Defining Conservatism Downward

Sobran's ^ | January 3, 2002 | Joseph Sobran

[RaceBannon]

But, Rush Limbaugh asures us that 'Conservatism' is a winner!!!

< Here on this forum, espousing conservative principles is attacked from the Libertarians more than the liberals. At least some here believe in limited government, but too many have abandoned the moral imperatives that made conservativism work.

[Texasforever]

Here on this forum, espousing conservative principles is attacked from the Libertarians more than the liberals

Man I hope your flame proof underwear is on. LOL

[thinktwice]

Giuliani, who supported legal abortion and homosexual rights and brought his mistress to official functions.

But ... Giuliani is now endorsing Simon over Riordan (Riordan is pro-abortion, etc.) for the Republican spot in November's California Governor race.

Where was Sobran when this happened?

[Patrick]

Clintoon who supported legal abortion and homosexual rights and brought his mistress to official functions.If clintoon endorses Simon is he also vindicated? I presume so.

[BluesDuke]

Here on this forum, espousing conservative principles is attacked from the Libertarians more than the liberals. At least some here believe in limited government, but too many have abandoned the moral imperatives that made onservativism work.

You would be hard pressed to find a legitimate libertarian (or Libertarian; it behooves us to note, once again, that not all libertarians join the Libertarian Party) who rejects limited government; indeed, we libertarians (think of many enough of us as conservatives who have been mugged by reality) say the more limited the government, the better.

As for the moral imperatives, I'll speak strictly for myself here: I have not and would not abandon them. Nor would many other libertarians. But I do not believe it's the government's legitimate mission to enforce them (we may ask those in government to live as best they can by them but nothing more than that), especially given the government's track record of late in staying the hell out of matters for which it is neither competent nor Constitutionally welcome. Show me a member of government - left or right, I should hasten to say - talking about rejuvenating our moral positions and I'll show you a member of the government who has a few dozen more violations of citizens' rights up his or her sleeve.

The government's legitimate mission is nothing more than protecting you as a citizen and all citizens from predators at home (real predators, if you please, not mere vicemongers) and enemies from abroad and that is all she wrote, period dot period. Government that has advanced beyond that is no longer government but is, rather, the State. We turn to the church or the synagogue for upholding and enhancing the moral imperative, that is their proper and legitimate mission.

Let me offer up a separation of church and State that anyone short of a theocrat-in-waiting should be able to live with: keep the State the hell out of the morality business (I hate to phrase it "morality business," but when the State gets involved you'd be hard pressed to find that it hasn't become anything better than a predatory racket that abrogates rather than protects a citizen's life, liberty or property...just ask the late, unlamented Taliban) and back into the business of protecting citizens' lives, liberty, and property, and otherwise butting the hell out of a citizen's business unless - big unless - said citizen would obstruct or abrogate a fellow citizen's equivalent rights. And let the church and synagogue tend our morality and spirituality, without molestation by the State, bothering about political business only to the extent that the church or synagogue's teaching informs our behaviour amidst our familes, our fellows, and yea, verily, even if we are damn fool enough to seek a life of politics.

[911]

Sobran seems to be forgetting that Reagan was president, not dictator. He had a Democratic Congress making the laws. The Democratic majority in the House during his eight years averaged 76 seats. To claim that he "embraced" liberalism is absurd. On the contrary, few conservatives could have accomplished as much as he did. I would hardly call cutting taxes, ending the cold war, and restoring the country's confidence and pride "minor gains".

[St.Chuck]

Once again Sobran hits the mark. With few exceptions the "R" behind an elected officials title cannot be seen as implying that a conservative holds that office. Of course, Buchanan has been saying that the two parties are the two wings on the same bird of prey for a long time now. Bush has proven, by policies implemented and proposals made, to be no different than his predecessors in growing the government and profaning the constitution. The only difference in the two parties now is that the democrats are honest about their intent. The republicans are disingenuous in their claims that they desire smaller government. The sooner conservatives become aware of the duplicity of the republicans, the sooner a viable conservative party can be created.

[FastCoyote]

< Here on this forum, espousing conservative principles is attacked from the Libertarians more than the liberals. At least some here believe in limited government, but too many have abandoned the moral imperatives that made conservativism work

That is an absolute lie. Every libertarian on this board would be happy as punch to go back to a strict Constitution. For example, the drug war is nowhere in the Constitution, it is a Conservative poohbah.

[RaceBannon]

Show me a member of government - left or right, I should hasten to say - talking about rejuvenating our moral positions and I'll show you a member of the government who has a few dozen more violations of citizens' rights up his or her sleeve.

And here is the crux of the issue: It is us moral conservatives that gave you those rights. And it is us moral conservatives that wrote the laws that defined right and wrong according to the Bible, and it is those rights and wrongs that libertarians are working to overturn the laws on to allow what you mistakenly call freedom.

A morally bankrupt people are not 'free'. While a people are moral, they are free, but a people that are not moral, they will do and think any wicked thing that amuses them. It is then, that the other people who are in charge of government, have an obligation to enforce laws that govern behaviour. While we were a moral people guided by the Bible, like it used to be until this century, we had laws to define right and wrong, but people knew why things were right and why things were wrong. Now, thanks to the immorality of today's society, no one knows why things are right and wrong anymore except to say that they are legal or not, or whether they infringe upon my 'right' of choice or not.

That is not morality. Because there is no common morality anymore, we have every reason to expect that extreme laws will be passed to control people through the courts, instead of through the pulpits. A Biblical based morality allows all kinds of liberty, while a non-Biblical morality leads to chaos and crime and vice; all the things that libertarians are fighting to allow today, from the Pink Pistols (Gay rights 2nd ammendment group) to those who want to legalize drugs to those who want to legalize prostitution.

And, libertarians will be cheering this removal of morality all the way, because it comes in the way of what is mistakenly called liberty. Liberty in the eyes of a libertarian is license, license to do what you want when you want no matter how immoral it is, no matter how much it destroys families or lives, as long as the government doesn't disallow it, as long as I have free will to do it to myself, libertarians call that liberty.

And that is why I will never be a libertarian.

[RJCogburn]

Here on this forum, espousing conservative principles is attacked from the Libertarians more than the liberals. At least some here believe in limited government, but too many have abandoned the moral imperatives that made conservativism work.

I think most libertarians would espouse limited government, the rollback of the welfare state, strict construction of the Constitution

I guess that it is the question of morality that sticks in your craw, but I think many, perhaps most libertarians agree with that as well. The difference is that the first three on the list require a government to be small and stay out of our lives. The fourth, for some, asks for a government that forces certain behavior upon all. Big difference.

[sinkspur]

These people never were conservatives. They are political fundamentalists. Their claims on conservatism are only propaganda and jargon

A most astute observation.

Buchanan, Francis, and Sobran, are populists, who, like Huey Long, appeal to the dark sides of human nature.

Buchanan's views and John Sweeney's protectionist views are indistinguishable.

[Twodees]

And this is important because.......? Sobran's observation about Rudy is right on the money. Rudy isn't a conservative and never has been. He's just another typical liberal republican.

[RJCogburn]

the other people who are in charge of government, have an obligation to enforce laws that govern behaviour.

A very scary thought.

[RnMomof7]

< Here on this forum, espousing conservative principles is attacked from the Libertarians more than the liberals. At least some here believe in limited government, but too many have abandoned the moral imperatives that made conservativism work.

Yep this is the original home of "talibornagain".

It has gotten so that many do not even know a conservative stance anymore..sad!

[RJCogburn]

talibornagain

;^)

[RaceBannon]

If I remember it correctly from 8th grade...

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, Promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.

Show me how drug use is not against domestic tranquility; show me how drug use that destroys lives and minds through free, legal use does not do this. How exactly does encouraging drug use through legalization promote the general welfare?

Show me how allowing sodomites to teach in schools is securing domestic tranquility, by allowing these perverts to brainwash our kids and abuse our children. Show me how the normalization of this perversion promotes the general welfare?

Show me how allowing Homosexual marriages secures the blessings of Liberty and promotes the general welfare all the while these perverts have spread an incurable disease to the general population, to those who only had an operation, or needed a bone marrow transplant, or happened to get a needle stick in an emergency room. Libertarians fight for those perverts rights.

Show me how prostitution secures domestic tranquility by ruining families, by spreading disease, and then show me how demanding medical checks of these prtostitutes does not abrogate their rights to do what they please! Show me how the spread of veneral disease and AIDS promotes the general welfare. Libertarians constantly fight for the right to engage in these actions because it 'shows' freedom, and 'doesn't hurt anyone!'

Show me how the spread of pornography, which has been linked to the rape of women by some who have recently viewed it, and the spread of immoral dress and sexual ideas that are rampant in society, on television, and in the pop Queens like Britany Spears, how Playboy models are considered role models for actresses, spokespersons for products, chosen for Hollywood film roles, and tv gossip shows: Show me how all that, which libertarians fought for, has increased the blessings of liberty and promoted the general welfare of this country.

Show me how the immorality that Libertarianism demands does any of these things, secures the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Show me how the immorality that Libertarianism demands promotes the general welfare.

Parental laws against these things tried to stop it or at least keep it to a minimum. Libertarians want these laws repealed, so there can be more of these perversions.

[one2many]

Good work. You are bringing the
FR left wingers out of their closets.

[St.Chuck]

These people were never conservatives. They are political fundamentalists.

Ok, now we'll need a definition of "political fundamentalism". Thanks.