Posted on 06/13/2002 8:27:39 AM PDT by christine
Why I'm not a conservative
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
I've said it before and I'll say it, again: I am not a conservative.
This comes as a shock to some people. We have come to view politics in America in this paradigm of right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, Republican vs. Democrat.
I tell you that is no choice at all.
I don't like the label "conservative." I reject the label. With all due respect to my "conservative" friends, I find the description detestable, extremely unflattering, simplistic and an insult.
Let me tell you why.
Conservatives, by definition, seek to conserve something from the past institutions, cultural mores, values, political beliefs, traditions.
What happens when a society moves so far from righteous values and freedom principles that there is little left to conserve?
That is where I believe America finds itself in the early part of the 21st century. Let me give you some examples of why:
the breakdown of the institutions of marriage and family;
the inability of many to distinguish between right and wrong;
the consolidation of power in Washington and in the executive branch;
the breakdown in the rule of law;
the usurpation of power by unaccountable supra-national agencies;
infringements on personal freedoms
increasing vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction and government's unwillingness or inability to address such a basic concept of defense; What do these and other problems our nation is facing have in common?
Today we have a federal government that acts without regard for the Constitution. What's the conservative prescription for that? Has "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush reversed unconstitutional government or continued it? Can you defeat unconstitutional government by putting your finger in the dike to prevent more?
No, it takes a radical agenda to defeat a radical agenda. Conservatives have no stomach for fighting the kind of fighting it takes to restore real freedom to America.
It's not a time for timidity or compromise. It's not a time for defensiveness and conciliation. It's time to take the offensive in this struggle.
I'm not a "conservative" because I see precious little left in this world worth conserving. Conservatives, from my experience, do not make good freedom fighters. They seem to think a victory is holding back attacks on liberty or minimizing them. They are forever on the defensive trying to conserve or preserve an apple that is rotten to the core.
What is the rotten apple? You can see it in the government schools that dumb down American kids. You can see it in the universities that pervert the concepts of knowledge and wisdom. You can see it in the federalization and militarization of law enforcement. You can see it in the proliferation of non-constitutional government. You can see it in the real "trickle-down economics" of confiscatory taxes. You can see it in the unaccountable authorities which give us global treaties. You can see it in the relentless attacks on marriage and the family. You can see it in euthanasia, population control and the phony "right" to abortion on demand. You can see it in the surrender of our national security.
It's all got to go. But how? Politics as usual will never get us there.
Conservatives, it seems to me, only forestall the inevitable slide into tyranny. I don't want to forestall it. I want to prevent it. I want to reverse that slide. I want to restore the dream that was America.
Was George Washington a conservative? No. He was a revolutionary. He is known throughout the world or was when people appreciated such concepts as the "father of freedom."
Today, those who stand for freedom, justice, the rule of law, self-government and the moral principles of the Bible are not part of "the establishment." We're the rebels. By the world's standards, we're the renegades.
The founding fathers knew that even the best designed government wouldn't work if the people were not righteous, moral and God-fearing if they didn't love liberty and cherish it.
To practice self-government again, we must have a people capable of self-government.
It takes courage to stand in the gap, to man the barricades, to say "enough is enough" and mean it. It takes more than a "conservative" vision to lead the way back to freedom.
Yeah. This boils my blood, too.
You forgot shooting anyone who doesn't agree with your idea of morality.
If you are a "reactionary" it intimates that you are reacting to the opponent.
If your opponent acts first you have lost the initiative.
I want to be the one that acts first and make them 'react' to me.
Admittedly, that is going to take a while to be able to do.
I still don't want to get into the mindset of 'reacting' when I should be initiating.
Admittedly, that is going to take a while to be able to do. I still don't want to get into the mindset of 'reacting' when I should be initiating.
I think you're confusing "reactionary" with "reactive".
Benjamin Franklin
You libertarians are part of the problem.
Though I agree with the statements you made following the above assertion, I do not agree that our Republic will self-restore. Too much power has been consolidated among too few. Our country is run by an elite oligarchy, who impose their will, under the guise of a voters' mandate. We've already lost our freedom and no one....NO ONE...is going to give it back. If it is to be, it will have to be taken. And I don't think enough Americans have the stomach for it.
Same root word, 'react'.
Not to quibble semantics, would you rather hit or be hit?
While they may have the same root, they have very different meanings. I don't make 'em up, I just use 'em.
reactive: 1.Tending to be responsive or to react to a stimulus.
2.Characterized by reaction.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
revolutionary: 1. a.often Revolutionary Relating to or being a revolution: revolutionary war; a museum of the Revolutionary era.
b.Bringing about or supporting a political or social revolution: revolutionary pamphlets.
2.Marked by or resulting in radical change: a revolutionary discovery.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Pretty similar as opposed to revolutionary.
Still, as long as we return to the constitution I don't really care what we're called.
That "return to the constitution" part is what makes you a reactionary. A revolutionary wants to discard the whole works and start over. A liberal wants to screw with what we've already got. A conservative wants to keep what we've got, just like it is. A reactionary wants to go back to what we had before the liberals screwed with it.
With what we have today I would say that discarding the whole works and starting over with the constitution IS the only way we will ever have it back.
May not be feasible, which is why I don't belong to a militia, but just the same, I don't see another way to bring the constitution back.
Benjamin Franklin
You libertarians are part of the problem.
How so? Libertarians are trying to save and expand the arena of human action, which is the only arena of morality. Many conservatives are trying to collectivize human action, which destroys the possibility of morality. Example, you lock someone in a cage and prevent them from taking an immoral action. Is that caged person acting morally? Answer, no, because his opportunity to act morally was taken from him.
Then the question of wheather you are revolutionary or reactionary depends on wheather you (or whoever is doing the labeling) think the Constitution is still in effect at all.
May not be feasible, which is why I don't belong to a militia, but just the same, I don't see another way to bring the constitution back.
According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, if you are between the ages of 17 and 45, you already belong to the unorganized militia.
BTTT
Very little, very small portions of the original are still in effect.
According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, if you are between the ages of 17 and 45, you already belong to the unorganized militia.
My bad, I should have stated "organized militia".
I've been called most of those names, but based on your profile page, I'd say that that puts me in good company.
The various social pathologies which clearly rose after the entrenchement of the welfare state supports your version of cause and effect.
The various social pathologies which clearly rose after the entrenchement of the welfare state supports your version of cause and effect.
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.