It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Why I am a Conservative" - Great piece from the FPR

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
www.frontporchrepublic.com...



I am going to highlight some of the most important and thought provoking parts of the article.


To “conserve,” however, is a fairly simple thing. While “liberals” and “progressives” keep changing what lovely things they see in the future, “conserving” means knowing what’s important and trying to save it. The opposite of “conservative,” in fact, has never been “liberal”; it has always been ideology. Ideology, as my friend the great historian Forrest McDonald says, is “dogmatic, scientific, secular millenialism.”
______________________________________________________________________________
All neocons, most Republicans, and a great many posturing pundits translate conserving into the last generation’s New Deal. Let’s not have Obamacare, but by golly FDR was a great leader, a defender of freedom and caretaker of capitalism, and Truman was a gritty cold warrior who saved Korea, and JFK, and LBJ, etc.
______________________________________________________________________________
To wit: To be an American conservative is to believe that first, there is an Order of Creation. Second, that God’s authority has given us an eternal contract between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn. Third, that this contract is expressed in the church, the family, and the local community. Fourth, that there is a constitutional arrangement in the common sense of things, limited in authority, that gave shape to these truths. Fifth, that a reasonable amount of individual freedom, based on the above, rewards enterprise and initiative. Sixth, that there is a duty among all citizens to defend, sometimes (not often) even militarily, all of the above.
______________________________________________________________________________
If you love place, limits, liberty, and think they are words that have meaning, you are probably conservative, and should honor that word also.
______________________________________________________________________________
It is not conservative to believe that the “American way of life” can be exported, except by example. It is not conservative to think that “change” necessarily makes things better. It is not conservative to think that education, equality, democracy, or freedom cause progress. In fact, it is not conservative to believe in Progress.


This was a great article by John Wilson




That was an outstanding article that I thoroughly enjoyed. It hit every major philosophical point of Conservatism, called out the Neocons, and clearly outlined what exactly true Conservatism is about. Patriotism, Tradition, and Liberty are the most fundamental and crucial elements that make a society prosper. Not just financially as money is not everything but rather morally and ethically.

Society degrades due to the constant search for a person to be their own god, creating their own morals and ethics, establishing within their own mind what is right and wrong. Morals and ethics do not stem from individual thought but rather from passed on traditions and customs from generation to generation. There is no more evidence for the proof of what is right than that belief to be tested over time.

Progressivism seeks constant change in our world as everything is seen as wrong. It searches for a cure for what it considers to be faults. These cures proposed by Progressivism usually involve the forced removal of tradition, nation, or liberty. The government is always the one that moves the nation forward, the individual free of all restraints from past beliefs are now free to be true ‘individuals’ in the eyes of Progressivism. However the individualism espoused by Progressives is rather one of materialism, secularism, and dependency.

Instead of lying to people and telling them that individualism is the key to a successful nation we should spread the word that individuals are just elements of the community which is an even larger element of the nation. Individual sovereignty can only go so far before it must be met with the community’s assistance. You cannot become wealthy from trade without other people to buy your goods, you cannot become an entrepreneur without people to purchase your goods, and everything requires a community and the recognition of that community.

However this does not mean individualism is irrelevant or unnecessary quite the contrary. Individuals, free to pursue their own desires peacefully, is the greatest innovator in human history. We cannot enforce our morals, beliefs, or politics on anyone else but we can try and lead by example or persuade them through intellectual discourse.

I believe there are certain moral obligations of every person in a free society to keep that society functioning. Everyone who has the capabilities to work should work as hard as they can just as MLK said, “be the best street sweeper possible”. Help those who just simply cannot help themselves. Be willing to donate your time and/or money to a charitable cause. Take care of your children and your elderly family members.

Those are all things we should be willing to do and are absolutely necessary to secure our own liberty. When I say “should be willing” it means that there should be no forcing anyone to do anything against their will.
edit on 12/15/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Politically speaking, I am a Libertarian. I find myself in agreement with most of the precepts listed. Personal liberty was supposed to be entwined with personal responsibility. Unfortunately responsibility is withering away. Thus the rise of the "nanny state". Personal liberty cannot long exist without a sense of personal responsibility. When you delegate you responsibilities to the government, you lose liberties as a direct result. There is no possibility of separating the two.
edit on 15-12-2010 by sonofliberty1776 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Thanks Misoir,
I agree with this definition of conservative. One of the frustrating things we have had to deal with is the "news" organizations labeling neocons and others conservatives when they are anything BUT conservative. We have Ron Paul, and....and.....
Well, we have Ron Paul.
Edit to add: Thanks for the great link as well!
edit on 15-12-2010 by Stewie because: Thanks



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


I am a recent frequenter of Front Porch Republic, they have so many great articles you really do not know where to begin.

This is not a ‘type’ of Conservatism, this is Conservatism. Anything other than this is dressed up propaganda and lies. Neocons, Republicans, and the like are not Conservatives. There are few Conservatives such as Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Pat Buchanan. Conservative is a rare breed I suppose. After Fox News and Republican Party seized control of Conservatism it has consistently went downhill.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Politically speaking, I am a Libertarian. I find myself in agreement with most of the precepts listed. Personal liberty was supposed to be entwined with personal responsibility. Unfortunately responsibility is withering away. Thus the rise of the "nanny state". Personal liberty cannot long exist without a sense of personal responsibility. When you delegate you responsibilities to the government, you lose liberties as a direct result. There is no possibility of separating the two.
edit on 15-12-2010 by sonofliberty1776 because: (no reason given)


Actually, the rise in the "nanny state" was just a political strategy appealing for the female vote in the 90's and not real need. It was launched with a shakedown of tobacco companies by democrat party trial lawyers and a route to massive taxation. Health nazism is a way for Federal controllers to "progress" in claiming total control over free people. The neo-cons and the Democrat party liberals want to be our mommies. As Michelle says, "we can't leave healthy eating to parents."



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 


I never really thought of it that way. The nanny state really did move in after ‘women’s liberation’. I guess they figured perfect opportunity to start taking up more responsibilities since the mom’s are all busy at work to handle it themselves.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Thanks for sharing the article, Misoir (suave).

I like this observation the most:


It is not conservative to believe that the “American way of life” can be exported, except by example.


So much for thinking that all conservatives are "war-hawks."



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123Actually, the rise in the "nanny state" was just a political strategy appealing for the female vote in the 90's and not real need. It was launched with a shakedown of tobacco companies by democrat party trial lawyers and a route to massive taxation. Health nazism is a way for Federal controllers to "progress" in claiming total control over free people. The neo-cons and the Democrat party liberals want to be our mommies. As Michelle says, "we can't leave healthy eating to parents."
Which would not have been possible had the people still embraced the philosophy of personal responsibility. Healt nazism as you call is only one method of seizing on the desire of many people to no longer accept responsibility for their decision and life choices.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sonjah1
 


“Not all Conservatives are war-hawks”

I think the correct meaning you should say would be “No Conservatives are war-hawks” because the GOP, FOX News, Bush, etc… are all Neocons and not Conservatives. They are frauds and liars (like we did not already know that). When you want to think of Conservative, real conservatism, think about Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin or Andrew Jackson.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


reply to post by Misoir
 


I agree, wholeheartedly.

I was surprised that you threw Pat Buchanan in the mix earlier.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sonjah1
 


Yeah he is a little unsteady in the head if you know what I mean but his views generally are representative of Classical Conservatism. He is definitely a true blood Conservative but just like any ideology there are different sects and people. That is how you can have Andrew Jackson, Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan all sharing the same view of –Conserve-.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


What are your thoughts on the Newt?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sonjah1
 


Neocon scum. His bank of morals show "no funds available". What he has done to his former wives is horrifying and sad. Add to that he has to be one of the biggest sellouts, imagine Bush on steroids.
edit on 12/15/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



Neocon scum. His bank of morals show "no funds available". What he has done to his former wives is horrifying and sad. Add to that he has to be one of the biggest sellouts, imagine Bush on steroids.


Bravo!

The problem is he keeps churning out those neocon books to give the true conservatives a bad name



edit on 15-12-2010 by sonjah1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sonjah1
 

All the more reason that we need a true conservative party. I had hopes for the Tea Party, but they have been co-opted by the repuklicans.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by sara123123Actually, the rise in the "nanny state" was just a political strategy appealing for the female vote in the 90's and not real need. It was launched with a shakedown of tobacco companies by democrat party trial lawyers and a route to massive taxation. Health nazism is a way for Federal controllers to "progress" in claiming total control over free people. The neo-cons and the Democrat party liberals want to be our mommies. As Michelle says, "we can't leave healthy eating to parents."
Which would not have been possible had the people still embraced the philosophy of personal responsibility. Healt nazism as you call is only one method of seizing on the desire of many people to no longer accept responsibility for their decision and life choices.


We need to realize that when one person or a group of people are doing something unhealthy, they will pay natural consequences for what they are doing wrong in their lives. We do not ever want a sterile and totally safe life because we will no longer have liberty. We have to tolerate the freedom of others to do as they choose even if we would not do it ourselves.

Sometimes people argue that one person's unhealthy choice costs everyone in health care and this then justifies to many nanny statism. However, they just traded their own freedom in the hope of saving a few bucks. We have to make freedom a priority for ourselves and our fellow citizens. It is more precious than all the money in the world and more precious than the inconvience of living around people who are not as "perfect" as we are in their consumption behavioral choices..



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 

Yes, such is my point.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join