Conservative is one of those words I use fairly frequently,
even in reference to myself. I’m talking about conserving the Constitution and
it’s principles of freedom. I’m talking about living the principles that build
wealth and spread prosperity, rather than waste or profligacy that lead to
poverty. I’m talking about the principles that lead to civilization, away from
savagery.
But I’m finding it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.
I started thinking about this after I happened to hear a
discussion on Glenn Beck radio last week. He and crew, Pat and Stu, were
talking about the Republican candidates (including those not yet officially in
the race) and what factions of the party those individuals could satisfy.
Beck is libertarian (which I am not quite), so I shouldn’t
expect the same point of view I have, but we agree on so many things, I forget
there are differences. But he described the “conservatives” in the party as
something other than I would understand.
The discussion followed an interview with Gov. Rick Perry,
prior to his announcing a campaign a week or so from now. It was in that interview
that Perry recalled a meeting with the president in which he mentioned that
National Guard being kept 50 miles from the border wasn’t close enough—and the president
turned to Valarie Jarrett and asked if that was the case, because he didn’t
know where he had stationed troops. Anyway, that was May 20th, if
you have the ability to go hear it.[ii]
After the interview, Glenn and team started discussing the
various candidates, and how they attract the various segments of the Republican
party. Glenn asserts that there are four boxes:
GB: So, what it is, in one box, you have to have the GOP.
That is the one with the most number in it. Establishment. People who just pull
the lever for the Republican, no matter who the Republican is. So there are
four boxes: one is GOP; one is conservative; one is religious; one is Tea
Party/libertarian.
And then Stu asks for a better definition, which gets to the
part that I’ve been thinking about:
Stu: Can you explain the distinction, in this particular
scenario, what conservative is? Would you say it’s more like a hawkish...?
GB: Fiscal conservative, yeah, hawk. You know, somebody who
is…
Stu: What differentiates it from Tea Party?
GB: Um..
Stu: Hawkishness?
GB: No. I would say Tea Party is more small government.
At this point they have some discussion about Reagan, that
he was conservative, but he wasn’t small government. I took issue with it. Their examples were the
border—which was supposed to be the one-time amnesty combined with closing the
border, so that the issue would be gone forever. But, since the border wasn’t
closed, that amnesty was the example to prevent us from ever giving in again. A
learning opportunity. Knowing what we know now, would Reagan today offer
amnesty? I don’t think so.
And the other example was that Reagan didn’t get rid of the
Department of Education, and the Tea Party/libertarians want to. But they
forget—Reagan wanted to; he tried. But he was working with a Democrat Senate
and House the whole time he was in office. The measure of whether he was
conservative would be, did he do the most conservative things he could get done
(like lower taxes, which boosted the economy big time)? And what would he have
tried to do with a willing Congress?
And I don’t really relate to the term “hawkish.” Reagan was
able to end the Cold War without conventional warfare—because he was willing to
fight if needed, and he stood firm. What a concept!
In the end of their discussion of candidates, they decided
that two candidates—who are leading in Glenn Beck’s monthly online poll (so,
not scientific, but gives you a sense of what his listeners believe)—each fill
three of the four boxes. Gov. Scott Walker has the GOP establishment box, the
conservative box, and the Tea Party/libertarian box. And Ted Cruz has the
conservative box, the religious box, and the Tea Party/libertarian box—but he’s
missing the biggest box, the GOP establishment. Which, if you define the
bigness of the GOP as “People who just pull the lever for the Republican, no
matter who the Republican is,” is irrelevant, because whoever gets the
nomination will get those people. What’s really at stake is the fundraising and
support of establishment politicians and their supporters. By the way, here in
Texas, the GOP loves Ted Cruz; he ran away with the straw poll at the state GOP
convention last June.
I understand that it’s a game to measure candidates with
these four boxes. But it’s imperfect. I’m a Republican precinct chair, as
several members of our local Tea Party are, and I’ve tried to do my civic duty
all along. Many Tea Partiers awoke in 2010, when Obamacare got pushed through.
I was already awake. Tea Partiers at that point began educating themselves—with
more training on the Constitution among regular non-student adults than I’ve
ever seen. Maybe more than have studied it on their own since the founding. So
Tea Partiers are for small government—because the Constitution is about limited
government. So I’m a conservative, religious, Tea Party, GOP-er. Hmm. And I don't think I'm all that rare.
What is a conservative if not for small government, as
enumerated in the Constitution? It’s hard for me to picture conservatism
without all four boxes—with the possible exception of GOP establishment,
although conservatives are totally willing to reform an imperfect party that at
least has potential.
 |
| The Political Sphere of the Spherical Model |
This is where the Spherical Model helps. We don’t need to
separate out into local or big government Republicans; the questions that get
us to the freedom zone are about the proper role of government and about the
proper level (lowest, most local level possible) for any particular issue.
And the economic question is not whether we are pro-business
or not; you can’t be a fiscal conservative unless you’re in favor of freeing up
the free market. That’s beats crony capitalism or centrally controlled socialist
economies every time. A conservative conserves the principles of the free
market—which might at times require radical change from the status quo of
regulatory tyranny.
People who claim to be fiscally but not socially
conservative are not deep thinkers; they cannot get prosperity without
civilized people making it possible. Sure, we’ll welcome their vote, but they’re
not the leaders toward the world we want.
So then, the social question is, simply: Do you favor
civilization or savagery? We know what gets to civilization. A religious people
are required, because no one else will self-rule. We self-rule because we live
God’s laws, which are higher than our own personal, changeable sense of ethics.
God grants us our rights, so without God, the tyrannical leaders grant or take
away “rights” at their whim. And our laws reflect our own willingness to live
the Ten Commandments: honor and protect family, respect private property, be
honest, don’t murder. Without these basics, it really doesn’t matter what you
think about race, gender, climate, or some other pet virtue.
You can’t know what good
is, if you don’t know who God is; He defines good.
It would be nice to have a better word than “conservative.”
I looked up synonyms in a thesaurus, and that was disheartening: cautious, conventional,
die-hard, establishmentarian, guarded, hidebound, middle-of-the-road, moderate,
quiet, reactionary, right-wing, sober, Tory, traditional, unexaggerated,
unprogressive, verkrampte.
I did a Google Translate on that last one; it means cramped. I tried translating “conservative”
into German, and it gave me a much kinder cognate: konsesrvativ. Plus some other adjectives that mean essentially, cautious, careful, wary, or prudent, which are at least better than cramped.
So, the thesaurus thinks conservative means something very
uncool. I can live with uncool; I pretty much always have. But I don’t like
inaccurate.
I could use the Spherical Model shorthand of north on the
sphere—and I do. But until the world catches on to this new vocabulary, I will
probably keep saying I’m a Constitutional, fiscal, and religious conservative.
I very much prefer the Webster’s definition for conserve, which I used at the top of
this piece. I want to conserve our Constitution and the way of life it offers.
I want to keep it from being damaged, lost, or wasted. I want to preserve—conserve—the
highest freedom, prosperity, and civilization that we have obtained, or return
to that pinnacle by repairing the decay we’ve experienced.
I don’t trust that a single elected official, even a
president, can undo all the damage. But having someone who loves those things
worth preserving is a start. And such a person could inspire many more to work on the challenging restoration. So I won’t be looking for a person who fits
enough boxes to win an election; I’ll be looking for a person who understands
what’s at stake and loves freedom, prosperity, and civilization as much as I
do.
No comments:
Post a Comment