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 »
Just so you agree that your argument for one-man-one-woman starts there and wasn’t decreed from on-high in the “beginning”. Kind of hurts the “god made it so” position.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Note that I am not edvocating or defending polygamy, but am simply recognizing some of the reasons, or as you call them “useful purposes” of monogamous marriages: primarily that they provide a means by which responsibilities and assets may be shared with a specific set of rules for dividing them up. The thing is, these rules would not have to change if monogamous gay marriage were legal.
Concerning your point about gay marriage devaluing marriage, I do not understand your logic. Would you be less likely to get married (or stay married) if a gay couple down the street were legally allowed to tie the knot? I can’t imagine that that would be the case, so how does gay marriage devalue individual marriages between striahgt couples? I imigine you won’t be able to answer that question without invoking God, but we’ve already established that the link between the cultural practice of marriage and religious belief is not absolute. Also, isn’t it amazing that conservatives, who claim to value individual rights, take such a collectivist view of the “sanctity of marriage”?
Big S on May 30, 2008 at 5:43 PM
That’s what I meant, that he could overlook a lot of the individual items, including the social, or libertarian, ones.
Funny, or rather sad, all who’re not exactly on the far right feel the same. And that is what is destroying that tent, and giving the lefties a long ride, devastating to our country, and ultimately to the freedoms/liberties in the world.
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I’m flattered that you attribute such power to me, but I think my opinion merely expresses my opinion.
On a side note, I’m surprised at the amount of anti-religious sentiment (really, I think, anti-Christian sentiment) on display on this “right-wing” web site.
And I’m still waiting for an answer to the question of who should decide when life begins.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Maybe you can explain what the term “far right” means to you. That might lead to a more usefull exchange of views. And I’m quite sure that not all those in the party feel that way. Some groups in the party have been getting pretty much all they like.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 5:51 PM
flenser, there are degrees to the spectrum, to be sure. What matters is only the cold fact of what Doctor Zero explained, that we are at war with each other. In the process we’re doomed into the wilderness for years. If so, we deserve it, and we can’t blame the lefties.
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM
I must disagree Ed, respectfully, the answer to “what ails conservatism” is, nothing. The problem we have is the same one we have always had.
Socialist, Marxist, Stalinists and Communists, which is exactly the mix that makes up the Democrat party today. Sadly, Republicans have returned to their blue blood roots and they are not much better.
DRM on May 30, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Big S
I don’t think that those rank very high among the purposes of marriage. Some of the main purposes – to reduce competition for mates; to encourage the existence of the familiy; to encourage child-birth.
Our craving for immigration is in part a reaction to lower native birthrates. To be blunt, we are trying to outsource the job of having babies to the Second and Third Worlds.
Less likely, of course.
Then, like many libertarians, you know nothing about human nature. You deal with people as you think they should be, not as they are.
Have I mentioned yet how irritating it is when big government libertarians try to lecture conservatives about what they believe?
This entire “collectivist-individualist” construct is a product of left-wing thought, and collectivism and individualism are not opposites within it, but compliments. Crack open “The Social Contract” sometime. Rousseau speaks of marriage in language I think you’d approve of.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Entelechy on May 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM
You really have no idea how accurate that is. We were in the wilderness for 13 years in Canada. The Progressive Conservatives turned their backs on fiscal conservatism and the western base, resulting in two conservative parties. That allowed the Liberal party to garner huge seat majorities with less than half the vote.
That’s what I see happening right now to US conservatism. This thread is kind of a snapshot. Ed has it right. One of the main items for conservatives should be smaller government. If that isn’t a touchstone, then you are doomed to the wilderness.
Two different presidential, senatorial and congress candidates from two different conservative parties. That allows a defacto Democrat win in nearly every instance.
Conservatives are also supposed to be big picture people. Best get that straightened out before November.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Entelechy, I expect better from you than that.
You mentioned the “far right”. You must have something in your mind when you write the term. What is it?
Fine. I don’t see why you expect the “far right” to surrender, and not the “unfar right”. I’m of the opinion that the best ideas should win out. So lets see the best ideas.
Name-calling, including such terms as “far right”, is an effort to abort discussion.
I suppose we can blame the lefties in the GOP? But I’m more interested in exposing the flaws in left-wing thinking than in blaming anyone.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:13 PM
But that’s what gay people who want to get married want. They just want the same legal rights as everyone else.
Big S on May 30, 2008 at 6:14 PM
As I say, Ed has some peculiar ideas as to why the GOP is not a small govenment party. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. He ruined a perfectly good post by singling out that as the poster child for what is wrong with todays GOP.
The big government Republicans are also, for the most part, those with the least interest in Christianity. You want a GOP Congressman who’ll vote against some big new boondoggle? You’d best look in the Bible Belt.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I wasn’t suggesting that dislike of McCain’s issues indicates a failure to perceive reality. The reality I was referring to is the political one. There are two political parties. One of them is violently hostile to virtually everything that everyone posting in this thread believes. The other one is politically inept, fighting its way through internal divisions, and has put forth a leading candidate who does not support much of movement conservatism’s platform. There are no third choices at present. Failure to support the Republicans means Obama wins, possibly with a veto-proof Democrat majority in Congress.
I have two problems with the “sit this one out” caucus. The immediate cost of President Obama is too high, even if we had absolute assurance that we’d get the second coming of Reagan as our candidate in 2012 or 2016. I can’t reconcile myself to enjoying a stiff round of “I told you sos” and having a good laugh over what the stupid electorate has done to itself.
The other problem is that I doubt the “sit this one out” movement has any realistic chance of achieving its objectives in the long term. What, precisely, do you think will be gained by showing the GOP your backs until they come up with a candidate you like? Do you think they’ll come crawling back to the stalwart conservatives who abandoned them? I think it equally likely that they’ll build a political coalition without you, possibly even a good enough one to get McCain elected – and if McCain loses, a GOP with most of its conservative support gone AWOL is going to spend four years listening to the media tell it how it can only win elections by growing more liberal. This is the logic of suicide – the belief that people will only appreciate and cherish you once you’re gone.
The other hope advanced by the “sit this one out” people is the formation of a truly conservative third party. It’s an appealing notion, but it’s not going to happen, and wasting your energy on it only helps the Left grow stronger. Political parties require huge amounts of money and time to grow. They must build organizations in every state, and even if a third-party candidate managed to grab that brass ring of the presidency, there would be no Congressional support awaiting him. What makes anyone think that such a lone figure would be more likely to resist the Beltway culture than a President with an established political party behind him?
Anyone thinking about the Reform Party as a model would be well-advised to take a long look at what actually happened to them. Perot only got as far as he did because of the highly unusual situation in 1992, a year in which the electorate was unusually cool to both of the major party candidates, the end of the Cold War had largely blown foreign policy off the radar screen, and the Democrats had built deficit spending into an issue Perot could grab as his own. Even so, the Reform Party was largely a cult of personality, not a coherent political platform, and after the guy who gave it energy and money departed, it immediately fell into the hands of the fringe. Lani Guiniere, anyone?
We are most definitely not faced with a disorganized Left that views its candidate with the lazy eye many Democrats gave Clinton in 92. You won’t be facing such a candidate again until 2016 at the earliest, and I wouldn’t count on the Dems letting any of their captive constituencies slip away again… after all, they don’t have to convince them of anything, they just have to pay them off. Trying to carve a third party out of less than half the electorate is nothing but a recipe for Democrat landslides. That is the foolishness the conservative movement must put down, the unrealism that can only doom any chance we have of fighting back.
Look at it this way: an ideology without a party is an argument without an audience. If you really care about any of conservatism’s issues, your best chance to advance them is to recapture control of the GOP. Your best chance of doing that is to craft specific proposals that can unite the disparate elements of conservatism, as well as appeal to the broader electorate. The time for religious conservatives, big-government libertarians, neocons, Reaganites, and classical liberals to hammer out their differences and vie for supremacy is after the GOP has regained power and influence, working from our mutually agreeable principles.
Re-read all the posts about “true conservatism”, what Reagan “really believed,” and hair-splitting about Judeo-Christian thought in this thread. Remind yourself the other side is promising free health care, Hope, and Change. Then ask yourself which way a swing voter would go.
Doctor Zero on May 30, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Agreed. But who gives a rats behind what they want? Society does not exist to gratify their desires. The question is, what do we, as a society want? And what should we want?
If Paul and John want me, in my capacity as “society”, to agree to recognize and protect their “marriage contract”, they will need to come up with something a lot more convincing than “Because we want it.” Conservatives are not Santa Claus. Tell me how it advances our societal goals and our civilization and you’ll get my attention.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Flenser, if you are married, could tell me how you would explain this answer to your spouse?
I admire your use of “of course” when making a claim that I cannot even fathom how it makes sense.
thuja on May 30, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Dude… Um, I hate to break this to you, but the President right now is a HUGE spender who cannot seem to Veto anything. You want a new incompetent government department? Ask Bush. He was, I thought, the choice of the Christian Conservatives.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 6:27 PM
So what is a party without an ideology? I’d say the whole problem with the GOP is their lack of an ideology. One they got power, they did not know what to do with it.
Say what you like about the Dems, but they know what they stand for.
How did that work out in 2004? The problem is, you cannot do what you are suggesting. You can’t just elect some people with R’s after their name and then decide what you want them to do. They will do what they want to, and to hell with you.
The time to decide what you stands for is before an election. That’s just common sense. The GOP’s current problem is largely down to people not having a clue what it stands for. Or not liking the parts it’s clear on.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:31 PM
You thought wrong.
the President right now is a HUGE spender who cannot seem to Veto anything.
Well, he’s belatedly starting vetoing some things.But the President does not introduce or pass legislation.
Look at individual Senators and Congressmen and you’ll see that the most fiscally conservative are also the most socially conservative. In spite of what Morrisey tells you, Tancredo was a budget hawk who opposed both NCLB and the Medicare expansion.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Well, he’s belatedly starting vetoing some things.But the President does not introduce or pass legislation.
He can veto pork laden bills. He was the poster child for compassionate conservatism, which is another term for big government and big spending.
Seriously though, he wasn’t the choice of social cons? Really? Wow… I’m at a loss to figure out how he got nominated, let alone won 2 elections.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 6:42 PM
What a peculiar question. Why would my answer to my spouse be any different than my answer to you? In fact, since you are asking the question, it must be the same as my answer to you. So this is some sort of rhetorical ploy?
I’m going to assume that you are playing dumb here, rather then that you are really dumb. Marriage rates are dropping sharply. According to your “reasoning” that can only mean that people love each less than they used to.
Of course, it may be that they see marriage stripped of any meaning and say “why bother?”.
But you ideologues never allow mere reality to intrude with your schemes for the way people ought to be.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Lets see, highly unusual situation…
McCain does not have a lot of Conservative backing.
Obama will not get the woman vote, and is an elitest.
Hillary would not get the black vote, and has high negatives.
The only thing worse then the Presidents approval numbers, are Congress’s.
Fully 1/3 of the American Electorate self describes as Indepenent.
Obama is much more a cult of personality, than Perot ever was.
The landscape is ripe for a suprise this year, as long as the electorate does not totaly discount the possibility.
Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Hold on there, bub. I have it on good authority that social-cons are a small and inconsequental minority in the GOP.
He certainly was, and deseves to be whacked for it. What I’m questioning is your peculiar belief that Bush has been the poster child for social conservatism.
And, by extension, that “social conservatism” is “big government conservatism”. A quick look at the Congressional voting record will disabuse you of this idea, assuming you care about the facts.
McAmnesty is not normally thought of as a “social-con” and he sure looks like making W be remembered as a frugal and thrifty President.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Precisely; and note that when contemplating this issue from the perspective of limited, constitutional government, that it’s unlikely there was any Federal legislation or regulation prior to the adoption of the 16th amendment which granted the Federal government any power to distinguish between married people and others; all such law was at the state or local level, or defined in the common law. (I am not an expert on this: if readers are aware of counterexamples, please cite them.)
Now this means that the whole concept of the Federal government discriminating (in the original, non-pejorative sense of the word) between the married and the unmarried is a phenomenon less than a century old and, as conservatives, we should ask ourselves whether things were better before then, or now. As Chesterton pointed out, “progressives” always say, “You can’t put the clock back” while, in fact, “A clock, being a piece of human construction, can be restored by the human finger to any figure or hour. In the same way society, being a piece of human construction, can be reconstructed upon any plan that has ever existed.”
Which means that, when society, whether with either the best or the most malign of intentions does something really dumb, conservatives exist to “put the clock back” and restore the demonstrably better status quo ante.
Getting the Federal government out of the marriage business is “radical” only to the extent that you take that word with its original meaning—going back to the Latin from which it is derived: grounded in the roots of federalism and respect for the common law.
John Walker on May 30, 2008 at 6:54 PM
That is a silly analogy. You are contrasting the bland party line platform the Dems are offering voters with our arguing over what the GOP platform should be.
And you peoples sneering comments about “true conservatism” don’t seem to be calculated to foster unity, so you might want to look in the mirror the next time you feel like complaining about divisions.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 6:58 PM
A pointless question which simply ignores who is doing what. The left are the people pressing to make gay marriage a national right. It’s exasperating that some people note the right fighting against this and decide that the right is an affront to federalism. Could you people please live in the real world?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM
It is not going to happen. The Feds are a lot more likely to round up all the illegals and ship them out of the country in the cattle cars that the amnesty fans love to go on about.
It would mean a tax raise for too many people. It will not happen.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 7:05 PM
I thought Thomas Paine was the original source of that quote???
———————————————————
As to the rest; When the leftists managed to gain editorial control over the media… Not just the news, but inserting every anti-conservative message possible, even as non sequiturs in their so called entertainment programs;
And when they took over the education system;….. they have now had a generation and a half to indoctrinate 75% of current American society into thinking that conservativism and ‘white Americans’ are responsible for all of the world’s evil; When they quit teaching logic and substituted emotionalism and egotism for it; Started teaching revisionist history and agenda driven pseudo-science rather than hard facts and actually having to prove theories before they are accepted as ‘settled science‘;
Combined with the dearth of competent conservative communicators speaking and writing to wide audiences…. (The REALLY good ones like Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell etc. are out there, but you have to seek them out rather than be exposed to their great messages as a matter of daily life…..Reagan is dead, Gingrich has embraced the dark side, so they are no longer much help.)
Is it any wonder that Conservativism has been relegated to the ash heap of history?
Then, the few decent conservatives that do run for office become even fewer when they realize that they get more ‘love’ from the majority of their peers, more money and more power for themselves, and more votes from the idiots back home when they embrace socialism and can hand out ‘government money’ to the voters.
As Ben Franklin said when asked what kind of government had been formed:
.
We are about to lose that Republic.
And we have only ourselves to blame…. We LET the leftists take over. Khrushchev, Brezhnev and some of their fellow travelers back in the 50’s ad ‘60 ACTUALLY told us precisely how they were going to beat America; We had plenty of warning, and could have stopped it. But we didn’t, and this election is proof that we never will.
LegendHasIt on May 30, 2008 at 7:07 PM
What has to be remembered is that conservative parties (all over the place) are patchworks. Big tenty and such. Social cons aren’t bigger than the whole, yet want everyone to think they are. Fer instance, social cons had little to do with Reagan. In two major blowouts, they were irrelevant. In two tight elections, they had value.
Somehow, he managed to get a definition of marriage thing on the ballot in ‘04 to drive turnout. Faith Based initiatives were a big deal for Bush. Blocking funds for African AIDS prevention groups because they thought condoms were a good idea. He thinks ID has validity and so forth. That’s social con territory there. He’s doing some duck like things, making me think he’s a duck of some sort.
No need for the snark. Social cons want the government to regulate individual behaviour (War on Drugs, Prohibition) and will spend vast amounts of taxpayer money to enforce what amounts to personal choice. If it weren’t for the causes, I would swear social cons were liberals. The tactics are the same.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 7:09 PM
If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee [updated] 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.
Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?
The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
Ever good Christian should line up and kick
Jerry FalwellMike Huckabee [updated] in the a$$.- Barry “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater
MB4 on May 30, 2008 at 7:09 PM
We hear praise of a power-wielding, arm-twisting President who “gets his program through Congress” by knowing the use of power. Throughout the course of history, there have been many other such wielders of power. There have even been dictators who regularly held plebiscites, in which their dictatorships were approved by an Ivory-soap-like percentage of the electorate. But their countries were not free, nor can any country remain free under such despotic power. Some of the current worship of powerful executives may come from those who admire strength and accomplishment of any sort. Others hail the display of Presidential strength simply because they approve of the result reached by the use of power. This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one.
- Barry “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater
MB4 on May 30, 2008 at 7:10 PM
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
- Barry Goldwater
Hubert Humphrey talks so fast that listening to him is like trying to look at Playboy magazine with your wife turning the pages.
- Barry Goldwater
I think any man in business would be foolish to fool around with his secretary. If it’s somebody else’s secretary, fine.
- Barry Goldwater
I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle.
- Barry Goldwater
You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
- Barry Goldwater
It’s a great country, where anybody can grow up to be president …… except me.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on May 30, 2008 at 7:12 PM
good post ED
Liberals have a certain social agenda they want to impose on society. There are some that call themselves conservative that have an opposite agenda they want to impose. The problem is anytime you look at a problem in society and think “the government should fix that” you are not being a conservative at all. If the awnser out of our mouth on a huge range of issues is not that “The government should not be involved in that issue” then you are enganed in the BS lazy method of being a conservative, if you are one at all. Selling that principle out in order to advance ANY specific social issues is a betrayal at best – and also totally ineffective and destroying the party called Republican
Resolute on May 30, 2008 at 7:20 PM
We have, as a party, strayed from conservative roots, this is obvious. What is going to happen now, who knows. Sen McCain is a Democrat-lite, and the voters chose him to be the nominee, over the likes of Thompson, Hunter, and even Romney, who the conservative base rallied behind, but to no avail. The majority of the party had spoken: We, as Republicans, are to have a moderate Republican as our presidential pick. So be it.
I firmly believe in a time for everything, and it appears that this time around, conservatism is just going to be ignored or put on the back burner this time, regardless of whether it was advocated well or not. Am I suggesting that we conservatives should just give up because our voices are not being heard, not in the least. We just need to continue to believe in our principles and stay on course. Voters are smart, though sometimes fallible, they will realize after electing either McCain or Obama that an error was made and they will make it next time. This does mean that we will have to pay in the meantime, and that’s just part of life.
Besides, we the public have a lot more power than we think. Look what we did with the McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill. I don’t know about you, but we tore that sucker up! It can certainly be a problem, but the Dems having a filibuster-proof Senate won’t stop the next deluge of voters to break the Congressional switchboard and demand a bill be removed. Dems may be dedicated, but they, like every other slick politician, want to retain their power, so they will bend to the people and stop a bill if enough of us complain. We have proven this to be true.
It isn’t so much that we, as conservatives, should just sit this one out and let everything go to hell. Perhaps we need to meditate and rethink how we have allowed our party to abandon its conservative roots and become the bastardized Democrat Party it is today.
Weebork on May 30, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Give me a break with the “anti-religious sentiment” crap. You and highhopes & I don’t know who else. All my best friends are devout Christians – I disagree with them about God and theology in general, but agree on more. I’m non-religious, not anti-religious. Religion can and does cause much good in the world, but I happen to believe it has no basis in reality, other than human psychology and sociology. You believe it does. So what? What we’re discussing is cultural and moral issues as related to politics. Most Christians claim “God instituted marriage between one man and one woman”. I say bollocks, and the state can give no credence to such a claim. As someone else said here, the state can recognize a legal contract forming some sort of recognized domestic partnership and the church can bestow it’s blessing of sacramental wedding on whoever it likes. One is unrelated to the other.
As for when life begins:
peski on May 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Just for the record, rebutting against the idea of not voting in the election by saying that doing so will just make it easier to vote the worser candidate isn’t a rebuttal. It is an appeal to fear, rather than to reason. I would submit, that rather than not voting for McCain, one should vote for who they really want to vote for, even if they have to write the name in the blank spot on the ballot. Nobody should vote for somebody out of fear for the other guy. Fear isn’t what America is all about.
Also, making such an argument doesn’t speak well for the nominee. There are better ways of attempting to convince someone who isn’t comfortable with McCain without having to resort to fear as the primary motivation for voting. Those of us who may not end up voting for McCain in November are not going to be blamed if he loses. The burden was on McCain and his supporters to convince us on why he deserves our vote. My vote isn’t so trivial that I’ll vote for someone just to make someone else happy. Screw that.
Weebork on May 30, 2008 at 7:32 PM
It is about time to reflect and use the conservative’s common sense.
mariloubaker on May 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM
You’re kidding? This site seethes with anti-Christian sentiment. I did not single you out, though you seem a bit touchy about the matter.
All mine are blacks.
You jump to two conclusions there. 1) That mere psychology and sociology are not that important. 2) That I’m a Christian.
You are wrong on both counts.
Illogical. If Christians create the state (and they did create this one and all the other nations states, and the very concept of the nation state) then the state can and should and must give credence to whatever Christians believe.
So life can begin at conception at one place, five months latter in some other place, and twenty-five years later in still another place, and you are fine with that? I don’t think you thought that one through.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Maybe off-topic, and probably dumb, but this question has been nagging me-
Who is that dude in the picture?
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 7:48 PM
cs89,
It is Henry David Thoreau, Ed mentions him in the above post.
It’s ok, I had the same question.
Weebork on May 30, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Do you realise that you just called Ronald “The Drug Warrior” Reagan a liberal? That’s a pretty good sign that you might want to re-examine your argument.
So now you are crying about the fact that the individual states used the ballot initiative to restrict gay marriage? And you think it was all part of Bush’s evil soc-con plan, and not a reaction to the things the left was doing in altering the law via the courts? In other words, federalism is bad also?
Too bad you were not old enough at the time to let Reagan know, since he thought differently. In reality it was precisely “social cons” who handed Reagan his victories, and it was exactly they whose votes he sought.
But don’t take my word for it, let him tell you.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 7:58 PM
How can they say anything else? It’s like expecting a libertarian to reject the notion that people emerge from the womb with certain inalienable rights, which is at least as fanciful as anything the Christians believe.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Weebork on May 30, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Thanks.
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 8:03 PM
That is funny, funny stuff, coming from a man whose most famous words were “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”, and who opposed the Civil Rights Act. But sure, he was this great and moderate compromiser.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 8:06 PM
No, I’m not kidding. Religious folk are just notoriously touchy about having their religion criticized. Who is the most hated group in America? Atheists. I can live with it, because I’m right, and I know it’s because my lack of a need for religion is somehow threatening.
Ha ha. Facts remain the same. I stand by the statement, cliches aside.
They are important. Religion is important. But it isn’t true.
Sorry for the error.
America the Christian Nation, huh? BS. The day America is a Christian Nation is the day it’s dream is dead.
What’s the correct legal drinking age? Driving age? What’s the correct speed limit on a highway? What are the educational and testing requirements to be a lawyer? A priest? Granted, when you’re talking about a line between what is murder and what is not the stakes are much higher, but my point is that there IS no factual answer – just one that society can agree is the line between a hard choice and an evil choice. If you think we are ready to define that line on a national basis, I believe you are very wrong.
And by the way, my solution is the one that most social cons are actually fighting for – repeal Roe v Wade & give the power to the states.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 8:15 PM
whaddaya know … someone else that reads history.
darn facts are stubborn.
AZ_Redneck on May 30, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Err. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Christianity is the direct cause (and has been the very definition) of what is commonly referred to as “Western Civilization.”
misterpeasea on May 30, 2008 at 8:27 PM
OK, A direct cause.
misterpeasea on May 30, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Then perhaps you should think twice before doing it. Especially, as seems to be the case here, where the criticism is not merited.
You’re not required to believe it. Simply not to see it as your job to destroy it.
Then there never was a dream, because it was a Christian nation from it’s beginnings. That is just the historical reality, and you impress me if you could set aside your own biases long enough to be able to call a spade a spade.
We are taking about the definition of human life. You may recall from your history lessons that the country once had a civil war over exactly that question.
If New York decides that you become a full human being eighteeen years after conception, I don’t think that’s an acceptable decision.
No, you are arguing that there should be lots of different lines all across society. I’m the one saying that society should have one line.
There you go again. Set aside the implicit assumptions you just made – are you saying that YOU support the overturning of Roe? Careful with the answer, somebody might call you a theo-con.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Go take a read on
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
Feb. 29, 1892
AZ_Redneck on May 30, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Roe should be overturned and left to the states, at very least. But in truth, you can’t get the Holy Mystery of Matrimony outside of the church, so I’m not sure what business the gov’t has in defining the meaning of marriage either way.
RiverCocytus on May 30, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Bravo, Ed.
RightOFLeft on May 30, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Ed, this is without a doubt THE WORST post that I have seen from you thus far. Your entire argument is fraught with a gigantic false premise that stands looming in our midst — so large that no one can “see the forest for the trees”.
For starters, the party of conservatism hasn’t strayed or been misdirected. There never WAS a party of conservatism to begin with. The Republicans have ALWAYS been a broad coalition of people with a wide range of issues/ideas that its members wanted on the party platform. If you advocate a dogmatic approach, attempting to refine the ideology of the Republican party into your vision of rigidly defined conservative principles, the only thing that you’ll have at the end of your efforts is a marginalized party with little or no political power and a membership roster smaller than today’s Libertarian party. That would ONLY work if the U.S. adopted a European/Parliamentary system of governance where everything is run by a coalition of parties.
The uneasy alliance between the Christian right and the “conservative purists” is not one of convenience, but rather one of necessity. Each group NEEDS the other group. Your belief that the agenda or principles of the “true conservatives” (that you hold so dear) are somehow being “tainted” by values voters, or that the Republican party is being distracted by the concerns/morals of Christians can only be described as “compartmentalized thinking”. That vein of thinking completely glosses over and ignores the reasons that the alliance between those groups came about in the first place.
The reason for the alliance is simple. We have a common enemy that is hell bent on exterminating us both (both conservatives and Christians). Our common foe, the Liberal, is vicious, dogmatic, and sociopathic in his behavior. Above all else, he is totalitarian, and he will not tolerate dissent coming from either conservatives or Christians. If he can not rule over us with an iron fist, then he would rather enable and assist the Islamic jihadists in killing and/or enslaving the entire human race. THAT is caliber of human that we are struggling against.
That brings me to the elephant in the room that we have not yet discussed. The idea that Christians were somehow the first group to “drag their religion into the political arena”, or the irrational fear that Christians are somehow attempting to create a theocracy in the U.S.A. with their agenda that centered on “values” (or virtue). This phenomena is a splendid example of Isaac Newton’s 3rd law (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). It was NOT the Christians that introduced this into American politics, it was the Liberal humanist-atheist zealots that imposed THEIR religion, THEIR values, THEIR “virtues of perversion” on the Democrats FIRST. THAT’s why you see so many “Reagan Democrats” and Christians taking refuge in the Republican party. Most of us don’t want to BE here any more than people like you ENJOY hosting us. It’s just that we’ve got no place else to go. In at least one respect, we are not unlike the refugees in Darfur fleeing from the murderous Muslims– you had better hope that Liberals don’t exterminate all of us, because if they do, you are next, pal.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 30, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Since your wrong, I guess I’ll correct you. The Greeks were Christians? The Romans?
peski on May 30, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Ed, you write one of these great posts once every year or two. Bravo! Keep up the good work.
burt on May 30, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Dead on!
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 9:33 PM
I often do think twice, but will continue to criticize when it is merited.
Criticism & argument equates with destruction? Pretty feeble.
No, it was a nation of mostly Christians from the beginning. This is a distinction that Christians refuse to make.
And you’d be satisfied with 6 weeks from full term if that was the law? Sure.
Yes I do support overturning Roe. Call me what you want.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Worst post ever Ed.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Any return to the first principles of conservatism must eschew such bad facial hair.
Kralizec on May 30, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Good post Cyber, I agree with much of what you said. But the knife cuts both ways. Most of my so called “anti-religious” comments here are in REACTION to religious conservatives “advocating a dogmatic approach, attempting to refine the ideology of the Republican party into your vision of rigidly defined conservative principles”.
peski on May 30, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Cicero43 on May 30, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Amen.
I have always said said that people who vote liberal don’t realise the contempt with which liberals in government hold the common man.
With every measure, passage and pronouncement, they keep reinforcing the notion that you are too stupid, incompetent or unskilled to take care of yourself.
linlithgow on May 30, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Well, I’m not sure I’d agree with the “direct cause” phrase. However, it’s pretty hard to argue about the significant impact Christianity has had on the development of Western Civilization. E.G., the Roman empire from the time of Constantine, the “Holy Roman Empire,” the British empire, Christian influence in the founding concepts of the United States. It’s a very strong thread in the fabric of Western Civilization as a whole.
I mean, just look at some of the statuary in D.C. It includes themes from around the world and throughout history, but Judeo-Christian themes are quite prominent.
At least, that’s how I see it.
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 10:03 PM
As opposed to a Christian nation?
Probably because it’s an absurd and meaningless distinction. At least, you don’t seem able to elaborate on the distinctions. What, it’s not a “Christian nation” because it failed to put “In God We Trust” on it’s money? Oh, wait …
It equates with attempted destruction. If America gets another couple of million peski’s it will look like secular Europe, that bastion of small government libertarianism. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, look at the map. Look at where the small government people hail from. As a general rule, it’s from the Bible Belt. I get the distinct impression that the average HA’er hails from NYC or Los Angles. How are you guys doing electing your own secular small government types? Don’t all answer at once now.
Some people seem to have convinced themselves that McCain is a fiscal conservative because (1) he hates earmarks, and (b) he hates the religious right.
I would cheerfully agree to give McCain his very own billion dollar earmark every year if only he would drop his global warming and amnesty nonsense. The bill for these things will run into the trillions of dollars.
But hey, he is against “pork”, right?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 10:05 PM
linlithgow on May 30, 2008 at 9:49 PM
agreed!
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 10:07 PM
cs89 on May 30, 2008 at 10:03 PM
And I might add, under major assault in a fight to the death.
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Senator “Bridge To Nowhere” Stevens would pose less of a danger to the fiscal health of the US than McCain does. At least he’s cheap! McCains visions are more grandiose.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 10:10 PM
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 9:35 PM
ummmm…your motives are suspect…
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Kudos…
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 10:21 PM
WHAT….Everybody walking awqy from this….except a few…cowards….
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Too bad you were not old enough at the time to let Reagan know, since he thought differently. In reality it was precisely “social cons” who handed Reagan his victories, and it was exactly they whose votes he sought.
Sorry, don’t buy it. The EC maps and the popular vote will back me up. He took 49 states in ‘84. People switched sides to make sure Reagan got in. 66% of the US population still loves the guy. Social cons are not large enough to impact an election where the vote was so lopsided.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Ed would be surprised at how many things that he and I agree on. In fact, most of the Christians here would never accept my “heretical” views on abortion and marriage, even though I consider myself a Christian.
Marriage was ordained by God. The Federal government should in no way be involved. Furthermore, I don’t even believe that the states have got any business issuing marriage certificates — to anyone. The institution of marriage predates the existence of the U.S.A. by many thousands of years. Government would and should have no involvement at all, but it has wormed its way into things because of divorce — a thing that God hates. Divorce results in disputes over property and disputes over the custody of children. Government has “stepped-in” to “resolve” these disputes. So one evil has spawned another. Divorce has resulted in government intervention into the affairs of private families. Everyone loses — except the lowest form of life on earth, viz. the divorce lawyer. So-called “gay marriage” isn’t – and should never be compared in any way (by the state, or anyone else) to Holy matrimony. If gays want civil unions that entitle them to the same property rights and tax privileges as married people, I have no problem with that. That sort of thing has everything to do with money, and nothing to do with God. Gays should NOT be permitted to adopt children. Period.
As for abortion, I would make it legal in cases of rape, incest, and for medical reasons — but when it is used primarily as a means of birth control, I’d treat it like drunk driving. If you drive drunk and kill someone (repeatedly, anyhow), the government takes your driver’s license away from you. I haven’t heard many people complain about this policy. If a women has multiple abortions (instead of using birth control) the state should have the right to enforce mandatory sterilization on both her AND the father of her aborted fetuses. Modern genetics/DNA science makes it possible. This should only be done as a last resort, however, the penalties for this crime should be graduated (with “first time offenders” suffering less severe consequences).
My collie says:
Well then, I must be doing SOMETHING right.
Bring it on.
CyberCipher on May 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I don’t know who you were responding to but I’ll bet it’s someone “educated” in the 90’s. So sad.
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 10:32 PM
CyberCipher on May 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Not Me….Same page… well done.
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 10:36 PM
jerrytbg on May 30,
Sorry, it was flenser.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
It’s times like this that I shouldn’t jump into the fray in the middle.
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM
?? You mean neutering?
Who’s idea was that..yours or your calvinist dog?
(BTW tell him I said he’s dead wrong about calvinism)
Sterilization?
Really? For the males too?
Why not just criminalize it..same punishment as murder.
The women the doctors all get charged.
That will end it quick.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 10:54 PM
jerrytbg on May 30, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Fred T. said it very clearly:
“You constantly say in this campaign that you’re a conservative. What does that mean today?”
THOMPSON: It means things that are consistent with God’s design for man. It’s consistent with human nature. It’s consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our Founding Fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to err and times do terrible things, that too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing.
ROSE: In all of that you didn’t mention abortion, gay rights, all the things that have been part of recent presidential elections.
THOMPSON: Well, you’re talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us which derive from principles
THOMPSON: Principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to issues. You know, the Declaration of Independence said that basic rights come from God and not from man. The Founders talked about, you know, life and liberty and the importance of that, and that everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles and, you know, for example, I come to the pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues, you know, for eight years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion-related activities and things of that nature, you know? The application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no, properly.
sbark on May 30, 2008 at 11:40 PM
I disagree. The purpose the founders gave in the Declaration for breaking away from Britain & starting a new nation was to secure the God-given right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.
jgapinoy on May 30, 2008 at 11:49 PM
jgapinoy on May 30, 2008 at 11:50 PM
jgapinoy on May 30, 2008 at 11:49 PM
…but he was refering to the principles inherent in the building of a new government contained in the Constitution.
Also, your emphasis on “right to life” suggest Ed included abortion in his essay…he did not.
Saltysam on May 31, 2008 at 12:06 AM
No, I emphasized Right to Life for the sake of pseudo-conservative readers who are “whatever” on abortion.
jgapinoy on May 31, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Pure poetry, Cap’n Ed.
Thank you.
hillbillyjim on May 31, 2008 at 12:14 AM
jgapinoy on May 31, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Okay…I’m with ya’ then.
Saltysam on May 31, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Opposition to same sex marriage is the MAJORITY opinion in this country, at least at this point so I don’t see how being for preserving the family unit is hurting the conservative movement. The pro-life point of view is GAINING support and in many polls a clear majority opposes abortion for simple reasons of birth control.
The social cons are also some of the most active supporters we have out there, I don’t see how alienating them in the hope of attracting a few fickle on the fence moderates who will run at the first sign of trouble is a sound decision.
Look at the Democrats for crying out loud! They are nominating pro-life, pro-gun candidates because that is the only way they can win in certain states? The conservative movement has stood for traditional values for quite some time and that is one of the reasons I am attracted to it.
Lets not construe the failure of the Republican party as a rejection of conservative values.
echosyst on May 31, 2008 at 12:23 AM
The rejection of conservative values is the primary failure of the Republican party.
hillbillyjim on May 31, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Yeah, they all love him now. But 66% sure did not vote for him back in the day. Better check your results again. And I’m sure you did not read his speech I linked to.
But as I say, I’m amused that the “social cons” are both a meaningless minority (you) AND at the same time they are the evil force making the GOP march down the road to big government (most of the other people here). And in some cases, both at the same time!
flenser on May 31, 2008 at 12:34 AM
I won’t argue with that, but there seems to be some vigorous disagreement as to what those values are and what was rejected.
flenser on May 31, 2008 at 12:35 AM
All (white) males were created equal. It took some time for women and minorities to get equal protection. Seems unlikely that the founders, while not asserting equal status for blacks and women, were granting it to a fertilized egg.
The founders were very concerned with creating a government with limited powers.
dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 12:36 AM
echosyst on May 31, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I agree with you, after all, I’m a three legged stool conservative; however, Ed has a point:
I think the overall theme of conservatism, in the realm of federal politics, is limited government, and I believe this role has overwhelming support among the people.
The perception that the general electorate has of “conservatism” becomes murky when we dilute this strong, simple, and popular message.
Saltysam on May 31, 2008 at 12:40 AM
I notice that the typical HA commenter really does not like the religious right.
At the same time, they pretty much detest plain old conservatives, or “true conservatives” as they mockingly call them.
And they really, really detest the Ron Paul isolationist/libertarian wing of the party.
That’s your right of course. But you might want to consider, in spewing your invective on large sections of the party, that your simultaneous calls for “unity” against the Democrats look pretty peculiar. As best I can tell you people are simply pro-Iraq war liberals. You seem to loath all the principle strands of the GOP.
Most of the calls for gay marriage and bashing of religion I read here would not be out of place at Kos or some other left-wing site, apart from the absence of swearing.
flenser on May 31, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Yes. And it has not been diluted by gay marriage, opposition to which is one of the few popular things the GOP does, on the rare times it does it. Ed is way out in left field here, projecting his own biases onto the electorate with zero evidence.
flenser on May 31, 2008 at 12:47 AM
All (white) males were created equal. It took some time for women and minorities to get equal protection.
dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 12:36 AM
In what way were women not given equal protection?
Saltysam on May 31, 2008 at 12:47 AM
I agree also that there does seem to be an anti-religious, anti-traditional values bent on this site both among the commentors and the posters. Anyone who thinks that opposition to gay marriage is killing the party is out of his mind. It wouldn’t be on the “top ten” priorities of anyone. Many states have passed laws against it so as I said, social cons are in the mainstream on this issue, as small as it is. In fact many pundits were saying the furor in the press over same sex marriage HELPS REPUBLICANS because it energizes the base against it like happened in 2000.
The reason the GOP is hurting is because the Republicans in Congress went native and started acting like Democrats. I guarantee you if there was a strong conservative leader in the party right now that was extolling traditional values and fiscal conservatism and a strong defense we would be way better off. The problem is that we have people like Ed Morrisey who are running scared and are accepting the premise from the left. We aren’t going to win by agreeing with liberals, people will just vote for ACTUAL liberals if we try and do that.
echosyst on May 31, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Ability to vote, to own property separate from their husbands, have a legal say in how their children were raised.
dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 12:54 AM
flenser on May 31, 2008 at 12:47 AM
You’ve made a fine point, flenser. You might have me turned on this.
Saltysam on May 31, 2008 at 12:56 AM
dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Well, I meant, as written in the Constitution.
Anyway, if that is what you meant, then there were plenty of white males that did not receive equal protection.
“
All (white) males were created equal.“Saltysam on May 31, 2008 at 1:07 AM
My point was that the principles in the founding documents were vital, but excluded many in practice. I was responding to a post that the founders were as concerned with abortion as they were with the concept of limited government.
dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Conservativism = Belief in the smallest federal government necessary, with very specific, limited powers.
Like Ed said, not in our bedrooms or boardrooms, and I might add, not im my friggin’ wallet.
hillbillyjim on May 31, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »