You can define "conservative" in this manner only for yourself. That's not my definition of "conservative" nor is it a definition I've heard from anyone else. It appears you are either a Libertarian, or have Libertarian leanings. If so, why not just say that instead of trying to redefine the term "conservative" that has pretty much a nationwide connotation that isn't remotely close to what you describe?recaffeination wrote:I suppose it depends whether you think a conservative is someone who supports small government in compliance with the constitution or if you think a conservative is a person of faith who supports big government to impose his beliefs on others through blue laws, punitive taxation on "sin" and so on.
For decades, a "conservative" has been recognized as someone who supports smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, minimal social programs, strong national defense, strong enforcement of immigration laws, as well as laws, policies and norms that adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian values (a/k/a "family values"). Liberals have been recognized as people who support larger government with greater control over our lives, higher taxes, large (ever-growing) social programs, and laws that restrict or require all manner of actions by citizens. Only in recent years have liberals chosen to abandon Judeo-Christian values and allow an "anything goes" attitude on some but not all social issues.
Just as anti-gun advocates stopped using the term "gun-control" in favor of "gun safety" to hide their true agenda, liberals have come to realize that the terms "liberal" and "liberalism" have become ugly words to most Americans, so they created the euphemism "progressives." That's like a 300 lb. man trying to hide behind a twig. They can wear any name badge they wish, but when they open their mouths liberalism spews forth. Libertarians now claim to be the only "true conservatives" where once they proudly claimed to be neither liberal nor conservative, but something entirely different. Well, their version of "different" didn't sell very well, so they followed the lead of liberals. While Libertarians didn't come up with a new word as did liberals, they chose to redefine "conservative" to fit their platform and beliefs. That hasn't worked either and it never will.
I earlier said the Libertarian Party Platform was a mixture of both ultraconservative and ultraliberal planks. I misspoke. The Libertarian Platform is ultraliberal on social issues, but anarchist on most other issues, with only a few planks that traditional conservatives would recognize or support. Trying to call this any form of "conservatism" is just as poor camouflage as liberals calling themselves "progressives" or Sarah Brady talking about gun safety. https://www.lp.org/files/LP%20Platform%202012.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (If you read it, read all of it.)
It has been my experience that a shocking percentage of strong Libertarians, including those who are the most ardent Ron Paul supporters, don't know what the Libertarian Party Platform contains. That's both sad and scary. Those that do know what the Platform contains try to ignore the utterly absurd positions stated by pointing to one or two social issues like same-sex marriage and say "it's none of the government's business." Have a look at what the Libertarian Party really wants and keep a running scoresheet of what is liberal, conservative and anarchist.
I know it's coming so I'll head it off now. I don't like some of what the Republican Party has done or allowed to happen, but the answer is to elect Tea Party Republicans. These candidates are winning and their impact is already beginning to be felt in Washington and in Austin. It's not an overnight fix, but it will work if people start supporting these true conservatives.
Chas.
