“Conservatism is a alive and well in America”
May 15th, 2008 by Republican By DefaultRecently a commenter on this site asked me how I defined ‘a conservative’. I didn’t respond because it’s not up to me to define it.
Something liberals seldom understand is that words have meaning. If we try to change the meaning of a word we end up misrepresenting something or someone, which is usually tantamount to a lie.
That being said, I guess a definition of ‘a conservative’ is in order. Simply put, and pardon me for pulling a Webster and using another form of a word to define that word, a conservative is someone who holds to conservative principles.
An easy mistake that is made is to confuse conservative principles with the issues of the day. Another is to refer to someone as a conservative who only holds some of those principles while rejecting others.
What are those conservative principles? America has a somewhat unique set of principles that make up the ideals that we want to conserve. The individual principles are not unique, but together they are uniquely American.
Former Senator and Presidential candidate Fred Thompson, who is now blogging at Townhall.com, gave a good explanation of what those principles are:
And by conservatism, I don’t mean the warmed-over “raise your hand if you believe …” kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle. No, I’m speaking of the conservatism grounded in principles based upon enduring truths: an understanding of the importance of human nature in the affairs of individuals and nations. Respect for the lessons of history, the importance of faith and tradition. The understanding that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things when not subjugated by a too-powerful government. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers, and resulted in a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among the branches of government and further diffused governmental power by a system of Federalism. [emphasis added]
A mark of a true statesman is an understanding of these principles.
Fred goes on to point out that change is inevitable in our nation. It happens every time someone new gets elected to office. He also points out a clear difference between change for the better and change for the worse:
The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate.
Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today … and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. [emphasis added]
Even though our principles existed long before our nation came about, it was the combining of those principles that created the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the Earth.
But the question remains: how long will it endure.
Will freedom be replaced with restrictions and regulations that rob property owners of their right to use their property as they see fit (within the confines of responsibility to other property owners, of course)? Will free markets be replaced with union control? Will we abandon the rule of law and accept the anarchy that defines liberalism?
Will human nature and man’s capacity for evil be ignored in favor of socialistic relativism? Will we ignore history, such as the failures of socialism, to our own peril? Will we allow anti-Christian bigots to turn our own government against us, denying us the opportunity to live out our faith and to bring our faith into the public discourse and even into the voting booth?
Will man’s spirit be crushed under the weight of an out-of-control government, squelching achievement rather than reward it? Will the rewards of personal achievement be taken away from the individual who applies himself (or herself) and be given to those who do nothing to better themselves? Will we become a nation that guarantees outcomes rather than opportunities?
May 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am
There’s a very interesting piece arguing how McCain fits the principled and classic definition of a conservative (along the lines cited above) in last month’s Atlantic magazine.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I’ll check out the piece, but I can tell you McCain doesn’t fit the classic definition or any other definition, no matter how squishy someone tries to make it.
Just in the last few years he failed the definition on sovereignty as a nation (his open borders immigration policy), on separation of powers when he he and the gang-of-fourteen stopped the adoption of blocking filibusters against judicial nomination. I could go on but those two are enough for me.
Top it off with his comments against conservatives, and there’s no way he can fit the bill.
Again, there are a lot of Republicans who want to claim that they’re conservative but reject some of the basic principles that would make them one. McCain is on the other end of the spectrum. He didn’t earn his ‘maverick’ status for nothing. The media likes him because he’s liberal and stand on the liberal side of important issues.