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?

[Cacophonous]

All three are politicians. I would rather someone change his party and keep his principles, than change his principles to conform with his party's.

[CWOJackson]

That's what I mean about personal interpretations.

I look at Paul as someone who compromised his political beliefs simply for the sake of getting elected. At the same time, I look at Governor Bush as the candidate who didn't bow to GOP demands (for instance, the overwhelming demand he pick McCain as his VP candidate) and ran his own campaign and is now governing the way.

[Cacophonous]

Which beliefs did Paul change? And I agree that President Bush has been steadfast in his moderation.

[CWOJackson]

You say pota'to and I say pootato.

To me Paul would have remained true to his beliefs if he hadn't abandoned the libertarian party and it's platform simply to get elected.

On the flip side, I believe that Governor, now President Bush, is a Conservative who realized a long time ago that as Governor/President, he had to get both sides of the isle to work together in order to get many things done. I don't consider that being a moderate, just being a realist who intends to get things done.

That's where this whole article falls apart. It all boils down to personal opinion and beliefs nothing more. Trying to say there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans just shows there's no difference between Libertarians, Democrats and Republicans...they're all politicians pursuing their own agenda and using cliches.

[inquest]

Unpersuasive comparison. Paul's "compromises" were simply cosmetic. The substance of his positions hasn't changed, just the label. On the other hand, you've basically admitted that Bush did compromise his beliefs for political expediency - "to get many things done", as you euphemistically put it.

[Cacophonous]

I think we are in violent agreement (sort of), that there are no differences between any of the parties. You, it would seem, define conservatives (and liberals, and libertarians...) by their party labels, and I define them by their beliefs.

[Moby Grape]

AMEN, BROTHER!!!! Just once I want to hear these self-professed, self-appointed, self-righteous bunch explain how principled and honorable it is to elect socialist democrats because their so-called "conscience" would not allow them to vote for a not-perfect canidate.

This constant chest thumping buy this bunch is really getting old. It is NOT unprincipled to work towards victory one step at a time. The socialist in this country have dismantled the Constitution one step at a time. It is beyond me that these cult-type cannot understand that handing victories to the ENEMY is NOT principled and is not honorable....

They love to stand on their soap boxes, after having helped give victory to the enemey and proclaim, "Yes, we voted our conscience and we ARE PROUD TRUE AMERICANS".....

Well, that is just grand...your small platoon is proud that you obeyed the Army manual to the last dot and jittle, but in doing so, we have lost the war....aren't you a proud bunch.

[CWOJackson]

See, all boils down to personal interpretation.

You consider Paul's conversion simply cosmetic. Since he couldn't get elected on his true libertarians principles, he pretended to become a Republican so he could get elected. To me that goes beyond cosmetic.

As for the President, I see him as "governing" which I find refreshing in a politician.

[inquest]

Since he couldn't get elected on his true libertarians principles, he pretended to become a Republican so he could get elected.

That's completely wrong. Changing parties was not an attempt at changing images for public consumption. The reason third parties have such a hard time getting elected is not that their views are objectionable; it's that conservatives don't want to risk throwing the election to a Democrat. So he joined the GOP so that his supporters could vote for him without creating that risk. At no point did he try to advertise himself as something he wasn't.

[rdb3]

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.

I fully concur, Mr. Jackson. I wonder if these folks belong to the Pi Beta Lambda Fraternity.

Pi Beta Lambda - "Principled" But Losers

P B L

[CWOJackson]

We're getting closer in agreement.

I judge politicians on their performance, not their party affiliation. There have been some fine Conservative Democrats and some absolutely liberal Republicans. Both parties have a lot of politicians and far too few statesmen. That is realism.

Ron Paul so far as been the only libertarian to acknowledge that. He made himself electable by accept the reality of the situation...by becoming one or the other. In doing so he had to leave behind his libertarian platform...he had to compromise to get elected...he became a politician.

This article ignores that.

[CWOJackson]

Paul learned the reality of politics that continues to escape many of his peers from his old party.

[inquest]

He didn't abandon his principles - that's the point.

[hchutch]

Agreed.

To the others listed: An FYI ping.

[CWOJackson]

Of course he abandoned his principles. Did he run as a libertarian?

Yes, and he couldn't get elected. So then he became a Republican and got elected.

Unless you some how think the principles of the libertarians party and Republican party are identical...in which case we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Cacophonous]

There have been some fine Conservative Democrats and some absolutely liberal Republicans. Both parties have a lot of politicians and far too few statesmen. That is realism.

Yup. Case in point is my current Congressman, Virgil Goode, a fine conservative. He used to be a democrat, then an independent, now a republican. His views and principles haven't moved a bit. I voted for him in all three cases, 'cause the party makes no difference to me. I will vote for him again, as long as he remains a conservative.

As an aside, if you ever get a chance to hear him speak, do so. He reminds me of what I have read of Patrick Henry, another fine son of Virginia.

[CWOJackson]

Bingo.

If I get the chance I will listen to him.

I had the opportunity once to have some one-on-one time with Sam Nunn and was very impressed. I started following his career and liked much of what I saw.

My personal choice in the last primary was John Kasich of Ohio. Good politician, fairly conservative...and had that rare talent of being a statesman at times. In other words, he didn't have a chance.

[Burkeman1]

Yes. But the Supreme Court is in the balance right now. And rightly or wrongly that is where long term change comes from in this country. The dropping of the Estrada appeals court nomination was a mjor blow for Bush. As long as there is chance that Bush can nominate one or two real conservatives to the SC then we should vote for him and support him. If Bush doesn't win re-election and the court is packed with liberals- then I will look at third parties. I have major problems with Bush's policies as you know. But part of being a conservative is looking for the most prudent path of success. Right now that is supporting Bush for re-election and hoping he appoints good men to the Supreme Court.

[CWOJackson]

My hat is off to you.

There are very few people who will ever have a President that is 100% their choice. Even if we could, without a few hundred Congressmen and Senators also of our choice we haven't gained that much.

Since the odd of this ever happening are nil we have accept the reality of the situation and work with what we have...not with what we don't.

[tpaine]

Brian S"
"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. That's a different animal entirely than one Constitutional Republic.
6 -HtR-

---

It was actually meant to be a Union of many constitutional republics, -- a union with a basic [& supreme] bill of unalienable rights..

As you say, -- "Therein starts most of their problems." -- Many states thought they had the power to ignore individual constitutional rights.

[rdb3]

Many states thought they had the power to ignore individual constitutional rights.

Shhh! You're not supposed to mention that about the history of States' Rights.

[tpaine]

The Shootist:

"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.
9 William Terrell

---

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.
10 -TS-

---

Niether the Federal Government, nor the States, have the U.S.Constitutional Authority to legislate morality.

-- The states are prohibited [see the 10th] from denying to the people the unenumerated rights of the 9th..

[tpaine]

You consider Paul's conversion simply cosmetic. Since he couldn't get elected on his true libertarians principles, he pretended to become a Republican so he could get elected. To me that goes beyond cosmetic.
-cwo-

---

There is no pretense in the RLC or in Ron Paul.

We have a forum dedicated to RLC principles here at FR..

[inquest]

Did he run as a libertarian?

Yes, he ran as a small-l libertarian. The Republican Party is just an association. One might possibly say they abandoned their principles by accepting him, but he didn't abandon his principles by joining with them. He simply used them to the advantage of his career and his principles.

[CWOJackson]

Odd how Ron Paul has never mentioned any of this in his campaigning. So you think he was just lying?

I think he was just being a politician...doing whatever is necessary to get elected.

[inquest]

He didn't mention that he believed in libertarian principles? News to me.

[arete]

Right now that is supporting Bush for re-election and hoping he appoints good men to the Supreme Court.

Screw the SC. They are becoming as corrupted as everyone else in Washington.

Richard W.

[tpaine]

Anyone who calls themselves a conservative should be able to agree with the position paper of the RLC.

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT

RLC Website ^ | December 8, 2000 | Republican Liberty Caucus

Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS
POSITION STATEMENT

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.  


WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;


WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;


WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and


WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;


BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following principles:

[CWOJackson]

Obviously news to you.

[tpaine]

Many states thought they had the power to ignore individual constitutional rights.
-tpaine-

---

Shhh! You're not supposed to mention that about the history of States' Rights.
-rdb3-

---

I know..
--- It drives the fake conservatives around here crazy..