Posted on 07/27/2002 11:06:06 AM PDT by forest
What's in a name? A lot sometimes. And lately, it is important to get the name correct.
Our first mistake was that we have allowed the Democrats to define our movement. Most recently, that was Hillary. She tagged us all, in general, as the "vast right- wing." The problem is, that is not even close to being accurate for most of us. Yet, we let it ride without correction.
A person on the far right would be one who advocates an oligarchical type rule, a type of reactionary government that assumes strict control of all political and economic policies in the country and restricts the power and liberty of the people. This is the type of person who strongly believes that he/she knows better than "the great unwashed" masses, and so considers themselves qualified to control the lives of the people. That could include things from strict government control of the country's medical delivery system to directing all children to be raised by "the village" rather than supervised by parents.
The far right want complete control by any means. They wish to control a citizen's right to self defense, education, association, speech, liberty, and even many aspects of people's working and living arrangements.
Who, currently admitting to be part of today's vast right wing conspiracy, wants a government like that? Oh sure, we have a few control freaks on our side, too. But that's certainly not the political ideal most of us champion.
Nor are we radicals, simply because we ask for change in government. A radical is one who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. Most radicals wish to overthrow the established social order.
Admittedly, there is also some of that in our movement. But the term fits the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party much better than anyone on our side. Because, in truth, we are not true radicals. We call for that Constitutional form of government designed by the Founding Fathers. That is not "radical." Rather, that is our well established birthright as American citizens.
That said, the term "conservative" somewhat fits -- or did once, anyway. But even the tag of conservative does not work well for two reasons: First, we most certainly do not wish to "conserve" the status quo -- the type of government we now have. And second, the term no longer works well for us because we have allowed those on the other side of the political spectrum to make conservatism synonymous with "right-wing."
As we have allowed the far left to debase the terms we most frequently use to define ourselves, so too have we allowed them to soften their own true colors. Today, some Democrats call themselves "progressives." The word "progressive" may sound nicer, but they are still a big, powerful government loving bunch who reject our Constitutional form of government in favor of a central government with near-absolute power over the people.
The leadership in today's Democratic Party profess nearly the direct opposite of our American Constitutional form of government. Therefore, nothing they propose is compatible with the original American rule of law. Rather, they work to oppress our unalienable personal rights to life, liberty and property.
Some call these Democrats socialists. Many of them are. But that is not exactly correct for the Democratic Party as an organization. They are more control freak than socialist. Social programs, to them, are but the means of garnering the support of the special groups needed to keep society in turmoil -- and Democrats in power. Judging by the methods they use to maintain control over the American people -- political correctness, racism and "special" rights, class warfare, environmental lies, propaganda, the drug war, strict regulation of everything -- they act much more like Democrat-Fascists than Democrat-Socialists.
So what can we be properly called? If we believe in the individual rights of life, liberty and property; if we believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government; if we believe in freedom and liberty for all who do not use their freedom and liberty to bother others; we are Constitutionalists.
And, if we really are Constitutionalists, there is no need to worry about tags like "right," "left," "conservative" or "liberal." We are none of those. We need only point to our copy of the Constitution and relate how its interpretation is expanded in The Federalist Papers. An appendix to that would be James Madison's address to the House when he presented the Bill of Rights.
Being a Constitutionalist, our platform, and the arguments in defense of our platform, are easy. Everything is all spelled out for us and ready to go. We need not argue the differences between conservative and liberal, right and left, socialist or fascist. What is not tasked to the federal government by the Constitution is not allowed. That's it! The Constitution limits government, not citizens. And, as set down in the Bill of Rights, all rights belong to the people.
So, what's in a name? A lot! The correct name can immediately separate us from the riffraff who do not honor our Constitution and the American way of life it was intended to protect.
We must not allow these Democrat-Fascists or their useful idiots, the socialists, to define us with a false tag. Because, in truth, most of us are good, normal Constitutionalists. Therefore, we should fly our correct colors. We should also begin painting the other side in a more correct and descriptive color.
The far right want complete control by any means. They wish to control a citizen's right to self defense, education, association, speech, liberty, and even many aspects of people's working and living arrangements.
Nor are we radicals, simply because we ask for change in government. A radical is one who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. Most radicals wish to overthrow the established social order.
That said, the term "conservative" somewhat fits -- or did once, anyway. But even the tag of conservative does not work well for two reasons: First, we most certainly do not wish to "conserve" the status quo -- the type of government we now have. And second, the term no longer works well for us because we have allowed those on the other side of the political spectrum to make conservatism synonymous with "right-wing."
The leadership in today's Democratic Party profess nearly the direct opposite of our American Constitutional form of government. Therefore, nothing they propose is compatible with the original American rule of law. Rather, they work to oppress our unalienable personal rights to life, liberty and property.
If we really are Constitutionalists, there is no need to worry about tags like "right," "left," "conservative" or "liberal." Being a Constitutionalist, our platform is all spelled out for us by the Constitution. What is not tasked to the federal government by the Constitution is not allowed. That's it! The Constitution limits government, not citizens. And, as set down in the Bill of Rights, all rights belong to the people.
"A person on the far right would be one who advocates an oligarchical type rule, a type of reactionary government that assumes strict control of all political and economic policies in the country and restricts the power and liberty of the people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.