WELCOME to Free Republic.
From the very start, let me tell you that Conservatives are not in this political game to be divisive, nor to be paper-thin ideologues spewing pre-thought talking points. We do not live merely to throw Democrats into a tizzy simply because they are democrats. We live, rather, to ourselves enjoy, and to preserve what our Nation’s Founders risked everything to establish, and — where the bounds have been transgressed — to revert our government back to a finer adherence to those original ideals. We seek only to preserve the ideals that were given their finest voice in our Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution of the United States, and to pass to our posterity a Nation that adheres to them in at least the same degree as it did when we first came to know it. At the most basic, those ideals are that the God-given Freedom upon which this Nation was built cannot be had except that it be Individuals — not government — that is The Decider in the lives of citizens. This concept is well articulated in Lincoln’s description of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Unfortunately, in seeking these things, we find ourselves at crossed purposes to many, many policy positions being articulated at DNC Headquarters. For example, President Obama prefers that government — not the Individual — gets to decide between fluorescent and incandescent; President Obama prefers that government — not the Individual — gets to decide between gas-powered and hybrid; and President Obama prefers that government — not the Individual — gets to decide between paying for adequate or minimal healthcare. That we are even forced to debate these things — and especially that we are having to tell government “Hell NO!” at all points (at great risk that they ram it all down our protesting throats, anyway) — would be incredibly odious to The Founders, and it is incredibly odious to us; to Conservatives seeking to preserve a real measure of Freedom, these looming government usurpations are anathema. We do not fight against these things because they are being advanced by Liberals and Democrats. We fight against these things because they are an egregious transgression against the personal Liberty that is the very beating heart of our Nation’s greatness.
So, from the outset, know that we need not carry forward as adversaries. As long as it is clear that you also aim to preserve the original Principles upon which America is established, and that your positions are simply an articulation of different means to that end, then we can freely discuss advantages and disadvantages.
If you, also, are able to participate in dialogue with reference to citations of fact to substantiate the positions you articulate, I see no reason why you would not be able to hang out and engage the great conversation.
Know that this may be a very great test to your personal patience, but I assure you that it will build your character if you can resist becoming reactionary in your replies.
Know also, however, that to the extent you advocate positions that undermine the Foundational Principles of this Nation, you will find no support, here. If you ask, we will be more than able to articulate exactly how what you espouse runs counter to Freedom, and Liberty, but you may well find yourself taxed to the limits of your patience unless you take upon yourself the mantle of the student, and design to hear far more than you speak.
We bear you no ill (though some things you may advocate are likely on our poop list), just know you’ll have to tread lightly, at first, and work to develop a reputation as one who is circumspect, principled, factual, and articulate in disagreement.
Happy posting!
Damn, I wish that I could articulate as well as what you just wrote. I believe it explains nicely why most of us are Freepers. Thanks again for you well written words.
I agree that a standard litmus test, from the outset, something we can all agree on, is essential to honest, constructive dialogue on very important national and international matters. My gold standard is the reason why I chose to live in the United States (I was born here and my family goes back to the 1700s here, but I am free to leave also). That standard is that, based on my limited knowledge of history and political philosophy, I find the ideas of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to be vastly superior as a practical means of public cooperation and government to anything anyone has contrived thus far.
Is there an imbalance between the weak and the powerful in such a system? I think so, but its much preferable to the alternatives and it is certainly an economic juggernaut for which we can all be grateful. Capitalism is a powerful elixir and I'd still rather have it than any kind of socialist, centralized and thoughtless system which merely shifts the abuse of power over the weak to politicians.
So, I'm all for a planned economy if it could work, I just haven't heard of one that has any chance of doing so. We can agree to disagree, and I suspect that most people here are of the Jeffersonian and Madisonian flavor. I'm a Hamiltonian through and through and I view these guys not as conservatives but as radical progressives.
I believe, as Hamilton did, that separation of powers was a concept not limited to the organs of government itself, but to the balance of power between the state and what I call The People. So, in my view, the primary demons we face in our political landscape have to do with how we have foolishly relinquished the legitimate and reasonable concerns of The State to the whims of what Madison and Hamilton called popular faction - today called special interests. It is why we pay 8,000 dollars for toilet seats on military aircraft, why we have senseless laws passed that totally eviscerate the good intentions of the 2nd Amendment, and why our government seems, as each year passes, to be more and more impotent and unable to act in the interests of the Nation.
This is just to describe from the outset where I am coming from. So, some examples where we'd likely agree:
The border issue is a sad testament to the government's inability to ACT. I think the idea of open borders and a borderless society is great, provided it is done responsibly and with adequate consideration of the public safety. A president not owned by special interests would, upon inauguration, nationalize the State Guards of CA, AZ, NM, and TX, send them to the border with orders to shoot anything that moves and the immigration problem would end overnight saving thousands of lives from heat exhaustion, thirst and death as a result of crimes committed to further their illegal status. The argument that we "can't do this" is disingenuous. The Soviet Union managed their borders quite nicely for 70 years with just such orders issued. And believe me, people weren't trying to cross the border merely for a minimum wage job at 7/11. That, followed up with a compassionate immigration policy where immigrants can be known, tracked and vetted and the public safety ensured is much preferable and more humane, in my view. To me, that would BE an open border managed by responsible policy.
The second Amendment is another example of the government's total domination by special interests. The meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment is as clear as an elephant taking a dump in your living room; if you can't see it or smell it your're either unconscious or dead. Hamilton was very concerned (and Madison even more so) about what would happen if their 'ingenious' system failed. The 2nd Amendment was never about duck hunting. It was about intimidating the crap out of dictators. It worked. And there is not a seven nation army on this planet that could militarily occupy this country either. So, what do I think is the right way to approach the sad and horrible cycle of violence and crime? Why don't we start with the family? Well, that is now taboo discussion in my crowd.
So, when my liberal friends complain about crime I tell them a "cute little bed-time story". Back around 1780 the world's most powerful army went up to a place called Lexington Green in search of arms to confiscate from a bunch of ragtag colonists. They made a good show of it. But they had to get back home that night. Word spread that the Army had shot up some colonists on their way into the hinterland. One road led home and word traveled fast. Thousands and thousands of colonists raced to this road from numerous adjoining counties. Every dad, mother and child over 12 arrived within 24 hours armed to the teeth. This mighty Army was ripped to shreds by a bunch of ignorant, rag-tag colonists shooting from hidden positions all along the length of this long, dark road. Boys as young as 9 were firing large, heavy rifles from the windows of farm houses along the road. This was like Waco squared. When the commanding officer asked how many colonists were "rebelling" and how many of those were armed, the second in command gave him an incredulous look and paused. He then said, "uh...all of them"! (now, of course, he didn't mean all 2 million colonists on the continent, but the point was that the exact number was irrelevant at that point). This Army, known for a kind of discipline that never failed even in the face of being overrun, was reported to have broken up, soldiers running in all directions like "chickens with their heads cut off", only to be mowed down by withering fire from farms along the road. This is where the phrase "shock and awe" came from. Fear gripped the column and the commanding officer knew he had no choice but to make a mad dash for his redbout back in "the world" to the east. A non-combat worthy remnant staggered back to civilization barely hanging on to its life. The royalty of England just received a quick and swift kick in the groin. The Holy Army of Angels had just been found. THIS is why we need to appreciate the deeper meaning behind the 2nd Amendment. Most of my friends never knew about this history. Historical accounts today play it down but the primary sources are a shocking testament to the effectiveness of an armed populace. This legacy of maniacal behavior on the battlefield continued with their "commissioned" descendents; dead-eye dicks from the back waters of Kentucky, rifles in hand, quickly came to New England to be "sworn in". The likes of fighers Benedict Arnold, Daniel Morgan and even Alexander Hamilton were all inspired by the fighting spirit of everyday civilians who fought for no other reason than some dictator was "tresspassing".
So, I'm all for crime control, for Hamilton's increased sense of State Powers and progressive public policy provided we retain the ultimate safety valve of arming The People to the teeth. That is "balance of power". There are people in D.C. today who know this story quite well and are indeed scared to death of it. Stories like those above should inspire us, not divide us.
So, there is much we can agree on and less we can disagree on. I agree that it's a matter of methods, not intent. We all want what is best for the Nation and the world and I do believe that all people are basically good. But there are forces in this world that feed on and promote an insane degree of polarization to keep the voices of reason drowned out. That is what I fear most.