Renaming Conservatism and its Mission

The word conservative has come to connote elitism, bigotry, selfishness and hatred, while the words liberal and democrat (as in the Democratic party) have come to connote compromise, selflessness, cooperation and peace. Nothing could be more dangerous to the West than this pervading notion. For the sake of our destiny as a people, this falsehood must be challenged and defeated in the court of public opinion. I propose using a new word to describe the political ideology 'conservatism' and a new term to describe its mission of 'cutting the size of government'.

Traditional conservatives (as opposed to the big-government AIPAC-Lockheed Martin-Evangelical neo-conservatives) have defined themselves as, above all else, proponents of small government. Many people do not know the underlying reason why conservatives have a religious-like devotion to cutting the size of government. The perception in the public is that these small-government type conservatives are either:

1) xenophobic rednecks. They are typically white males who belong to a militia, and believe there is a conspiracy by the government to control them. They fear this government control because it would mean being forced to accept the 21st century progressive values of human rights, equality and tolerance: values which have still not spread to the backwards rural areas of America.

2) greedy rich bean counters. These people are trying to loosen the rules that protect the poor from the big rich corporations. They are also typically white, and are trying to protect the elite from the roving bands of mostly dark-skinned poor by enacting tougher laws against crime and cutting social programs that allow the inner city poor to survive. Above all else, they are trying to reduce the taxes the rich must pay so that they can hoard even more money.

I believe this has become the perception of conservatives, because conservatives have not done enough to explain their message and have allowed big-government leftists to succeed in associating the conservative mission with immorality.

For the values of limited government to take hold, it must be seen as the morally superior position. I also believe the morality of limited government needs to be stressed over the economic advantages of limited government. Proponents of small government must challenge the position of proponents of big government social programs as the retainers of the moral high ground.

Those who advocate big government do not have the moral high ground, because they advocate coercion against innocent individuals. Too many people do not understand this. They do not understand that government has nothing. For a government to provide something, it must take it from someone else using coercion. Government is coercion. This is the equation that must be imprinted into the collective mind of the public. The mission of conservatives is not 'cutting the size of government', but 'reducing coercion'.

Jesus or Buddha would never advocate force to acquire resources to help the poor, yet that is exactly what the so-called compassionate leftists advocate. They advocate using government agents to force people to hand over their wealth, in order to provide for the poor. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies using coercion against an innocent individual.

This point must be stressed above all else, because leftists do everything they can to justify the coercion that is required to fund government programs, and then turn around and call the right immoral for not wanting government programs that help the poor. Leftists do everything they can to be perceived as the moral ones because that is where they get their political strength, and that is where they must be attacked relentlessly.

From now on, we conservatives do not want to 'cut the size of government', but 'reduce coercion'. Whether it's coercion against a small child, coercion against a rich greedy son of a bitch, it matters not, it is immoral and cannot be justified. Once this is made clear, the big government leftist will be exposed as an advocate of theft against innocent people, a cheater who rather than using his own hard-earned money to help the poor, wants to take the shortcut and take other people's money.

The term conservative itself is also misleading. At one time one would need to be a conservative to be an advocate of reduced coercion, because coercion (government) was minimal, and therefore to be a proponent of reduced coercion you would need to conserve the type of government the nation had. It was the progressives, those who wanted to change the system, that wanted to increase coercion (increase the size of government).

Now, the situation is reversed. We have an established system for coercing innocent individuals, that is widely accepted by a population who has lost its pride, and its belief in human dignity and morality. It is those who want to reduce coercion that want change- that are the progressives, and it is those who want to continue the widespread coercion of innocent individuals who want to conserve the system- it is the leftists who are the conservatives.

Ron Paul has enjoyed success primarily because he has focused on the moral aspect of reducing the size of government. He stresses again and again that government is coercion and therefore immoral. We must all try to do the same. We must never compromise on our principles and give into dehumanizing our fellow man and allowing coercion against him to be justified.

-August 12th addendum-

Upon a re-read of this article, I realized I never proposed a new term to describe the political ideology 'conservatism' as I stated I would in the introduction, so I would like to attempt to do so now.

In the article I mention that I believe in our modern age, traditional conservatives are the real progressives, and the leftists are the real conservatives, but despite this, 'progressive' isn't the term that I would support to describe the political ideology that we now call 'conservatism'.

I thought a lot about what value one who tries to reduce coercion believes in, and I concluded that that value is liberty. Upon thinking on this, I further concluded that the term 'liberal' has been grotesquely misappropriated by the left. The group that advocates greater coercion via government regulations and taxes should not be called the 'liberals'. It is advocates of limited government that are the champions of liberty.

So is 'liberal' the term conservatives should demand they be called? No because I think that the belief in personal liberty does not fully encompass the traditional conservative movement. There is also an element of promoting family values, national solidarity, and personal responsibility that defines the traditional conservative.

I think therefore that a term that could properly describe the traditional conservative is "responsible liberal". The "responsible" part describes the factor of believing in personal responsibility, rather than believing that the state should take care of each individual.

A responsible person takes care of his family and is charitable to his neighbors, not because the government forces him to, but because that is the right thing to do. A responsible liberal believes that government should give people maximum liberty and that people should use that liberty responsibly, meaning not indulging in pre-marital sex, financial carelessness, drug-use, etc just because they can.

I am in no way certain that this term, 'responsible liberal', is the best term out there to describe the political ideology of conservatism, but in the interest of advancing the public discussion, I've put it forth here. Oh and leftists, they should be called socialists, because that is the term that most accurately describes them.

Vote Online for Ron Paul!

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (202 675-6000) has snail mailed a Presidential Preference Poll to get your feedback, and Ron Paul is not included in the list of candidates.

read more

How to convince older people to vote for Ron Paul

I think in order for Ron Paul to win, the mostly young, internet savvy Ron Paul supporters needs to find a way to convert the older more traditional crowd. Older people need to realize that younger people are ready to take the reigns of leadership and bring about a better future. Getting them to understand the merits of a Ron Paul presidency is vital to our goal of winning the elections. The following is my thoughts on how this can be done.

Make them understand the long term implications of staying the course (in a broad sense, not just in reference to Iraq which is the context one recently hears the term in) with the 'mainstream' Republican/Democrat candidates. They must understand the economic trouble America is in, and they must understand that America WILL lose its position as the world's most prosperous nation if this continues. Economic data needs to be pointed to. For example:

America's social security obligations are staggering and far outpace the estimates of what America will be able to afford. This article explains that in 2025, there will be 2 workers paying for the benefits of each retiree, in opposed to the 3.3 workers per retiree now and the 16 workers per retiree in 1950, when social security started: Social Security's Inevitable Future

Americans' personal savings rates are in the negative and declining. This article from the federal reserve (I don't support the federal reserve setup on economic principle but I do think there are various useful articles that are published by it) shows this: Questions and Reflections on the Personal Saving Rate

American median wages, that is the wage that the largest number of Americans earn, has decreased in the last 35 years. Here are some figures to demonstrate this: wage data

Please let me know your thoughts, I can improve this if you give recommendations.

Ron Paul's meteoric rise to top candidate

When Ron Paul entered the presidential race in March of this year, he was considered a fringe candidate who had no serious chance of winning but added a fresh infusion of constitutional ideals and libertarian ideas into the republican race. After the first Republican debate in May, he became the Kucinich of the Republican party: the dissenting voice that spoke to the conscience of the base, deriding the failed policy of foreign intervention, and reminding the party that the Republican party was ignoring the coming bankruptcy of the American economy.

This all changed after the second Republican debates. Ron Paul's challenge to Rudy Guliani on the root causes of muslim terrorism against America- by blaming interventionist policies for formenting Islamic terrorism- and his subsequent defiance in the face of Guliani's applause-accompanied request that he apologize for his statement, awoke something in America that has shocked and sidelined all of the mainstream presidential candidates since then, Democrat and Republican. Suddenly Ron Paul became the lone voice of reason and integrity in a sea of politic correctness and political expedience. He became the only person who had the courage to speak out about America's real problems while all of the others spoke like politicians. In the era of Youtube and instant information exchange, the truth of this state became apparent to millions of disillusioned Americans who saw in Ron Paul a chance to get their nation back on track.

Despite having zero mainstream support, and lacking the tens of millions that the large special interest groups give to the frontrunner candidates that represent their agendas, Ron Paul has become the candidate to beat in poll after poll. He consistently beats the mainstream candidates like Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney in straw polls, and gets up to 90% of the votes in internet polls. Ron Paul's following is far and away the most enthusiastic and the fastest growing of any presidential candidate. He represents the core ideals of America, ideals that have been ignored by political campaign managers for the last few decades who have been more focused on 30 second sound bites and 'get-tough-on-crime' type appeals to voter emotions. Ron Paul represents a change in America, a change brought about by the free flow of information that the internet has permitted. Ron Paul is America's future, and the future is bright.

How to convince Republicans to vote for Ron Paul

Here is a great article I found in Mike Duchemin's blog

It is clear that Ron Paul is the most qualified presidential candidate who will do the best job for America. However, it will be an uphill battle to muster enough support for him before the megaprimaries on February 5, 2008. He has several factors working against him. The mainstream media ignore him, by and large, and the fat cats in the new media do everything they can to pretend he doesn't exist. Meanwhile, the Council on Foreign Relations, in their corner offices and penthouses, tweak their handlebar moustaches and laugh maniacally while preparing to invade Iran.

The neocons fear Ron Paul far more than the libs do because they know that their house of cards will fall if Paul's message receives attention in the marketplace of ideas. This is because they have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the rank and file Republicans. They have convinced the conservative base that American needs to maintain an empire in order to protect itself against terrorism. In discussing this issue with Republicans, keep these points in mind:


Do Not Begin By Demonizing President Bush

There are still many Republicans who support President Bush. You may know that President Bush is actually a fire-breathing slobber demon from the third circle of hell, but if you begin your conversation with Loyal Q. Republican with a statement like that, you will turn him off to anything else you might say. Build your case and let him come to the conclusion for himself that George Bush makes Ulysses S. Grant look like a competent president.


Start With the Borders

This is one thing that many war-mongering conservatives will already agree with you about. Point out that Ron Paul has a six point plan for border security and immigration reform. His plan is common sense. His plan is not wishy-washy, and his plan is consistent with protecting the nation against foreign terrorists. Use this point to transition to the military action in Iraq.


Point Out That The United States Policy On Terror Is Counter-Intuitive

Why is it that those who say they care about protecting us against terror at all costs will not secure the borders? Which is more dangerous to U.S. citizens, having Islamic Fascists in Iraq and Afghanistan or having them cross the unprotected borders into our country? If our policy is "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," wouldn't you think that the smartest (and most dangerous) terrorists would simply come to where all the undefended American civilians are?


Point Out That the Nation Building Campaign in Iraq is Nothing More Than Social Engineering

Most Republicans will not have a problem seeing that social engineering does not work. You only need to direct them to the failed public schools to see that. You can talk with them about how Affirmative Action, the Great Society, Prohibition, and the myriad of other "progressive" social engineering movements have not only failed to achieve their stated consequences but have been disasters that only made the problems they were designed to solve worse. At this point most Republicans will be agreeing with you and perhaps adding personal anecdotes about their opposition to social engineering. This is where you use a little jujitsu to cause the nation building argument to collapse under its own weight. If social engineering doesn't work here in America, what makes you think it will work halfway across the world, especially if the armed forces are acting as the social engineers? Back when Clinton was president, Rush Limbaugh would emphasize that the purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. If social engineering was a bad idea in Somalia and Bosnia under Clinton, why is it a good idea in Iraq under Bush? This internal critique doesn't merely take a nick out of the hawkish warmonger; it finishes him off. Either he has to accept that the purpose of the military is to act as international police and change his party affiliation to the one with the jackass mascot, or he has to admit that his definition of "victory" is impossible using military means.


Then What Should the U.S. Military Do?

The military should not only withdraw its troops from Iraq, but also from all of the other 130 countries it currently occupies with military forces. You heard me correctly, I said ONE HUNDRED THIRTY COUNTRIES, as in 65% of all the countries in the world. In case you were wondering, the other countries do not hate us because of our liberty or wealth--they hate us because they are quartering our soldiers. How would you feel if China or Russia or Iran decided they were going to build a military base in your country? Exactly.


But That Would Be Surrender, Wouldn't It?

You can only surrender when you are in a declared war. We are not currently at war. We are in an unconstitutional arrangement in which our troops are being used to enforce a United Nations resolution (or 16 of them or whatever). The point is that the United States Congress did not declare war. They passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to enforce resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Of course, the U.N. Security Council did not authorize a regime change, but who's counting? The Republican hypocrisy in its use of the United Nations is astounding. When the U.N. serves their purposes, they clamor at the opportunity to champion its cause. When they disagree with the U.N. then the U.N. doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways, and The Constitution only allows for one option. Representative Paul would never go to war as the result of a resolution that came from an unelected, foreign body, like the U.N. Moreover, Ron Paul would avoid tangling the United States in foreign alliances that would drag the country into war (like our entangling alliance with Great Britain is about to do in Iran).


But Doesn't That Make Ron Paul an Isolationist?

No. Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Ron Paul believes in free trade with other nations (not managed trade like NAFTA, mind you). The current U.S. foreign and domestic policies have us on a one way trip to One World Government.


Didn't Ron Paul Vote Against the Patriot Act?

Yes he did, as well he should have. The "Patriot Act" gives the executive branch ridiculous powers. Anybody can be held by the Federal Government without cause forever according to the act. This may not sound bad to some of you, but imagine if President Hillary Clinton had such powers? Homeschoolers, pro-life advocates, gun rights advocates, pastors, and bloggers would disappear and never reappear under the reign of terror by uberfascist Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Ron Paul is the Only Constitutionalist in the Race

If elected, Ron Paul would be one of the only presidents in U.S. history to have a genuine respect for the constitution. Most presidents have spent their time in office attempting to circumvent, or, in the cases of horrible presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt, utterly destroy the constitution. Ron Paul is founding father material, unlike the blowhards and demagogues who currently fill the overwhelming majority of offices inside the beltway. He is the only candidate that walks the walk of a limited government, that protects the personal liberty of its citizens, and his record is plain for all to see.