Am I A Conservative?
Over at redstate.org, nazgul12 has an article on what it means to be a conservative:
But I think there are some pretty basic things that are central to the conservative movement, which is the movement the Republican party has come to identify itself with. If you fundamentally disagree with some of these central tenements [sic] of conservatism then you probably don’t really belong amongst the ranks of Republicans. Before someone says I’m being too vague I’ll try to list at least a couple. The the order is in no way meant to convey order of importance.
- Limited government
- Free market economies
- Democracy is superior to monarchy, dictatorship, communism, etc.
- A strong military is necessary to insure [sic] peace.
- Life is precious and innocents should be protected at all stages of life. In matters of diplomacy you should take that action which helps insure [sic] the greatest number of lives are protected. Sometimes this means declaring war to protect your people, even though it means the death of others.
Let’s take these point by point:
Limited government
In the comments, he clarifies:
It’s possible that my meaning of limited government was misunderstood. By it I mean not only separation of powers, the importance of the Bill of Rights, etc; I also mean that government in general stays out of its citizen’s [sic] lives and refrains from social engineering.
There may be a few people in the US who think that all corporations should be abolished and that the government should run everything, but I think it’s safe to say that that’s the lunatic fringe. Just about everyone believes in some limits on government.
The government staying out of people’s lives is just another way of saying “freedom”, and again, that’s something everyone can agree on, at least in broad terms.
We all want the government to stay out of our bedrooms. So if “limited government” is a plank of the conservative movement, then liberals and conservatives should be able to work together to repeal any anti-gay laws, including the last remaining anti-sodomy and anti-oral sex laws.
I disagree about the part that government should not engage in “social engineering”, but I suspect that he does, too. The Civil War was the biggest social engineering event in US history, the revolution running a close second. I doubt nazgul12 would argue that slavery should continue just because it had always existed. And what about women’s right to vote and own property? What about taxes on cigarettes and liquor, and other sin taxes? What about laws that require parental notification of abortion? What about farm subsidies, tax breaks for first-time homeowners, and tax deductions for dependents? What are these, if not social engineering?
Free market economies
On the whole, a free market is a wonderful thing. No argument here.
However, I think everyone will agree that an unregulated market is a Bad Thing. The Pure Food and Drug Act, Meat Inspection Act, and TCPA are all laws designed to curb free market excesses. The USDA, FDA, and FCC all exist to enforce these laws and thereby protect the public. I’m not taking a controversial stand by saying that I like being able to assume that drinking tap water won’t make me sick, or that the steak I just bought was checked for communicable diseases.
I’m going to assume that nazgul12 agrees with the above. So our common position is that a free but regulated market is a good thing. The only disagreement should be on what amount and type of regulation is best.
Democracy is superior to monarchy, dictatorship, communism, etc.
Again, no argument here.
I would also add theocracy to the list. Given the strong ties between the Republican party and groups like the Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson, this is a valid concern. I doubt that a country where the Bible is the law of the land would be any better than Afghanistan under the Taliban.
A strong military is necessary to insure [sic] peace.
Hard to argue with this.
Then again, where does “strong military” end and overkill begin? Does the US really need 7000 nuclear warheads? Wouldn’t a mere 1000 or so form a credible deterrent? How many weapons do we actually need?
I’m not saying we should just start cutting weapons systems and military expenditures left and right. But given the size of the military budget, both in absolute numbers and per capita, it wouldn’t hurt to take a good look and see how much can safely be cut.
In matters of diplomacy you should take that action which helps insure [sic] the greatest number of lives are protected. Sometimes this means declaring war to protect your people, even though it means the death of others.
Diplomacy isn’t as exciting as war, but it’s a hell of a lot cheaper. The entire 2006 budget for the State Department (which includes the diplomats) is $13.3 billion, roughly the same (not even adjusting for inflation) as what the Pentagon spent in 1995 on depot maintenance. $4.5 billion of that is for diplomatic and consular programs, the cost of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
(Update, Jan. 18, 2006: According to a report (pdf) at openthegovernment.org, in 2004 the federal government spent $7.2 billion classifying documents. So not only is diplomacy cheaper than war, it’s also cheaper than secrecy.)
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Bush administration led this country to war under false pretenses, and has turned Iraq into a breeding ground for anti-American terrorists, effectively making us less secure. So the current administration has violated this particular conservative tenet.
Life is precious and innocents should be protected at all stages of life.
Again, it would be hard to find anyone who disagrees with this sentiment as stated.
I agree that in a country this rich, no one, especially not children, should go hungry. The citizens of New Orleans should not have been abandoned when Katrina hit. Everyone should be able to get medicine and be able to afford to go to the doctor. And since life is precious, we should abolish the death penalty, because executing an innocent person is a terrible thing, yet it happens far too often.
Then again, maybe “innocents should be protected” is code for anti-abortion.
Let me make one thing clear: no one is for abortion, in the same way that no one is pro-cutting your chest open, removing your heart, and putting a stranger’s heart in its stead. The abortion rate in the US has been declining since 1990, and I don’t know of anyone who thinks that’s a bad thing. Ditto teen pregnancy. Everyone agrees that every child should be a wanted child; that parents should be able to afford to care for all of their children; that two-parent families are better than single-parent families; that no child should be neglected or go hungry. Unfortunately, in many cases life doesn’t work that way.
The question isn’t whether abortion is a good thing. It’s not. The question is whether it’s better than the alternative: back-alley abortions, children raised in poverty, unwanted children turning to crime, women raising children on their own because they can’t get the father to chip in.
One thing that I don’t see in nazgul12’s list is fiscal responsibility: balanced budgets and such. I don’t know whether this omission is due to the fact that he considers this a liberal or non-partisan issue, or whether he simply forgot about it.
It’s part of the Republican Oath, but clearly the GOP hasn’t been paying it more than lip service lately.
So it looks as though I agree at least in part with all five of nazgul12’s “central tenements [sic] of conservatism”. Does that mean that I’m a conservative?
The Republican party, on the other hand, has increased the size of government (adding the DHS) and its intrusiveness (PATRIOT Act); has close connections to anti-democratic elements in American society; started a war under false pretenses, and botched basic humanitarian relief efforts in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, causing thousands of unnecessary deaths.
nazgul12’s article is about “long time Republicans” talking about leaving the party. Allow me to suggest that if they’re leaving, perhaps it’s because they do believe in the five tenets he lays out.