Constitutional Conservatism: Refusing To Settle For The Lesser Of Two Evils

Toogood Reports ^ | 10-15-03 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Brian S]

The 2004 elections may be over a year away, but the 2004 campaign season is already in full swing. Over the course of the next eight or nine months, culminating in the national conventions of both major parties, the pool of candidates will be narrowed down significantly — quite possibly down to Clinton/Clarke versus Bush/Cheney. (Don't think it can't happen.) But no matter who wins, constitutional conservatism will most likely be the real loser of the 2004 elections.

Constitutional conservatives are those Americans who cling to the antiquated notion that our nation was intended to be a constitutional republic. They believe that restoring the Constitution as the supreme law of the land should be the goal of everyone who claims to be a conservative. They are a group of people who are constantly criticized for ignoring the political reality that this is a two-party nation, with elections serving only as a chance for the "lesser of two evils" to prevail.

In this age of complacency, "less evil" is actually viewed as "good." The reasoning, I suppose, is that "good" at least stands a better chance of winning out in a "less evil" environment. While this seems to be the prevailing school of thought among professing conservatives, it has never been borne out in policy.

Most "conservative" voters see "evil" and "less evil" in terms of "Democrat" and "Republican." They may not agree with everything a Republican candidate stands for, but the thought of an evil Democrat in office causes them to recoil in horror. They have therefore concluded that voting a straight Republican ticket is the only option.

This has led to a never-ending cycle in mainstream conservative politics. "Conservative" voters automatically resign themselves to the fact that their only hope lies in getting a Republican elected. They proceed to whittle down the number of Republican candidates through primary elections and calculated smear campaigns in an attempt to weed out the "extremists." Truly conservative Republicans fall by the wayside in favor of a more palatable candidate. The "conservative" voters then rally around the remaining Republican candidate and present him as the last, best hope for America.

Unfortunately, nothing conservative is ever accomplished. The Republican candidate inevitably uses his first term in office as a campaign for reelection, which typically means a further expansion of government.

The only real conservative victories seem to take place when the people bypass their representatives and vote directly on an issue – the most recent example being the defeat of a proposed tax increase in Alabama. Of course, direct democracy was never what our forefathers had in mind. While it may work to correct certain wrongs committed by elected officials, this shouldn't be seen as a viable option in the long term.

On the other hand, our system of representative democracy hasn't exactly been the safeguard against oppressive government control we once thought it would be. So where does that leave us?

Change will only come through education. No, I'm not referring to the process of regurgitating spoon-fed information that passes for learning in the government school system; I'm talking about real education that involves a back-to-basics approach to our political and religious heritage. If we wish to have a future, we need to get in touch with our past. Only by understanding the constitutional and biblical principles upon which these United States were built can we hope to see any real change for the better.

We must first rid ourselves of the belief that change must come from the top down. Conservatives cannot insist on filling political offices with Republicans simply because they appear less evil when compared to Democrats. Politically, the end result is always the same. To put it another way, passengers on a train going over a cliff at 60 miles per hour are just as doomed as if they were traveling at 90 miles per hour.

Continuing down the path of least resistance (i.e., continuing to choose "less evil" over "evil") can only mean the imminent destruction of the greatest nation on God's green earth. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still a choice for evil. It's time for all conservatives to put principle over politics.

[LenS]

Ah, yes, one can instead vote for the Libertarian or Constitutional Party. One will feel very righteous about one's purity as the Democrats round you up for the camps.

[The Shootist]

It's time for all conservatives to put principle over politics.

Good luck. Many of the, so-called, Conservatives here on FR believe that the Federal Government has the Constitutional Authority to legislate morality. Abortion for instance. War On (some) Drugs for another.

Many "popular" departments, bureaus and convenient "institutions" like ATF, FDA, FCC, FTC, VA, Federal Reserve, DOD, Fannie-Mae, Fannie-Mac and Paper Money. As long as "both" sides feel there is something to gain by curtailing another's Liberty then the system will maintain the status quo.

The Republic is dead 'lo these many years and its ghost is as chained as Jacob Marley.

[Brian S]

One will feel very righteous about one's purity as the Democrats round you up for the camps.

Of course, and using the Patriot Act I, II and who knows...III, passed and to be passed by this current government to facilitate the "roundup". ;)

[StriperSniper]

If we wish to have a future, we need to get in touch with our past.

Yup.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Constitutional conservatives are those Americans who cling to the antiquated notion that our nation was intended to be a constitutional republic.

Therein starts most of their problems. It was actually meant to be a Union of many constitutional republics. That's a different animal entirely than one Constitutional Republic.

[Consort]

It's time for all conservatives to put principle over politics.

Wrong: It's time for the Liberals to put principle over politics. They are the ones who are destroying this country.

[dcwusmc]

Spoken like a true Koolaid drinker who, with nothing to stand for, will fall for anything.

[William Terrell]

Good luck. Many of the, so-called, Conservatives here on FR believe that the Federal Government has the Constitutional Authority to legislate morality. Abortion for instance. War On (some) Drugs for another.

I think it's a little more precise than that. All law and most statutes address a point of morality. But it's the kind of morality that's addressed.

There's the "do unto others" morality, that which has to do with people interacting with others and there's the morality governing a person's interacting with himself.

The first is between the person and the state, because the state is made up of those others who have a right not to be injured by their neighbors. The second is between the individual and God because an individual's being is entirely his and His responsibility. If you are an atheist, a person's individual being is still his own responsibility.

Statutes (and they have to be statutes; the law doesn't comprehend such a thing) aimed at that second kind are the problem. I've seen many out here who are republicans that, by their posts, especially on drug threads, don't know the difference.

[The Shootist]

Agreed.

Which is not to say that the Several States do not have the authority to legislate as their Constitution allows. My comments are directed at Federal legislation, both Congressional and Administrative.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

This "Republican" has left the fold. I am now a registered Independent, and I support the Constitution Party. I supported, worked hard for and voted for Bush in 2000. I'm done supporting one side of the same coin. It's time.

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[arete]

Ah, yes, one can instead vote for the Libertarian or Constitutional Party. One will feel very righteous about one's purity as the Democrats round you up for the camps.

We are far more likely to be put in camps by the fascists on the right. If a liberal had imposed the Patriot Act on us, most here on FR would have been calling for his impeachment.

Richard W.

[arete]

This "Republican" has left the fold. I am now a registered Independent, and I support the Constitution Party. I supported, worked hard for and voted for Bush in 2000. I'm done supporting one side of the same coin. It's time.

I made my last mistake with my vote for GW also. I'll also be voting as an independent and for a third party in the upcoming election. Enough of choosing one evil-doer over the other evil-doer.

Richard W.

[arete]

Just what we were talking about.

Richard W.

[CWOJackson]

A whole lot of blanket ascertions in this article.

"The Republican candidate inevitably uses his first term in office as a campaign for reelection, which typically means a further expansion of government."

This, along with most of the presumptions in the article, might be valid if we were dealing with generic clones. We aren't. Republican candidates run the spectrum from Ron Paul to Arlen Spectre, and their conduct in office is just as diverse.

One thing that is consistent with this article is the mantra. Each party has key themes they cling to to help empower them with the voters and with the contributors.

This "we are the true, real, authentic conservative choice" is no different then the themes used by the Democrat and Republic parties to gain your money and support.

When it comes down to it, this over used mantra is nothing more then politics as usual by the also rans.

[Cacophonous]

You have a point; the actual party labels are meaningless. I have come to realize that the RINO (Republican In Name Only) label, as applied to such moderates as George Bush, Dick Cheney, et cetera, is misplaced. They are all very loyal, very good Republicans.

What they are not, is Conservative; it is a pity that CINO is already claimed by Catholics (so I've been told), else we could label them Conservative In Name Only.

That way the true Conservatives - such as Ron Paul - will not be lumped in with moderates. Arlen Specter is a liberal, pure and simple, and would not claim to be a conservative, although he is a loyal Republican.

[CWOJackson]

It all boils down to personal interpretations which are not absolutes. What you and I consider Conservative are totally different but our interpretations are only valid for ourselves.

For instance, take President Bush, Ron Paul and Harry Browne. You would probably consider Ron Paul the more true Conservative, while I consider him the more true politician of the three because he was willing to change parties, moderate his political beliefs, just to get elected.

At the same time I consider Harry Browne no less a politician then the other two; he campaigns for contributions no less then a sitting politician does he just never has to actually deliver on a campaign promise.

[mrsmith]

"We must first rid ourselves of the belief that change must come from the top down. "

Ah, he admits the "point" of the rest of the article is irrelevant.

Good, but why bother then?

Get to the educating of the electorate. But don't lie, and don't be willfully ignorant of our history.

[Protagoras]

Democrats round you up for the camps.

Summer camps?