Posted by
Andrews on Friday, June 20, 2008 5:12:38 PM
As I have written earlier about my belief that we need to stop calling people conservative based on one or two beliefs, while they appear to be liberals in all other respects, I feel the need to elaborate on that point a little.
It seems to be a common defense of those who hold non-conservative beliefs on a majority of issues that they are "right; on some issue or "good; on another. We heard this throughout the election regarding Huckabee. While objections were being raised about his big government proclivities, his possible corruption and his tax and spend policies, we would hear that eh was a "good Christian", a "social conservative" or right on guns or abortion. And now we hear it in defense of Buchanan. From those who believe in protectionism (which I think is not conservative, anyway), we hear that he wants to stop trade. Or we hear that eh is "fighting illegal immigration".
To which I say "so what"?
Union bosses oppose immigration. Not because they care about the country, but because immigration lowers union wages in those fields where union and non-union workers compete. That does not make a union boss a conservative, and a similar belief does not make Pat Buchanan a conservative.
I think the problem is one
I raised before. We lack a definition for conservative. Between "social conservatives", "compassionate conservatives", "paleo-conservatives" and all the other movements, it now appears that everyone from Hitler to Marx, to Obama to Buchanan to Howard Dean could fall under some segment of the conservative banner. We have no identity.
So I suggest this. Conservatives are for smaller government, lower taxes, a strict constructionist judiciary, a strong defense, reduced regulation and reducing the power of both the central government and government overall.
Can we agree to that definition? I know it excludes some of those who would endorse theocracy and the nazi idolizers, as well as those who want autarchy and would shut down all foreign trade. It also, thanks to the defense line, would exclude the Ron Paul isolationists. However, I think it is a big enough tent without being too big. I do not push my federalist beliefs too strongly, nor do I call for full laissez-faire or unrestricted global trade.
However, whether we adopt my statement or not, we really do need to define what a conservative is. Right now the definition is so fluid it can include even embarrassments like Pat Buchanan.