Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, March 14, 2008
John Hawkins :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why I Am A Conservative
by John Hawkins
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Long ago, when I was a mushy headed moderate, I studied conservatism and liberalism to try to figure out what the best philosophy was for my life and for my country. After doing that, I became a conservative because...

* I don't think some politician in Washington who has never held a job outside of politics in his entire life, has a better handle on what to do with my money than I do.

* I don't resent wealthy people. To the contrary, I want to become one of them one day.

* Government policies should be based on whether they work or not and whether they are constitutional, not on whether they make the people advocating them feel "nice" or "mean."

* "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." In other words, I'm not a victim, you're not a victim, and 99 times out of a hundred, the person on TV screaming about how he's a victim, isn't a victim either. If you're not happy with your life, it's your responsibility to fix it, not the government's responsibility.

* I don't get upset that the federal government "doesn't care about me." In fact, I'd be pleased if it forgets that I exist.

* Human beings are inherently superior to animals. That doesn't mean we should mistreat them or take them for granted, but it does mean that what's good for humankind is more important than what's good for animals.

* I am a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of the world. As such, my loyalty will always belong to this country and its people, not to any other nation, group of nations, or any sort of world governing body.

* I believe women and men are different, should be treated differently, and are not interchangeable. There are jobs women tend to be better at than men and vice-versa. There are ways a man behaves that women shouldn't behave in and vice-versa.

* There are no fantastic new programs left for the federal government to implement.

* It isn't the job of the federal government to make us successful; it's the job of the federal government to create an environment that allows us to make ourselves successful.

* I believe that citizens of the United States have more to be proud of than the people of other countries and that every one of us should cherish this country and should thank God that we've been given the privilege of being part of such a great nation.

* The market and private industry almost always do a better job of allocating resources than the federal government could ever hope to do.

* Morals do matter. "If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." If that ever happens, it would be a tragedy not just for us and our children, but for the whole world.

* "Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for those are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history."

* People of all races should be treated equally and any laws, whether we're talking about Jim Crow laws or Affirmative Action, that do otherwise are immoral, unconstitutional, and un-American.

* Having a government that is too involved in our lives is far more of a threat than a government that isn’t involved enough.

* My priorities are God, family, and country, in that order.

* Our tax rate is too high as it is and if it's not producing enough revenue for Washington, D.C. then they should start trying to live within their means instead of asking us to pony up more money.

* Life begins at the moment of conception and we have an obligation to speak up for the children that are being exterminated via abortion since they can't speak up for themselves.

* I believe the point of allowing people to emigrate to this country should be to benefit the people who are already here. With that in mind, everyone who wants to become an American citizen should come here legally, should learn our national language, which is English, should assimilate, and should pay his own way and be ineligible for programs like welfare and food stamps.

* I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

* The debt we have in this country is not because you haven't given enough of your money to Washington; it's because the politicians in Washington have spent too much money.

* I believe that Southerners, white males, the rich, business owners, Republicans, Christians, and the other groups that the Left looks down its nose at deserve every bit as much respect and protection under the law as the Left's favorite protected classes and minority groups.

* There is a meaningful difference between tolerating behavior and deeming it to be acceptable or good.

* If we lose our freedom in this country, it won't be because of a foreign invader; it'll be because our own government took it away from us a bit at a time with one law after another designed to "help" us.

* We have a moral obligation to leave a better America to our children than our parents left to us.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Norman - American conservatism...
--
...is best characterized as the view that sovereignity in our republic vests in the individual citizen, and that government exists only as the agency to which he delegates certain specific exercises of his rights - to life, to liberty, to property, and to the protection thereof - without any impairment of his ability to assert those rights.

So called "religious conservatives" (described elsewhere and by other conservative writers - like Vic Gold in his recent *Invasion of the Party Snatchers* - as "Holy Rollers" and "theo-cons") are far less interested in the constitutional limits by which the rights of the individual are protected against government infringement...

(Such rights are called "civil rights," and are of special consideration because they can *ONLY* be violated by government officers acting as such. No private citizen can violate your civil rights, no matter what any "Liberal" might croak.)

...because religious (even "Christian") conservatives seek the power of government not to defend the individual's right to be left alone so much as to force down upon said individual standards of behavior - including speech - which the particular religious conservative holds consistent with his peculiar religious beliefs.

Religious conservatives - as opposed to American conservatives - are not content with individual freedom of conscience, but hold that all must be constrained, if only "for your own good."

This is a wonderfully dork-headed attitude by any reasonable standard of consideration, and good cause for any contrary believer to shoot the staunch "Christian conservative" utterly dead where he stands.

After all, that's what the Pope and the Curia commanded us good Catholics to do when the Protestant Revolt first broke out, wasn't it?

"Kill them all," said Papal Legate Amalric. "God will know His own."

--

Totaly Right
I agree with everything in this article and find it hard to think of something to add. Except:
"I'm a conservative because liberals always have some sort of psychological problem."

Hi Wayfinder
That may well be it.

I probably wouldn't even have commented, except that I've seen SJ Doc comment quite intelligently elsewhere, and was surprised by the vitriol against the author here.

Hawkins seems like a decent fellow, and I didn't see anything so outlandish in his column as to warant calling him a d**khead--no matter how "cleverly" it was done. I'm no stranger to polemics myself, but that was way over the top. I felt bad for the young man and wanted to say a word in his defense.


Cheers,

Norman

Norman
They're hostile to Hawkins because they've been indoctrinated to hate conservatives. They do not believe that we're for freedom. They do not believe that freedom comes from God, they believe freedom is dispensed by the government. They also believe that freedom should come without responsibility, which, of course, isn't freedom at all. They think the world is out to get them, and they believe that only the government can protect them, even if it takes their freedoms away. So anything that says that government is as incompetant as it is in the various aspects that it indulges in must never be viewed with anything less than hostility.

Remember, liberals have been indoctrinated to believe that they are the compassionate and morally good people, and that anyone that opposes anything they do or believe is immediately regarded as cruel and evil. That is the premise they are operating from, so arguing with them is often a waste of time because, though your arguments may be flawless, they do not care for what you have to say. Period.

I'm a conservative because I am supremely confident in my own ability to take care of myself thanks to the Lord Almighty who gave me the talents and abilities to do so. Because of that, I will allow no man or woman be in charge of my destiny. I do not want to live in a society where I have to be a part of the government or the "party" to get the things that I want in my life. Indeed, even if government were at all competant in everything it does I would still insist on my own freedom to follow my own path, guided only by my own faith, reason, and talent. This is the only way you can be happy in this temporary world.

SJ Doc
I am a Christian conservative (and a Protestant "heretic" to boot), as well as a retired philosophy professor. So I'm wondering, do I--like young Master Hawkins--have "erectile tissue" where my grey matter should be? Just wondering.

I can't figure out why you're so hard on the lad who wrote this column. He wrote a conservative column on a conservative website. Why so hostile?

watercloset
Excellent argument. Your logic is inescapable.

Hawkins

This Hawkins guy is a pig. Wonder how many skeletons he has in his closet. Bet he'd love my tax dollars to stash away in his stockpile like all these bloody GOP right-wingers.

When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him whose."

— Don Marquis

Hal
Are you really a stupid and ignorant idiot like Lilly or do you just play one on TH posts?

To quote your sarcastic deflection of big government Demoncrats (out of control and spending like drunken sailors [not to malign the sailors for they are far superior]) vs Reagan...

"WOW all that expanded government came from Carter??? Carter was almost or maybe as bad as GW, torturer, but he did all that in two years and Reagan et al couldn't fix it????? Get real and look all lower taxes have let us do is use our infrastructure and not replace it. Now we have debt and little to show for it. Deadbeat and conservative now have the same meaning."

The House controls the purse strings and the Demoncrats are the pigs that pork barrel spent for decades back then. (too bad we have a bunch of RINOs doing the same nowadays)

The Demoncrats held the house and tried to outspend all the floodgates full of new money that filled the government's coffers with the tax cuts Reagan knew would come barreling in. If you are really a "former oil Exec." I would imagine you are familiar with the Laffer Curve of diminishing returns from higher taxation. Silly Neolib, logic and history not your forte, but you are skilled at disinformation I see.

dmac
"The Founders expected that the people would elect honest men that would respect those checks and balances."

Think it was Madison who said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." If politicians were angels, no checks and balances would be necessary. We coudl go back to the Divine Right of Kings.

And indeed, as Lord Action said, power corrupts.

I think we're losing it, too.


I've enjoyed our discussion and will keep an open mind about Hawkins per your points.

lonestarblues-- checks and balances
You wrote:
[I don't think the founders expected honesty form government officials. They went out of their way to construct checks and balances.]

The Founders expected that the people would elect honest men that would respect those checks and balances. And that by diffusing power among many men, the majority of honest officials would band together to thwart the dishonest as they may arise from time to time.

But they fully recognized the frailty of relying on the many honest not to be corrupted in time by they dishonest. They were under no illusions that checks and balances were any match against those who refuse to recognize them and have seduced the people into regarding other cares above their own liberty.

Remember Franklin's response-- "A republic, if you can keep it." As SJ Doc observes above, it is increasingly apparent that we cannot. The idea of Federalism is almost dead.

SJ Doc
You wrote:
[Sorry, dmac, but there's nothing in your post that satisfies the requirement that there be provided some support for Val's assertion that "representation and separation of powers" is somehow mandated in the Bible.]

Val *asserted* no such thing, i.e. that they are mandated in the Bible. That is your characterization of his position. I was merely trying to modify Val's assertion (that representation and separation of powers find their origin in the Bible) to express what I think he means. That is, that the ideas in the Bible caused men to devise political systems incorporating representation and separation of powers.

You can argue that they do not have their origin in the Bible, or that they are not unique to the Bible.

[Your notion that "Separation of powers and federalism is a political construct that recognizes the deficiency of man and seeks a practical way to restrain the bad while encouraging the good" is a perfect example of Enlightenment political philosophy that has been demonstrated to have failed of recognition that the officers accorded those separated powers could (indeed, inevitably *would*) connive together in order to facilitate the malignant aggrandizement of government power, intrusiveness, and corruption.

As our present agonies have demonstrated, the ability of this approach "to restrain the bad" has worked about as well as a screen door on a submarine.]

The Founders were well aware that the system was not impervious to corruption. Franklin's remark, "a republic, if you can keep it". I concur in your observation that it increasingly appears that we cannot.

SJ Doc / craigers
SJ Doc--
"Hawkins is a schmuck, with a headful of erectile tissue where there ought to be grey matter. He has opinions in much the same way as all human beings have bowel movements, and with as little conscious thought upon one as upon the other."

Did they teach you that in theology or philosophy class? Or was it the Jesuits?

Craigers--
I would be very surprised if Hawkins has not read at least some Hayek and Rand. Heck, even I have and I'm not a columnist. Hayek may not have been a conservative in the 19th century sense, but he certainly is no liberal in the 20th/21st century sense. In his "The Fatal Conceit", Chapter 7 "Our Poisoned Language" he notes how socialists appropriated the term "liberal". Let's proceed with the terminology as it is today instead of assuming conservatives don't know they are really classic liberals at heart. Instead of conserving class privilege as in the 19th century, we are about conserving the principles of classic liberalism today. Liberals today are not liberal in any sense of the word, except perhaps in liberating government from any restraint.

dmac
"Seems like we have a lot of common moral ground within and without Christianity. Is it not then reasonable expect the government to be compatible with what all or most can agree as "moral". Perhaps we should be clarifying the areas of morality that we can agree on and expect the government to promote rather than treating morality as peculiarly religious and off limits to political discussion."

No. In my view, the only purpose of government is protection of liberty. This is stated fairly clearly in the Declaration: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". All else is unjust. See, for instance, Bastiat's "The Law", where he concludes: "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works."

You add "'Honesty' is a moral that is not necessarily shared by all. Yet, it is the foundation for contract and the legitimacy for enforcing. Should the government promote honesty? And should we expect the same from government (the institution and the officials themselves)?"

Government should protect rights to life, liberty and property (or pursuit of happiness), not enforce honesty. Honesty should be enforced by society, by community, coworkers, friends and family.

It is, imo, dishonest to claim being honest out of fear of reprisal is moral. Coerced honesty would be the responsibility then of government. Isn't that the liberal argument? And an argument against liberal morality, avoiding personal moral responsibility by putting it in the hands of an anointed governmental elite?

I don't think the founders expected honesty form government officials. They went out of their way to construct checks and balances.

dmac
Back, taking posts in order....

"His article is not a proclamation of merely political conservatism. Read carefully his first sentence:
'Long ago, when I was a mushy headed moderate, I studied conservatism and liberalism to try to figure out what the best philosophy was for my life and for my country.'"

At that point it's ambiguous what he means by "for my country". The initial long list of government concerns says to me he's applying his philosophy to purpose of government.

Conservatism isn't a philosophy anyhow, which would imply an ideology and dogma. It is, according to Russell Kirk, _The Conservative Mind_, a set of principles applied to the world around you.

Hawkins seeing I as a philosophy you can study also leads me to believe he is not truly conservative.


"Assuming as I do that conservatism is more than political policy positions, do you agree with his general statement on any level?"

I agree to some degree with all of it. My only argument is I sense he wants to impose it on "my country".

"His contrast is with liberals who do not agree that morals matter, political or personal, and are an artificial construct. (not all libs think that)"

Here is where we disagree. Liberals believe themselves moral. Liberals tend to argue for what's morally fair, for example (as opposed to what's just) or more obviously, equal outcomes (as opposed to equal opportunities), equality in life (as opposed to equality before the law). Believing themselves morally righteous they tend to seek to impose it on society. In this respect there's no difference with those who call themselves conservative but seek to impose what they believe moral. Perhaps Hawkins does not lean that way, I don't know him well enough, but this article leads me to suspect it.

Who really cares?
All ChickenHawkins has managed to demonstrate is that he is more than a few bricks shy of a load, and that there is a lot of fat in that misshapen head.

In a capitalist society, government is a necessary evil, as there are certain things government does more efficiently. The challenge is identifying what those things are.

Government is a good, just like anything else, and you have to pay for it. Since ChickenHawkins won't pick up a gun for the country he says he loves, he has to pay for mercenaries. Why can't we pay our own soldiers what Bush is paying his private army (Blackwater)?

Taft - Bush a conservative?
--
Among the examples given for Lincoln's "common man" wisdom (from a longstanding Whig politician and well-paid railroad lawyer) is the one in which he asks somebody a riddle.

"How many legs would a dog have if you called a tail a leg?"

Answers the respondent: "Why, five, I suppose."

"No," answers Lincoln. "Only four. Because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

Says Taft:

"If it's extremes in liberalism or conservatism, then both are rotten. There are good things about both in the moderate sense. The reason I couldn't vote conservative in the mode its taken under Bush is because it's a degrading and sickening manifestation of out right greed and depravity."


But what makes you think that Bush is a conservative?

Look, I know a guy here in town who likes to wear a Dallas Cowboys jersey every season (and this is not only generally ill-considered but actually dangerous in Eagles territory).

That doesn't mean I take him for a member of that particular NFL team.

Just because Dubbya calls himself a conservative doesn't mean he really *is* one, any more than he's really a Texan. He was born in New Haven, CT, raised in the Oil Patch, and attended Philips Academy (a hoity-toity all-boys "prep" school) in Andover, MA.

After which he went to Yale, failed to get into the U. Texas School of Law, but *did* get into Harvard Business School (can you say "family influence"?) where he took his MBA.

Dubbya is an East-Coast Establishment "Rockefeller Republican" who just *acts* like a Lone-Star sh!tkicker.

His life has been one long fantasy role-playing game.

So what's good about a "moderate" position beteen that manipulative malfeasance and the vicious pseudoaristocracy of the "Liberal" mode of statism?

Admittedly, mixing one lethal dose of poison with another doesn't get you any *more* dead, but what's the merit?

--

Luis
If it's extremes in liberalism or conservatism, then both are rotten. There are good things about both in the moderate sense. The reason I couldn't vote conservative in the mode its taken under Bush is because it's a degrading and sickening manifestation of out right greed and depravity. Here's Bush's latest. Read it and weep.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1333111120 080313?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

craigers - It is entirely unfair...
--
...to expect a neo-con or a holy-roller (Mr. Hawkins and most of his praise-singers in these Comments seeming obviously to qualify in both categories) to be familiar with von Hayek, Rand, von Mises, Murray Rothbard, or any other methodological individualist ever having written in the field of political philosophy.

You're dealing with people who are not only illiterate but idiotic (the term "idiot" being primarily defined as describing a person deliberately declining to take part in public life by remaining willfully ignorant of that knowledge necessary to effectively act in the governance of a democratic polis).

Hawkins is a schmuck, with a headful of erectile tissue where there ought to be grey matter. He has opinions in much the same way as all human beings have bowel movements, and with as little conscious thought upon one as upon the other.

Keep your expectations reasonable, okay?

--

Folks
Careful you may get hairy lips

Good nite and be well

GREAT CHARACTERIZATION OF HAL!!!!
Hal Donahue writes: Friday, March, 14, 2008 9:46 AM
Bob_C
"Happy Hal, The Liberal's Pal
Are you a moderate? Huh, Hal? Huh? Huh? "

Certainly I am. If you can't see that look how far to the extreme right you must be.
_______________________________________________
Bob_C writes: Friday, March, 14, 2008 9:50 AM
Happy Hal The Liberal's Pal
Or it could be that you're so far to the left that moderates look like extreme right wingers to you.
_____________________________________________

COULD IT BE THAT HAL UNDERSTANDS THAT LIBERALISM IS FILTHY STUFF AND BEING A MODERATE IS MORE ACCEPTABLE? BOB HAS EXPLAINED HAL'S POLITICS VERY WELL.

GREAT CHARACTERIZATION OF HAL!!!!
Hal Donahue writes: Friday, March, 14, 2008 9:46 AM
Bob_C
"Happy Hal, The Liberal's Pal
Are you a moderate? Huh, Hal? Huh? Huh? "

Certainly I am. If you can't see that look how far to the extreme right you must be.
_______________________________________________
Bob_C writes: Friday, March, 14, 2008 9:50 AM
Happy Hal The Liberal's Pal
Or it could be that you're so far to the left that moderates look like extreme right wingers to you.
_____________________________________________

COULD IT BE THAT HAL UNDERSTANDS THAT LIBERALISM IS FILTHY STUFF AND BEING A MODERATE IS MORE ACCEPTABLE? BOB HAS EXPLAINED HAL'S POLITICS VERY WELL.

Will/will, you will not pervert the US
Will writes: Friday, March, 14, 2008 12:41 AM
John Hawkins says:

"My priorities are God, family, and country, in that order."

I don't think there is ANYTHING inherently conservative about the notion of GOD...believing in God, believing in Christ-redemption, believing in resurrections & "Raptures". This is something many of us were taught (brain-washed) as little defenseless children. We were taken advantage of. We were indoctrinated.

Does the conservative party put a priority on the Bible over the U.S. Constitution? Is it Bible first & Constitution second?

Keep metaphysical concepts like "God" & the divinity of Jesus & a coming "Rapture" OUT of U.S. domestic & foreign policy. Do it in your own house, if you must; your own backyard. But keep superstitions out of the governing system.
_____________________________________________

Will/will, of course you want 'metaphysical concepts,' not to mention morality OUT of US domestic and foreng policy, so that you homosexuals can engage in anal 'sex,' spread disease. Of course. What else would we expect from you perverts?

But it will not be that way: You will not pervert the institutions that are the foundation that prmitted the development of the greatest country in the history of man. For example, we are shutting down Day of Silence activities, the homosexual nonsense, all over the country, and Ford has understood that the fabled homosexual money is not quite as powerful as the unfabled normal people's money.

why I am NOT a conservative neo-con!
Mr Hawkins

I find the lack of historical and philosophical education in the so called "conservative" movement today appalling.

Have you ever read F.A. Hayeks essay on "Why I am NOT a conservative?" Or Ayn Rands "Ode to Conservatism?" Probably not.

DO you understand the change in language usage over the decades and how as Lord Acton put it, "Conservatism ends up conserving nothing!"

I found out I wasnt a conservative at all, I was a classical liberal. It is this root we must get back to and this philosophical root we must cherish and teach.

YOur educaiton so far has probably been shallow, you need to pick up Bastiet, Jouvenal, Von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Nock and Rothbard.

Until you do so youre being neo-conned.

dmac - Sorry, insufficient
--
Responds dmac:

"God warned against the desire for a king, at least an imperfect man as king. The sinful nature of man as merely one individual would be magnified in effect if that individual had all power of government invested in him....

"The idea of separation of powers recognizes that the deficiencies of government arise from the deficiencies of man himself...."


Sorry, dmac, but there's nothing in your post that satisfies the requirement that there be provided some support for Val's assertion that "representation and separation of powers" is somehow mandated in the Bible.

The argument you voice above is simply that man is flawed and the Deity (always a jealous god) cautioned - through His prophets - His chosen people not to elevate a secular tyrant to a status rivaling His own divine tyranny.

No "separation of powers" at all, and sure as hell no element of "representation" - even the nominal consent of the governed - in this.

Your notion that "Separation of powers and federalism is a political construct that recognizes the deficiency of man and seeks a practical way to restrain the bad while encouraging the good" is a perfect example of Enlightenment political philosophy that has been demonstrated to have failed of recognition that the officers accorded those separated powers could (indeed, inevitably *would*) connive together in order to facilitate the malignant aggrandizement of government power, intrusiveness, and corruption.

As our present agonies have demonstrated, the ability of this approach "to restrain the bad" has worked about as well as a screen door on a submarine.

--

dmac
"He was contrasting the idea that it is government's job to ensure our success. Do you disagree with his statement, or just what you think is his hidden agenda? I think most aspects of "creating an environment" can be ultimately argued in terms of "protecting liberty", but his choice of words communicates his contrast better--action vs framework."

In my view the government need do less not more to protect liberty, the less the better, the less the more liberty we enjoy. Frameworks are implemented by actions, Lilly wants one framework, Hawkins another aganda, is the way I read them both. Yet both would deny it.

"Nowhere does Hawkins ever state that government should be more active in an area. You are reading that in."

I've cited the values he stands behind. Why would he mention those values in a discussion of government's role from the view of a conservative? Why? Answer that, you haven't.

"But in truth, the government is involved in our lives. It must be. It is not a matter of us "being willing to let" it."

Ah, now here we disagree completely. It is involved in our lives, more and more so, because we allow it, we buy into the argument the purpose of government is to promote virtue. It must not be! To be so is unjust and contrary to individual liberty.

"...can we agree with his statement on its face without imputing policy positions to him?"

I can agree I see you point and my argument relies on implications I can't do more than raise. Why does he raise social concerns in a discussion of government? Or am I wrong that his universe of discourse is broader? That I could accept.

I appreciate the tone of your argument. I wouldn't mind being wrong given your attitude.

dmac
"I think the disconnect between you and Hawkins and I is that you view conservatism as purely, or substantially, a political outlook. “

Ah, no, I fully accept that social conservatism runs the gamut from limited government conservatism to, let us be blunt, big government liberalism/socialism. And that conservatism could apply to politics and religion.

"It is a philosophy that does not ignore the moral component, but puts that in the proper context of personal views informing policy vs codifying and imposing those views as policy."

Again, we agree. People should vote as citizens and legislators by their principles, hopefully moral principles, be they religious or not. Principles of worth are moral principles.

"The difference is, you and I may disagree over the "why" of a policy or give greater weight to arguments for it."

We might. But arguments, means and ends ought to be moral.

"To become codified in the first place, the policy must be acceptable to the majority."

But that, as I sense from your argument, you know full well, does not determine truth or morals. Majoritarianism is typical of liberal arguments.

"Where a policy can only be supported by religious argument, then it probably shouldn't be codified and is not likely."

True, only that which is just should be codified.

"In that case, whatever behavior that is sought to be encouraged or discouraged must be made in the public opinion realm and not the legistative (or imposed by courts without respect to legislation or public opinion)."

Exactly, the argument, the persuasion ought to be done in the public square. We agree again.

I still think Hawkins was addressing conservatism as it pertains to government, thus my criticism his social concerns don't fit.

I admit, as before, I could be wrong about him, I could have assumed too narrow a universe of discourse. But I see nothing to dissuade me.

anarchy is always temporary
sooner or later, with anarchy, you will get tyranny.

conservative
given the choice between tyranny or anarchy i would gladly choose anarchy at least you would have the means to protect yourself

One caveat
I tend to agree with your bullet-points about being a conservative. Of course, far more people talk the talk than walk the walk. I bet you're voting for McCain, for example... right?

Here's the caveat:

"Human beings are inherently superior to animals."

Only so long as you presume dogs are not animals, either.

Dogs > people.

I would like to throw the marines who tossed the puppy off a cliff over the same cliff. If I'm not allowed to do that, I'd just as soon watch as they are given the needle. If it had been an Iraqi baby instead of a puppy, I at least could justify it in that it wouldn't grow up to kill Americans or other people trying to help it...

Humans, dogs and animals, in fact, have no "inherent" value. Nothing has "inherent" value, that's a silly concept.
Looking up the word "value" in Merriam-Webster online, one word keeps popping up: "relative".

Merriam-webster says inherent means:
"involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit"

So how can something be both "relative" and "essential"? The value of a person is relative to a lot of factors; in my case, the value of my family is far greater than that of non-family. The value of my dog is waaay above the value of an illegal invader, and the value of Americans infintely greater than that of Iraqis or giant squids.


SJ Doc -- Biblical separation of powers
I would approach Val's assertion this way:

God warned against the desire for a king, at least an imperfect man as king. The sinful nature of man as merely one individual would be magnified in effect if that individual had all power of government invested in him. The record of the kings of Israel and Judah bear that out. When there were good kings, things went well. When there weren't...

The idea of separation of powers recognizes that the deficiencies of government arise from the deficiencies of man himself. This is in contrast to the idea that man is basically good and will tend to make wise and honest decisions even in the absence of political constraints. Separation of powers and federalism is a political construct that recognizes the deficiency of man and seeks a practical way to restrain the bad while encouraging the good.

Incredulous
If you can't accomplish that revolution within the GOP who would be philosophically sympathetic, then you have no hope for an effective third party. take over the Republican Party first, then the nation.

lonestarblues
I'm cherry picking your response to ValiantForTruth:

"I've yet to hear of an original idea Christianity didn't borrow form elsewhere. Christianity is good and great in that it shares these moral principles, but it didn't create them either."

Seems like we have a lot of common moral ground within and without Christianity. Is it not then reasonable expect the government to be compatible with what all or most can agree as "moral". Perhaps we should be clarifying the areas of morality that we can agree on and expect the government to promote rather than treating morality as peculiarly religious and off limits to political discussion.

"Honesty" is a moral that is not necessarily shared by all. Yet, it is the foundation for contract and the legitimacy for enforcing. Should the government promote honesty? And should we expect the same from government (the institution and the officials themselves)?

lonestarblues--specific points 2
I should have started with this:
[Those speak to his personal sense of morality, his values. If he isn't advocating government promotion of those values, why bring them up in a proclamation of political conservatism?]

His article is not a proclamation of merely political conservatism. Read carefully his first sentence:
"Long ago, when I was a mushy headed moderate, I studied conservatism and liberalism to try to figure out what the best philosophy was for my life and for my country."


You wrote:
["Morals do matter."

That where I start to definitely see him advocate government that promotes his sense of morality. Doing that counters protecting individual liberty.]

Again, you are imputing a position. Assuming as I do that conservatism is more than political policy positions, do you agree with his general statement on any level? How that plays out in public policy, if at all, can be a broader discussion amongst conservatives. His contrast is with liberals who do not agree that morals matter, political or personal, and are an artificial construct. (not all libs think that)

lonestarblues-- your specific points
You wrote:
["...it's the job of the federal government to create an environment that allows us to make ourselves successful."

That one is vague but if he meant by "create an environment" protect liberty why didn't he say it clearly. I think he has something else in mind.]

He was contrasting the idea that it is government's job to ensure our success. Do you disagree with his statement, or just what you think is his hidden agenda? I think most aspects of "creating an environment" can be ultimately argued in terms of "protecting liberty", but his choice of words communicates his contrast better--action vs framework.

["Having a government that is too involved in our lives is far more of a threat than a government that isn’t involved enough."

He's willing to let government get involved with our lives, long as, I suspect, it fits his personal sense of morality--that was my point in comparing him with Lily, you know but ignore.]

Lilly was responding to Hawkins, not the other way around. Hawkins statement is a general warning against government encroachment on what should be private activity. You are reading his unqualified statement as if he is secretly saying that the government is too involved in the areas Lilly mentions, but should be more involved in areas Hawkins would like. Nowhere does Hawkins ever state that government should be more active in an area. You are reading that in.

But in truth, the government is involved in our lives. It must be. It is not a matter of us "being willing to let" it. He is contrasting liberal vs conservative, which is a matter of scale. In what ways and under what conditions and under what constraints is something that even conservatives can argue amongst ourselves. Perhaps that is an argument that needs to made as a followup, but can we agree with his statement on its face without imputing policy positions to him?

Educating liberals
We need liberals in both parties to understand government cannot give rights to anyone.
Government can protect rights but it can't give them or take them away.

Nor is it the federal government's duty to give out entitlements, nor spend taxerpayer monies on at least half the programs they create foreign or at home.

Somehow we have to create the atmosphere that unconstitutional spending is not only unwise but criminal.
Any politician who allocates funds to unconstitutional spending should be jailed for life and/or considered a threat to US security.

This will be the day liberty is restored in our Republic and tyranny will cease in our land.

Revolution-Has a Nice Ring
The founders knew they were in revolt from a tyrannical, non-representative grubby-ment. Today, we conservatives, (the ideology, not the political party) find ourselves in the same situation. The consuming MAW of our Fed. Grub-ment is insatiable. Grub-ment CONSUMES, it PRODUCES NOTHING!! I hereby decree the founding and formation of the REVOLUTIONARY CONSTITUTIONALIST PARTY!!! The first plank of this party mandates no professional politicians. Vote everyone out after one-term. The slogan: ONE TERM-WE'VE LEARNED!! Next on the agenda- We provide dormitory style housing for any/all representatives sent to Wash. Next, elimination of any/all duplicative Fed. programs. This would include any that might over-lap another. I have many more planks for the party's platform. I welcome other suggestions.

lonestarblues
I think the disconnect between you and Hawkins and I is that you view conservatism as purely, or substantially, a political outlook. Hence you interpret some of his exhortations to goodness as primarily political policy. Conservatism is fairly broad and it certainly encompasses social conservatism. It is a philosophy that does not ignore the moral component, but puts that in the proper context of personal views informing policy vs codifying and imposing those views as policy. You may think that is a distinction without a difference. The difference is, you and I may disagree over the "why" of a policy or give greater weight to arguments for it. But it is the policy that is codified and govt force used to ensure compliance, not the thinking behind it. To become codified in the first place, the policy must be acceptable to the majority. Where a policy can only be supported by religious argument, then it probably shouldn't be codified and is not likely. In that case, whatever behavior that is sought to be encouraged or discouraged must be made in the public opinion realm and not the legistative (or imposed by courts without respect to legislation or public opinion).

ValiantForTruth
As a skeptical conservative, I beg to differ...

"It is a common error in our day to separate the Bible from the Constitution."

They are easily separated. Where, for simple example, is God and commandment to worship only God in the Constitution?

"Without the Reformation and Great Awakening there would be no Constitution."

And without the prior Golden Ages of Greek and Roman philosophy or the later Enlightenment there would be no Consititution either. The derivation of natural rights from natural law has a history that stretches back to the Stoics.

"The framework of our Constitution includes the basic principles of representation and separation of powers. These things did not originate from the mind of men, but from revelation. The Bible is their origin."

And yet they were know before Biblical revelation. Read the Federalist Papers for arguments on where the FOunders got their ideas.

"Now the triumph of modern liberalism is that men think the Constitution stands alone."

And it is just as liberal a view to think Christianity stands alone. I've yet to hear of an original idea Christianity didn't borrow form elsewhere. Christianity is good and great in that it shares these moral principles, but it didn't create them either.

davy c rockett
"Liberalism isn't compatable with a Constitutional Republic."

Agree. Modern liberalism, no, not with our form of Constitutional Republic. The moral foundation for our Constitution can be found in the Lockean classical liberal ideas stated in the Declaration, in short, that we have natural rights and government is instituted with limited powers to protect those individual rights. This view alone, imo, distinguishes conservatism from the modern liberal or progressive view that derives from Hobbesian and Rousseauan argument only an anointed few can save and free man from his corrupt nature, not unlike the earlier Scholastics, just replacing church with state as the giver and arbiter of rights. This distinction accounts for 90% of the discussion in this thread over health care, global warming, taxes, and so on. A conservative will thus look at those issues, argue for what is just and works based on experience, take personal responsibility for action, and look to government to secure rights and responsibilities. A modern liberal or progressive will tend to argue for what is fair, ignore experience it fails, and give responsibility to government for allocation of rights, privileges and wealth. I'm generalizing, of course, but this is what I've learned from arguing with liberals.

Nellie
"My allegience is to Him. That's pretty conservative."

How is allegience to God conservative?


Later you say "Preachers put the fear of God in you, so that you can identify right from wrong when you come face to face with it. Cause, eventually we all do."

How is acting out of fear moral? That is coercion. we are moral only in so far as in our actions toward each other we choose between good and evil.

Libs are from Uranus
Conservatives are from Mars, libs are from Uranus.

So the hundreds of millions who are free today due to America's standing up for the right with our might was a one-time deal? Maybe just a 20th-century thing?

In this century, libs insist that we are just gonna talk to the baddies, maybe send them an email? Hold summit meetings with state dinners, then sing kum-ba-yah? How about if we just tell them "how bad it makes mommy feel when you do those things?"

Ok, maybe 1945 was a more accurate date. Mea culpa. Does not change the point. You libs would bust a blood vessel if we had even 10 fatalities per day in the Iraq war.

From Uranus, indeed!




Miscellaneous Ramblings
Someone mentioned in a post about millionaires...Tom Delay,the super-baddie,they always keep on their"Republicans do it,too"list. Called him him Bug Man ,a millionare.Compared to "Billy,the Raper,he seems pretty mild.Billy is a millionare,too but from criminality.

Another less bright poster said others were telling him there were commies around,maybe under the bed,but he said his wife wouldn't know one if she saw one. Made me think ,since he would not know the difference,either ,that he might just find his wife under the bed with one.

As long as she was not with a conservative,that would probably be fine with him.

For Nellie
taab wrote as follows:

"If you, self-styled wiseone, are going to give us a bunch of meaningless statements about how good it was in the old days, then you should know better than to be so vague."

Before that he wrote:

"O wiseone,
thou art a grumpy old man sitting in thy rocking chair in the corner, with nobody really listening. Didst thou vote Bush?"

Just what exactly do you call a personal attack?

BTW - I find it curiously humorous that taab states that "nobody [is] really listening" and then attempts a point-by-point rebuttal of my post. Hence my subsequent suggestion that taab lacks critical thinking skills.

For what it's worth, my choice of a nickname for these threads has nothing to do with my opinion of myself. The nickname was chosen because my real name is the same as an historical figure known for his impressive knowledge. But "knowledgableone" seemed a little awkward, so I modified it to "wiseone".

I am of course aware that such a nickname will often evoke snide derisions from those who disagree with what I post, but I am also aware of the reality that such posters will be snide and derisive regardless of my nickname.

I have also found that by choosing the nickname "wiseone" I have unintentionally set the bar rather high for what I post. I try to live up to that, but I don't always succeed.

Nellie
If the congress reversed their time in Washington,ie.,stay away the days they are now there,and stay there the days they are now away,it would be an improvement.

They would have less time to enact frivolous laws that are unnecessary.If they got out of Washington more and see how the rest of the country lives,that would be an improvement.Their pay should be cut,along with their pensions.They also should have the same term limits as the president.

The toothpaste is out of the tube and cannot be put back in,but it easy to look back and see where we have failed.It can't be undone and we are all paying for their folly.God Bless America.

The 10 Commandments
Ring True...no matter how one interprets the Bible for themselves.




remember that.




The Bible is the book in which one may journey with his maker to find his peace. It is a personal journey...and can not be instructed in only one language. God created us in vast varieties and His book is written for all of them to comprehend...in the way in which they can.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Rowly!
that's what I've been saying all along!

Now do you understand?

We are free when we are bound to the 10 Commandmants and the Constitution of these UNITED States of America.

Revalation: live by these and resist hurting another and you will live to witness, first hand, what your dream has been for the return of good and prosperous, in this land.

Ole Smokey, "Only YOU can prevent forest fires."

when we illustrate little tolerance for
our brother's form of expression, we weaken our claim.

Wiseone, although most points you make are well taken, might you find a more humane way of addressing another's? He is not personally attacking you. Argue your point as such.





The Bible And The Constitution
If we followed The Ten Commandments,that alone would settle almost all the the problems in this country.Even if you do not believe the Bible is Holy,you must admit,every one of the commandments tell us how we could have a more perfect world.

The Constitution is ,to me ,like the Ten Commandments.If we would uphold the Constitution,as it was written,even with the Amendments,we would not be in the situation we are in.If the states took care of their own,we would not have the "all powerful"federal government dictating almost every aspect of our lives.Getting bigger and more powerful by the day.

Together,the Ten Commandments and The Constitution is a road map for a civilized society.We all see what transpires when neither is followed and obeyed.

Valiant for Truth, you are correct.
and this witch hunt has got to stop right now.

Preachers put the fear of God in you, so that you can identify right from wrong when you come face to face with it. Cause, eventually we all do.

My Dad and yours did the same.

Our military does the same.

If you don't learn the difference now. If you don't get an incling of how bad wrong tastes, now, then ya might slip wrong by, later.

Like Spitzer did.

When you love someone you set them straight immediately. Right is Right. Wrong has consequences. Be ready for them, if you hurt someone.

Our beloved nation needs to sit up straight and alighn ourselves, once again, with what our forefathers taught us. We have gone astray.

Your blogs reveal how far we'll need to return.


Val - Biblical separation of powers?
--
Says ValiantForTruth:

"The framework of our Constitution includes the basic principles of representation and separation of powers. These things did not originate from the mind of men, but from revelation. The Bible is their origin."


What the puck?

Perhaps I'm at a disadvantage. I'm a Roman Catholic, raised and educated in Diocesan and Jesuit schools back when the Curia was still pretty hostile toward teaching the rank-and-file about the Bible.

But with a college minor in theology and philosophy, I'm better educated than most mackerel-snappers, and I don't remember *SQUAT* in the Bible pertinent to a discussion of how "representation and separation of powers" is mandated in the operating rules for the Kingdom of Heaven.

As a matter of fact, the Christian concept of God is literally *THE* model of tyranny. Remember that prehistoric coup d'etat crushed by Archangel Michael and his squaddies?

As a matter of fact, one of the founding philosophical documents upon which the American Revolution was based - Locke's *First Treatise of Civil Government* - was explicitly written as a refutation of Robert Filmer's *Patriarcha* (which defended the "divine right of kings").

There are secular bases a-plenty upon which to predicate the defense of a conservative political principles, and it was upon some of these bases that the founders wrote their Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary expostulatory prose and charters of government.

Any references to "Nature's God" in these documents and their discussions were purely peripheral - embellishments, not core essentialities.

Why do (almost invariably Protestant heretic) religious whackjobs like you have to keep dragging insane ineffabilities into the political debate?

You guys really screw up the process.

--



The Bible and the Constitution…

‘Does the conservative party put a priority on the Bible over the U.S. Constitution? Is it Bible first & Constitution second?’ –TH classic


It is a common error in our day to separate the Bible from the Constitution. Without the Reformation and Great Awakening there would be no Constitution. We would still be under the tyranny of some king or pope. From the martyrs’ blood came the open Bible that freed men from the lawless church-states to pursue his dominion over the sciences, including the political science.

The framework of our Constitution includes the basic principles of representation and separation of powers. These things did not originate from the mind of men, but from revelation. The Bible is their origin.

Now the triumph of modern liberalism is that men think the Constitution stands alone. The eternal wisdom that inspired it is denied. So it has become subject to change based on the autonomous wisdom of men. Tyranny celebrates the death of liberty while the lawless think they are advocates of freedom.

Finished on the blog…


Wiseone
I presume you post 'Your handle decsribes your head' refers to Thickasabrick.

He's certainly a dissembler, well versed in leftist hype and obfuscating lies. It takes some effort to get to the annoyingly persistent ones, but I thought you did well.

And your approach to Hal was right on...

Why am I a Conservative
For all the reasons that you stated plus I believe that the FED GOV should stay out of States Rights and The Supreme Court should only
interpret the Constitution not make laws as they seem to have been doing lately.......

For Retired Greek
You should read "Do-Gooders" by Mona Charen. You'll find that the things I discussed on this thread are just the tip of the iceberg.

wiseone
Ditto! Ditto! Ditto!

Thank you for your posts. You are a voice of wisdom, clarity and sanity in a desert of liberal garbage. I think liberal solutions may be one of the greatest enemies this country has ever faced. Your lucid analysis gives me hope that there may be more than just a few of us who see the danger we are facing. The cost to our society is incalcuable.

Although much of this can be laid at the feet of the Democrats - this cancer has spread throughout the very fabric of all this great Nation stands for. I salute you.

Right & Left
Everyone is arguing about what and who is conservative. What's the use in arguing? No minds will change.I know mine won't.My mind does not change each time the presidency does,either.That has nothing to do with what I believe.Never has;never will.

Maybe that is being stubborn,but I think if you really believe in something strong enough,it is impossible to change your mind ,like you change your clothes.I may want to scream at someone who challenges my beliefs,but if they believe their way as strong as I do mine; more power to them.

If we all believed alike,we would be like a one party system and that would be worse than what we have now. Sometimes it looks like ours is morphing into one,but there still is a bit of difference.It would be better if everyone would be truthful about the other side.Some people just will not do that.Defend your side with the truth.


Hal
I stopped wasting my time on your stupidity long ago. I understand you and Robert are now buddies. That's good. The two of you have a lot in common. You're perfect for each other.

For davy c rockett
"If our elected officials understood our laws then maybe just maybe they would follow it."

They understand. They're just more concerned with their own re-election, their own careers, their own power, their own legacies, or all of the above to follow the Constitution.

A minimalist government, which is what the founders envisioned, is inconsistent with the aggrandizement of a politician, especially aggrandizement on the scale required to satisfy some these guys'egos.

Boys and Girls
I am off to have a good time. Be well and enjoy the rest of the evening. Oh! post away I am gone LMAO

wiseone
"...Is this what you call "try[ing] to inject a little common-sense and moderation" into the discussion? Casting scorn on conservatives for "manufactur[ing] enemies" because we condemn genocide overseas, try to stop it, and want to make sure it doesn't come here? "

Do we? we are a torture state what next.... You are cowards plain and simple

If we followed the law
Why do people make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Liberalism isn't compatable with a Constitutional Republic.

You can't give power to the federal government that it's not given authority to do that isn't expressively stated in Constitution.

When we elect Democrats and Republicans who think they can spend money on whatever program, pork, or earmark, to do something federally, it's more than likely unconstitutional.

If our elected official understood our laws then maybe just maybe they would follow it.
Or perhaps they just don't care about the law or breaking it.


Your handle describes your head
Part 4

"How can I comment on such assertions other than by equally vague counter-assertions?"

If you were half as capable of critical thinking and research as you are at making excuses for yourself you would do some research and tell us what you found.

"Because I try to inject a little common-sense and moderation, I am labeled as a pinko dupe and he tells me to look in my bed to find a fellow commie. (I tell you, my wife wouldn't know Marx if she tripped over Das Kapital and the Manifesto bonked her on the head)."

You don't even realize you're proving MyOpine's point with this response, do you. You just got done admitting you wouldn't recognize communism if it "bonked" you on the head, but you think MyOpine is paranoid because she can see the communism that you are blinded to.

"It is precisely these manufactured enemies (Russians then, Iranians and North Koreans now) that keep the right holed up in their bunkers."

You left out the Red Chinese (65 million of their own countrymen murdered) and the Kmer Rouge (2.1 million murdered, 2 million more permanently exiled from their homelands). The Russians murdered 35 million of their own, mostly by starvation. And of course we're still waiting for the body counts in N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba to be tallied. We won't know those counts until (1) the despots that run those countries allow a free media and (2) they stop killing their people.

Is this what you call "try[ing] to inject a little common-sense and moderation" into the discussion? Casting scorn on conservatives for "manufactur[ing] enemies" because we condemn genocide overseas, try to stop it, and want to make sure it doesn't come here?

You are a flaming liberal.

Your handle decsribes your head
Part 3

"How do you define "crime"...?"

This is a stupid question unless you intend to pull the same old liberal crap of redefining something unsavory as being other than 'criminal', other than 'immoral', or other than 'wrong' so you can claim your argument is right, as if your redefinition of convenience reduces the harm of the act in question one by one iota.

But just to answer your question, when an innocent old lady gets knocked down by two of three young toughs, gets her purse stolen and her hip broken, that's a crime, no matter how you or some other liberal apologist or excuse-maker tries to justify it or redefine it. If you were capable of analytical thinking you could extrapolate that concept onto other things like rape, armed robbery, murder, sexual assault, theft, burglary, fraud, etc. But I suspect your desire to redefine such things as excusable, combined with your already demonstrated inability to think critically, will make it impossible for you to do this. You will instead use your own incompetence to either insist I take you by the hand through every crime statistic of the past 50 years, complain that I haven't made my point, or both.

BTW - I'm not even counting the 46 million + fetuses that have been aborted since 1973 as crimes. other crimes enabled by do-gooder liberalism are so rampant that the count far exceeds the per-capita crime of the 1950's without taking abortion account.


Good ole Hal
Who said what to you, jerk off?

Your handle decsribes your head
Part 2

Just because you're a loud mouth who shoots it off without doing any research don't make the second mistake of assuming everone else on these threads comes as poorly equipped as you do.

"All I know is my own observations."

Someday you may learn that the world doesn't revolve around you, and that therefore your own observations tell a miniscule and negligible part of the story.

"If you... are going to give us a bunch of meaningless statements about how good it was in the old days..."

At no time did I use the term "old days", nor did I expound on how good it was then. To the contrary, I pointed out that schools were still segregated then. I will now add that racism was open and accepted far too much. In fact, there was a signiicant amount of pressure on young whites to become racist, USUALLY EXERTED BY OTHER YOUNG PEOPLE. In addition we had smog and polluted water to deal with. There was no cure for cancer, etc. etc. Alot of things have gotten better in the last 50 years, but liberalism is not one of them.


Your handle decsribes your head
Part 1

"I do not have any research to back up my assertions..."

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

"... since that would be futile as you have none of your own."

Not true. There is a ton of evidence to support my comments. For example, the Thernstroms discuss the deterioration of public education very thoroughly in "The Worm in the Apple". Then we have the fact that salary increases for teachers and professors have outpaced inflation by 300%, and far outpaced the increases over the same period of time for everything Americans buy, including gasoline for their cars.

The $11 trillion figure for the so-called War on Poverty comes from Michelle Malkin, and is supported by the charts from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the OMB (Office of Management and Budget).

Regarding crime, Google "crime" and "New York City" and look up information regarding how crime rose steadily in the Big Apple right up until Giuliani took office. Giuliani, a former prosecutor went after organized crime AND ordinary street thugs. He also engaged in a policy addressing lifestyle issues. This meant doing things like painting over graffiti immediately so the perps wouldn't get to 'enjoy' their handiwork and decent people wouldn't be offended by what they saw and stop coming around. Then there were the Guardian Angels, a group of volunteers who significantly reduced crime in the city's subways. Did you know the founder of the Guardian Angels is a conservative who occasionally guest-hosts on conservative talk radio?

Another bit of evidence is that in the 1980's murder became the most common cause of death among young black males. And Barack Obama's minister has been reminding us that more black men still go to prison than to college.




CT/Mr. Hawkins
"..I agree with your points although having them printed is cruel for the lefties here. The conservative credo acts similar to liberals as holy water to vampires "

Actually no. It just saddens us to see such greed and nastiness...

MyOpine
Re: Thickasabrick

I remember that Jethro Tull album well. Tull albums were great until that loser. And my opinion was shared widely at the time by fans who mocked it and made fun of it.

Funny our pal should choose that particular handle. I figure he's in his fifties and became of age in the feminist decade of the seventies, fully immersed in the leftist faddish polemics of the day.

He starts out pedantically nitpicking my grammar (his dong grabbing 9th grade English teacher would be proud).

And then he proceeds to preach the leftist enviro dogma. Get a load of this crap:

"My possession of land is not a god-given right for all eternity. It is leased based on my wealth in the present. It is not mine to permanently degrade for future generations in order to slake my passing lusts."

None of us are here for all eternity (mine and his concepts of eternity are probably quite different). 'Degrade'? Covers use in any way productive to owner, I suppose.

'Future generations'? You mean that 48 million killed through abortion? Perhaps you mean the turrd world you would allow to invade. This is just another one of those generalities these type use in their propaganda i.e. community, people, etc. that only they may define.

'Slake my passing lusts'? Does that have anything to do with buying prostitutes or selling blow jobs?

What he can't argue with, he simply denies exists (the federal land management people are at war with anyone who wants to collect fossils on public lands - he denies this. For that matter, enviros like him are busy preventing ANY kind of public land use including even visiting it in a motor vehicle.

The rest of his posting is filled with the same type of enviro geek non-sense which isn't worth dealing with, or for that matter is the tiresome Thickasabrick as I know from reading your exchanges, you realize by now.

This is their life. IMO, these jerks are just not worth the time.

boomerbabe
".. I have found that those who work in the private sector are often conservative, and those who are employed by or live off the government are usually liberal."

And with folks like me who have been on both sides?

"That is why I will not vote for a career politician. Their view of America is through primrose colored glasses. They actually believe that it is the government that creates jobs, is responsible for new technology, finds cures for diseases and can best raise a child."

Actually you are very wrong. Most left and right see it as clearing the obstacles out of the way to let people do their thing. But, and this is very true, Ds are much better for the small businessman while Rs are much better for the mega corp

" And did you ever wonder how a senator making 150,000 a year, who has never held a job outside government, becomes a multi millionaire? "

Why is this an issue? Isn't DeLay the bug man a millionaire?

JFK was pretty conservative when it came
to his courage. He formed the alliance for progress. He agressively fought communism.

just a thought.


Mr. Hawkins,
I agree with your points although having them printed is cruel for the lefties here. The conservative credo acts similar to liberals as holy water to vampires.

Why is Hawkins conservative?
Because he's an ignorant hick (like the majority of posters on this site, although not quite as old) and is not able to comprehend a world that is more complex than black and white.

thickasabrick
you underestimate your wife.

with all due respect
I love my country. I don't really know why I get to be here why others are suffering elsewhere.

But God has a plan, I trust.

I believe so long as my ear stays atuned to His transmitted messages to me, I will eventually find out, why...


In God I Trust. I trust in Him. When I fall short, He is there for me. He picks me up.
So when my brother, world-wide, falls short, I follow His example.

My allegience is to Him. That's pretty conservative.


Mr. Hawkins
is writing why he is a conservative. Don't try to read more into it than that. I agree with most of what he said. I have found that those who work in the private sector are often conservative, and those who are employed by or live off the government are usually liberal. That is why I will not vote for a career politician. Their view of America is through primrose colored glasses. They actually believe that it is the government that creates jobs, is responsible for new technology, finds cures for diseases and can best raise a child. And did you ever wonder how a senator making 150,000 a year, who has never held a job outside government, becomes a multi millionaire?

mlund/jetpilot
"...Bush 43's rhetoric of "Compassionate Conservatism" was a pretty solid tip-off that his Republican administration was going to pay Conservatism lip-service and toss it overboard when it proved convenient."

Oh no baby he is all yours. What you do not get is that because of their nasty values conservatives will always get the same result - a person who only takes care of themselves which is what you want, isn't it. Why worry about others?

"Give me a viable Constitution party and the Grand Old Party can be left in the dustbin of history."

Never happen you cannot work together

energyguy
"...Have you ever heard of the way wars were fought in, oh lets say, 1865? Are you in a time-warp? That war DID use up soldiers. "

Actually the soldiers today are in combat zones more now than then. Because Bush, the torturer, is a coward he did not go to the American people to relieve the troops he just sends them back and back

"I was reminded just this week about one month of World War II, I believe February of 1946. America lost roughly 25,000 military men and women (mostly men I would say). In one month. Nearly 1000 per day. "

"Use them up, indeed!" Walter Reed (being closed by Bush)led the effort that reduced our casualities. What is your point?

"Oh, now you will say the Iraq war is immoral, ill-advised, against the wrong people, and for the purpose of obtaining more oil for the U.S. Maybe so. "

Actually no I do not my point is the Iraq War was a war of choice and was STUPID and let Al Q recover and grow

"..But I wonder if the millions upon millions of people who are free today around the world, as a result of US military force over the past 100 years, would agree with you. "

Actually many do Europe thinks Bush is pond scum and so are we for reelecting him

"Don't the Iraqis deserve a shot at being free? And if not, please explain exactly why not. In detail. "

Rubbish, Didn't our 9/11 deserve the capture and punishment of Osama and the destruction of Al Q. Don't bother explaining you weakling would never understand

wiseone, myopine, (contd)
...holed up, untouchable by the calm, still, hand of reason.

Although you accuse me of being a leftist, in fact I have never visited "daily kos" or any other like-minded site. If I did, I would probably be accused of being a nazi.

Your trouble is that you see everything in black-and-white; Manichaean paranoia; all-or-nothing. Take the free market for example. An admirable construct of man, but right-wingers want the concept taken to an extreme without regard for the fact that the market should be our servant, not our master. Communists took it to the opposite extreme, which was just as stupid, but that is not to say the lever should be pushed all the way in the other direction.

Peace.

jetpilot is confused
Being unable to separate Republican (a political party) from Conservative (a values system) is a pretty common malady though.

Republicans aren't reliably Conservative. Neither Nixon nor Ford were particularly dedicated to the ideals of Conservatism. The Republican Revolution of 1994 rallied itself around Conservatism. By 2006 the Republican majority in Congress had whored itself out to Statist corruption that discouraged the base that brought them too power.

Bush 43's rhetoric of "Compassionate Conservatism" was a pretty solid tip-off that his Republican administration was going to pay Conservatism lip-service and toss it overboard when it proved convenient. Surprise-surprise, we got "bi-partisan" Prescription Drug Socialism and that horrific attempt at Amnesty, but no Social Security reform or reduction in the size and scope of the bloated Federal Bureaucracy.

Most of the blood-letting over TH during the Republican Primary had to do with where Republican candidates diverged from Conservative Principles. For the most part, none of the Conservatives I know are satisfied with the Republican Party.

However the Democratic Party has made it a platform to steadfastly advance a Statist agenda at every turn. What unites Conservatives with Republicans as that both their interests are threatened by the garbage Statist platform the Democrats try to heap on the USA year in and year out. For Conservatives, the Republican party is a means to an ends. Give me a viable Constitution party and the Grand Old Party can be left in the dustbin of history.

But that's life living in the perpetual Opposition - even when the guys you have to stoop to voting for are presumably in the majority.

wiseone, myopine,
I usually refrain from purely political discussions like this. However this time I thought I would like to see the reaction when your own tactics are used against you.

No, I do not have any research to back up my assertions, since that would be futile as you have none of your own. All I know is my own observations.

If you, self-styled wiseone, are going to give us a bunch of meaningless statements about how good it was in the old days, then you should know better than to be so vague. For example, "we had less crime in the 50s and 60s". How do you define "crime", and how do you define "less" (fewer convictions, or fewer convictions as a proportion of the population, or not convictions at all but reported crimes, or what)?

How can I comment on such assertions other than by equally vague counter-assertions?

Then, we have MyOpine, fearful of his own shadow and of a now non-existent "communist" enemy. Because I try to inject a little common-sense and moderation, I am labeled as a pinko dupe and he tells me to look in my bed to find a fellow commie. (I tell you, my wife wouldn't know Marx if she tripped over Das Kapital and the Manifesto bonked her on the head).

It is precisely these manufactured enemies (Russians then, Iranians and North Koreans now) that keep the right holed up in their bunkers.

Dear Mr. Hawkins
You can always judge the worth of an article by the numbers of semi-crazed libtrolls who come on to scream bloody murder. Your first poster was Lily! That alone speaks volumes. Congratulations on a good column!

P.S. Good for GunnyG. So the "notorious" HalD and "rapacious" Robert are one in the same? Why would he (she?) do that? A little schizophrenia coming down, perhaps??

Raising Taxes
Not good? Newsflash...maybe you should tell that to your liberal elected officials...I don't think they got the memo.

Use Up the Soldiers?
Really? In what way? By using American ingenuity and innovation to build stealth aircraft? By inventing and using smart bombs? Cruise missiles? Body armor? Night vision? And remote drones? The list is too long...

Have you ever heard of the way wars were fought in, oh lets say, 1865? Are you in a time-warp? That war DID use up soldiers.

I was reminded just this week about one month of World War II, I believe February of 1946. America lost roughly 25,000 military men and women (mostly men I would say). In one month. Nearly 1000 per day.

Use them up, indeed!

Oh, now you will say the Iraq war is immoral, ill-advised, against the wrong people, and for the purpose of obtaining more oil for the U.S. Maybe so.

But I wonder if the millions upon millions of people who are free today around the world, as a result of US military force over the past 100 years, would agree with you. Don't the Iraqis deserve a shot at being free? And if not, please explain exactly why not. In detail.

Anne
a hearty amen to your last post (6:36)!!

Hal the enemy Propagandist!
I used to think you were just ignorant and did not know the subjects you were posting about.
Then I see you post the same erroneous crap day after day, that has been refuted, day after day.
As to the material cost of war?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=913809C 9-A26E-4E20-AE27-46F92B034739

As to the lives this war has cost?
YOU contribute to that by constantly repeating enemy propaganda.

You and your allies who hate America!
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-TUpCdsQmYqcjHcNZ9xfaR14-?cq= 1&tag=codepink

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Politics/archive /200705/POL20070516a.html

halD: Yeah-yeah-yeah, same ol' same ol'


How anyone can post some much, and yet not have a wit of sense is beyond me... and most reasonable and rational people.. But, somehow you seem to do it... and on a fairly regular basis.

You and your liberal idiots are the ones who want the change from what our Founding Fathers set forth...

If you don't like what this country started out to be, and IS, then LEAVE. You have no right to change it to a socialist country...



energyguy
"If raising taxes is good, at what point are taxes high enough? 25 percent? How about 50 percent? Maybe, 100 percent? Wow, if more is better, then how about 150 percent?"

No one says raising taxes is good. Taxes are a tool nothing else. What you folks do is use things i.e. Bush's Iraq War is a good example you use up the military and don't replace it. You use up the soldiers and don't pay to care for them. What will it take to do that? Will you pay? How?

why aren't you an American First
Why are you not an American first?

Why not a human being with compassion first?

Why not a Christian, Jew or what ever the religion you may belong to.

WHY WHY Worship a Political party or ideology. That is ignorant and closes off all rational thought and just being a plane human being.

Why hate others and call them with disdain and contempt "Liberal". Or Bill-Oh SP (secular progressive or Suppressive person if you are into Scientology.)

I have read your articles and I read YOUNG and Immature, arrogant, hubris and narrow minded.

People talk about the Rev Wright. I most all Americans reject that hate. However you speak HATE all the time, you just CODE it and make vague reference to hate.

News FLASH: Conservatives don't have all the right answers. We have seen when the GOP was given free reign for the last 7 years and even 5 year before with control of the congress, what has happened: Corruption, waste, fraud, good old boy nepotism and cronyism, incompetence, laziness, perversion and a hole bunch of childish stupid behavior and actions, ALL GOP. The sad part the RANK and FILE or "Base" will stay in lock step out of party loyalty with OUT SPEAKING OUT.

"BASE" has an alternative meaning- Having or showing a contemptible, mean-spirited, or selfish lack of human decency.

The GOP is BASE often. STOP IT. You are KILLING America!

A German officer in Nuremberg, WWII war crimes trials said "I was only following orders." Stop worshipping & following Conservative orders and start being an American first, FOR ALL PEOPLE, not just republicans. Tax cuts for example, for the rich is heinous.

Retired Geek/Liberal Thinking
"...Liberal "truth" is based on "feeling good" and measured by intentions. "

Wrong and fundamentalist conservative GW shows what happens: incompetence and few results. "Intention"? Get a grip you seem to judge your leaders on fantasy

"Liberals rush to union jobs, government jobs and tenure because of deep rooted fears of inadequacy and possible personal failure. "

Ahh yes serving the people is a result of "deep rooted fears of inadequacy and possible personal failure". All those cops, firemen and soldiers sure seem to reflect that. Unions? Rather than being sheeple and subservient to an "owner" union warkers want equality and a decent pay for work done - conservative sheeple seem to want to kiss the ring of an owner and well be "owned by them too"

"Liberals fear and loathe achievement by others who have made the transition to adulthood. Just read the posts here and you can easily weed the juvenile antics, name calling and lack of a realistic view of the world from those who have achieved adulthood. "

LMAO yes please do read...

"Universal Health Care: It has never worked well anywhere, will never enjoy "universal success" and is not working where it is in vogue today. Liberals believe the results will be different if under control of their political "messiahs"."

Actually it does work most places tried. Perfect no but better than here at much lower cost. Consider it electricity - everyone should build their own power plant and string their own wire?

"I can expect the young to grow up and develop a realistic value system - is there any hope for old liberals. "

They are where people care enough to pay for decent education and demand results

Hal the enemy Propagandist!
If you want to live as a Communist, then go to Cuba!

This explains exactly what is wrong with you.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=56494

You still did not answer my question.
If you wanted to help defeat America and cause us to loose the Iraq war just like Vietnam;
What else would you do that you are not doing right now?
As the Progressive you are RIGHT NOW, not assuming other form or hypothetical pretense.
Can you think of anything you have not done already?

Questions for libs
If raising taxes is good, at what point are taxes high enough? 25 percent? How about 50 percent? Maybe, 100 percent? Wow, if more is better, then how about 150 percent?

The market vs government argument should have been settled long ago. Case in point: the phone company. Monopoly for decades as ATT. No innovation, no choice, nobody even tried to make better phones or better service. Why bother?

Deregulation: now look around. Call anywhere in the US - no long distance charges. On a cell phone that doubles as an internet connection, music box, data storage, etc and etc.

Airlines: few people could afford to fly in the regulated days. Now everyone flies. Prices are lower in absolute dollars.

Schools: government-run schools still are horrible and getting worse. Private schools (for profit) provide much better education.

The examples abound: just read some Thomas Sowell books.

So, libs, what tax rate is the optimum? I'd love to hear the answer to that one!

Anne
"And they're so worried about such things as the Patriot Act? Huh, they haven't seen anything yet!!!"

Oh yes we have - a beginning if you sheeple go along.

"But, if that's the way they want it, then they should move to GB, Canada, or Sweden, etc. But DO NOT shove it down our throats."

Rubbish, you go to Nigeria where they already have the state you want


Liberal Thinking
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." The framers of our constitution were accustomed to dealing with adult thinking. Liberal "truth" is based on "feeling good" and measured by intentions. Liberals rush to union jobs, government jobs and tenure because of deep rooted fears of inadequacy and possible personal failure. Liberals fear and loathe achievement by others who have made the transition to adulthood. Just read the posts here and you can easily weed the juvenile antics, name calling and lack of a realistic view of the world from those who have achieved adulthood.

Universal Health Care: It has never worked well anywhere, will never enjoy "universal success" and is not working where it is in vogue today. Liberals believe the results will be different if under control of their political "messiahs".

I can expect the young to grow up and develop a realistic value system - is there any hope for old liberals.

Our form of Government & borders?
United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
____________________________________________
I don't see anything here supporting Communism or open borders!

mlund
"Oddly enough, the United States IS founded on the principle of God first, Constitution second."

Oddly, indeed, for it is not true. The document does not make that claim.

"From the Creator come the Rights that the documents of the Union merely AKNOWLEDGE. Without their Creator to endow those Rights, there was no foundation for the Constitution. Those who wrote the Constitution in no way put on airs about "Creating Rights" with their document."

Right, the document nor government nor man create rights. But what is this Creator? It refers back to the first paragraph's Laws of Nature and Nature's God. Natural rights derive from natural law according to Locke, whom Jefferson borrowed heavily from to write the document. Natural law here derives from man's nature. It leaves open the question of your concept of God as creator and law-giver.

For MyOpine (Conclusion)
wiseone claims: There were fewer children without fathers, less STD's, and less divorce (fewer broken homes).

taab replies: "Stuff and nonsense. Social conservatism is a failure in these areas, as has been proven with the current admin."

Right. It's GWB's fault that 73% of blacks are born out of wedlock. LBJ's "Great Society", renamed "Uncle Sam's Plantation by Star Parker Jones, had nothing to do with it.

It's obvious that taab never learned critical thinking anywhere but Dailykos and democratunderground.

wiseone claims: The national debt that was about 3% of what it is today in 1961.

taab replies: "Not surprising given neocon deficit spending, like expeditions into certain sovereign countries that pose no threat but have resources we desire."

LBJ's war on poverty has cost us $11 trillion. Our national debt today is about $8.9 trillion. And the number of impoverished has INCREASED. Do the math taab, if you can.

The national debt was more than $6 trillion when Clinton left office, 12 years after the left began talking about taking advantage of the "peace dividend, and 46 years after the Democrats took control of the Congress in 1954. During those forty six years the budget was balanced six times, and all six times were during the six years that the Gingrich Republicans controlled Congress; from 1995 thru 2000.

It's very cliche among Kool-Aid drinking libs to blame neocons for excessive spending over the six years from 2001 thru 2006, but the budget, and the deficit, this year, with Democrats in control of Congress, will be larger than ever. So don't even try to blame the national debt on the neocons. As if any further proof is needed, the Democrat-controlled Congress today defeated by a wide margin a bill designed to eliminate earmarks.

taab has no evidence. Just the talking points he gets from whacko lib websites and/or the DNC.

For MyOpine
thickasabrick can't provide any evidence for his discussion because his discussion doesn't even attempt to refute the facts of my post.

This is how liberals argue

wiseone claims: We had better schools in the 50's and 60's.

taab replies: "But now, no child is left behind!"

as if that disproves my claim. In reality it disproves nothing. Instead it admits that the feds felt compelled to try to do something to 'fix' public education. If public education under liberalism is so great why would children have been left behind in the first place?

wiseone claims: We has less crime in the 50's and 60's.

taab replies: "Thanks to social conservatives, who like to poke into other peoples' affairs and private business, and can't think of any solution other than to ban things of which they don't approve, more ordinary folks are defined as criminals, filling our jails with 1% of our population and growing."

Actually, because of liberalism, sodomy and abortion are now legal. On the other hand, also because of liberalism, guns are illegal under certain circumstances in many other cities. Also due to liberalism, the sentences of many convicted criminals have been lighter and many others have enjoyed early release from prison. So there must be some other 'excuse' for the increase in the number of people in jail.

wiseone claims: There were fewer "homeless" people in the 50's and 60's.

taab replies: "Neocon governments like to send soldiers to war, but don't like to pay for their care when they come home."

We're supposed to believe that the increase in homelessness is comprised entirely of returned veterans? Get a clue taab.

BTW - by far the greatest number of vets with some kind of disability currently in the civilian population are from the Vietnam War. That war was started and escalated by a couple of liberals; JFK and LBJ.

(Continued next post)

Hawkins is SPOT ON!

Our Founding Fathers NEVER intended for this country to be a "socialist country" and clearly went out of their way to minimize as much government interference and control as possible.

As Mrs. Paddy wrote this morning 7:33AM

"Thomas Jefferson said, 'A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.'”

The liberal idiots should really be thinking about this because should (God forbid) get that big, it will take everything the libs have as well as the Conservatives.

And they're so worried about such things as the Patriot Act? Huh, they haven't seen anything yet!!!

But, if that's the way they want it, then they should move to GB, Canada, or Sweden, etc. But DO NOT shove it down our throats.







dmac, 2
(If this posts twice, sorry, having trouble with computer and forum.)

...

you “Do not mistake exhorting America to be moral or good is an advocation of the government to be so."

Oh, no, I have no problem with that. But he wasn't exhorting us to be moral, he was advocating a role of government from a supposed conservative point of view. That's how I took his advocacy anyhow. Perhaps if his title was Why I am A Conservative Christian it would have led me to think it was exhortation of the people, but this is a political forum, I thought.

I can see why, given passages you cite, he also seems like a limited government conservative—like someone said above a libertarian. But he also, imo, advocates virtues he wants government to promote. Try and fuse the two together as we might, the two positions are at odds.


You "America is not the government, the people are. If people are moral, and if the government is not overbearing, then the government will govern morally."

Again we agree. Only a free people, people free to choose, can be moral.

thickasabrick
The reason you refuse to provide links is that you are a liar.

You come here making up fiction to support your Communist causes.

"Communists under every bed"?
If there is NOT a Communist IN your bed then there is a FOOL there!

YOUR leaders are Communists;
http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0 &SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&Ink=b&ItemID=164

These are your Communist Goals
Congressional Record -- Appendix, pp. A34-A35
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

I do understand how you Communists like to cower behind various euphemism, Progressive, Socialist, New Democrat, New Left, etc., but I prefer the generic term, Communist!

Lenin had a term for those who unknowingly supported his views. He called them "Useful Idiots".

If you do not belong to any of the groups listed at the end of this link then you are in deed, a useful idiot!
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialists.htm

Conservative Constitutionalism
Will says:

"I don't think there is ANYTHING inherently conservative about the notion of GOD...believing in God," and "Is it Bible first & Constitution second?"

Oddly enough, the United States IS founded on the principle of God first, Constitution second. In fact, even Jefferson (known for distancing himself from Christianity) note in our Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..." From the Creator come the Rights that the documents of the Union merely AKNOWLEDGE. Without their Creator to endow those Rights, there was no foundation for the Constitution. Those who wrote the Constitution in no way put on airs about "Creating Rights" with their document.

thickasabrick wrote:

"The logical conclusion of this is that any species not vital to our survival or pleasure, may be sacrificed on the altar of consumption."

To be more precise, any other species may be sacrificed for the greater benefit of Humankind. If we need to purey the last survivors of 1,000 species of plants and animals that we can otherwise survive without to cure HIV or Cancer, fire up that blender!

The Conservative argument for conservation is the Teddy Roosevelt approach - that nature enriches the lives of Humankind in ways that can be more valuable that making a few individuals wealthy.

Again, Humans always come first.

ModMark: Theories
You proved my point about Cold Fusion. The original experiment was faulty. Others developed exper