The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Monday, October 01, 2007
<< Sarcasm Or Not? Like a Phoenix Rising? >>
No Truth to the Line "I'm a Conservative, Not a Republican"

I heard this line from someone again on Saturday.  I hear it from people all the time now.  I'm sick of it.  It's a lie, pure and simple.  Granted, it's not like the people who proudly proclaim this are being dishonest on purpose.  They honestly believe that there is a difference between being a Conservative and a Republican, but it really just means they're naive.  I understand the desire to separate the two.  The Republican Party is fairly corrupt, and doesn't hold to the values that anyone would like any more.  Claiming to be a Conservative and not a Republican is a great way to show displeasure with the party.  But let's take a look at a few basic facts.

Conservatives Vote for Republicans:  I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again.  If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it's a duck.  If you vote for a Republican, and you support Republicans, then you are one.  Owen once talked about how the real battle is in the primaries, but I frankly just don't believe it, especially since Republicans who uphold "core Republican values" aren't challenged successfully in primaries by other Republicans.  And before you mention Larry Craig, also be prepared to explain how David Vitter hasn't been forced out yet.

Conservative Values Have Led to Big Government Republicans:  This is where "conservatives" get naive.  The major complaint among conservatives regarding Republicans is that Republicans have lost their way when it comes to big government.  The problem is, you can't enforce the core Conservative beliefs without big government.  How do you fight the War on DrugsTM without a huge investment by the government in both size and money?  The current battle costs us billions of dollars annually, and we're still losing it.  The War on Drugs has done more to diminish our basic constitutional rights than the War on Terror ever has, and most Conservatives I talk to think we need to go further to police drug abuse.  Moreover, the War on Drugs is used as a model for how we attack other things that Conservatives and Republicans decry, that are part of the nanny state push like how we eat, and drink, and exercise.  The War on Drugs was the original nanny state idea.  How do you keep people from gambling if you aren't willing to have a big government that snoops in on every transaction that flows through your bank account?  The list goes on an on.

Most Conservative core values affect things that are really about free adult choices, that Conservatives want to limit.  You just can't limit choices without creating a government that can enforce those limitations.  And once you've created a government infrastructure which capable of policing it, it can now be used by others (read liberals) to police other things.  After a certain period of time, that government is so large that corruption and bureaucracy takes over.  Sound familiar to anyone?

Republicans are really just realistic Conservatives.  They're the ones who have taken Conservative ideals, and actually tried to implement them.  The irony is that the only way to implement Conservative ideals is to create a government which Conservatives hate.  The even bigger irony is that Conservatives don't see it, and then complain to the Republicans that they have tried to give them everything they wanted.

# Posted at 3:02 PM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 20 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Politics

Monday, October 01, 2007 4:57:43 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Nick, I have to disagree with your singling out the war
on drugs as a conservative program/value. Yes, I grant
it has come most closely associated with conservatism
but that is probably more due to Republican dominance
in the branch of government responsible for conducting
the war on drugs. Congress which for a good portion of that
war has been in Democrat hands and it is congress that
decides to fund it.

Remember, prominent conservative thinkers/leaders favor
drug liberalization. William F. Buckley Jr.s National
Review has been pretty darn close to neutral if not at
time hostile to the war on drugs. My recollection is
Milton Friedman was no fan of the war on drugs.

Ayn Rand, say what you will about her, does note the
small government ideal is silly. A large vibrant nation
needs a large government and there is no getting around
that. While I am no fan of Rand I agree with her on that
point.

The difference between the parties is not so much
big government vs. small government but prioritizing
where government should expend its effort to govern and
recognize its limitations to stop when the effort is
detrimental to liberty and prosperity.
Monday, October 01, 2007 8:11:23 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Simply put, conservatism is a philosophy while Republicanism is a political party. If the Whig party, or Cornholio Party, or whatever were conservative, then I'd be one of those. And there are plenty of liberal Republicans.

Monday, October 01, 2007 8:15:53 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Let me put it another way. An inordinate number of Jewish folks vote for Democrats. Yet they are not the same thing. Likewise, many Marxists vote for the Green Party, but they are not the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Monday, October 01, 2007 9:24:31 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I am conservitive, I will never join the Republican Party. Am I Republican anyway?
Sancho
Monday, October 01, 2007 9:36:40 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Quack...limp....quack! :)

A "Reagan Republican" is not the same as a "Bush Republican", although, I don't think there are a whole lot of the Bush types left.

I honestly think if it were possible, the serious conservative folks would launch a whole new party. Sadly, right now, what we've got are today's Republicans, whose views, while not entirely conservative, are a lot closer than the other offerings.
Monday, October 01, 2007 9:39:52 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
The point being Owen, that too many claim to be one and not the other. You're saying you're both, but that's a rarity. Most try to separate themselves from the party, and only say they believe in the philosophy. My point is that the party is the working half of the philosophy, and more over that the only way to enforce half of the philosophy is to create something which the other half of the philosophy can't stand. The Conservative movement is truly a contradiction in terms.

You can't force a social morals through government, AND have a small government.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:06:24 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
So, in order for a conservative to be a conservative, they can't vote?
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:12:28 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Nah.

Classical Conservatism (e.g., Burke and Kirk) militates for a Federalist point of view (subsidiarity.)

But just as Defense is national, so is drugs--therefore, the "war" has to be national as well as local.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:10:28 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
You prove my point dad29. You gladly accept the large government to solve the drug problem, even though drug use is a vice, not a crime. You quickly throw away the idea of limited small government, simply to solve a habit which you find morally objectionable, and dismiss the side effects of the War as the price that has to be paid.

Democrats and Republics... liberals and conservatives... they both want to tell you how to live, and what to do, and what not do, and gladly will have government enforce those through whatever means necessary. The only difference between them is exactly what they'd force you to do.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:21:01 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Nick, before we tackle the subject in earnest, are you a Libertarian, or a libertarian?
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:02:50 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
That's a good question Jim, and I'm not sure I have an exact answer. I've certainly been using a capitol L more often. And it would be pretty hypocritical of me to suggest that Conservatives have to be Republicans, while libertarians don't have to be Libertarians wouldn't it, which I suspect is where you're going with this.

The point that I'm really trying to get across here with this whole post, is that if you claim to be a Conservative, but not a Republican, but all you ever do is support and vote for Republicans... then how do you claim that you're not a Republican?

I can at least say as a "small l libertarian", that I don't always vote for Libertarian candidates, I don't always vote for Republican candidates, and I don't always vote for Democratic candidates.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:36:11 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Face it, Nick. You're in the same boat as we conservatives who don't
feel represented by the Republican party.

The likelihood is that you more often vote Republican than anything
else. Big "L" Libertarians don't always field candidates, and certainly
not always quality ones. Or perhaps you don't vote, but that's not
much of a choice.

Who is promoting legislation you vote for/support? Probably parties
and politicians who likely have an (R)after their titles.

It's the main reason I preach against the two-party stranglehold on
American politics. It's a war of money and influence instead of ideas
and public interest. Worse, it's one in which, if no influence is
gained by putting your winner in place - such as bridges to nowhere
and programs for your local parks, and any other pork you can think
of - then nobody wants to back that horse. Average voters are all
about the benefits. How can "small government" Repubs compete?

The war on drugs is a poor "conservative" litmus test. You might as
well trot out Terri Schiavo - the war on drugs highlights the difference
between people who want a socially conservative society with those
who want a politically conservative society, but there's no square
dichotomy you're aiming at. Not all of the former expect bigger
government to accomplish anything conservative, socially, and not all
of them care about the size of the government.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:27:07 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
You still haven't answered my question. Are you claiming that for conservatives to be ideologically pure, we cannot vote?
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:39:48 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
My gut reaction when you first asked Jenna was no... but the more I think about it... the more I want to say yes.

As I tried to originally say, I think the pure ideology behind Conservatism is paradoxical. Conservatives want small government, and yet want to enforce certain aspects of life that require large government to accomplish. Republicans are at least honest about what it takes to accomplish part of the Conservative agenda.

So to sum up... yes... if you want to be an ideologically pure Conservative, and paradoxical, either don't vote, or own up to being a Republican.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 4:00:01 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Well, quite obviously, I disagree with you immensely. Without the ability to elect representatives, pertaining to one political persuasion or another means jack shit. I can claim I'm a conservative all I want, but if I don't put my vote where my mouth is, it means nothing. It's like saying that I'm a Devout WELS synod Lutheran without EVER attending church or showing any other type of allegiance to that religion.

The other problem with your argument is this:

"The problem is, you can't enforce the core Conservative beliefs without big government."

Not true. Core conservative belief number one: quite like the libertarians, we'd rather just let folks (business, religions, etc.) alone, allow them to thrive on their own without unnecessary or overbroad intervention. This does not require big government, but rather the antithesis of big government. While just thinking about it rather quickly before lecture, I'd have to say that 98% of conservative beliefs derive from that fact. And I think I have to agree with tee bee that the War on Drugs is in no way a signifer of conservatism.

In terms of voting, no candidate is ever perfect. In every single election, it usually comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils, unless one runs for an elected position himself. I would argue that this is neither hypocritical nor paradoxical, but realistic of a majoritarian democracy in which I gladly participate.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 4:36:44 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
"Core conservative belief number one: quite like the libertarians, we'd rather just let folks (business, religions, etc.) alone, allow them to thrive on their own without unnecessary or overbroad intervention. This does not require big government, but rather the antithesis of big government. While just thinking about it rather quickly before lecture, I'd have to say that 98% of conservative beliefs derive from that fact. And I think I have to agree with tee bee that the War on Drugs is in no way a signifer of conservatism."

Buuuullllll-ssshhhhiiiiiitttttt

Try like 50%. You want a list of issues in which "conservatives" want big government?

Immigration: Closed borders = big government
Abortion: Restrictions on abortion = big government
Drugs: Making drugs illegal = big government
Marraige: Government being in the marriage business in the first place (gay or straight) = big government
Prostitution: Making prostitution illegal = big government
Patriot Act: duh.

Nick is right. The two major political parties in this country both want big government. Real conservatives, those whose core value is personal freedom and small government, shouldn't vote strictly Republican. They should vote for grid-lock. If D's are in power, vote R. If R's are in power, vote D. That way nothing will get done. Which means fewer of our freedoms will be taken away.
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:00:18 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
I am straying a bit beyond the boundaries of the Crocodile Cage's expressed purpose of fiscal conservatism, but I am a Republican and Conservative, and not a libertarian.

Dad29 expressed it succinctly, and Ronald Reagan for the most part lived it in the way he ran his administration. Owen is right that the battle should be in the primaries. None of us will ever get the exact balance we want out of government. Of course, that is best because, as my father puts it, the only truly efficient government is a dictatorship, and I am not willing to have that unless I am the dictator.

What many Republicans fail to admit, and all libertarians fail to see, is that government will never get much smaller (okay, I know I will get jumped on for that comment, but those of you who get upset probably also hated to learn that there is no Tooth Fairy). Government can be leaner, tax less, be more efficient, and be more accountable. But we are kidding ourselves if we believe it will get small.

The fight should be to ensure that we place the right limits on government; that we ensure that only the right level of government can be involved in those things we allow government to do; that we impose appropriate accountability; that we do not alter the country's mores through an activist government; that we demand individual accountability; and so forth.

Nick is right to an extent. We conservatives have some conflicts in our philosphy. For example, Owen likes big government, if big government is necessary for a strong defense. Likewise, most of us want government to accomplish different things that the private market realistically can't. Read Edmund Burke and Adam Smith (instead of just commentators' views of Burke and Smith). Neither of them were so idealistic as to believe that government would get smaller, even though both believed in "small government." It is a relative term.

Government is a messy, difficult proposition that does not conform to absolutes and idealogical purity. It creates conflicts. The only truly consistent philosphies are on the extremes - socialism and libertarianism. Both of those systems are unrealistic utopian views that would create a world in most serious people, giving it serious thought, would not want to live.

So, I am a Conservative Republican. That means that I prefer the world of, for example, Glenn Grothman more than the world of Lena Taylor. Reconizing that I have those real choices, rather than taking a utopian libertarian view, does not mean I have given in to Big Government.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:07:40 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
By the way, to go back to Nick's stated premise, he is right. There is no truth to the line "I'm a conservative, not a Republican." Conservatives who are not Republicans are giving in to the liberals. Empowering Democrats is not conservative.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:39:57 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
This is repeat of the post Nixon era.
In 1975, you could not find one person who voted for him. There was nobody.
Like Nixon, Bush has created such disgust, that those Reublicans live in a secret world of denial.
They won't admit they supported a failure, unlike Dems who do...and accept changes.

I am sure, that after the primaries are over, we will see even fewer Republicans. That blindly loyal base of 25% will dwindle to the mid-teens.

The GOP's own demise, like that of 1948, will last a bit longer this time. We don't have commies to fear, and Bush rann all the cards in his new McCarthy target. Islam. They need a new commie, a new group to hate...rehashing the old ones, the ones that failed just won't work.

So what external forces are available to the fringe militant Christian-facists on the right?
Let's go find a new group to hate.....Africa sounds like a good place to start.
goofticket
Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:17:39 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
There was an artical in the wall street journal today about how 60% of republicans are against free trade:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119144942897748150.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2008 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar