Time to return to the first principles of conservatism?
posted at 12:40 pm on May 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
With so many people writing about what ails conservatism, and so much disagreement, the basic tenets of conservatism seem to be overlooked. In attaching an ever-broader policy base to the first principles of conservatism, we have not added to our base but have increased our opposition. In fighting on the flanks, we have ignored the center, and as a result, have lost momentum through poor definition and irresponsible governance.
What is the first principle of conservatism? Limited government. Our founders understood this, which is why they tightly constrained the jurisdiction of the federal government in the Constitution. Henry David Thoreau famously wrote “That government is best which governs least”, and that encapsulates what has been the overarching philosophy of conservatism as applied to governance. Furthermore, it exists in opposition to and as a counterbalance for the competing philosophy of socialism, which postulates that government improves as it governs more.
These days, however, so-called conservatives in government appear more inclined to act on the latter philosophy than the former. Those running as conservatives from either party vote for ever-increasing federal roles in education, agriculture, the arts, and especially health care and retirement planning, despite the increasing deficits that the federal government has racked up. Entitlement programs will have a catastrophic collapse in the future, and instead of hitting the brakes, conservatives and progressives alike keep hitting the accelerator.
One might think that conservatives would at least recognize the perils of corruption in a bloated and overbearing federal government, distant from the oversight of individuals. Think again. The pork-barrel spending increased when so-called conservatives took power, pushed in no small measure by efforts to woo lobbyists who rely on increasing federal power and spending in order to get paid.
How did conservatives lose their way? They focused on everything but the core principle of limited government. Issues like gay marriage and mottos on coins took precedence. It’s not to say that there aren’t other issues that should concern the citizenry, but it is a matter of priorities, and the first priority of the “conservatives” who ran DC from 2001-2006 was re-election and spoils, not reducing government to a manageable and affordable level.
Take gay marriage as one example. In relation to the first principle of conservatism, why should this even be on the conservative radar screen, especially as a national issue? Instead of drumbeats for federal constitutional amendments, we should have insisted that government get out of the sacrament-recognition business. Let the churches determine the sacramental value of relationships, and let (state) governments enforce partnership contracts.
With every added issue, conservatives gain allies but also opponents. A narrow focus on reducing government would attract many more people than it repels. Most Americans believe that the federal government spends too much money, is too corrupt, is unaccountable to the citizenry, and creates massive inefficiencies. The first principle of conservative governance addresses all of that, and policies based on that principle would return both responsibilities and monies back to the states and local communities where they belong, so that citizens can more effectively oversee the issues in their own neighborhoods.
Trying to advance a broad agenda of issues that contradict the principle of limited government obviously hasn’t worked. All that produced was a spending spree that further bloated government and left the public with the impression that little difference exists between “conservatives” and “progressives” except in who gets the cash. If we tried actual, real conservatism by focusing on a return to smaller, less intrusive federal governance, the side issues will become more manageable in our communities. It would provide credibility to a movement that by its very nature should demand that government stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom and treat its citizens like sovereign adults rather than recalcitrant children unable to make their own decisions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »
Limited government?
Not for John “Obscene Profits” McCain.
MCCAIN ‘08
misterpeasea on May 30, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Good question.
Correct.
amerpundit on May 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Well said. All is not lost, just the message.
Repetition of the idea of small government is the only solution. While we have tried to bring examples of government failings as proof – most don’t want proof. Most don’t want to think.
So we need to repeat that single thought to the exclusion to all else, and let the masses fill in the blanks with their own rational.
Agrippa2k on May 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Good post, but I think you would agree that some restrictions on things such as marriage are good. . . in other words, age of consent.
I might argue that free people should be able to determine age of consent on themselves, but most ‘conservatives’ would prefer intervention on some level. The ‘gay marriage’ thing is just big government granting special privileges to a certain class of people. Gay marriage approval is the government getting into the bedroom, not staying out.
Overall, a good post, thanks Ed.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Secure the borders, control spending, expand energy research and production, counter literal and cyber-terrorism, cut taxes and promote new technological breakthroughs – from nanotech to terraforming Mars.
The short-focus and self-interest at large is stunning.
In both parties.
profitsbeard on May 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Besides the idea of small government, this insidious hatred of business is another big big problem. Watch the hearings with the Oil execs.
Agrippa2k on May 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Ed, have you been copy/pasting from Ron Paul’s website?
fossten on May 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Here Here!
The Republican party got Hijacked by the Soc-Cons, start acting like politicians and fight and stop acting as if you are in Church.
“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”
–Barry Goldwater
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM
If HDT looks conservative to us, I mean, how far have we fallen?!
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM
abortion is another issue for conservatives. I would argue that murder is a federal offense. If there is law, murder should be outlawed at a minimum because murder takes away the freedoms of another individual.
If you see abortion as murder (as most conservatives do) then it becomes an appropriate law to apply to the population. . . even as people say ‘my abortion is none of the government’s business’. To me that reads like ‘if I murder someone it is none of the governments’ business’.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM
It’s the Values, stupid.
faraway on May 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM
No argument from me Ed. But the only way I see getting back to that, is to start over, and there aren’t any new worlds.
So I have to argue ;), conservatives do have to engage in the mess that is our BIG GOVERNMENT, lest it grows in the wrong ways – yes gay marriage and abortion are extremely important now, as our society decays further and further from what is good into what is evil.
kirkill on May 30, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Very well written, Ed. It gets closer to our problem as a party, and I look forward to more that is written along these lines in the future by both you and AP, as well as many others.
Weight of Glory on May 30, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Due respect to AuH20, but is conservatism worth anything if it is electoral poison? Recall how badly Goldwater was defeated. Soc-Cons may not be libertarians, but they help nominally “small government” people to get elected. My 2 cents.
VolMagic on May 30, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Interesting…
Roebuck on May 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM
“Terraforming Mars?” Please tell me that was a joke. I’m not even on board with “promoting new technologies” as a justified function of government.
The only reason I agree with “expanding energy research…” is that it will serve to promote our independence from foreign countries. Otherwise, I would be inclined to let the “invisible hand” does its thing.
connertown on May 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM
When the Constitution was ratified, not to mention when the Republican Party formed, many states had state churches. Fact o’ life, deal with it. Our founders, most aggressively John Jay, advocated the election of Christians and the enshronement of biblical morality in our laws. So if you want to talk conservatism, deal with that, not johnny-come-lately utilitarianism.
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Well written… and thought out.
I think part of the issue as well is that our government has taken its power to mold world events as a sign that it HAS to.
We get involved in things we have no business in. Why are we even talking to the “Palestinians”? Why is it OUR problem? We spend so much time and energy on other peoples problems, that our own country is going downhill.
Our infrastructure is degrading, and yet we GIVE money to other countries. We worry about Pirates off Somalia because of how it impacts oil, and yet won’t drill here.
McCain’s last speech really showed this. He spoke about a need for Nuclear Power, and how we should help other countries with that technology… but then said we need an international aggreement so we could EXPORT our nuclear waste, instead of opening up Yuka Mountain… He essentaily internationalized a problem that could easily be solved here…
We do need limited government, but we also need our governemnt to take care of OUR problems first, by finding solutions HERE.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Wow. A linkless blog.
Rhinoboy on May 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Lets face it, there is no longer a large amount of people that don’t want anything from government. Everyone wants government to “solve” the problem most pressing to them. The best freedom lovers can do it to mitigate the damage as much as possible.
VolMagic on May 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Many of us agree with RP on his domestic policies. It’s his foreign policy that turns us off.
amerpundit on May 30, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Quick eye – for the win!
fossten on May 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM
There are some similarities, if you leave out the extreme isolationism and general nuttiness of the Ronulans. Ron Paul continues getting some support in part because other Republicans have have lost touch with the good old small government ideology.
forest on May 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Since when did Murder become a federal offense, unless you killed someone in a position of authority?
You kill someone inside MN, you don’t get the death penalty
(The State doesn’t have the death penalty)
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Yep, NO LONG TERM VISION, just what can I get for ME today. And if it weren’t for “SOC-CONS” as Chaka Khan says, there would be EVEN MORE, “I, Me, Mine”.
kirkill on May 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Way to parse Thorea, Ed. ..and of course, Thoreau’s context for his small government argument is his fierce opposition to a certain war in 1848.
I assume “consevatives” don’t agree with that part of Thoreau’s argument.
Grow Fins on May 30, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I believe that you believe that.
fossten on May 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Point taken. But if I live in a state that has laws, but allows people to kill others without any way for the killer to be removed from society to protect society, I’m moving to another state.
My basic point is that I am for a limited government. But if there is a law, one most important law would concern people taking away someone else’s rights by killing them. Right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. If there isn’t a law against murder, there doesn’t need to be any laws as it would be marshal law.
In a state with marshal law, there is no need for government whatsoever.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Question is, should the age of consent be a Federal, State, or Local mandate?
And as to murder? Why is there even a FEDERAL murder law? Are there not already STATE murder laws?
I think a large part of the whole problem is the Federal government taking power that it should not have. They have consistantly overstepped the boundarys on their power placed by the Constitution… especialy after the Senate changed from a State Appointed body, to an elected body.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I think you’re wrong, Vol. With the right message-bearer, I think there are lots of people out there who can be brought to their senses.
When Fred Thompson was still running, he had a point in his platform about getting honest with the American people and working on a true long term solution to the impending Social Security crisis. Fred was confident that if the people were presented with honesty and a plan that they could believe in, they would support the sacrifices and changes necessary.
Every person with whom I shared this position of Fred’s agreed. Part of it hinged on instilling pride, trust, and a feeling that they were doing the right thing. So it all comes back to the message bearer. And so I hang on to my optimism.
connertown on May 30, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Well said! Was that Ed? or Fred!
db on May 30, 2008 at 1:03 PM
And they were not talking about abortion, gay marriage and all this other stuff all the damn time either..
BTW, I’m against both of them, however to me it’s a state issue let me vote against it in my own state..
(First to do that Roe needs to be overturned)
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM
That ship has sailed.
The horse has left the barn.
However you wanna say it, even a limited gov’t will be HUGE.
We dominate the globe in the 20th and 21st centuries. That will take a large goverment. To get back to our roots, we’d have to turn inward and retreat from our present role/ responsibilities. That day might come again, but not until a new hegemone emerges.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 1:05 PM
QFT. Well said.
fossten on May 30, 2008 at 1:06 PM
In regards to Ron Paul, even a stopped clock is right twice a day…
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Kill a federal agent or someone in the military or a govt worker of any kind then I believe its a federal crime.
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 1:02 PM
A true conservative would argue that the actual age of consent is no business of the government (state, local, or federal).
And I’ve already said I was wrong on the federal murder law. It is a state law. . . but my main point is that if there is a law, the first and most important law would be against murder.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Ed, you said something that caught my eye.
As the baby Boomers age gets up there where they are starting to retire. Did you ever think that maybe the reason these, at one time conservatives, are voting another direction is because they are scared?
Example: I love my Mom to death. She has seen me through a number of things, has heart probolems, been screwed over in divorce… but is a all in all nice lady. BUT, she knows that I am unable to finacially take care of her as of yet and she is scared to death that she will not be able to afford anything (medical or her prescriptions) if she is forced to go on SSI.
I can see where she is coming from. I don’t blame her. I can’t say that I agree with her though as I already know I will probably have to work until I die.
So I am kind of at a stand still. I am conservative, I don’t believe in hand outs, but I do think people should at least get their SSI since they paid in so long. But what do you do when you have a huge generation of people who are about to retire and don’t have much in the way of savings?
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Also, if you kidnap someone move them across state lines and kill them, then Its a Federal Crime also, i believe.(or just moving the dead body across state lines)
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 1:10 PM
What Thoreau actually said, in “Civil Disobedience“, is the following:
Anarchism, last I checked, was not a conservative principle—a government that doesn’t govern at all can’t effectively prevent gay marriage.
hicsuget on May 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Small government is a solid philosophy, but I think we do need to temper that with practical research on what actually works.
Theory != practice after all. I truly doubt that any manmade ideology is perfect and without flaw of any kind.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM
So, in terms of focusing on limited government, I have to assume you would want Republicans to get our troops out of Iraq. Now don’t get me wrong, I think what really has destroyed Republican electoral prospects is the war. At the time it sounded like a good idea to me, and I was all for it.
However, after the last election it was clear elected Republicans were going to sacrifice all of their other conservative goals (controlling the borders, tort reform, at least limiting abortion-on-demand, etc) by losing elections by continuing to prop up one group of Muslims over another.
I gave up my support for the Iraq war after the mid-term election. Yes, the surge has worked, and Iraq may not fall under the control of AQ. But I don’t think Iran is ever going to leave Iraq alone. Saving Iraq was not worth sacrificing US borders and citizenship, etc.
doufree on May 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Love the idea! Unfortunately, since it has tax impact and the feds have their fingers in it, it’ll never happen. The church is very divided on the issue as you’ve seen with the Methodist Church in contrast to Southern Baptist. We are pretty dang segragated ourselves.
danarchy on May 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Ironic that the remainder of the entire stable of Republican candidates is wrong on domestic policy.
fossten on May 30, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Lincoln
Johnson
Grant
Hayes
Garfield
Arthur
Harrison
McKinley
Roosevelt
Taft
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
Eisenhower
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
GHW Bush
GW Bush
Ok….which one of these Social Cons ruined the party?
Limerick on May 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I like HDT, but I didn’t expect to see him grace the pages of HA. He expresses some extremely worthy personal philosophy, but we might do better to look for governmental inspiration elsewhere. Thoreau had no use for government.
That’s a great start. Government has over-reached in many ways.
Spirit of 1776 on May 30, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Come on you know the answer to this one. You aren’t dumb.
Federal laws can only be used (murder) for those who work in Federal Government. I.E. you kill a CIA agent, on duty, you will be charged.
BUT
If you kill him when he is off duty, State laws apply.
Same goes for Military, ATF, FBI, etc.
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Hell no!
Thats the Governments job!
To Protect America, if you get out of Iraq to soon, then thats immediately a new base and safe haven for the terrorists from which they can plot an plan attacks on us and our allies from.
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Answer: None of them. We did. We sat back while adminstration after adminstration drove the bus over the cliff.
Limerick on May 30, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Even my father, on his deathbed, told me, “you know, all this gay crap and abortion wasn’t so prevalent when I was your age”. That was just 4 years ago, my father was a WWII vet. It’s the liberals that have created the need for conservatives to speak out against what they are doing.
“Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” — C.S. Lewis
“Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place.” —Walter Williams
kirkill on May 30, 2008 at 1:19 PM
An observation that seems to be made only rarely in political debate is the difference between the way that liberals and conservatives view the “common man.” One of the most attractive aspects of conservatism (to me anyway) is the fact that conservative philosophy assumes that every man and women is competent to make choices in his or her own best interest. Conservatives believe in people.
Liberals begin with the assumption that people are fundamentally stupid, and they need the priests of the bureaucracy to help them navigate through their lives. They must be told what cars to drive, what booster seats must go in those cars, what kind of cooking oils they can use, when and whether they must sterilize their pets, how to dispose of their trash, whether they can smoke in their own homes, what they can do to develop their property — the list is endless, and always getting longer. (Buraq says we’ll need the approval of not just our own government, but other nations if we want to keep our houses at 72 degrees!)
In other words, liberalism is the philosophy that has contempt for the wisdom and common sense of the people; conservatism respects people and safeguards their right to govern their own lives. This seems like a pretty positive argument to make for conservatism, but somehow it never seems to be made.
Cicero43 on May 30, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Yes! Posts like that warm my cold little libertarian-conservative heart.
petefrt on May 30, 2008 at 1:21 PM
None of the above.
(However the people that think that they are ones for bringing them into power starting with Reagan have brought great harm to the Party IMHO)
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Lim, true… in ALL senses.
Kir, only prblem is, who created the liberals?
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Well said, Ed. : )
kcd on May 30, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Yeah I get real-real tired of some group getting the finger pointed at them. Last I checked votes weren’t counted in groups.
I need a break. I’ll go do something conservative like mow my yard.
Limerick on May 30, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Limited government
A proposal for constitutional amendment.
Congress shall pass no law impeding the economic growth and health of this nations economy.
Then, Eliminate the EPA.
Kini on May 30, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Nicely written, Ed.
jaime on May 30, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Actualy, its only a Federal crime if it happens on Federal property… like a military base. If a military member is killed off base, its handled by the state.
As to kidnap and murder crossing state lines, its the crossing the state line that gets the Feds involved, as the Feds don’t seem to think that States can cooperate.
Its interesting to me that the FBI did not exist until 1908, and things seemed to run OK before that (although there was much less interstate crime then).
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Captain,
You could almost call the First Principle (limited government)the Prime Directive…
juanito on May 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Kini it is funny that you say that. Did you know they did. EPA Federal is only for the land they use in the Nation.
If you didn’t know that the EPA has actually gone to State level, check it out. So anything lately that is stalled by the EPA, is actually stalled via your own State.
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 1:26 PM
You better be using a push mower, because they’re coming to get your gas powered one!
kirkill on May 30, 2008 at 1:27 PM
And rake instead of blow.
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Thats better and more productive than being angry and sitting out an election because you feel entitled to something..
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Wow, Ed, awesome post. You hit the nail on the head.
I couldn’t agree more, and this type of issue is at the core of the love-hate alliance between non-religious conservatives and religious/social conservatives.
Yes, it’s a problem. We need your votes, but we get poisoned with your social agenda.
And I’m NOT saying that I’m pro gay marriage or abortion, just that these should be local issues and not federal ones.
Most social conservatives agree with you, but you are making a huge assumption that half the country does not accept – when does a cell/embryo/fetus/unborn child become “human”? The religious will tend to pick the earliest point, even, in the case of Catholic doctrine, that sperm itself is sacred. On the other end we have the horror of full term and partial birth abortion. It is an intractable standoff, and your religious belief cannot be a federal mandate.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Ed, I agree, but we’re going to have some real opposition from people like Mike Huckabee, who are trying to take us in the opposite direction.
doubleplusundead on May 30, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Good post, Ed, and thanks for not trying to equate McCain with limited government as Tom Coburn has. Opposition to earmarks is a pittance compared to the big government programs that McCain favors.
I agree that limited government is at the core of conservatism and can’t be separated. One of the problems with the current Republican Party is that the social-con wing of the party has gained prominence while the limited government wing has been marginalized. Perhaps this is because the social-cons are unified behind emotional issues that foster the fighting spirit whereas limited government is drab and intellectual, which, in the age of speedy technology and short attention spans, aren’t popularly pursued.
FloatingRock on May 30, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Well said, but people still think the problem is that we have the wrong people in government spending our money, not that government is spending our money in the first place.
We need to educate voters that government, as run by human beings, is incapable of running our lives better than we can. That’s the reason behind the first principle.
PattyJ on May 30, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Our gov’t size has very little to do with foreign engagement. The size has to do with whether the Feds control smoking, trans fats, primary education, carbon emissions, everyone’s health care, sugar subsidies, ethanol production, job training, etc etc etc.
“Turning inward” is normal Dem shorthand for more domtestic spending and control by the Federal gov’t.
Clark1 on May 30, 2008 at 1:31 PM
OK thanks, for the info..
I always thought that soldiers were covered since they are kinda like govt. property.
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 1:33 PM
The 500 pound gorrilla in the room is — no, it’s not Algor — it’s the deeply destructive belief of libertarians that moral values and religion are strictly subjective matters, and will only be tolerated if they are kept invisible from the public square. This is precisely the ethos that has killed Europe, has almost finished killing Britain, and is about to bring down America, with or without limited government.
So while I welcome any and all supporters of limited government, they can’t, or won’t, be of much help in the long run unless they acknowledge that a free society has to be supported by two conservative pillars, the pillar of limited governance, and the pillar of virtue. Restoring one pillar is good, but to deny the necessity of the other, indeed, to show contempt for it, as many of our libteratian friends do, dooms the project.
jeff_from_mpls on May 30, 2008 at 1:33 PM
You’re correct, I’m not dumb…
I was asking WHY there is a Federal Murder law, when by definition, if you are in the US, you are either in a state or a territory.
States have their own courts, and it seems territories do as well…
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 1:34 PM
It all stems from the idea that “doing something” is preferable to not “doing something”. As a result, government grows on these barnacles affixed to it every time “there oughta be a law”.
Look at the fair tax initiative, for example. It actually makes a lot of sense, but it is founded on an idea of dismantling a failed system and replacing it, whereas those who “just want to fix it” seem like heroes for having simple answers.
shirgall on May 30, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Yeah, but it all started with the Federal EPA.
Eliminating it at the Federal level might have a trickle down effect to the states.
For that matter, I would think managing the environment is not a congressional skill-set. Like Social Security and the economy.
Kini on May 30, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Wait now I am not in a Territory anymore!
Chak, it depends on the situation. Like the Soldier (woman) who killed a fellow soldier and his wife and put acid on them and took their baby. That was a State case, but it also has Federal implications.
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Most EPA’s are now conducted via your State’s Dept of Enviromental Conservation. So instead of having to deal with just the State fines if something happens… they can double them.
Oh believe me I was ticked when i heard what was going on.
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Look, the problem is simple. It really is. Let’s start with foundational principles:
1) Government, or rather, governing of man, is essential. Men do not live in isolation. Ergo, they need laws.
2) These laws can be applied in many ways: people can obey them of their own free will, or they can be forced on to them by a government.
3) No society is stable without government.
4) Thus, we have to choose where the laws come from: ourselves, or our government.
Limited government is fantastic–IF, and only if, people pick up the slack and govern themselves. There’s no need for complex litigation if people would be honest and have honor–if you lived up to your contracts, even if it didn’t rebound to your advantage, lawsuits would drop dramatically.
People who are honest, who don’t steal, who don’t commit adultery; who are chaste–those people don’t really need laws, because they govern themselves. But people who DO steal, who do lie, cheat, etc., they need laws imposed on them. In short, for a people who take responsibility for their actions, there can be a limited government. For those who don’t take responsibility, you can’t have a limited government.
That really is the essence of the famous quote about how the US Constitution is only valid for a moral people. You have to govern far worse as it were, for a non-moral people.
Thus, I submit that morality IS a valid interest of government. Conservatives should be focused on, therefore, this thing:
Teaching correct principles so people can govern themselves.
That’s the goal, isn’t it? If you and everyone you know govern themselves, they don’t need to be governed by others.
This is the complete opposite of liberalism, which focuses on “giving the people what we think they need” which inevitably means dependence on anything but yourself. It means moving responsibility outside of each person and vesting it in some organization such as government.
That’s why I support some form of moral teaching in schools. There’s nothing wrong with teaching honesty, integrity, hard work, and individual responsibility. Teaching sacrifice rather than the pursuit of pleasure.
Conservatism is dead until we realize our problems stem from a great decay in people taking responsibility for themselves. We should figure out a way to instill that in people, and things will be decidedly better.
Vanceone on May 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM
believing that murder should be against the law is not a ‘religious belief’. I would venture to say that even atheists would argue that murder should be against the law.
Abortion arrests the development of a human being. If left on its own course, a person becomes constitutionally protected. Why stop at partial birth abortion if it is a ‘religious belief’? Why not just allow the parents to kill the kid at any time at any age because it is their ‘right’?
Abortion is specifically taking life away from a person – murder. You have people claim that it isn’t a person. But it shouldn’t be a question. Is anyone ever ‘almost pregnant’? If someone isn’t ‘almost pregnant’, then nobody is ever ‘not really a person’. . . no matter how many people you get who say that they are.
People can be against abortion without being religious. People can be against abortion if they are against murder. I would argue that abortion sets precedent for honor killings in the Muslim community that forces law to allow it with no consequence. I bet I could convince a jury that an honor killing is no more than post birth abortion.
Abortion is murder, and it isn’t because of my religious beliefs that I think that.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 1:39 PM
I think its a Federal Crime if you destroy someones mail box.. :\
Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Doesn’t matter what libertarians think or want to see happen to religion. Limiting government, particularly limiting it in domestic functions will help churches and religion and traditional values immensely.
Where are people seeking help going to turn if the government doesn’t involve itself in social services? Their families, their communities, their charities, their businesses and churches, right? Don’t fall into the same trap Huckabee falls into.
doubleplusundead on May 30, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Excellent post, Ed. Government should stick to what is constitutional: coining money, maintaining an army and navy, declaring war, regulating trade, and carrying out its expressed powers.
Special K on May 30, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Kansas elected the zero charisma dem Kathleen Sebelius governor after years and years of extremist social conservative obnoxiousness. Kansas is the state where enough fundamentalists got elected to the state school board to remove teaching of evolution from public school science curricula. Operation Rescue really pissed off a lot of people in Wichita with their crazy antics in the 1990s. I had a roommate who was a devout, pro-life Catholic from Wichita and she and her whole family were just beside themselves over the whole thing.
One reason so many people assume that the Fred Phelps Westboro freaks are conservative/republican types is that they started out as Operation Rescue wannabes. They would harrass people outside abortion clinics and terrorize the doctors who worked there…picketing their homes, throwing things at their houses, etc.
The end result of the nuttiness? The home of Bob Dole, Nancy Landon Kassabaum, and Alf Landon elected the first dem governor in over 60 years. Don’t anybody tell me it was because Kathleen Sebelius is so gifted.
funky chicken on May 30, 2008 at 1:44 PM
If you think about it, this is the liberal argument against the DOD. Internationalism in foreign policy is very expensive. Even GW ran against “nation-building” in 2000. I believe in American international leadership and a strong (expensive) military. I think we are the only ones who could have intervened in Iraq and prevented a mad megalomaniac from doing more damage. However, it has to be admitted that liberals’ arguments against defense spending sound, well, a little bit conservative. That is, before you realize they just want to spend that all that money, and more, on mid-night basketball programs and free abortions and bigger, more expensive
indoctrination campsuniversities.silverfox on May 30, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Exactly backwards. Europe is dying because they think they have the moral imperative – multiculturalism and entitlement.
No matter how hard you try, you can’t sell your religion based moral absolutes (which were different 20 years ago, and 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and unrecognizable 3000 years ago) as anything but an agreement between like minded people.
We can all agree as a society, or segment of society, that some things are evil and should be illegal, but your holy book doesn’t have any more authority than that.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I agree that it is definitely not moral to have an abortion. hopefully I never have to make that choice. But at the same time I know I could not raise a child properly right now and if I was in a position where I had to choose to have an abortion or not today, I believe that I would choose to have the abortion. I hope I never have to make that decision though. I think this is also why I consider myself an independent. I believe everything that ed just wrote is correct, I believe in a small limited government…but some issues which conservatives normally disagree with I may disagree with as well but I see the need for them. maybe im crazy, I dunno. All I know is my coffee cup is empty and I need to refill it before I fall asleep :)
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Vanceone on May 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Well said.
There’s a reason leftists chant “hey hey, ho ho, Western civ has got to go.” The moral edifice of Western Civiliation, the great Judeo-Christian-Greek synthesis — which itself produced the American experiment — is the more formidable defense against totalitarianism. Once that defense is gone, it’s a cake walk for a mob of anarchists to dismantle limited government.
jeff_from_mpls on May 30, 2008 at 1:47 PM
And I’d add, you’re ignoring the fact that Europe is largely faithless because it is socialist. Socialism and statism of any sort are the problem, the root cause, and you fall into the same trap Huckabee does, you’re trying to treat the symptoms of too much government, not the cause.
doubleplusundead on May 30, 2008 at 1:49 PM
You missed my point. I would agree that abortion is murder – if a human being is being killed. At what point between ejaculation, firtilization, and birth, does a cell or group of cells become human?
peski on May 30, 2008 at 1:50 PM
You’re kidding, right? I basically agree with the general argument you make about limited government. But you continue to be completely in the dark as to why the GOP is heading in the oppsite direction.
If you want to know why todays GOP is a big government party, look at the people who call the shots and what it is they want. That means looking at the Chamber of Commerce and not the Moral Majority.
It seems to escape you that the GOP has done damm all about gay marriage, and one gets the impression that they are pretty much on board with it.
Yes, I know it’s your favorite example, and I know you’re big fan of gay marriage. But it’s still a crappy example.
Ed, you don’t have a clue about partnership contracts. All partnership contracts are contracts to which the state is a party. The question of which partnership contracts the state should be a party to is one we should discusss. And it’s not very “limited government” of you to want to expand the set of contracts to include gay marriage.
Maybe one day you’ll read and respond to your own comments section. I won’t be holding my breath.
No doubt. But you did a poor job of explaining how this relates to gay marriage, the one specific issue you brought up. And you did a non-existent job of explaining why the government keeps spending more and more money. Hint – it has nothing at all to do with the Moral Majority.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Well said.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 1:51 PM
That’s all true, Ed. But more than half of all Americans are beneficiaries of some kind of government largesse. And when these Americans say the government is spending too much money, they’re not referring to the checks that they themselves receive.
You ought to do a poll of Hot Air readers and find out how many of them are on the teat. I’d bet that a lot people here receive, or have received, benefits from Social Security, the VA, the Dept. of Education, Fannie Mae, etc.
As George Will put it, the American people are philosophically conservative, but operationally liberal.
paul006 on May 30, 2008 at 1:51 PM
So the argument is that if the child brings a hardship to you, kill it. Not, well if you can’t support the possible child, either abstain, or use protection. The child has rights as soon as it is conceived. . . it didn’t choose to conceive itself. . . the mother chose. Adoption is an option.
The argument for allowing honor killings because of abortion is made with every defense of abortion. The girl caused hardship to the family. . . kill her. You don’t have to raise the child. But you had the choice to conceive or not. After that choice, the child should be allowed to live on his or her own. It’s not about morality. . . it is about whether or not murder should be allowed if someone is ‘inconvenient’ to the family.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I agree with you on this – but is it your stance that ALL abortion is murder? Within hours after conception? In the first week? Month?
peski on May 30, 2008 at 1:55 PM
The 14th Amendment elimintated states rights, including making murder a Federal offence. Ironically, libertarians like Ed approve of most of what was done in this respect.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Yeah, I use protection and my girlfriend is on the pill. I do everything I can to avoid it. but yeah, I can barely afford to take care of myself right now let alone a family. I am not saying that it is right or wrong but it is accepted in this society and if it makes me more succesful in the future because I got my business started then I think its worth it. Its a touchy subject no matter what side of the aisle your on and I wouldnt be proud of it but in this situation I think it is the right decision. but yeah, besides taht give me the limited government, strong military and lower taxes :) and a good president would be a plus too
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I think the real question here is “who decides”? The mother? The individual states? The Federal government? The courts? The people?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I believe one of the most urgent tasks for conservatism is learning to explain socially conservative viewpoints in a secular manner. No religious conservative is going to be dismayed to hear his positions presented without recourse to religious language, but there are many swing voters who recoil from the insertion of religious language into political debate. I think there is a tendency to understimate just how deeply religious conservatives believe in their positions – they will support anyone who defends those positions, even if the defense is offered in entirely secular terms.
There are reasoned arguments in favor of all the social-con positions, even highly charged issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and it’s essential for the conservative movement to make these arguments. No one who is passionately opposed to partial-birth abortion is going to listen to a compelling logical attack on that hideous practice and think, “Well, I’d be willing to support that guy, if only he mentioned God and Jesus more often.”
At this point, I think conservatives must win some of these social arguments decisively, before we are likely to have much success on issues of fiscal conservatism or federalism. Too much of the electorate is broadly sympathetic to the social-collectivist impulse, and time spent warning them about the future collapse of socialism is likely to be wasted, because the bulk of the media and educational establishments are dedicated to assuring them there is nothing to worry about. Winning the social arguments will produce a stronger, more rational and individualistic electorate, which will then be more receptive to reducing bloated government spending by taking a chainsaw to New Deal liberal programs.
Doctor Zero on May 30, 2008 at 1:59 PM
It’s nice that conservatives have adopted this as one of their guiding principles, but looking at the people who consider themselves conservative by these standards, it rings untrue. Too many only target central (federal) governments with this disdain, and are all too happy to have a local (state) government exercise immense power over its own small domain. These people like to call themselves “federalists” nowadays, but their unidirectional disdain for government power actually defines them better as “confederates.” Concerning our own Constitution, such people often take a narrow view of the applicability “unenumerated rights” in which only those held by local governments are given attention, while those held by individuals are downplayed. This is a prescription for tyrrany of the majority on a local scale, and scares many (including myself) who value our rights as individuals.
Big S on May 30, 2008 at 2:00 PM
That’s exactly my point. And only an utter fool, left or right, wants it to be the federal government.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Kind of like china with their one child law. If you have one and your wife gets pregnant its an immediate abortion,no questions asked. Now thats brutal
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »