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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
I don’t think that’s obvious. Can you explain? If abortion is murder, it seems like it should be the Federal government.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 2:02 PM
peski on May 30, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I don’t have to worry about this issue because I’m a guy. I look forward to having kids some day even though I don’t think I’m ready for it. I know people who have had kids when they weren’t ‘ready’ and it was the best thing that could have happened to them.
My OPINION is that if you can’t be almost pregnant then you can’t be almost a person. The only time I would think that abortion would be appropriate is if the life of the mother were in danger for having the baby. It isn’t right to force someone to risk their life for another life.
But as soon as some girl learns ‘I’m pregnant’ I’d say abortion is off limits because of the rights of the child. Don’t punish the girl, punish the doctors that perform the procedure.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I wonder if Obama would have been aborted if it were legal at that time. . . just sayin.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I enjoy your posts on this website because I think they are always well thought out and they make alot of sense. and I agree with your stance on abortion to a point. I am just a selfish person who is not ready to give up their freedom yet and I have goals to meet before starting up a family. there will be a day though where im going to want a child…It is just not anytime soon… (28 year old male here) :)
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM
And therein lies the eternal rub. The never ending tension between ideals and actions. At the personal level, it requires a lifetime of vigilance.
captivated_dem on May 30, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Right. Can you explain the difference between “federalist” and “confederalist”?
I already know that you were a big govenment libertarian, Big S. No need to keep reminding me.
Too bad for you that what the founders created in America was exactly “tyrrany of the majority on a local scale”.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Flenser,
It does no such thing, and no, I don’t approve of murder being a federal offense unless it involves the murder of federal law-enforcement personnel. The 14th Amendment involves the protection of rights under the Constitution. Try reading it.
As to your retort on gay marriage, a partnership contract is just like any other contract; it involves the state as a party just like any other contract for enforcement. And states should enforce contracts, which they stopped doing with marriage “contracts” by adopting no-fault divorce.
I’m not a “big fan” of gay marriage. I just don’t think it’s a federal issue at all, and in point of fact I don’t think government should be in the sacrament business at all.
Ed Morrissey on May 30, 2008 at 2:07 PM
doubleplusundead on May 30, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Oh, I’m with you as far as agreeing that the #1 priority is to cut government radically. Limited government is the rallying cry. I don’t want gay marriage on the ticket, nor stem cell research, etc.
What concerns me is the fine line between indifference to moral foundations and contempt for them. I sense many libertarian republicans have contempt for moral foundations. I don’t see any possible sense in which this is a good thing.
jeff_from_mpls on May 30, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Ed, you just articulated my support for Ron Paul. He was the only candidate who understood the basic idea that the government exists primary to protect human rights and to perform limited (i.e. specified) tasks to do so. None of the other candidates believed this. Fred came closest, but his intent didn’t match his rhetoric. He could spout the principles, but he had no intention of actually following them. Yeah, Ron was a little nutty, but he understood what made Conservatism conservative. Everyone else was just faking it.
I think I just peed myself. Bravo. You just outlined one of the major problems with contemporary Conservatives… they want an all-powerful government domestically to mandate morality and an all-powerful government internationally to mandate security. That is — they’re not conservative at all, they’re authoritarian.
Mark Jaquith on May 30, 2008 at 2:11 PM
The federal government should decide at what point between ejactulatioin conception and birth a cell or clump of cells becomes a human being? Congress should pass a law?
It’s a fair opinion, but one that I and many others completely disagree with. And there is no ultimate authority to go to for arbitration. Who says a fertilized egg is a human being?
Look, I have no hope of convincing a true believer that I’m right, any more than I’ll convince Gloria Steinem that late term abortion is both murder and an evil horror. The point is that it is not the job of the federal government of the US to legislate such a complex and socially contentious matter.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis states that Marriage would probably have to move towards a separation of sorts, a civil marriage, and then a religious marriage, which would be (is) a deeper commitment. It seems he was prescient on this matter.
silverfox on May 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Ed, you’re right, and lots of us have been saying that for a while now. The Elected began to think of themselves as Selected. They began acting like Czarist Princes, and then they redefined Conservative to mean Rockefeller Country Club Republicans who once in a while vote to reduce funding to an abortion clinic.
Honestly, I don’t really care about Abortion, mainly because the Republicans aren’t serious about stopping it. They use Gay Marriage and Abortion to get the base out to vote. They only mention it on Election years. McCain is exactly like that by the way. His “Conservative Credential” is that he voted pro life. If the Republicans were serious, they would have passed a Constitutional Amendment, yet they didn’t, because too many Liberal Republicans like McCain wouldn’t support it. So they were more interested in keeping it as a campaign issue, like Democrats and Social Security, than fixing the problem.
When the Republicans lose big this November, and I figure they’re going to lose another four or even six seats in the Senate, and possibly as many as thirty in the House, all they can do is blame themselves. They hitched the wagon to the Washington Elite and they get to ride it out of town.
It’s not my fault, and it’s not your fault. It’s their fault, for being Conservative when they are home asking for contributions, and votes, only to be Liberal once they’re in Washington.
Ed, this by the way is why so many of us were outraged that McCain claimed to be the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan pushed for less Government, not more Government. To quote that great man “Government isn’t the solution to your problem, Government is the problem.”
Compare that with McCain. More Government oversight, more Government regulation, less freedom, less individual liberty. Conservative by what definition?
Snake307 on May 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM
The short answer: the supremacy of the central government vs. the supremacy of the “local” governments.
Haha. Big government libertarian? Not quite. I’m unashamed to call myself “liberal” as long as it’s in the “classical” sense.
Big S on May 30, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Thacker… let me say something.. and this is the reason i do not talk abortion or adoption. I hate this issue.
You mentioned adoption. Have you adopted a child or possibly given one up?
I am a birth mom, I gave a child up for adoption. It was the probably the worst, hardest, pyschologically blowing day of my life. I am not ashamed of it, and if you ask if I regret it, I will say yes. BUT, it is an open adoption, I have seen him periodically since he has grown. I do not push my way into his life, his “Parents” call me when something big shows up and I try to attend. Does seeing him still bother me to this day, yes it does.
Now lets say I had an abortion. I would probably feel the same way… no matter what.
But an adoption is and can be harder. I wish I can describe the anxiety of seeing him and wondering if he hates me as much as I loved him, enough to give him to a good family.
Would I change it if I could…. I don’t know. But knowing what I went through… I don’t know if everyone could deal with it, like I have and haven’t.
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 2:19 PM
If you strip metaphysics out of political philosophy, you’re stuck with something most unsatisfying, and vulnerable to boot.
You’re stuck with the belief that a finite number of men, at a specific time frame in history, voted to ratify the Constitution of the United States. And because that concrete event took place, we ought to abide by the rules they voted.
Without using moral or metaphysical language of any kind, you any of you be kind enough to explain to me why the Constitution shouldn’t be considered — as liberals like to say — a living, breathing document?
The Constitution rests on an objective sense of morality. Throw it away, and the constitution goes with it.
jeff_from_mpls on May 30, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I agree that Conservatives should return to first principles. In that vein, however, I have to ask what is a more basic conservative principle than retaining the historical character of marriage as a union between a male and female, often resulting in children and forming the family as the basic unit of society?
I mean, can you stand by while others attempt to reframe, redefine, and change significantly what it means to be married? To be a family? And truly refer to yourself as someone who is in favor of “conserving” basic principles?
As to whether the “Social Conservatives” have hijacked the Republican party… this link might be an informative look at our founder’s attitude toward religion and politics.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
We’ve come a great distance from believing an appropriate separation between religion and politics is holding the services in a Congressional or Supreme Court building during days they are not in session (with a sitting President in attendance) to now refusing to allow schoolchildren to pray in publicly funded classrooms.
IMHO.
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Thanks socal. . . it’s all good and we are among friends:)
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Let’s see: a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, the zygote implants into a human uterus… gee, I dunno, what species do you think it belongs to?
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I know this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but, do you guys read “DUDE” in the headlines? I love it! “Dude is like a box of choclates, you never know what your gonna get”. : )
kcd on May 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I understand that adoption is hard too. But the issue here is about the child and the rights of the child. The child now has the opportunity to contribute to society that he wouldn’t have if you had chosen to abort him. The issue is not ‘what is hard’. . . the issue is what are his rights?
If I’m broke and I need money, the hard thing to do would be to get a job and work. The easier thing to do would be rob a bank. Robbing a bank is obviously illegal. My right to pursue happiness includes me having money. But the argument is the same as saying it is hard to have the child. It isn’t about what is hard or easy. It is about what rights you have and your son has under GOVERNMENT law.
Basic laws should always include no murder, no stealing. I applaud your decision (I don’t think it should actually be a decision up to you once you are pregnant) to have your child even though I’m certain it was hard. But now that child has the opportunity to grow up and become president of the United States because you did not choose to kill him.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Ed Morrisey, you declined to respond to the points I made. Why is that? I explained in some detail that the governemnt is not involved in to “sacrament business”, but in the contract business. I pointed out that in being involved in the contract business, it neccesarily makes judgements about what contacts it chooses to give its approval to.
The state does not recognise any and all partnership contracts. What you seem to be saying is that it should. But you offer no explanation for why it should.
And of course, you still don’t explain why you got on your gay marriage hobby horse in an article which is puportedly about the expansion of govenment. The whole gay marriage movement itself is an expansion of government.
In any case, to repeat my earlier point, government spending is not being driven by the big bad thecons, but by the “business class’ Republicans. You simply skipped over this completely.
Re the 14th;
Ambiguous. If you meant murder, then it does make murder a Federal offence.
I have read it.
As interpeted by the courts, is says that violating a persons civil rights is a federal matter. Murdering somebody is a violation of their civil rights. In some cases it can be less than murder. The officers in the Rodney king case were acquited in their state trial, after which the feds decided to prosecute them.
In United States v. Lanza, the SCOTUS decided that this sort of thing was not double jeopardy.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Ed, change limited government to lower taxes and you’ve got something. More than half our citizens will take whatever the government is willing to dole out, and free health care sounds like another free lunch to them.
The only way to shrink the size of the governent is starve it by taking away it’s money. We need a late ’70’s California Prop 13 style tax revolt on a nationwide scale to get the horse back in the barn.
DrW on May 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM
A Conflict of Visions — required reading for all Hot Heads. This book illuminates the fundamental assumptions that inspire and fuel the divide between the left and the right. Read this for pure insight.
Ed, Thank you. I hope to read plenty of posts like this one.
RushBaby on May 30, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Always. It’s a Hot Air tradition. Sometimes they’re just Dude. Sometimes they’re DUDE. or Dude. Different emphasis for severity of duditude.
RushBaby on May 30, 2008 at 2:44 PM
How far back does this history go? There are plenty of examples of polygamous “marriages” throughout history and to this day, including (dare I say) in the Bible.
Big S on May 30, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Big S
That’s not federalist, is it?
The funny thing about “classical liberalism” today is that it bears zero resemblance to what the actual “classical liberals” of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries believed. Madison and Jefferson were the opposite of the modern individualists.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Maybe in Islam, but in Western civilization marriage has been between one man and one woman right from its beginning.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Let’s not play semantic games. It’s a complex social issue, not a word game or a scientific exercise.
Human sperm = sperm from a human, not a human being.
Human egg fertilized by human sperm = more complicated.
Baby about to be born = clearly human being IMHO.
What if the egg is implanted in a petrie dish? Or a non-human uterus? I’m not trying to be absurd or crude, but simply show that it is NOT a clear-cut matter. Folks who’ve accepted their religious organization’s party line on this have an opinion, and a valid one, but that’s all it is. Where do I personally think the line is? I can’t tell you that, but it’s later than you seem to think and sooner than most pro-abortion advocates think.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Apparently you haven’t read the Bible.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 2:51 PM
What does IMHO mean? I have been blogging here for over a year and I have no idea. How bad is that
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 2:51 PM
In My (ever so) Humble Opinion.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Actualy, the major difference is that Conservatives say you need to CHANGE the constitution to change it… not just reinterpret what is already written.
The mechanism for change is already in the constitution… and it gives the people a voice in that document.
Dems and the Living Document idea is that the interpretation of it evolves WITHOUT actualy Amending it.
Big difference.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM
thanks peski. IMHO you are a quality blogger… sorry I just wanted to use it in a sentence
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Well, plenty of Old Testament figures had more than one wife. On the other hand, the ancient Greeks and Romans had marriages that were generally monogamous, even if their societies allowed or encouraged “cheating.” The history of monogamous marriage largely began as a legal arrangement that clarified inheritance laws, and religion really only got into the act much later.
Big S on May 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
IMHO – In My Humble Opinion
You will also see IMO – In My Opinion
RushBaby on May 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Ok, have to save this post. You are probably the first to hold that opinion and I appreciate it.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
How far? Well, at least Genesis (Adam & Eve, etc.) however you interpret that & whenever you place that in history.
Yes, there were polygamous marriages in the Bible, and other cultures as well. Not to get into a major theological debate, but they are rarely presented as a positive thing in context (e.g., Solomon)….
I don’t remember reading anything about same-sex marriage in any ancient literature. While homosexual practices have been around a while, it would seem the concept of same-sex marriage is a rather recent innovation. And not a conservative one….
Your point reminds me that, if we allow same-sex marriage, it will be much more difficult to prevent polygamy (if we want to, which I do).
Of course, there have been changes in marriage (e.g., arranged marriages, economic realities, etc.) but not changes in the opposite-gender nature of the relationship in society. IMO, that’s a pretty basic principle.
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Well put me down as your second fan.
RushBaby on May 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Lol, dont let it go to your head Peski…you just happenned to catch me in a good mood today :) maybe I should go back and read your posts just to make sure, lol
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 2:57 PM
you know what, screw it….lets just all get together and do a big blog group hug…where is MB4 I think he needs some love too
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I said “Western civilization”, Big S. I thought that was pretty clear.
So? If monogamy precedes religion, how does that make it any less a good idea?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:00 PM
It’s been known to happen here at HA. Conservatism tends to bring out the best in people.
RushBaby on May 30, 2008 at 3:02 PM
So many good conservative first principles outlined in these comments… now if only the Republicans would return to all 538 of these first principles, they’d be in great shape! :) The GOP is pretty well ground down these days, and if it’s to rebuild itself successfully, it will need to carefully choose which principles to translate into specific policy proposals – and that’s what we need the most right now. The moment is ripe for another Contract With America, a unified reason for a wide swath of voters across the country to choose the Republican brand. I don’t think it’s too late for that, given strong and articulate leadership. The Democrat ticket will be topped by a man with no specific policies at all, the purest incarnation of the Empty Suit in living memory. The best way to beat that ticket, with wide enough coattails to do some good at the congressional level, is with specific proposals. The best thing about solid conservative proposals is that liberals look like fools when they oppose them.
I’d begin with a commitment to further tax reductions as the best way to stave off an incipient recession, coupled with serious government spending cuts – choosing the targets much more carefully than the Gingrich congress did. Make the liberals explain to the voters why seizing more of their assets in taxes will somehow help to improve the economy. Make the liberals defend the pork, especially since so many of the Republicans who voted for it are gone anyway, or soon will be.
I would add a deadly serious commitment to end the foolishness over energy policy, with specific proposals to begin drilling in ANWR and begin wide-scale construction of nuclear power plants. Introduce each proposed nuclear plant by comparing it to a similar one in Europe, then make the Left explain why this is the one area in which the Europeans are not our wise elders. Get right into the face of madcap environmentalism, and make the liberals defend their bizarre religion to the voters. Point to the Left as the religious extremists who are prepared to ask the voters to bear any expense in the name of their dogma.
I doubt conservatives could make much progress against illegal immigration this election cycle, given our standard bearer, but we might at least hold McCain to his past promises on enforcement first, coupled with an emphasis on improving identification techniques and reducing voter fraud. Capitalize on the “count every vote” fever of the Democrats to break down their voter-fraud machines, without which they will lose entire states forever.
Just a couple of ideas for starters… what else would anyone suggest?
Doctor Zero on May 30, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Apparently you think that Western civilization started in Babylon about three thousand years ago. If you can find some evidence that polygamy was common in the Roman province of Judea two thousand years ago, then you have a point. If not, you don’t.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:05 PM
You are not talking about REAL conservatives. I consider myself one and I don’t want to run anyone’s life and want to run mine as well. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Prostitution…state issues to be decided by the voters. Let people govern themselves as the Constitution intended. Of course there will be Federal issues that must apply nationwide, but generally, issues of morality belong in the hands of those people in the locality to decide, not a huge and diverse nation.
ihasurnominashun on May 30, 2008 at 3:05 PM
McCain is the Republican standard bearer, perhaps. He is not the conservative standard bearer. Confusing the GOP with conservatism is part of the problem.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Tru Dat.. I think we should make allah run for president so he has to show his face and reveal his real name
SoCalInfidel on May 30, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Government will always mandate morality. The only question to argue over is which morality.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM
My point was that Western civilization had developed its own rationale for monogamous marriage prior to Christianity. That means that everyone who states that we practice on-man-one-woman marriage beacuse “that’s the way God intended it has been misinformed.” Instead, “we” began practicing such marriage in order to give clarity to inheritance laws and customs that would be ill-defined in polygamous marriages (note that the quote from Deuteronomy I gave earlier has God laying out such guidelines for the God-fearing polygamists to follow.) If the “Western” tradition developed independent of God, as a legal device and nothing more, why not extend it to those who ask for it in our modern Western society?
Big S on May 30, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Put in a Law and Order plank… just a promise to enforce the existing laws of our nation… like the border, and to enforce those laws even in “sanctuary cities”. Use the “equal protection” clause of the Constituion in advertising it…
And RIGHT NOW, start a new push for a line item veto, no matter WHO becomes President. It could do more to combat Pork and bad spending than any other intiative.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Excellent post, Ed! The thing I would emphasize is that no one in either major political party leadership is interested in putting forth a set of principles. Their only interests are selfish ones that can be summed up as doing whatever they feel is necessary to get (re)elected.
I hope you will present more posts on the key principles of conservatism with a prominent position here on hotair.com.
Wildcatter1980 on May 30, 2008 at 3:14 PM
The trouble there is that the majority of people pay little or no Federal tax. Why should they support a shrinking of the Federal government?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I disagree. The US Constitution is the first founding document to leave that up to the People. Which is why we have RIGHTS.
There is really nothing in there about morality… but about the Rights of the People, and the Limitations placed on the Government… so it would NOT dictate morality to the people, but leave that up TO the people themselves.
Noble experiment which has had its ups, and downs (Prohibition? War on Drugs? Sep of Church/State…).
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I hope he figures out what they are. To help, he can read this speech by Ronald Reagan. The assorted Faux Conservatives (F.C.’s) here might like to read it also.
The New Republican Party.
I think many of you are actually repudiating Reagan.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:19 PM
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Oops… didn’t mean to quote the second section.
Sorry.
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I don’t see how that is disagreement. The Constitution says that the People will decide which morality is enshrined in law.
Of course there is. The claim that there exists a right to free speech is a moral argument, for instance. It’s one long moral document.
That’s an odd distinction, and not one the Founders shared. It is the Peoples government, and it should reflect their values. That’s why the Constitution opens with the words “We the People ..”
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I think the good Doctor, has the cure!
kcd on May 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Question is, what are the first principles of conservativism? I’d say that respect for the experience of mankind and for the lessons of history are first principles. With them comes the belief that change must happen slowly and be evaluated.
In this light, Social Conservatives are at least as conservative as Small Government conservatives, and more conservative than Libertarians.
njcommuter on May 30, 2008 at 3:40 PM
peski, been your fan from day one at HA.
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Nope, the Constitution is setting legal Limits on what the state can do. Its a LEGAL document.
It never says this is right… or this is wrong… it sets a legal framework for the Rights of the People and the Powers of the State.
Moral arguement… Western Christian, Polygamy is wrong…. Moslem, Polygamy is right… Old LDS polygamy is moraly wrong… New LDS, well, since the state said so, we’ll say polygamy is wrong too, because of the Render unto Ceasar Clause… but depending on your outlook, that law could be Moral or immoral. The Constitution says nothing about it…
However, the Constitution has been interpreted to say that the State has the authority to license marriages, and thus must have some definition thereof.
Now, the people themselves can vote in either Moral, or immoral laws… and change them at will (Prohibition anyone?), but an immoral law is not by the belief that its immoral, un Constitutional… because its a LEGAL framework for government, not a moral framework.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 3:46 PM
All beautifully written Ed, but this summed it up, symbolically. However, the conservatives are probably going to be the ones to disagree with you the most, and that’s the saddest part of it all. They are contributing to the ruin of this country, as much as the far lefties are. I’m very depressed about it, and not at all hopefully. Ronald Reagan is weaping from the grave, desperately.
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Best person to quote about what amount the government should govern the individual is John Stuart Mills:
CTDeLude on May 30, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Correction “and not at all hopeful”…
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Amen!
Sultry Beauty on May 30, 2008 at 3:53 PM
You failed to complete the sentence:
“‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — ‘That government is best which governs not at all”
He was a libertarian anarchist not a conservative!
libertytexan on May 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM
That’s exactly the kind of thing that’s going to get us killed. One of the principles of conservatism is a willingness to perceive reality clearly; it’s the Left that lives in a dreamland of utopias and square pegs forced into round holes. There are two significant political parties in the United States, and they field two serious presidential candidates between them, along with representatives in Congress. The Republican party is the political vehicle of conservatism. There is no other, and it would be the work of generations to build one – generations in which the Left would secure an even tighter hold on the electorate, in the absence of effective political opposition.
The American voter is not desperate to watch a couple of guys in powdered wigs conduct a spirited scholarly debate on the finer points of Burkean conservatism versus Randian libertarianism. They want to know what, exactly, each of the available major candidates is going to do about the issues that affect their lives. A good number of them will gravitate to solid policy proposals over feel-good Hope and Change rhetoric, but you can damn well rest assured they’ll take Hope and Change over vicious, arcane arguments about the finer points of conservative theory.
This whole idea that conservatism should expend its energy on settling internal disputes, purging insufficiently pure elements, and grimly folding its arms while it waits for the perfect candidate is foolishness that must be defeated as decisively as radical environmentalism. We cannot allow the Left to talk to the voters, while we only scream at each other.
Doctor Zero on May 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM
btw I totally agree about the gay marriage issue. We have much bigger things to worry about. Another issue is the drug war, particularly with marijuana. Do we really need to spend billions of dollars on this while routinely violating civil liberties?
libertytexan on May 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Dr. Zero, you summed it up perfectly. Ronald Reagan would approve. Please send your comment to the RNC and to the McCain headquarters. Also, please reminda all on the blogs of same. Thank you,
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 4:09 PM
It is a clear cut matter unless you want to nuance it with trimesters. If a woman is pregnant, killing the developing person is abortion/murder.
If a woman is not pregnant it is not murder to prevent pregnancy. It doesn’t have anything to do with religion. There is a clear cut time when a person starts to develop. Anything apart from that is arbitrary.
When a baby is inside the mother it takes less to care for it than it does when it is born. The mother doesn’t have to feed it or clean up after it until it is born. So saying when it is born it is a person because it is ‘viable’ is absurd. Leave the baby alone and see how well it fends for itself.
It is clear cut unless you want to kill it. . . then you nuance it with, well first trimester, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester. How about saying pre-school, or high school. When the baby gets out of high school, it becomes viable and the parents can no longer kill it under the law.
Unless it is a person at conception, you are making it up arbitrarily. And it has nothing to do with any religious affiliation that I might have.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Wow….that is just awesome!!! I love it when people put my thoughts into words. Cause I sure as hell no i cant.
Fazero on May 30, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Ed this is terribly dishonest article..especially when you equate this:
with this:
You’re not talking about conservatism…you’re talking about libertarianism.
In no way imaginable is promoting secular humanist, moral relativity, conservative.
In fact quite the opposite.
You’re proposition is that by abandoning all our principles we make our party stronger…which is dead wrong.
Try it and see..when the party stands FOR something, instead of just blowing in the wind and trying to outliberal liberals, you will see that the party will become stronger.
The reason in fact that the liberals hate conservatism is because conservatism,to them,represents conservative Christian morality and they hate it.
But the fact is,people would rather join a group that stands FOR something than one that stands for nothing.
When we lose all principles and try to outliberal liberals the conservative movement will fall apart.
Why join a fake liberal group when you can join the real liberals?
Back to limited government:
Do you think that the extreme example of limited gov’t really appeals to the broad base of Americans?
No entitlement programs?
You really think that will pass with the majority of Americans?
I don’t think so.
The truth is as the democratic party leans more towards wealthy elites…the republican party becomes of necessity the populist party of the poor..this is already happening with payday lending legislation and other soak the rich programs sponsored by republicans in order to win swing states.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM
No matter what you write, Ed, you always seem to bring out the best in the commentary. I really enjoy reading them all. And I find myself agreeing with you nearly all the time. (I must leave room for you to improve)
Jimmybob on May 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM
If this is the case, then you can have it. No wonder you’re a Huckabe type. You just made the perfect case for why most of us here don’t care for him.
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 4:23 PM
The more we move our “rights” to the local level, the more rights we will have.
The Federal Government can’t manage themselves, let alone us. And by definition should be limited in what they provide us. I don’t mind entitlement programs, as long as they are funded and managed locally. There is hardly a federal program that could not be scrapped and the only effect would be horrendous unemployment.
Just the IRS alone, how many thousand work for them and how many other tens of thousands depend on the complex tax laws. Education department, why is it Federal, should be entirely state (if at all).
Defense, border, international relations, trade across state lines, a few others.
The rest, back to the states.
right2bright on May 30, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Couldn’t agree more!
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Um, you do understand the McCain is for a big government mandate about Global Warming?
You do understand that McCain will legalize 20 million illegals here, and then allow their families in as well?
This is NOT a minor internal squable, this is a principal debate about the direction of the country.
If neither party will take up the standard of opposition to these two major issues, then those of us who see these as major issues will go elsewhere.
Right now, the Dems, and McCain primarily AGREE on these issues.
And implying that those who do not like Mccain’s stands on these issues do not have the ability to perceive reality clearly, is part of the problem… you don’t convince by insulting the opposition.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Talk about moving the chairs around the deck of the Titanic and hiding behind Reagan to boot.
You want to know why repubs lost in 06 and they are going down in 08? Here’s a hint it has nothing to do with McCain and everything to do with, as I originally described some of you, and you know who you are, the faux conservatives. You with you blond hair and blue eyes requirements, your laundry list of what qualifies as conservative, your reasons why you, oh special you, are not voting for McCain. How pathetic.
Ed has touched upon the core principle of conservatism. Where is that in your list of demands. If it is not at the top you are clueless. Once you add your favorites you slide into obscurity just like repubs in Congress.
from an earlier post:
Sadly the repubs blew/spent themselves out of a historic opportunity to shape this country for generations. The end result being massive and permissive government spending and what should/will be a large loss of seats come November. The loss may be so large that the dems have veto proof majorities.
Bush critics always point to his low–the lowest–approval rating of a sitting President in modern times. The war tends to be the main culprit but I think they are wrong.
To repeat what I have said here and over at CQ’s, had the repubs balanced the budget and shamed earmark writers in the public square they would have gained seats in 06 and approached veto proof majorities in 08. Bush job ratings would probably be recording setting despite the war.
Independents, who do the electing, want only two things from repubs–fiscal restraint and small government bias. All the other nit picking about who’s a conservative and who’s not they could care less about.(inside the beltway crap) That’s what makes them independents. They would vote for the devil himself if he promised a balanced small government.
What’s truly remarkable, and attests to the shear stupidity of repubs as a group, is all this was predicted by 100’s of notable pundits back in 2003, 04, 05 and 06. Trent Lott-like they didn’t listen. They didn’t even listen after 06. They wasted their time talking about hollow values. When you violate your core all else is BS. I’m not sure the left over reps from 08 will even listen. They will rationalize that back benching isn’t so bad.
Wow. To have lost so much.
It is said that the Contract with America finally broke almost 60 years of dem control in the house. You should go read it.
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
What you will notice right away is it is missing most of the bullshit that flies around here as conservative. What it is seeped in is fiscal restraint and small government bias.
patrick neid on May 30, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Romeo13, and you do know how much I like you, that’s what primaries are for. We fought then and it is what it is and we can’t turn the clock back. Of course all are free to vote for Paul, Barr, Goldwater or whomever now. But the reality is that we’ve likely got McCain and Obama.
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Ed does not even know the core principles of conservatism. He’s a libertarian.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Um, I’m not voting for McCain because I don’t beleive he is a small government type.
He gave MORE power to the Federal Election Commision. He wants a Federal Government Cap and Trade system, which will impact EVERY sector of the economy, and put a beurocracy in place to do it. He has been in the Senate for the Largest increase in government size and spending in history…
Sorry, he is a Government solution guy… which flys in the face of your overall assertion as to what Conservatives need to get back in power.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Well, we can hope. But the GOP works for a (slightly) different wealthy elite. Reagan was populist, todays GOP is anti-populist.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:55 PM
You might want to do a little study on Reagans positions on the “social issues”. Reagan may be weeping, but not for the reasons you seem to think.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Key here is that it is my belief that it was the REFORM party and Perot who forced both parties back to the center to balance the budget. It was not even on their radars until an outside threat to their stranglehold on power developed. Notice that the balanced budget went bye bye once that outside threat no longer existed.
We NEED another Reform party movement… don’t know if it will happen this election… but I sure hope so, and will support one if it somehow develops.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 5:02 PM
peski
I already stayed that my answer was “yes” so I’m not sure why you asked. If not the federal government, then who? Should each state, each country, each town, each individual, come up with their own definition of what human life is? Isn’t that what led to the Civil War?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Being a moderate, fairly independently-minded type myself, I think I should point out that the term “small government” means different things to different people. In general, most independents want an efficient government more than they want a “small” one; that is, no bigger than it needs to be to meet its goals. They want to be able to make their own decisions, for the most part, independently of what government might proscribe (small in terms of power), but want to get value for their tax dollars when government programs are implemented (as small an amount of money as possible without losing effectiveness). An example of this is the often used complaint against “wasteful spending”. A lot of conservatives hear that phrase, and it’s the “spending” part that draws their ire, since they believe that government should not be taxing citizens and spending their money on various projects. To understand the minds of most moderate independents, focus on the “wasteful” part; most would be plenty happy to have government take over health care, energy, etc. if it could provide those services more efficiently than private or semi-private institutions. The problem is that it usually can’t, and conservatives win by expalining that to voters. They will not win based on some philosophical argument about the value of the goals in the first place.
Big S on May 30, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Assuming that he is – he has the same right to be one, as you do to be a conservative. Ronald Reagan would have wanted both in that tent. Come by and I’ll take you to his resting place. It’s very close from here. I think you and I agree on way more than we disagree on, if only you wouldn’t be so ‘allergic’ to others’ beliefs. I respect yours fully, and especially your full rights to have and express them.
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 5:05 PM
we need limited government and lots of it.
ericfla on May 30, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I’m for a strong, sane, third party for sure, as it might be the only thing which will save this country. But it needs a sane and strong leaders, with more time than now, and not with the current 3rd party players. Paul, Barr and Nader won’t do. Also, Perot made a lot of people on the right nervous because they know that he cost Bush 41 the presidency and gave us Clinton.
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Do we have to grow neckbeards?
km on May 30, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Amen and hallelujah.
And yeah, Ed has a thing for gay marriage. All laws are incentives for preferred behavior. I’m willing to tolerate homosexuality, but acceptance? Preference? Promotion?
Another way Western Civ is committing suicide by introspection.
misterpeasea on May 30, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Big S
Fine. I agree.
Fine. I agree.
Fine. I agree. Except that we did not do so only for those reasons. The big problem with polygamy is that it creates lots of young men with no women. Sooner or later, they’ll topple such a society. Which is why polygamy is a fairly unusual practice..
I think you are allowing your rather blatant dislike of religion to cloud your judgement. Society instituted marriage for good reasons, some alluded to above. None of them apply to gay marriage.
We should not “extend it to those who ask for it in our modern Western society” because doing so serves no useful purpose, and actually serves to devalue still further the already debased concept of marriage.
Left-wing radicalism all to way back to Plato has wanted to to break everything down to the individual and the state. Not to benefit the individual, but to benefit the state. To that end they have always worked to destroy marriage.
Of course, you already suggested a fondness for Leviathan, so perhaps this does not trouble you. But in that case, you’re in the wrong place.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 5:17 PM
I really don’t think we need another reform party. I think we need to start merging and we all begin to agree on common ground.
I really do not think that many of the things going on right now, should have anything to do with federal Government in some aspect. Such as Farming, Natural Resources, Water, Education, and a few others I can name. Federal should have nothing to do with these since most States already have it in place.
Everyone has their own opinions concerning what and what not Government should do… but the question is where does one start and one stop.
upinak on May 30, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Wow, one little fishing comment and now I bask in the glow of camaraderie with my brothers and sisters in thought.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 5:24 PM
So you truly are making a point about “western civilization” and not Judeo-Christian thought? Ok.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Yikes. I can see Nancy and Harry putting their heads & votes together now.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Entelechy
I don’t recall saying otherwise. Just pointing out that a libertarian is not the best person to define conservatism.
His citing gay marriage is the sterling example of what’s wrong with todays GOP was really irritating. It’s not like the party has even done a thing about the matter, beyond signalling that they are fine with it.
Reagan did not agree with thr libertarians. In many respects he was one of our least libertarian presidents. But sure, he wanted their votes.
I’m sure we agree on most things, and I am not allergic to your beliefs.
That worked out rather well for the right, so I don’t find it to be a persuasive example. I’ll take a replay of the ninties over what the “big tent” GOP has been dishing out.
I notice that there seems to be little room for the right in this alleged big tent.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Geez, what does it take to get an answer out of you? It’s like pulling teeth.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM
I suppose my mentioning of “Western civilization” was what tipped you off? That, and my non-mention of Judeo-Christian thought?
I can’t slip anything past you.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I thought my position was clear. There is no “correct” answer, so it should be left to the community of citizens. Practically speaking, that means state and local governments that represent the will of local community. I don’t think this is an area where the feds have any constitutional authority.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »