Or, Consistency vs. Wishy-Washy
A little long but please bear with me,,,,,,
Friends, I recently had an exchange on another blog that prompted this post, basically getting down to the point of consistency.
You may deem it ranting but that is not my intent, this is all quite sincere.
I submit a conservative is a person, an individual who, in simple terms, takes a road paving their own path without government interference but within the law set forth in our Constitution. This particular path may lead to great, middle-of-the-road or disastrous ends, but it is in the end, either way, a choice which is (or was) guaranteed in our constitution.
Many describe that a Conservative is a "religious-right" individual thereby changing the description and context of the term. It maybe true some are, but a broad stroke of a liberal brush obviously will not paint the picture justly.
One who truly believes them self(s) to be a Conservative remains consistent in everything they do; relationship's, marriage, work, religion (does not matter which faith or denomination), word's, action's and most importantly the reading of the U.S. Constitution. The keyword in this is 'consistent'. What good are word's if the listener/reader knows that they are empty rendering them useless?
I contend that many of those who may belong to the Republican Party establishment are not what are deemed Conservative. Many of you may indeed agree with my contention but I write this to clarify the issue for those who do not. I do not wish to demonize the party, just to clean it up. Two prominent elected Republicans come to mind that illustrate my point; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
We are entering 2010 which will likely be the most important election year of our lives. Yes, our lives not our Grandpas. The Republican Party traditionally is a good place to be, but we must be vigilant as to who represents Conservative values inside that party. This vigilance must be applied at all levels of government; City, County, State and Federal.
I am not nor ever have been a democrat but I am not blind either. We have witnessed the hijacking of a political party by far-left socialist's which in turn are endangering our very existence. Conversely we cannot allow 'moderates' to hijack the Republican party. If moderation were to prevail, what would be the point of a 2-party system or opposition as it is/was?
Many also say "Well, the GOP is the party of the 'Big Tent’, there is room for moderates".
I personally could not disagree more. Moderation is just another form, albeit slower, of instrumentalism into socialism. When you step back and look at how we as a Nation got where we are today, it is 'moderates' that can take full responsibility for it, to and including B. Hussein Obama and the current congress under the "leadership" of Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The very definitions of moderate/moderation do not belong in the American political lexicon.
I have respect for liberals in one sense as not unlike conservatives they know what they want. Moderates on the other hand have no clue as to what they seek thereby have no base from which to form a coherent thought, vote or let alone govern.
Think about it in terms of the debate surrounding abortion; the liberals are all for this abominable practice and conservatives are justifiably against it, moderates?
Can you have a moderate abortion?
I think not and believe even liberals would agree on that point.
Think of a football game; most people pick one team to root for and win, right? Can you pick both teams to win in the same game? No. What would be the point of the contest?
A recent example of how 'moderates' 'feel' about a subject; The federal government bailing-out and taking over General Motors which in their confused minds 'allowed’, repeat “allowed” the now state-owned company to file for bankruptcy. This thinking is beyond ridiculous but serves to point out that 'moderation' has no place in governing.
I have recently been called an ideologue and by a person who claims the mantle of conservatism but in truth is a moderate. Now this person would disagree in my description of him but the proof is in his description of me. I would actually agree with his assertion about myself as an ideologue as I have decidedly chosen sides and endeavor to stay consistent in all I do. That said, a conservative would never use that terminology to describe another conservative for it is a given, requires no verbalization and therefore goes unsaid.
Now someone who is not conservative would obviously use that word being they have yet to make up their mind on any given issue with the exception of throwing names out. (Remind you of another party?)
Every election is indeed important and that by now should be quite obvious as should the consequences. This year there is no exception. As has been said before "one cannot be all things to all people" so don't try. Get off the fence, pick a side and above all, be consistent about it.
The spokesperson in the following video is speaking in terms of athletic training on consistency, but what he says remains true no matter the thinking,subject or goal. In my case that goal would be a return to a Constitutionally based American Republic,,,,,,
I am quite confident being a Conservative ideologue and as the above spokesman suggests the reason for this state of confidence is consistency. He furthers states, and I at est. to, that this takes work and or a challenge. It is very easy to be a moderate or liberal, it requires no work whatsoever, no challenge, no loyalty and in turn no thought. You become a "fair weather fan" or go" whichever way the wind blows", neither one being consistent.
Bottom-line; if you wish to be liberal then just be consistent about it like Pelosi. I fully understand, not agree, but understand her socialist agenda. Or be a Conservative like Economist Thomas Sowell, again I fully understand, and in his case fully agree on his goal as I share it.
Both the people mentioned above do not give an inch to the other side which is to be respected in the terms of consistency. How can you respect a moderate? People I am talking about voters here that need to size themselves up.
I go back to my example of auto bailouts; why would a state-run company take itself to itself in court to protect itself when all was readily available before any bail-out? This is deemed "moderation" but in fact a rip-off and needless to say unconstitutional and also stupid. Then we witnessed so-called conservatives (RINO's) attacking real Conservatives who justifiably saw bankruptcy which in fact is constitutional hence legal and the 1st,best and inevitable solution.
'Cash for Clunkers' ring a bell? As Paul Harvey used to say "Now you know the rest of the story"
In the afore (beginning) mentioned exchange there was a strange mention of 'percentage of purity' as it pertains to Conservatism? As though there is a subjective level as to adherence to the Law of the Land? Well to answer such a ridiculous, subversive premise; 100%.
This again points to why I find moderation ridiculous if not insane; how can a society have say 35% adherence to the law? My God! What would that lead to? Well it is actually called ANARCHY- meaning no laws.
No moderates for me, just ideologues. I keep my friends close and enemies closer. Those who deem me neither friend nor foe need to be placed in a secure mental facility. I am not a mind-reader nor do I wish to be, just pick a side, state your mind and back it up.
Think, can there be a "comprimise" on freedom? The answer is obvious,,,NO!
17 comments:
Great post, Christopher. A bit lengthy, but well said. As one ideologue to another, I agree with your description of what a moderate is to a T: I wonder how many 'moderate' members of al Qaeda are in the ranks? You know, those level headed 'contemplative' Jihadists who think that cutting a head off for Allah is a bit extreme, when Allah is well served simply by cutting off the infidel's hand and then putting out their eyes. Or if the infidel happens to be female, then stoning to death is much more moderate than decapitation.
Excellent analogy Fredd.
We can see anther analogy along those lines at work sadly and backwards as well,Ft. Hood shooter/murderer = 'moderate' muslim (14 DEAD,moderate?), Christmas Day underwear bomber = terrorist (yet did not kill anyone,Thank God).
Now 'moderation' was cited and used to rid the word "terroisim" but we see this 'moderation' has now brought the 'Oversea's Operatives' home to roost and the term(s) terrorist and terrorism now in vogue once again.
How should we fight terrorism Christopher? How should we deal with the threat of Islam on America and the Western culture as well as all other religions? Where do the Libertarians and the Republicans fall with you? And is there a party for a far right idealogue like yourself? I see all the parties not serving the conservatives. The Republicans are getting better but they need to get rid of the Snowes of the party. And for now the Democrats are useless as they are as far left as a party can go.
Good, thoughtful post. We all have an ideology, some of us just don't realize it.
Hi Christopher- excellent post. You said things much more eloquent than I could, but in a few words, I believe that there is no room for compromise- and that is what moderates always tout. Not only is that my position in politics, but in everything else in my life. People may consider me too hard nosed, all black and white and I don't care. Compromise means that some one has to give up something, and I do not give up my hardline positions on anything from abortion, Jesus our Savior, the Constitution or anything else. Moderates are death for any party, and the sooner we get the Snowes, Grahams and McCains out, the sooner we can focus on bringing America back out of socialist's grip.
God Bless and Happy , Blessed New Year to you and your family!
Chris, let me answer one by one, my response will be in CAPS, not yelling, just to differentiate question/statement from response:
(1) How should we fight terrorism Christopher?
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK? KILL THEM OF COURSE, TAKE THE CHAINS OFF OUR MILITARY AND LET THEM DO THEIR JOBS, VERY OBVIOUS SOLUTION. ALONG WITH THAT WOULD BE TO CUT-OFF ALL MONETARY AID TO ANY COUNTRY THAT HAS MADRASSAS. WHY (EVEN THOUGH FOREIGN AID IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL) GIVE MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO RAISE TERRORISTS TO BEGIN WITH?
(2) How should we deal with the threat of Islam on America and the Western culture as well as all other religions?
SIMPLE, IF TO BE FOUND PREACHING ANYTHING CONTRARY TO A COUNTRIES RESPECTIVE LAWS (AS IN TERRORISM), DISBAND THE ORGANIZATION AND OUTLAW IT, IF CRIMES COMMITTED IMPRISON THEM. ALONG WITH THAT REINSTATE THE DEATH PENALTY.
(3) Where do the Libertarians and the Republicans fall with you?
AS OF LATE, THE LIBERTARIANS ARE CLOSER TO CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT THAN REPUBLICANS (QUITE A BIT OF SPENDING IN THE 8 YEARS OF BUSH 43 (6 of which were republican controlled congress let alone few preisidential vetos) NOT INCLUDING MILITARY SPENDING. BUT REALLY I WOULD WISH THE REPUBLICANS WOULD STOP CAVING AND RETURN TO THEIR AND THE COUNTRIES FOUNDING PRINCIPLES.
(4) And is there a party for a far right ideologue like yourself?
THIS GOES TO MY POINT OF THROWING OUT NAMES. YOU REPLACE CONSERVATIVE WITH FAR-RIGHT, WHY IS FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED FAR-RIGHT TO YOU? DO YOU NOT LIKE SOME IT?
(5) I see all the parties not serving the conservatives.
WE AGREE ON THAT!
(6) The Republicans are getting better but they need to get rid of the Snowes of the party.
AS I MENTIONED IN MY POST.
(7) And for now the Democrats are useless as they are as far left as a party can go.
AGAIN, I ALLUDED TO THIS IN MY POST – HIJACKED.
Please read Carolyns comment Chris as she makes a very simple and obvious point which is :
"Compromise means that some one has to give up something"
Just what are you willing to give up?
Carolyn, Thank you for your comment as you summed it up nicely. May God Bless you and yours as well,Happy New Year.
Christopher said,"(4) And is there a party for a far right ideologue like yourself?
THIS GOES TO MY POINT OF THROWING OUT NAMES. YOU REPLACE CONSERVATIVE WITH FAR-RIGHT, WHY IS FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED FAR-RIGHT TO YOU? DO YOU NOT LIKE SOME IT?" Relax little buddy I'm not attacking you so don't attack me. Are you saying you can't be a conservative unless you are far right? That doesn't make sense. Libertarians are not conservative on social issues but yet you allign yourself with them. They aren't far right at all. So why would you go all attack dog when I ask some questions? I think you are reading into things way too much. You know I am a conservative in both social and economic issues. So what is really eating at you Christopher? You went off on Brian and now me when you youself say you are more aligned to the Libertarians then anyone. They are not even close to as conservative as the Republkican party is on social issues that you seem to care so much about. So you are on both sides of the fence too. So why don't you hold your own feet to the same fire as you hold other? How many Tea Party protests have you been too? Throwing stones at fellow conservatives only pushes us away. Christopher I have given up much in time and money to help the conservative cause. What have you done? Have you gone and talked to your Reps,writen letters,make signs,go to most if not all of the protests in your area? Have you taken anyone with you to do the same? Or do you just talk about it and wine when others do nothing or don't tow the conservative right line? What have you done Christopher? I know a lot of people that talk about what is wrong but do little to fix it. I also notice that it is those that can't get motivated enough to go to a protest of to keep in contact with their Reps that complain the most when those that do don't do enough. But I could be way off and misreading your attacks on the right. Keep up the good work you do do as it does make a difference. As doing more is something we could all do so try going after the far left and once that is cleaned up we can start working on the moderates and right of centers. Mind you we are all to the right of the Republicans and Libertarians so keep them in line and your efforts will be better served to the right.
Christopher, have you ever compromised with your wife or kids? What about with anyone else? If you think you can push the whole country to the far right all in one swift more or nothing. Then you better be prepared for nothing. As it has taken us over 40 years of nudging from the far left(progressives)that brought us to this point. And Christopher please know that I agree with you on idealogy. But we disagree on the implementation of conservativism.
Chris ?
Not an attack,you asked I answered and had already pointed this out in my post.
"Are you saying you can't be a conservative unless you are far right?"
No, I am saying it is one-in-the-same. If YOU use the liberal version of the term you do not align YOURSELF with Conservatism and further demonize the cause in doing so.
'Libertarians are not conservative on social issues but yet you allign yourself with them"
Do not put words in my mouth (as anyone can clearly read above), I said they are closer to conservative thought so they therefore are aligning themselves with conservatives ,not vise/versa. Conversly and oddly the GOP/RNC is actually going towards where libertarians were which is or was Republican lite.
Again,not an attack, if you 'feel' attacked then some of my words may have struck a chord.
I made my response to your questions and yet you seem angered. I do not see any comment from Brian so i will not make any here,I am sure he can handle constructive critism without your assistence. I seek only for those who claim to be conservative to be consistent.
I know you are a Christian so look at it this way: when Jesus returns,do you believe He will seek moderates to His side meaning those that will comprimise on a "little" evil? NO. Either pick Him or be vanquished.
Now theres a term to think about the war on terror (evil),vanquish them. Why not clear the field a little to help the Savoir on His return.
Chris did you read the post?
Quote from you:
"As it has taken us over 40 years of nudging from the far left(progressives)that brought us to this point."
From my post:
When you step back and look at how we as a Nation got where we are today, it is 'moderates' that can take full responsibility for it, to and including B. Hussein Obama and the current congress under the "leadership" of Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The very definitions of moderate/moderation do not belong in the American political lexicon.
Then you say;
"we disagree on the implementation of conservativism"
Please show me where I used the term 'implementation'?
Again I seek CONSISTENCY in PEOPLE. If people who claim to be conservative were in fact CONSISTENT, the implementation would take care of itself.
Christopher said,"I know you are a Christian so look at it this way: when Jesus returns,do you believe He will seek moderates to His side meaning those that will comprimise on a "little" evil? NO. Either pick Him or be vanquished." Are you saying that Jesus will only take the far right rightious Christians ? Or will he take those that are baptized and believe? And by your reactions I must have struck a cord of truth for you too. Don't forget the man on the cross that Jesus saved. I'm sure he was a liberal or moderate as we know he wasn't a far right Jew/Christian until he met Jesus.And Christopher it is not just the moderates but the left and the right that have compromised little by little and pushed us to where we are now. Christopher you want Consistance from others.
I also asked you what you have DONE for the conservative movement? You do a lot of talking but where is your action? Did that strike a cord? You're telling us that Do things we are conservative enough. I myself have been at 5 Te party protest,went to Sander Levins office and talked to him and I've writen numerous letters and talked to many of our Reps. I have also gone to many other roundtable community events to help in the direction of our community. I notice you don't like answering those questions even though I've ask twice and not 3 times. You are casting stoines at the wrong people. We are the conservatives that take it to the streets and nudge the middle and the left. When I start seeing you come out of your ivory tower and doing the hard work then I will take heed of your judgments. Just remember we are all pushing to the right and there are many out their that will be to the left of us but still right of center. And if God only takes the pious right to heavan then I would say we are both in trouble. But who am I to judge? When I brought up Brian I was just pointing out that you attacked him on his blog for not being far enough right. And I said attack because that was the tone and that is how both he and I took it. I think your anger is misdirected and most likely from some other cause.
You said,"Again I seek CONSISTENCY in PEOPLE. If people who claim to be conservative were in fact CONSISTENT, the implementation would take care of itself." There are gray areas were we need people to be given the freedom to choose the right thing to do. Take alcohol for instance. Would you make alcohol illegal? That would be and was a conservative thing to do. But God gave us the right to choose weather or not to abuse what God made. In my understanding of conservcative is that we should regulate and educate on alcohol. Don't forget you don't make all the rules when it comes to the definition of an idealogue. Believe it or not there are liberals that are pro life and go to Church. Are they not liberal because they go to Church and are pro life? If you kick out the moderates then conservatives loose. Now I've been asking you to go to the protest since April 15 and a "true conservative" would have put him money where his mouth is and gone.lol. Just kidding my friend. I'm just busting your chops so you know what it feels like to be judged harsh. I know how crazy things are and how bad they will most likely get so relax. And the implementing word is what I used not you. Now get back to work pushing to the right. And remember I am not the enemy and neither are the moderats. It is the left that are the real problem in this country because as a nation we are 40% conservative,20% liberal and 36% moderate.
Remember folks just how the divisions of power is supposed to be and I think we will all find ourselves all on the same side whether conservative or libertarian.
Always remember the powers of the federal government are supposed to be limited and it is the judiciary that has shifted the balance of power that has caused much of our problems today.
Whether its abortion or schools or property rights I think we can all agree whether conservative or libertarian that these decisions belong to the people and not the federal government or judiciary.
After all are we self governing or have we become subjects?
Anymore I feel it has become the latter.
First and foremost it is long overdue for like minded people to come together and fight this mostrosity that was never menat to be, and that is the centralized power that our federal government has become.
Return these decisions back to the people in the states they reside in where it was meant to be in the first place and of which makes the most sense .
Otherwise this nation is headed for another civil war because all power and decision making will have been removed from the citizens and history provides a very good lesson to what happens when this occurs.
Chris,
This go on and on but a little simple math will work; take your percentages,,
40% conservative,20% liberal and 36% moderate
Add 20 + 36 and you come up with two winning national elections,both leading to socialism. Now had the "supposed" conservatives in the "moderate" group were to be consistent???????
Doug,
Good points,but remind all how the Judiciary,especially the federal courts up to and including the Supreme Court is formed,the sitting Predident nominates and the CONTROLLING Senate confirms and or denies the nomonation. Sotomayor ring a bell. This goes back to individual voter consistency.
If you want federal judges who will follow the Constitution but at the same time want National Healthcare,federal bailouts,continuous ever growing federal spending,debt and deficits this is not nor ever will be consistent and this is the type voter and or elected politicans of which I speak. I cannot be any clearer.
p.s. to Chris, as to the rallies I have in fact attended one but not in MI. Rallies are great but alas they do not elect anyone,and I still work for a living.
Letters,emails,faxes,phone calls you bet I have made them and continue to do so. I also suggest making them straight to the RNC.
But again voting is the final word of an American,"consistently" obviously helps. I have voted in all of them but one since I was 18 and do not recollect as to why (in my early 20's) and it was for the school board.
Christopher I agree with you for the most part but if we are nudging a moderate to the right and they do. Should we or someone else come along and say they aren't far enough to the right. Guess what direction they will go? You got it,they will go to the left again. Just like the Church we need to take all people with open arms. But we must nudge them into acting more Christlike. And Christopher if it wasn't for all the people at the rallies and the letters and phone calls we would have socialized one payer system right now. Even your blog makes a difference as it is nudgeing people back to their conservative beliefs. Keep up the good work buddy and don't let them get to you. I find it very cathartic to go on some of the liberal websites and give them some nudging. And don't forget we are on the same team and there are others less commited and closer to the middle that are getting pissed at the Dems right now. Lets let them come with welcome arms and then they can learn more of why conservatism is better for the country. Not everyone will wake up as a full blooded conservative. As all conservatives don't agree with the implementation of the conservative values.
Post a Comment