What is a conservative?

[SpanglerFan316]

While I prefer a more scholarly, articulate definition, I'll give you my own definition in layman's terms.

I believe a Conservative views the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as perfect documents and the adherence to their original intent as the foundation of our society.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3

[kcshocker11]

While I prefer a more scholarly, articulate definition, I'll give you my own definition in layman's terms.

I believe a Conservative views the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as perfect documents and the adherence to their original intent as the foundation of our society.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."


Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3

Needs a little updating id say :D 8)

[SpanglerFan316]

While I prefer a more scholarly, articulate definition, I'll give you my own definition in layman's terms.

I believe a Conservative views the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as perfect documents and the adherence to their original intent as the foundation of our society.

In opposition to that, I see the Liberal view as one who thinks the foundations of society can and should move as society evolves. What was appropriate in the past may be antithetical to what is preferred today. In short, the perfect society is the society of the future not the past.

Article 1:
Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


Article IV.
Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.



Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[RoyalShock]

Spangler, your pointing out the slave verbage really does no good unless you can also provide the purpose for them not wanting those sections amended until 1808.

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the Founding Fathers had more to deal with in a new and emerging country than the slavery issue. That could be dealt with 30 years later after the country was on solid footing. I think it recognizes that they knew it would be a difficult and polarizing issue.

[BOBB]

Spangler, your pointing out the slave verbage really does no good unless you can also provide the purpose for them not wanting those sections amended until 1808.

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the Founding Fathers had more to deal with in a new and emerging country than the slavery issue. That could be dealt with 30 years later after the country was on solid footing. I think it recognizes that they knew it would be a difficult and polarizing issue.

The Importation Ban essentially raised the value of a slave along with thos bred in captivity. At the time of the convention while some anti-slavery sentiment was held by those morally opposed to it, another large contingent was really nervous about the idea of more Africans being imported and essentially changing the color of the country. Also, the "3/5 Clause" is often cited as the Constitution only counting an African as 3/5 a human being. The interesting thing is that Southern states wanted equal representation for all slaves, while Northern states wanted none. Of course, the southern states didn't want the slaves to vote their 3/5...just the representation. If "Framer's Intent" is at all interesting to you, read Madision's "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787." Interesting reading as to the discussions and personalities of the debate...if you're in to that kind of thing.

[SpanglerFan316]

Spangler, your pointing out the slave verbage really does no good unless you can also provide the purpose for them not wanting those sections amended until 1808.

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the Founding Fathers had more to deal with in a new and emerging country than the slavery issue. That could be dealt with 30 years later after the country was on solid footing. I think it recognizes that they knew it would be a difficult and polarizing issue.

My point is that the original US Constitution was not perfect; it needs to be updated (by amendment) and interpreted (by the Courts) in order to a useful guide for our nation. It may have been the best document they could create that all states would adopt and represents a great exercise in realpolitik http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik.

[Maggie]

Re: What is a conservative?

...it's the reason why I don't believe voting for someone other than Obama or McCain is a throwaway vote.

That's all well and good during the primary, neither McCain or Obama were selected by their respective parties, they were chosen by a majority of voters.

When it comes to the general election, one of those two will win, so who most fits your principles? Me personally, I want to make sure one candidate doesn't sniff the presidency, more than I want my party's candidate to win this time.

For me not to vote for my party's candidate is essentially a throwaway vote for the candidate I least want to see in office. Work all you can to change the party and support good candidates, but don't throw your vote away on people like Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.

I have to respectfully disagree. Throwing your vote behind the party nominee because you both have an (R) behind your name only perpetuates the status quo. If you really feel a candidate represents your values then by all means vote for them.

Using pragmatism as a basis of who gets your vote is, in my opinion, a big reason why we have such a huge monstrosity of a government that seems more concerned with it's own interests than the interests of the people it purports to represent. It shouldn't be about keeping the other party out of office. I used to be a straight-ticket voter, so I fully understand why people vote pragmatically. For me, doing that now violates my conscience. I no longer think that is a good way to go about electing leaders, particularly since it's become harder to discern between the ruling parties.

In my opinoin, the only voice party leadership listens to is your vote in the general election. If you are unhappy with the direction of the party (forget the other party and their candidate), but vote for their candidate anyway, you just gave tacet approval.

Since I've continued to follow Paul's campaign and the "liberty movement", I've read many incidents (first-hand accounts, media reports, as well as recorded video and audio) where party leaders at state Republican conventions broke party rules to exclude the opinions and influence of registered party members that just happened to support Ron Paul, right up to disqualifying properly elected delegates on those grounds alone. Party leaders don't give a crap about the rank-and-file beyond the November vote. Dissent is not allowed. That doesn't sound very "democratic" to me.

The bottom line for me is that I'm a conservative. John McCain is not. Neither he nor the Republican party, of which I'm still a member, will get my vote. I actually hope they lose and lose badly. That may be the only way the party leadership will get the message I want them to get. Sometimes things need to get worse before they'll get better.

Royal,

I understand how you feel. While I am a registered Republican, I do not consider myself a "party man". I consider myself a Conservative. The Republican Party just happens or happened to be the party in which most of the principles I deem fundamental seem to have a "home" – for the most part anyway. You see, conservatism by itself cannot move things. It needs a political party. In our political structure, it is parties that get things done. But today we do have a problem.

A kind of mental lethargy now exists in the Republican Party. They, all too often, are relying on those brilliant and successful policies of the past to be its principles of today or they have abandoned those first principles due to political expediency. This is completely backwards and nonsensical. The greatness of conservatism has been an understanding that policies are derivatives of principles. Principles never change, policies do. The trick is finding the correct application of principle-based policies that fit our time.

Jefferson’s idea of individual liberty, Lincoln’s championing of equal rights for all, Teddy Roosevelt’s heart for conservation and Kennedy’s call for American volunteerism — these are principles embedded in the American experience. Appealing to them tugs at our fellow Americans’ heartstrings as well as “headstrings.” In other words, as Americans we all understand these principles at an intuitive, gut level because they are part of who we are.

A renewed embrace of first principles will refresh a conservative movement that of late has seen better days. Furthermore, this approach will allow conservatives far greater latitude when it comes to the actual policies they promote today. It has been in part the Republican's strict adherence to the doctrines of the past that has contributed to its diminished standing with the American people. There was a time when the Republican party was rightly seen as the party of ideas. Under Reagan in the 1980s and the congressional revolutionaries of the mid 1990s, ideas were free flowing as its leaders focused first on American principles as the foundation for their policies. Somewhere along the way they lost this and began replacing principled convictions and forward-looking policies with nostalgia for policies and politicians of past eras. When that happened they stopped connecting with the American people.

Given the choice between policies that spring forth from American principles and those that do not, the American people will chose the former every time. These are the principles that are engrained in the American character. Our fellow citizens agree that principles like liberty, economic opportunity, self-government, equal rights, and the rule of law should form the bedrock of public policy.

You state correctly that John McCain is NOT a Conservative. Our current President is also NOT a Conservative. And I obviously agree with you that the Republican Party has, in many ways, lost its way. Furthermore, part of me does agree with you that an enormous loss in the upcoming election may serve as a "wake-up call" to the Republican Party. However, the more I learn about McCain's opponent the more nervous I become about the scenario you suggest. In Obama, I see radical socialism and statism – so I ask you – are you willing to endure four or eight years of such policies?

The choices in the upcoming election are, indeed, very poor. But I think you should focus on changing the direction of the party that you believe most embraces your principles and values.

[SubGod22]

The two party system is killing us. I pray for one of the other parties to catch hold someday and make some noise and establish themselves as what could be considered a legit alternative. The Republican Party as a whole seems to have really gotten away from Conservative values/principles. There were a couple of candidates that ran on those and they were dismissed rather early by most media.

Conservatism either needs to take back the Republican Party or establish itself elsewhere. I've never paid more attention to politics than I have in the past year or so. I've always been an interested observer but I've gone as far as actually doing more reading and joining a couple of Conservative Boards. I was actually strongly behind a candidate and am still horribly disappointed at the direction that was chosen for the Republican Party.

Still, I feel we need at least a third party to mix things up with the other two.

[RoyalShock]

Maggie, I can pretty much agree with everything you said.

As for McCain vs. Obama, the moment it became clear McCain would be the nominee, I felt what little chance the GOP had to retain the presidency went up in smoke. With Barr and Baldwin running, there will be enough fed-up conservatives and "Religious Right" (although Baldwin has been highly critical of them) to go their direction. McCain's only hope is to siphon off a good amount of Hillary supporters.

But when the race heats up, I think his lack of understanding of economics will stick out so bad that the November election will be a bloodbath. He's also a ticking time-bomb and is likely to make a major mistake before the election. He's just not an endearing individual. And we all know how important that is to a touchy-feely voting block. Obviously, I'm a Ron Paul guy, but the GOP would have had a much better chance with Romney as the nominee, IMO.

So basically, I've already resigned myself to an Obama White House. And the people will get exactly what they deserve. I'm expecing a huge swing toward conservatism like we saw in '94. But hopefully, the beneficiaries can do a better job than that class of reps did.

I haven't mentioned this here yet, but just in case there are a few liberty-minded conservatives out there who are interested, when Ron Paul ended his campaign he announced the launch of a new effort called Campaign for Liberty.

[Maggie]

Sub-
I am not sure it is the two party system that has failed. It is the perception, created by many sources, that a conservative candidate would not be electable in the current political climate. Couple that with the fact that Republicans seem to feel the need to pander the media rather than stand up for the values, etc. that got them elected in the first place.

[RoyalShock]

The two party system is killing us. I pray for one of the other parties to catch hold someday and make some noise and establish themselves as what could be considered a legit alternative. The Republican Party as a whole seems to have really gotten away from Conservative values/principles. There were a couple of candidates that ran on those and they were dismissed rather early by most media.

Conservatism either needs to take back the Republican Party or establish itself elsewhere. I've never paid more attention to politics than I have in the past year or so. I've always been an interested observer but I've gone as far as actually doing more reading and joining a couple of Conservative Boards. I was actually strongly behind a candidate and am still horribly disappointed at the direction that was chosen for the Republican Party.

Still, I feel we need at least a third party to mix things up with the other two.

Sub, you just explained the problem with pragmatism. As long as people keep voting Dem or Rep, in the spirit of keeping the other guy out of office, no significant 3rd party will emerge.

I think there are some decent politicians who would consider changing to a 3rd party if they thought people would vote for them. (Sad, isn't it?) Personally, I think the best hope is for conservatives to take back the GOP. But I'm also looking very seriously into the Constitution Party and their candidate, Chuck Baldwin. They have what I think is a good, principled platform as it relates to federal government. There is a Christian flavor to it, but mostly as it relates to why they agree with foundational constitutional principles. They admit to being against gambling and gay marriage, but oppose federal involvement in those issues. They oppose pornography on the grounds that it is harmful to society and falls under existing obscenity laws. Most everything else in their platform is good ol' conservatism.

[SubGod22]

The two party system is killing us. I pray for one of the other parties to catch hold someday and make some noise and establish themselves as what could be considered a legit alternative. The Republican Party as a whole seems to have really gotten away from Conservative values/principles. There were a couple of candidates that ran on those and they were dismissed rather early by most media.

Conservatism either needs to take back the Republican Party or establish itself elsewhere. I've never paid more attention to politics than I have in the past year or so. I've always been an interested observer but I've gone as far as actually doing more reading and joining a couple of Conservative Boards. I was actually strongly behind a candidate and am still horribly disappointed at the direction that was chosen for the Republican Party.

Still, I feel we need at least a third party to mix things up with the other two.

Sub, you just explained the problem with pragmatism. As long as people keep voting Dem or Rep, in the spirit of keeping the other guy out of office, no significant 3rd party will emerge.

I think there are some decent politicians who would consider changing to a 3rd party if they thought people would vote for them. (Sad, isn't it?) Personally, I think the best hope is for conservatives to take back the GOP. But I'm also looking very seriously into the Constitution Party and their candidate, Chuck Baldwin. They have what I think is a good, principled platform as it relates to federal government. There is a Christian flavor to it, but mostly as it relates to why they agree with foundational constitutional principles. They admit to being against gambling and gay marriage, but oppose federal involvement in those issues. They oppose pornography on the grounds that it is harmful to society and falls under existing obscenity laws. Most everything else in their platform is good ol' conservatism.

We've discussed some of that on the one political board I frequent. I've looked into the Constitution, Conservative and Libertarian Parties and am weighing my options. There are too few Conservative voices any more. At least that have any political power. Still, if the GOP is going to continue down the path it's been going, we the people need another voice.

Broken may have been the wrong term, but there are many, many Americans who aren't happy with either party and feel there's nobody out there representing them. At least very few representatives.

[shocks771]

If you have never done it, you should: Take the test to see where you stand politically. What you think you are as opposed to what you get rated may be different than what you think:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I was pretty much where I thought I was, a little left of center, and a little below the horizon.

Thanks for this link Snapshot. I'm pretty much right where I expected to be as well. One unit to the left of center and two units below the horizon.

[RoyalShock]

I also ended up pretty close to what I expected - 2 units right, 2 units down (Libertarian Right).

However, there are several questions that are worded very poorly and need more clarification.

[SubGod22]

However, there are several questions that are worded very poorly and need more clarification.

Very much so.