[PieterCasparzen]

Forgot Christianity.

The Bible; traditional Judeo-Christian values.

We’re looking at thousands of years of moral absolutes which result in a society that functions well.

That’s the only foundation upon which society’s institutions can be successfully built.

[loveliberty2]

Thanks for posting Hawkins's article. He has summarized some good thoughts here, but, at the same time, the sentence quoted below buys into a lot of issues-oriented thought inconsistent with the basic, underlying idea of America's unique philosophical statement and Constitutional protections.

For instance:

"Conservatism is an ideology that benefits everyone, but it's particularly helpful to middle class Americans. If we want to bring more of those voters to the Right, we have to do a better job of explaining to them exactly how we're going to make their lives better."

Where do we begin? Certainly, we cannot begin with the label "conservatism is an ideology"--for that label, in the minds of individual citizens of 2012, has no consistent meaning.

Is Hawkins referring to that mind set, or world view, explored by Dr. Russell Kirk in his "The Consservative Mind"? Or, does he refer to the abbreviated set of ideas summarized during the last presidential campaign by the GOP in terms like "private sector" and "jobs and the economy"?

Is what passes for "conservatism" today an "ideology"? If it qualifies for that designation, whose definition prevails?

Does "conservatism" truly "benefit everyone"? Or, is it ordered liberty which, in America, was the great passion of its Founders?

The next part of that statement asserts that it ("conservatism") is "particularly helpful to middle class Americans." Why, pray tell, do those who embrace America's founding philosophy of liberty for individuals, and call themselves "conservatives," buy into the semantic shenanigans of so-called "progressives"--shenanigans which label American citizens as "rich," "middle class," or "poor"--instead of as individuals whose birth and childhood circumstances do not limit their Creator-endowed potential?

Our final two questions regarding the quoted statement might involve the term "Right" and, "how we're going to make their lives better."

Questions and observations here are not intended to be critical of the Hawkins conclusions. They are only to suggest that perhaps our thought process for changing and relighting the lamp of liberty might begin with a bolder, more shocking proposition, such as that posed by America's Founders: a question of freedom versus slavery to government.

Might we be more effective if we refuse to buy into the semantics and assumptions of the adversaries of freedom--the so-called "progressives"?

"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams - The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772

If American citizens of all backgrounds could be brought to consider the essential ideas of liberty versus tyranny, as understood by those who framed the 1776 Declaration of Independence from the coercive and tyrannical power of King George III and his minions, and the 1787 Constitution of the United States, then their view of today's intrusions on their lives might lead them to make different decisions about who will represent them in government.

[Carry_Okie]

Yes, conservatives do want to reform Medicare and Social Security...

...because we want votes from older folks because we promise not to rid ourselves of the camel's nose of socialism and the principal cause of our pending bankruptcy? Why?

[GOPJ]

5) We conservatives believe in clean water, clean air, clean soil and respecting nature, but we also put humans above animals. We don't want farmers who've spent a lifetime tilling the soil so they'd have something to give to their kids driven out of business because a rare cockroach is found on their land.

We're also people who know liberals don't find endangered 'snail darters' on ugly land - but only on land they want to confiscate for their own usage - without having to pay for it. Think 'liberal elite' sierra type members... 'no cars, just elites', college profs, etc who want what others own for free...

Remember, they've NEVER found an endangered species on an ugly piece of American land...

[supercat]

Two fundamental principles conservatives should hammer:

1. The total quantity of something that people will be able to "afford" will be a function of how much is produced. Any effort to make things "affordable" for some people which does not increase the total amount produced must make it unaffordable for some people who would otherwise have been able to afford it. Trying to make it "affordable" for those people in addition to the first batch will make it unaffordable for some more people who would have been able to afford it. Dumping enough money into subsidies may increase production to the point that more people can afford it, but it's an extremely inefficient way of doing so.
2. It's almost impossible for those who are not politically connected to make money without growing the economy (generating wealth and creating jobs). The more money is in the hands of people who will use it to create more wealth, the more wealth will be created. Taking money from people who would have used it to create more wealth, and giving it to those who won't, will reduce the amount of wealth created. Even if one dislikes the growing gap between the politically-connected rich and the poor, efforts to "tax the rich" won't close that gap; it will only increase the gap between the politically-connected rich and everyone else.

Conservatives should hit other points too, but both of those seem pretty relevant these days.