What Does It Mean to Be Conservative?

[injusticebuster]

What does it mean to be a conservative? It is a simple question on its surface, but one that could potentially lead to a wide array of theoretical labels for elephant party members.

Washington, D.C., interns gathered together on Capitol Hill on Wednesday for Rep. Jack Kingston’s (R.-Ga.) last 2006 summer intern event called, “Better Know a Conservative.”

“It’s easy to be conservative, because that is what America is all about,” said Rep. Sam Johnson (R.-Tex.). “To be a conservative means to be for freedom.”

Johnson was held captive as a POW for seven years during the Vietnam War. “I didn’t know the Lord until then,” he said. He was tried as a war criminal in the country and was sentenced to the death penalty.

“Unless you had someone point a gun at you,” Johnson said, “you really don’t know what it is all about.” He said he was blindfolded by Vietnamese soldiers and taken to the middle of the jungle where five men armed with AK-47s were waiting for him.

Johnson said all he could do was pray to the Lord for his survival. All five rifles misfired. He said that at that point he started to laugh, after which the enemy soldiers started to beat him and left him in a ditch.

“I never had to fear them again because I knew the Lord was with me. The Lord is with the United States of America, we are a conservative nation and we don’t need to back down to anyone.”

Johnson said that when the U.S. withdrew troops from Vietnam territory and deadlocked government aid for its restoration process, North Vietnam came in and took over, which eventually spawned the nation’s present communist status.

“For the first time in Iraq, they are seeing what freedom is like,” said Johnson. He said that he hoped the U.S. would not make the same mistakes it made in Vietnam and continue to “fight for freedom against worldwide terrorism.”

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R.- N.C.) recommended interns read Johnson’s book about his Vietnam POW experiences in his autobiography, “Captive Warriors,” “so you can understand the concept of giving up your freedom [and] sacrificing yourself for a cause greater than yourself.”

“President Bush is pushing for freedom, his foreign policy goal, that people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that are not government granted, are not strong man granted, not granted by a king, but they are given to you by your creator, and everyone has the same rights from birth,” McHenry said.

Conservatives want to spread freedom and democracy, lower taxes to enable hard-working Americans to keep more of what they earn and for the promotion of traditional family values.

“We demand less government and more efficiency and they are for more government control,” he said.

McHenry said he was not afraid to call out members of Congress, like Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) who succumbs to mass media propaganda. “We should be ashamed that [McCain’s ideas] are conservative.”

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R.-Tenn.) said that when she thought about what it meant to be a conservative a quote from Margaret Thatcher came to mind.

“I like what Margaret Thatcher said about America being more than a superpower and more than a great nation, she says that America is an idea.”

Rep. Mike Conaway (R.-Tex.) said that there was a “broad spectrum” of what it meant to be a conservative, and this was evident when evaluating how conservative members of Congress vote. “Labels are dangerous,” he said.

“As we go about our work, as we go about our jobs, if you label yourself as a conservative, understand that it has a very broad definition,” said Conaway. “Understand what that means … and live to the conservative code.”

Herman Cain, author and radio show host for WSB 750, said that he was a conservative because “this is the greatest country in the world and we have to keep it that way.”

“I like thinking for myself,” said Cain.

In conclusion Kingston said, “When you go back to college,” remember that communism does not only exist in China, Cuba and North Korea, “but it also seems to be alive and well on many college campuses, in terms of their professors.”

“We want you to be able to agitate them a little bit,” he added, “and do so with a smile on your face

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16239

[margrace]

To be a Conservative means to follow the old Scottish Grace. God bless Me and my wife, our son John and his Wife, we four no more.

Conservatives have a right to no taxes and no support of anyone other than themselves. God help them if catastrophe catches up with them because the support they denied others could be the support denied them.

[gerryhatrick]

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion.

[Figleaf]

f/this

[Michael Hardner]

To be conservative now means to equate your own self-interest and biases with moral good, and to seek any political means, no matter how ruthless, to serve them.

I don't see it. The conservatives that post here do often express concern about the state of the nation, or the community so to give a blanket statement that they are equating self-interest with moral good needs more evidence.

On the social side, conservatives are associated with traditional values, with opposing abortion and gay marriage. How is that a self-interest for them ? On the fiscal side, I have known a few conservatives that were under the poverty line.

There are some people who vote in their self-interest, but I haven't known any of these people. Most vote as an exercise in identity, and to promote their world view through the ballot box.

[Figleaf]

f/this

[Leader Circle]

To be conservative now means to equate your own self-interest and biases with moral good, and to seek any political means, no matter how ruthless, to serve them.

I don't see it. The conservatives that post here do often express concern about the state of the nation, or the community so to give a blanket statement that they are equating self-interest with moral good needs more evidence.

Self-interest AND biases. Either may be of influence and they are not necessarily identical. Consider social conservatives ... bias drives their position on homosexuality, not self-interest.

Did you ever consider that maybe so-cons base their decision on morals and biblical beliefs versus bias?

Morals are not always based on biases, sometimes it is just a matter of believing what is right or wrong and many so-cons believe that gay marriage and abortion is wrong.

[geoffrey]

There are some people who vote in their self-interest, but I haven't known any of these people. Most vote as an exercise in identity, and to promote their world view through the ballot box.

My name is Geoff and I am a Conservative. *to applause*

I am often described as a conservative, mostly because I'm not libertarian enough to sit with them around the campfire. I am opposed to the neo-con agenda, the spend big, tax little complex. I am a very small government supporter, I think I earn my money and should be able to keep as much as possible.

That is a primary objective of a competent government in my mind, treat my money as I would, spend it wisely, and don't take more than you need to. A polar opposite to the tax and spend Liberal, I would prefer the government spend controllably, and then we all pay an invoice they send at the end of the year (if it were to be practical). I am as fervently against surpluses as much as I am against deficets.

I am a social conservative to some degree, though I take a pragmatic, non-religious stand. I don't believe my religious views should be imposed on anyone else. My opposition to abortion, for example, has been layed out in a completely logical argument in other threads. None the less, I don't support a full ban as it's not a pragmatic solution. I am against homosexual marriage, but not against equality rights for gays and lesbians.

That is the summary of a conservative from my viewpoint. There are many other varieties though. One common thread is the belief in equality of right over equality of opportunity. If everyone is treated equally by the government, then we all can suceed or fail based on our own efforts in life. I sincerely believe this. I think most people would take the dignity of a meager paying job then over unemployment if the government hadn't made unemployment socially acceptable. Dignity of the common man (or woman) is the utmost concept, and dignity isn't found through social programs but personal accomplishment, which can only be truly allowed to all that want it in an undiscriminatory equality of right system. Welfare destroys human dignity and creates crime and further poverty through this.

That is the summary of what I think is a conserative.

[Leader Circle]

There are some people who vote in their self-interest, but I haven't known any of these people. Most vote as an exercise in identity, and to promote their world view through the ballot box.

My name is Geoff and I am a Conservative. *to applause*

I am often described as a conservative, mostly because I'm not libertarian enough to sit with them around the campfire. I am opposed to the neo-con agenda, the spend big, tax little complex. I am a very small government supporter, I think I earn my money and should be able to keep as much as possible.

That is a primary objective of a competent government in my mind, treat my money as I would, spend it wisely, and don't take more than you need to. A polar opposite to the tax and spend Liberal, I would prefer the government spend controllably, and then we all pay an invoice they send at the end of the year (if it were to be practical). I am as fervently against surpluses as much as I am against deficets.

I am a social conservative to some degree, though I take a pragmatic, non-religious stand. I don't believe my religious views should be imposed on anyone else. My opposition to abortion, for example, has been layed out in a completely logical argument in other threads. None the less, I don't support a full ban as it's not a pragmatic solution. I am against homosexual marriage, but not against equality rights for gays and lesbians.

That is the summary of a conservative from my viewpoint. There are many other varieties though. One common thread is the belief in equality of right over equality of opportunity. If everyone is treated equally by the government, then we all can suceed or fail based on our own efforts in life. I sincerely believe this. I think most people would take the dignity of a meager paying job then over unemployment if the government hadn't made unemployment socially acceptable. Dignity of the common man (or woman) is the utmost concept, and dignity isn't found through social programs but personal accomplishment, which can only be truly allowed to all that want it in an undiscriminatory equality of right system. Welfare destroys human dignity and creates crime and further poverty through this.

That is the summary of what I think is a conserative.

Well said Geoff! Sounds like the Conservatives I know.

[yam]

Yes, that sounds like the older brand of tory. . . an offshoot of the 'protestant ethic'.

Or rather, the disparity between individuals wealth represents the level of effort 'one' has made in life.

[Figleaf]

f/this

[Figleaf]

f/this

[saga]

There are some people who vote in their self-interest, but I haven't known any of these people. Most vote as an exercise in identity, and to promote their world view through the ballot box.

... I am against homosexual marriage, but not against equality rights for gays and lesbians.

Sorry, but that statement contains an insoluble inconsistency.

Duh ... ya!

Ask the children of gay and lesbian families whether they are discriminated against ... They seek only full recognition of equal family status.

... and if I surprise you speaking about families ... then your opinion is uninformed and not useful in a democracy.

[geoffrey]

Yes, that sounds like the older brand of tory. . . an offshoot of the 'protestant ethic'.

Or rather, the disparity between individuals wealth represents the level of effort 'one' has made in life.

It's true to a large extent. Of course you have disabled people, would can't really be factored in. But with the extent of our social engineering and equality inititives in today's society, if your poor, you asked for it. You can make six figures in labour right now, you can make six figures behind a desk. But you have to want it. Everyone in Canada can go to university if they try, everyone in Canada can get a trade's job if they wanted one.

There is no excuse for unemployment in an economic boom... if this was the 30's I'd approach this differently. But right now, in our country, you get what you want to get. It's completely up to you chum.

There are some people who vote in their self-interest, but I haven't known any of these people. Most vote as an exercise in identity, and to promote their world view through the ballot box.

... I am against homosexual marriage, but not against equality rights for gays and lesbians.

Sorry, but that statement contains an insoluble inconsistency.

Not at all. The State has the power to legislate benefits and taxation, which should be applied equally. The State has no business tampering with the family structure of a country. Let the change come naturally. I don't think the government should protect heterosexual marriage either. Just administer benefits to all living arrangements equally. Let people call it whatever they want.

I have no issue with gays saying their married, I have an issue with my government legislating it. It is no business of the State.

[Argus]

To be a conservative used to mean you placed high importance on existing institutions, traditions etc. and would tend to seek to uphold them against most calls for change.

Still does.

To be conservative now means to equate your own self-interest and biases with moral good, and to seek any political means, no matter how ruthless, to serve them.

All people operate from a position of bias. All people base their politics, to one degree or another, on self-interest. And most of the moralizing I've seen comes from the Left. Their social beliefs are the height of moral good and purity, and anyone who opposes them is evil and hateful. Doesn't matter the issue: They climb atop a pedestal, wrap themselves in the moral purity of noblesse oblige and sermonize about everything our society MUST be. Because they say so.

[margrace]

Yes, that sounds like the older brand of tory. . . an offshoot of the 'protestant ethic'.

Or rather, the disparity between individuals wealth represents the level of effort 'one' has made in life.

It's true to a large extent. Of course you have disabled people, would can't really be factored in. But with the extent of our social engineering and equality inititives in today's society, if your poor, you asked for it. You can make six figures in labour right now, you can make six figures behind a desk. But you have to want it. Everyone in Canada can go to university if they try, everyone in Canada can get a trade's job if they wanted one.

There is no excuse for unemployment in an economic boom... if this was the 30's I'd approach this differently. But right now, in our country, you get what you want to get. It's completely up to you chum.

Yes and when you have lived your three score years and ten as I have done you will see that Luck has a lot to do with where you end up. From you lofty 20's its easy to make judgements. I see too many people who worked hard all their life and are now looking poverty in the face because they were robbed of their pensions and don't fool yourself a maximum of $1,500 a month is not easy to live on.

I hear about people who got the good job but guess what it was a 6 month contract, no benefits and boy are you gone. People working in the supposed great Alberta can't afford houses.

It easy to sit in judgment when you really have no clue what life is all about.

[scribblet]

To me it means preserving stability, freedom of thought and speech, less government intervention, or "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve". In other words, helping people to help themselves rather than depend on the nanny state.

The best form of welfare, is a job.

[geoffrey]

Yes and when you have lived your three score years and ten as I have done you will see that Luck has a lot to do with where you end up. From you lofty 20's its easy to make judgements. I see too many people who worked hard all their life and are now looking poverty in the face because they were robbed of their pensions and don't fool yourself a maximum of $1,500 a month is not easy to live on.

I hear about people who got the good job but guess what it was a 6 month contract, no benefits and boy are you gone. People working in the supposed great Alberta can't afford houses.

It easy to sit in judgment when you really have no clue what life is all about.

Luck is non-existant, we are the result of the choices we made. You talk about all the contract work, good, contracts pay more than salary positions so the people can invest in those pensions that can't be taken away... because they are theirs. It's all about choice, and some people win, others lose. The best we can do is give everyone the equal right to make those choices in life. And Canada does a rather decent job of that, outside of some questionable benefits to some groups, French, Indian, ect..

I'll quote the great socialist, someone who would likely share many of your views margrace, good ol' PET.

"Luck is the time when prepartion and opportunity meet."

He's right on, some people jump at chances, some fall, some win, it's the way the cookie crumbles. If you don't get a big enough piece at first, jump at the next one that comes by.

Everyone in Canada has the choice to make a lot of money, or to fullfil any of their dreams if they choosen to pursue it with energy and tenacity.

For one to say that Canadians are oppressed or brought down by society must surely be insulting to those living in the third world with no access to schools, water or food. Those people are truly oppressed and should be our concern.

That able minded, able bodied man on the corner asking for a dime, he chose to be there. It's societies job to convince him otherwise. That child in Africa that is born into a disease ridden, freedomless society, those are the problem we have an obligation to assist through welfare type measures.

[Figleaf]

m

[Figleaf]

jhk

[damSam]

Don't make me laugh!! Not everyone on welfare is a bum!!

To me it means preserving stability, freedom of thought and speech, less government intervention, or "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve". In other words, helping people to help themselves rather than depend on the nanny state.

The best form of welfare, is a job.

[geoffrey]

I have no issue with gays saying their married, I have an issue with my government legislating it. It is no business of the State.

Well, if the state were to resign completely from defining marriage at all, for hetero, or same-sex marriage, then there would be no problem.

That's what I'm suggesting. Have the government give civil benefits to all arrangements, let people call their arrangements what they wish.

Luck is non-existant, we are the result of the choices we made.

You're joking, surely.

Not in the least, you make (hopefully) rational decisions and are effected by the outcomes. There is risk, but risk can be mitigated through good choices in life. You choose the current position your in.

Winning the lottery isn't even lucky, it was a risk you took, a decision you made to buy that ticket and take a chance (your few dollars). You know the odds going in, much like making a business decision. There is risk for reward in all decisions you make. We are completely the result of those decisions, not "luck."

Those that are well off, know how to choose the best risk/reward balance.

Don't make me laugh!! Not everyone on welfare is a bum!!

To me it means preserving stability, freedom of thought and speech, less government intervention, or "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve". In other words, helping people to help themselves rather than depend on the nanny state.

The best form of welfare, is a job.

Your right damSam, those really genuinely handicapped people are not bums. But in Alberta, a statistic was recent released that I linked to in another post (here), that of the 25,000 people on welfare, only 11,000 are unable to work. That means the vast majority of welfare receipients are indeed bums.

Businesses are closing because they can't find work in Alberta, if your "out of a job", you chose to be. Same with everyone else in Canada, oil companies will fly you out to work here, ask those in Maritimes that are making more this year then they made in the last 10 years in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia.

Work is here, most people are just simply far too lazy to do it. These people are not our obligation, and really, I have zero sympathy for them or their plight. Not only do they not contribute, but they take away from our society by creating an eyesore on the streets and a burden on food banks and shelters that should be providing care to really disabled people and their families. Businesses are forced to close because of their laziness... it should really be a crime.

[August1991]

To be a Conservative means to follow the old Scottish Grace. God bless Me and my wife, our son John and his Wife, we four no more.

Conservatives have a right to no taxes and no support of anyone other than themselves. God help them if catastrophe catches up with them because the support they denied others could be the support denied them.

That is a caricature.

I think we had a thread like this before and I have to agree with Geoffrey (and Argus) above.

Modern conservatives usually divide into two major categories: fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. I think all conservatives are fiscal conservatives but vary in their opinions about social issues.

Fiscal conservatives want less government but it is wrong to say that they want no government. Government, like fire, is a useful servant but a terrible master. We have too much (federal) government in Canada today. We have too many civil servants, too many laws and regulations, too many policy initiatives, too many transfer programmes, too many Crown corporations, too many quasi-State entities. Elesewhere on this forum, I started a thread with a list of some of the money our federal government doled out in 2005.

Margrace, I invite you to take a look at that list and then come back and say honestly that you think government in Canada is too small, and we need more.

IMV, politicians are like entrepreneurs who just can't stop. They love to expand and make something bigger. Unlike entrepreneurs, politicians spend other people's money.

I posted this quote elsewhere:

The fundamental problem of modern democracy is to make governments spend money in the way citizens want. At the moment, there is a huge disconnect between what the payer wants and what the receiver gets. It's a recipe for disaster and this disaster has been increasingly apparent in the past 50 years or so.

As Hugo, a one time poster to this forum stated, government will take your neighbour's money to buy pink paint (not blue, green or red) to paint your house even though you don't even want your house painted.

----

I have just been reading a book about ex-politicians in Canada and I came across this quote from Peter Lougheed:

I would say the most insignificant day being premier of Alberta for fourteen years was still more interesting than any other day that I've spent before or after.

There you have the problem in a nutshell. Politics attracts busybodies who enjoy the excitement of spending other people's money. It's a trap that we've fallen into and it will only get worse. It is extremely hard to get these people to stop.

Margrace, as a conservative, I am very sympathetic to the idea of helping people who have been unfortunate in life. You are right to say that life is often a question of luck (and I disagree with Geoffrey that life is merely a question of choices).

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the case of children. We don't choose our parents. Purely by chance, some children in Canada are born into families with self-centred, alcoholic parents. As a society, we must protect and help these children.

----

As to social conservatives, I myself am probably more liberal. I happen to favour same sex marriage but I can happily live in a society that has civil unions. Ultimately, I believe in live and let live. I am deeply disturbed when people who oppose SSM are treated as bigots.

IMO, the Conservative Party is a big tent on social issues.

I see too many people who worked hard all their life and are now looking poverty in the face because they were robbed of their pensions and don't fool yourself a maximum of $1,500 a month is not easy to live on.

Was it bad luck or bad choices that put them in that situation? By the age of 65, people have had ample opportunity to learn from their mistakes and not to take foolish risks again.

In any case, most people on this planet would consider the lifestyle that can be had for $1500/month in Canada the equivalent of winning a lottery.

[newbie]

Your right damSam, those really genuinely handicapped people are not bums. But in Alberta, a statistic was recent released that I linked to in another post (here), that of the 25,000 people on welfare, only 11,000 are unable to work. That means the vast majority of welfare receipients are indeed bums.

Just a quick point. Not everyone on welfare can recieve AISH benefits even if they are applicable. Doctors fill out forms and most do not consider Alcholism and addictions as diseases (which they are; ]http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Publications/AlcoholResearch/default.htm. Many of the so called "street people" have disorders as schizophrenia, bipolar and other disorders of the brain but can not recieve approrpriate "labeling" to enable them to access government disability funding. Lack of address doesn't help. Bottom line I object to your comment saying "the vast majority of welfare receipients are indeed bums" without further proof that these individiuals have serious physological and neuological disorders that remain untreated. Is it the Conservative way to sweep these folks under the rug as Ralph would say," You don't look disabled."

[Riverwind]

Alcholism and addictions as diseases (which they are; http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs/General-English/FAQ2.htm).

Addiction problems are a disease in the sense that they have a biological component and are not simply a life style choice - however, these diseases can only be treated if the sufferer is willing to ask for help. If an alcoholic/addict refuses treatment or fails to stay clean and sober after receiving treatment then that alcoholic/addict is a 'bum' in every sense of the word. Giving welfare to such people only encourages them to continue in their addiction.