Once again I find myself wishing that we had some term to describe "social conservatives" other than conservative. Or maybe a term for economic conservatives other than "libertarian". Actually, let me amend that,. I don't want to disclaim all social conservatives, much of social conservatism is laudable. The ones I want to remove from the conservative ranks are those I described before, the social "conservatives" who support censorship and are fine with big government so long as it is used to enforce their own morality

And that is my problem with these supposed conservatives. I was reading a Wikipedia page on Jack Thompson, after stumbling across an article on him on "Lowering the Bar".  The Wikipedia page described him as a "Christian conservative", which simply stunned me. As I see the essential trait of conservatism as a belief in individual power over that of the state, it seems bizarre to call "conservative" someone who is advocating increased power for the state or the introduction of state power into areas form which it is now excluded.

Then again, whenever I make this argument, the social conservatives tell me that they are the "true conservatives" and I am not. (Just as the protectionists respond when I argue they are not conservatives.) Instead they argue I am a "libertarian". Now, in truth, I am neither a traditional conservative nor a libertarian, as my strong federalist affinities place me in a group that seems to lack a name, those who would rather see a federalist state than a top down enforced libertarianism, as the federalist solution would be more durable and lasting, while the top down libertarianism could be undone by a single bad administration.

But let us ignore that and ask why I want to retain the name conservative, rather than shift to the title libertarian.

Well, there are two reasons.

First, the libertarians, especially within the Libertarian Party, are simply not conservatives, and do not see things as I do. I want to eliminate big government and restore power to the individual, just as they do, but, as I wrote elsewhere, as a conservative I see the state as an essential tool, while they see the state as a mortal enemy, to be barely tolerated and even then to be treated with utmost suspicion and hostility. Not only that, but their hatred of the state has led them into many conspiracy theory types of beliefs, such as their support for Mumia, Peltier, and other criminals, as well as an alliance with tawdry and disgusting groups such as Truthers and NAMBLA. Even if I support the unfettered right of free speech, it does not mean I have to make common cause with pederasts or lunatics, yet the Libertarians, in an absurd zeal for "consistency" seem to be unable to make moral distinctions and welcome the most unsavory individuals into their ranks, adding yet another reason to avoid them. Finally, as I wrote elsewhere, and earlier in this essay, I think a top down libertarian solution is inherently unstable and will not last, so we differ even in the question of what our goals should be. So clearly there is no place for me among the current crop of libertarians.

But even were the present libertarians not so repulsive, I would not so happily surrender the label conservative to the authoritarian social conservatives. Conservatism dominates the Republican Party, at least on paper, and, whatever your opinion of the party, the Republicans are the only viable tool we have at the moment to move the country to the right. We may eventually see a viable third party, but we have nothing close at the moment, so any reform will have to come from within the Republicans. Should I surrender the title of conservative to the authoritarian social conservatives (or the protectionists who claim to be paleo-conservatives), I would be giving up any chance of a real movement toward small government. Instead we would be left with the choice of either Democratic big government or else moralizing (or protectionist) big government. So I must hang on tot he title of conservative in order to retain any hope for  a small government movement.

Well, this is the subject for a much longer and more thorough essay, one I lack the time to write at the moment. I just wanted to toss out these thoughts and see what my readers think. How do we resolve the confusion created by the current hodge podge of contradictory philosophies, all currently claiming to be the "real conservatism"?

UPDATE

I found an article on an almost identical theme on another blog, and that article cited one of the TH pundits. I posted a reply which may be of interest, so I will reproduce it here:

I have only one complaint with the article you cite. That is the lumping together of the "social conservatives". There are two types of social conservatives, the small gov't kind who oppose abortion, want no gov't sponsored social experiments, etc. and the big gov't social "conservatives" who support censorship, strongly punitive "moral" laws, and so on. It is the second to which I object and that I would recommend pushing out of the party, only because you can't be a small gov't party when you are pushing a strong censorship regime.

I feel the same about the protectionist "conservatives". You can't be the party of small gov't and the free market and still have a place for people who want to seal the borders to trade.

So, yes, by all means move the party right, and remain conservative, but first maybe we need to finish thinking through exactly what conservative means, and what the conservative position is on questions such as censorship and protectionism. Right now we have a very nebulous idea of "conservative" that allows in mutually contradictory positions. And that hurts us to some degree.

Oddly enough, I wrote on the same topic today, even before seeing your post or the article to which it refers:

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/30/please_stop_call ing_them_conservatives.thtml

Obviously, I tend to err on the side of the "economic conservatives", but only because the authoritarian types pick up the mantle of "social conservative" so often. Were the title applied to the more moderate wing, or the small gov't wing if you prefer, then I would have no problem at all with being both a social and economic conservative.

And that is my position on the matter in a nutshell. There are social conservatives who have beliefs consistent with small government. Then there are authoritarian social "conservatives" who would grow the government in both size and power, as well as making it much more intrusive, and I simply can't see calling them true conservatives. As they plan on putting in place a framework no less invasive than the one the liberals promote (and which could be turned against their values very easily should public opinion shift), I have to argue, like "paleo-conservatives" or "compassionate conservatives", the "conservative" part of the name is a misnomer.

NOTE: I used a different link than the blog to get to the pundit. The blog used the print link, and, as the popup print box annoyed me, I went back and found the link to the original article. You cna confirm for yourself they are the same, I just didn't like having to cancel a print task every time I clicked the link.