Conservatism: Back to Basics-Introduction

One of the people that responded to my "contest" brought up a really good point.  It is actually a topic that I have considered before and just never committed to it since what is needed to cover the subject is quite an involved undertaking.  However, since it has been brought to my attention again, I will take it as a sign that it is time.

My thanks to Ambient Malice for bringing up a valid point.  It is a problem that underpins most of our problems today.  It is a problem of understanding, of terminology and definition.  For decades Conservatives on the national stage have failed to defend conservatism against its opponents.  The thinking, I'm sure, was that to dignify the arguement wit ha response was to give them a measure validation.  So conservatives have ignored liberals when they accuse them of things like racism.  Well, taking the intellectual high road is all well and good but it has had a disastrous consequence.  We have let liberals define what conservativism is.

We have let them saddle us with the label of "racist" when time and again it is liberal democrats that have earned that moniker with Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, segregation, the founding of the KKK, etc.  It has been conservative republicans that advocated abolition of slavery and Civil Rights.  Republicans founded the first black colleges and affirmative action.  Freed slaves voted for years in the South after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, until the democrats took over again.

Liberals have defined conservatism as harmful to the elderly when it is liberals who are trying to keep Social Security which is projected to become insolvent within the next 15 years and gives a worse return on investment than a private retirement.  They also advocate taking out Medicare Advantage, a free market approach to healthcare passed by republicans that gave seniors more choices, which is the most popular medicare program.  Conservatives want to transition from Social Security, which costs the federal government more than $500 billion a year, to a private investment system which will provide a 17% increase in returns over Social Security and also more security since Congress is not actually obligated to pay anything and can change the legislation at anytime.

Liberals have labeled conservatives as being mean to the poor, disadvantaged, and the middle class.  However, their "solution" is an ever increasing system of hand-outs and free rides that give the poor and disadvantage no incentive to get out of poverty, keeps them dependent on the government, and continuously decreases their marketable skills the longer they are on the programs.  And it is the liberal addiction to over regulation and taxes that is destroying the economy and killing jobs, i.e. the middle class.  Conservatism also wants to help the poor, but we do not want to make it easy to stay poor.  We want to help the poor while giving them every incentive to get out of poverty and teh drive to do it.  And it is the conservative policy of deregulation and lower taxes that, time and again, has proven to grow both the economy and the middle class through job growth and wealth creation.

Are you getting the picture?  Everytime liberalism is implimented it has the exact opposite of its stated intent and hurt the country and the people.  Everytime they blame conservatives and our silence, our taking the high road, lets them get away with it.  Consider the past 3 and a half years.  For the first two years of his presidency Barack Obama has had a super majority in both houses of Congress.  Republicans did not even have the ability to delay legislation let alone block it.  He had the ability to pass anything he wanted, and did.  He got his trillion dollar stimulus, Obamacare, and a host of other bills including the expansion of the Patriot Act to give the president control of resources in a crisis, which he defines, and teh ability to arrest and detain citizens without trial.

What has the result been?  The economy is in the tank.  The housing market is still decimated, homes have not regained their value, tens of millions of jobs lost, unemployment is above 8%, and really more like 12% if you count those who are no longer receiveing benefits and those that are underemployed, which the government doesn't, and the explosion of the welfare state and increase of people on food stamps.  And for all of this, Obama is still blaming Bush, and conservatives in Congress.  At the same time he and his administration is using media gimicks such as low-balling unemployment and over-estimating economic numbers one week and tehn revising them up and down, respectively, the next week once they served their purpose.

No more!  This time is different.  This time conservatives are fighting back.  We are not remaining silent so that the "status quo" can be maintained.  We are getting down in the trenches and mixing it up intellectually.  With or with out the "Party's" consent or participation.

But here we come to the crux of the matter: the problem of terminology.  Because of the liberal educational system's deliberate failure to teach things like history and civics, a large portion of americans have no idea what we conservatives are talking about.  They were never taught the history of our founding.  I could write endlessly about conservatism vs. liberalism/socialism, but it won't matter if people we are trying to reach do not know what conservatism is, or that liberalism really is re-labeled socialism.  It could preach that this or that law or bill is unconstitutional, but what good is that if someone doesn't know the Constitution?

There are many people that have taken on the task of educating people, see Bill Whittle's channel on youtube, also LearnLiberty.org, and others.

To do my little part, I am going to start a continuous series on this blog that I call "Back to Basics."  I will attempt to cover things from the history of why the Founding Fathers opposed England and found it so abhorrent to live under crown law to the very Constitution itself, article by article.

So, stay tuned...

But, first, how about a participation question...What does Conservatism mean to you?  You may simply consider this question personally or, if you feel brave, post your thoughts in the comments below.

What happens now

The Republican primary is all but over.  With Santorum out of the running, the clear second place in this race, it is all but certain that Romney will get the nomination.  Ron Paul has never even come close to reaching the number one position (sorry Paul-ies, its the truth).  And Gingrich, in my opinion, is too erratic, and is out if money.  Though, who knows, anything can happen.  As for me, personally, my candidate was Rick Santorum and eventhough he has dropped out, I still can not bring myself to vote for Romney in the primary.  Primaries are for the candidate you want, not the one you can live with. 

Further more, I have strong reservations about Romney.  He has yet to convince me that his conservatism is genuine, I want a candidate that feels it in his gut, not one that has to think about the answer that will go best with the audience he is speaking to.  Romney care gives me great concern.  It may be constitutional for a state to dabble in healthcare, it is still unconstitutional to force the people to buy a product/service.  It also takes the biggest issue for conservatism, Obamacare, off the debate table.  Other issues include taxes, I do not believe he will go as far as is needed in simplifying the tax code, and I do not believe he will go as far as is needed to shrink government.  The Fed, which actually isn't a gov't agency and the EPA need to be completely abolished and the Departments of Education and State, not to be drastically reduced and overhauled, if not completely eliminated as well.

That being said, here is what happens now...

Romney will get the nomination and, despite the Left's desperate wishes to the contrary, it will not mean a certain victory for Comrade Obama.  Because after the Primary is over, and we have a nominee, all Conservatives WILL get behind him and vote.  There are too many issues and consequences involved.  Romney may not be the ideal candidate, none of them are, but he is a hell of a lot better than Obama.

Romney will, I believe, at least halt the path the Obama and the Left have put us on and perhaps institute a few conservative measures.  However, if Obama is re-elected, there is no telling how much more damage will be done to the country, how many more socialist policies he will enact by executive fiat, ignoring Congress.  If you consider that he will not even be beholden to the people since he no longer needs to worry about an election, this threat become even graver.

Believe me, most other conservative feel the same way.  We will vote for Mitt Romney's shoe over Obama for a second time.  And if you believe in this country at all, want to see it great again, and believe that prosperity and liberty are essential to life, you will do the same.