What is clear today is that conservative voters will seek a candidate that truly embraces conservative ideals (whether the Republican Party machine delivers one for us is another story). It’s also clear that citizens are serious and highly motivated today in their involvement in day-to-day governance, both locally and nationally. More importantly, young people are engaged and vocal, and this may be the most noteworthy data from CPAC. They are our future, after all. Draw whatever conclusions you will from the CPAC straw poll or the other attendance data… It’s still an exciting time to be an American voter!
In the straw poll conducted annually at CPAC, this year’s winner was Ron Paul (R-TX). According to CPAC’s poll data, 2,395 of the 10,000 attendees voted; 64% were male and 54% were aged 18-25. In addition to voting for favorite 2012 presidential candidates, poll respondents also indicated other priorities: a) 58% believe that Congressional Republicans should focus on cutting federal spending; b) 52% want to see a reduction in the size of government; and c) 80% identified their most important goal as “promoting individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens.”
The selection of Ron Paul in the straw poll has drawn a few disdainful observations. On Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday program, both Mara Liasson and Juan Williams stated that Paul is out of the mainstream and doesn’t represent most conservatives. (View their remarks around the 38 minute mark)
While I’ll refrain from tossing my support behind Paul at this time, I beg to differ that Paul’s chances of winning the presidency are nil because of these criticisms. Remember, the 2009 Gallop poll identified Conservatives as the largest ideological group with 40% of Americans self-identifying as conservative. On the other hand, only 21% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. Yet, Barack Obama won the White House even though he was ranked at the far left during his brief tenure in the Senate. Clearly, he represented even fewer mainstream Americans when he campaigned nor does he now that he is President.
What is clear today is that conservative voters will seek a candidate that truly embraces conservative ideals (whether the Republican Party machine delivers one for us is another story). It’s also clear that citizens are serious and highly motivated today in their involvement in day-to-day governance, both locally and nationally. More importantly, young people are engaged and vocal, and this may be the most noteworthy data from CPAC. They are our future, after all. Draw whatever conclusions you will from the CPAC straw poll or the other attendance data… It’s still an exciting time to be an American voter!
Friday, December 25, 2009
Cooperation among Conservative groups? by Julie Ranson
Recently I observed a conservative fellow critiquing the attendance of a recent rally. He asserted that the smaller attendance would only feed the narrative of the left…dwindling numbers, waning enthusiasm, etc.
He asked whether the conservative groups even talk to each other. The rally in question was held mid-day on a cold, rainy Monday and followed a rally held the previous Friday, also mid-day. As has been previously noted in this blog, protesting isn’t the daily inclination of the conservative. We have jobs and families, for Pete’s sake! And while Americans for Prosperity may have the bus on its tour, we are not going to allow federally-funded factions herd us around to protest spots like the liberals who have plenty more protect practice.
Because we have the country’s gross domestic product to tend, we aren’t free like the typical dregs of society herded around to events like the G-20 summit. At this year’s Pittsburgh summit, 300 protesters assembled without a permit. Greeting police with rolling trash cans, blocking roads with pallets, the protesters were subjected to teargas. Some would argue that the world’s “capitalist pigs” that comprise the G-20 are to blame for these jobless protestors’ plight, instead it’s entirely something else – socialist malaise – why do for oneself when the government is writing unemployment checks, eh?
Anyway, just so you know, conservative protests in the year 2009 have resulted in no police action, no violence, no trash-covered National Mall. These protesters not only paid their own way to attend, they even cleaned up after themselves.
Okay, these really are very nice people so why aren’t they “cooperating with each other” as the fellow I mentioned earlier had lamented? The answer is…..a lot of groups actually are cooperating with each other! Sometimes, though, group events overlap, coincide, or nip at each other's heels on the calendar. Be that as it may, it’s important to realize that while many of the groups have similar missions and shared values, some groups are laser-focused on so-called smaller or narrower issues. As well, even those with similar missions have different methods for reaching their goals…. What’s really important is that genuine, founding American principles are upheld, reiterated, and taught to others. That’s what groups like the Tea Party-ers and the 9-12’ers espouse and, together or not, these groups will be heard.
He asked whether the conservative groups even talk to each other. The rally in question was held mid-day on a cold, rainy Monday and followed a rally held the previous Friday, also mid-day. As has been previously noted in this blog, protesting isn’t the daily inclination of the conservative. We have jobs and families, for Pete’s sake! And while Americans for Prosperity may have the bus on its tour, we are not going to allow federally-funded factions herd us around to protest spots like the liberals who have plenty more protect practice.
Because we have the country’s gross domestic product to tend, we aren’t free like the typical dregs of society herded around to events like the G-20 summit. At this year’s Pittsburgh summit, 300 protesters assembled without a permit. Greeting police with rolling trash cans, blocking roads with pallets, the protesters were subjected to teargas. Some would argue that the world’s “capitalist pigs” that comprise the G-20 are to blame for these jobless protestors’ plight, instead it’s entirely something else – socialist malaise – why do for oneself when the government is writing unemployment checks, eh?
Anyway, just so you know, conservative protests in the year 2009 have resulted in no police action, no violence, no trash-covered National Mall. These protesters not only paid their own way to attend, they even cleaned up after themselves.
Okay, these really are very nice people so why aren’t they “cooperating with each other” as the fellow I mentioned earlier had lamented? The answer is…..a lot of groups actually are cooperating with each other! Sometimes, though, group events overlap, coincide, or nip at each other's heels on the calendar. Be that as it may, it’s important to realize that while many of the groups have similar missions and shared values, some groups are laser-focused on so-called smaller or narrower issues. As well, even those with similar missions have different methods for reaching their goals…. What’s really important is that genuine, founding American principles are upheld, reiterated, and taught to others. That’s what groups like the Tea Party-ers and the 9-12’ers espouse and, together or not, these groups will be heard.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Grassroots Video Part 1: Why these Conservatives got involved
Are you curious about all this "activist" stuff? Wondering who the activists are? Surely you heard about the march on Washington on September 12? What a vast group from all across the country...like-minded, conservative-minded, true-blood Americans who care about the future of this country, that's who they are!
In this short video, five average Virginia citizens chat about why they have gotten involved in grassroots work.
In this short video, five average Virginia citizens chat about why they have gotten involved in grassroots work.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Lessons Not Learned by Larry Miller
Where has the principled courage of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) gone? Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds has been raising a ruckus about a thirty year old thesis written by his Republican opponent Bob McDonnell. This thesis, written in youthful enthusiasm, said such terrible things as killing unborn babies was wrong and that children raised by stay-at-home mothers tended to fare better than those whose mothers worked outside the home. Deeds questions how anyone with such outdated ideas could be taken seriously. RPV has no defense, only a strategy of duck and cover.
While times have changed, principles have not. Former Attorney General McDonnell may express himself differently these days, but I would hope the ideals of the young student have not changed significantly. Instead of defending ideas that have broad appeal in the normally red state of Virginia, RPV Chairman Pat Mullins issued a statement complaining that Mr. Deeds has introduced divisive social issues into the campaign. One has to wonder if this is the milquetoast leadership the party insiders were looking for when they ousted Jeff Frederick from the position and replaced him with Mullins a few weeks before this summer's convention in Richmond. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 74% of Republicans believe that their congressional representatives have lost touch with the voters. Is it much of a stretch to believe the same of party leaders as well?
The Republican candidate, who is a good man and has compiled a strong conservative record during his years in the General Assembly, is now running as a jobs and energy moderate... not that there is anything wrong with either issue. They are about making a living... not a life. As this is written, McDonnell is up by four points over Deeds... down from double digits a few weeks ago. Unfortunately it appears that his political gurus are working to mellow him down the same road of defeat that they showed previous candidates for this position, Jerry Kilgore and Mark Earley.
Further evidence of the emasculation of the party in the Old Dominion came to light when House of Delegates candidate Catherine Craybill had the audacity to say "We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box, before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of the Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us that we can enjoy the use of firearms for hunting, but make no mistake. That was NOT the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment rights was to guard against tyranny."
Again the official party and candidates are running for cover. The RPV Chairman going so far as to deny any support to the candidate and suggesting she would not be the best one to run for the office. Imagine what they would do if Patrick Henry returned and gave his “give me liberty or give me death” speech that we admire so much two hundred thirty some years in the past.
Republicans have lost favor with the voters because they have talked a good game but failed to live up the their espoused values. We see here two opportunities to show there is substance to the party and candidates, but we see the party and so many candidates rushing to the mushy middle.
Consultants will tell us that roughly 40% of the voters will be on one side and 40% on the other. The battle, therefore, is for the 20% in the middle. The conventional wisdom that has been failing the Republicans in recent years is that to win these votes, you have to look and sound like the people in the middle... thus losing the support and respect of your base. What Ronald Reagan did was to explain the conservative position so effectively that those in this middle ground understood and came along. This is the way to deal with independent voters!
When will the party of Reagan learn that it was principled stands that brought it to power and that deserting these values led to defeat. We are faced with an administration in Washington audaciously sticking its nose in many areas constitutionally ceded to the states at a rate many times faster than that of any previous administrations. We need bold leadership to stand up to it, not timid politicians afraid to take a position.
Victory or defeat, that is the choice. It seems that no one appears to remember what George Santayana told us, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Republicans have the choice to stand unapologetically on the conservative values people expect and respect or they can hide in the bushes and watch while the country falls apart around them.
The only saving grace for the Republicans may be the stench the Democrats have become in the nostrils of a significant block of voters. While many of us are looking for anything that will put a crimp in Obama administration's expansion at this point, the danger is that winning with this strategy will condemn the Republican Party and the country to an even longer string of so-called moderate, ineffective candidates to oppose the downright socialist, if not fascist machinations of the Democratic Party.
The best hope is that the candidate for Attorney General, Senator Ken Cuccinelli, leads the ticket on election day, showing that a true conservative, running on conservative principles, particularly from the liberal bastion of northern Virginia, can attract more support than candidates running on a Democrat-lite platform.
Originally posted at Political Christian blog:
http://www.politicalchristian.org/wordpress/2009/09/lessons-not-learned/
While times have changed, principles have not. Former Attorney General McDonnell may express himself differently these days, but I would hope the ideals of the young student have not changed significantly. Instead of defending ideas that have broad appeal in the normally red state of Virginia, RPV Chairman Pat Mullins issued a statement complaining that Mr. Deeds has introduced divisive social issues into the campaign. One has to wonder if this is the milquetoast leadership the party insiders were looking for when they ousted Jeff Frederick from the position and replaced him with Mullins a few weeks before this summer's convention in Richmond. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 74% of Republicans believe that their congressional representatives have lost touch with the voters. Is it much of a stretch to believe the same of party leaders as well?
The Republican candidate, who is a good man and has compiled a strong conservative record during his years in the General Assembly, is now running as a jobs and energy moderate... not that there is anything wrong with either issue. They are about making a living... not a life. As this is written, McDonnell is up by four points over Deeds... down from double digits a few weeks ago. Unfortunately it appears that his political gurus are working to mellow him down the same road of defeat that they showed previous candidates for this position, Jerry Kilgore and Mark Earley.
Further evidence of the emasculation of the party in the Old Dominion came to light when House of Delegates candidate Catherine Craybill had the audacity to say "We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box, before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of the Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us that we can enjoy the use of firearms for hunting, but make no mistake. That was NOT the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment rights was to guard against tyranny."
Again the official party and candidates are running for cover. The RPV Chairman going so far as to deny any support to the candidate and suggesting she would not be the best one to run for the office. Imagine what they would do if Patrick Henry returned and gave his “give me liberty or give me death” speech that we admire so much two hundred thirty some years in the past.
Republicans have lost favor with the voters because they have talked a good game but failed to live up the their espoused values. We see here two opportunities to show there is substance to the party and candidates, but we see the party and so many candidates rushing to the mushy middle.
Consultants will tell us that roughly 40% of the voters will be on one side and 40% on the other. The battle, therefore, is for the 20% in the middle. The conventional wisdom that has been failing the Republicans in recent years is that to win these votes, you have to look and sound like the people in the middle... thus losing the support and respect of your base. What Ronald Reagan did was to explain the conservative position so effectively that those in this middle ground understood and came along. This is the way to deal with independent voters!
When will the party of Reagan learn that it was principled stands that brought it to power and that deserting these values led to defeat. We are faced with an administration in Washington audaciously sticking its nose in many areas constitutionally ceded to the states at a rate many times faster than that of any previous administrations. We need bold leadership to stand up to it, not timid politicians afraid to take a position.
Victory or defeat, that is the choice. It seems that no one appears to remember what George Santayana told us, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Republicans have the choice to stand unapologetically on the conservative values people expect and respect or they can hide in the bushes and watch while the country falls apart around them.
The only saving grace for the Republicans may be the stench the Democrats have become in the nostrils of a significant block of voters. While many of us are looking for anything that will put a crimp in Obama administration's expansion at this point, the danger is that winning with this strategy will condemn the Republican Party and the country to an even longer string of so-called moderate, ineffective candidates to oppose the downright socialist, if not fascist machinations of the Democratic Party.
The best hope is that the candidate for Attorney General, Senator Ken Cuccinelli, leads the ticket on election day, showing that a true conservative, running on conservative principles, particularly from the liberal bastion of northern Virginia, can attract more support than candidates running on a Democrat-lite platform.
Originally posted at Political Christian blog:
http://www.politicalchristian.org/wordpress/2009/09/lessons-not-learned/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
