What Would Ron Paul Do

Imagine if you will a congruence of circumstance, however bizarre required, that had instead of Obama as our current president elect but Ron Paul.

Ok hold that thought.

When the Senate was debating the auto bailout "Buckshot" Cheney chided the republican senators something to the effect that their inaction was "Herbert Hoover all over again". The implication being that inaction, i.e. letting the free market run its course would spell political doom for the party.

Admittedly real conservatism in the US as a viable alternative died in the 1930's as a result of - well the debate continues. Cheney it seems would say it died because it failed to become statist, socialist and liberal. It took one major event for old right conservatism to be repudiated by the masses, replaced in name only just to keep two teams on the field.

There were of course a few notable conservative voices here and there but never again has the nation had a viable conservative alternative. Of course the death of conservatism in the 1930's was not a single party event, both moved left of center and just redefined in their own minds at least where center was.

Fast forward 60 years and we see that then and only then did even a minority of the population begin to fundamentally see the major flaws in the left of center shift and the true cost of "liberalism" and "conservatism". Move forward 18 more years and for the first time do we see any real, passionate talk with vocal support of true conservatism.

Essentially it has taken 78 years or so for even a minority of the population to understand the flaws of our Liberal/more liberal party system and the destruction caused by an ever larger government and foolish monetary and foreign policies.

Imagine then if you will if Ron Paul were younger, more handsome and capable of talking in 10 second sound bites. Imagine that by the same media/Hollywood tricks all politicians use he were able to win the 2008 presidential election. (in this imaginary world he is still the same small-government, literal Constitution guy, just much more camera/sound bite friendly).

What on Earth would such a "victory" have done to the infant conservative movement, particularly now? Real conservatism is best adapted to keeping a nation out of the very messes we are currently in. Sweeping government programs and fixes are just not in a real conservative's bag of tricks. Real conservatism maintains a system that nourishes stability in the long run, not fluff for election cycles.

Ron Paul did us all a service - akin to John in the desert.

Just as old right conservatism died in a crisis it may come back after the next crisis (i.e. the one we are in) as more and more people come to see the 78 year social experiment for what it was and is, an abomination. Liberalism may just have less than a decade more to rule over us, a right center shift may come - if we are wise and see our recent past for what it really was.

Stumble It!

Pillars of Conservative Thought

It seems increasingly obvious that the very definition of what constitutes "conservative" is is doubt. That is at least the case with many that claim to be conservatives yet hold values and ideas that are progressive and even liberal or radical. Some claim, erroneously, that there is no true conservative tradition in America - that the United States was born amidst the liberal ideology of the enlightenment and that all we are is a derivative of liberalism. Liberal historians have painted this picture and we conservatives have been all too willing to accept it - we have accepted in large part that liberals have in their linage men such as Jefferson. We (by that I mean confused conservatives) are left to accept that Adams, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt must be part of our lineage. This is of course false - the last three of those men do not belong in the paragon of conservative heroes (more on that is some later post). Adams perhaps, as a political philosopher for sure as a politician perhaps not.

When we abandon Jefferson as one of the key figures in the development of a uniquely American version of conservative political philosophy we abandon conservative philosophy in its historical context on this continent altogether. We are then left with but the scrapings of conservative thought without the underpinnings - we are let with the makings of an ideology. That is in essence what conservative thought has become, yet another -ism.

What is true conservative thought in terms of the uniquely American style and form? Is there such a creature as a true American conservative?

Clyde Wilson in a 1969 essay entitled The Jefferson Conservative Tradition theorizes that the essential elements of American conservative polity are Republican, Constitutionalist and Federalist in nature. ¹

Republican describes the idea that sovereignty rests in the people but is expressed in the rule of a qualified majority within the bounds of law. The constitutionalist element deals with the notion of the law protecting the people from the government and the individual from the people. This idea is further expressed in the notion that government exists only via delegated powers. The federalist aspect of American conservative thought deals with the decentralized nature of our government, and the indestructibility of the component states.

Within these three pillars all the entire universe of conservative thought may comfortably thrive. If one removes one pillar from the structure the philosophy falls into the trash heap of mere ideology.

Consider that to be a true republican (small "r") one must inherently view the community as supreme to the state, In a republic citizens of the republic must first be capable of self-governance before they can take an active role in governing others. This means they must become responsible members of the community, contributing in their own way to the common good. A republican sees the true nature of government to serve the community. Individual rights are guaranteed by membership within the community. To a republican sovereignty rests with the people and is exercised by a qualified majority through the states primarily and secondarily through the central government and the limited powers delegated thereto. A republican is a conservator that is in constant battle between the forces of aristocracy and democracy - preserving a fine balance between the two.

Community is the basis of all that is worthy of conserving and a true conservative realizes that a republican government is the best qualified of all forms to preserve community within American culture. It is thus that at various points in our past we accepted religious tests before allowing someone to hold an office of public trust. We did this not because ours was a government formed on religious principles but precisely because it was created to serve a religious community. That community was formed on religious principles and those that wished to be active members of the community accepted as much even if they did not personally adhere to all of the beliefs of the community at large.

Within the concept of community personal responsibility, a key element that must be present in a people that wish to be free, was always expressed profoundly. Moral, financial, familial, business and ethical responsibility were traditionally the hallmarks of those that wished to achieve and maintain community membership. These are the traits that a person must demonstrate to be truly self-governing, without such responsibility a person is unfit to govern others (i.e. participate in the political process).

Property qualifications come to mind as a historical benchmark for full investment in the community. Certainly this was one sure method of ensuring that those that voted had ownership of the solutions they supported. Perhaps this notion has no place in our current system (then again it sounds pretty good to me) but certainly the idea that those on the receiving end of government programs and hand-outs are not "fully qualified" members of the community holds true in my conservative mind. This is exactly the sort of shift in thinking that is required if we are to truly regain the fruits of conservative philosophy. Instead of talking about the benefits of some new program or modifying existing programs the true conservative would ask "who is participating in the conversation and why". Perhaps the answer to many of our woes might best be found in simply asking different questions and attacking different problems altogether. So long as we participate in debates that have as their origin liberal ideology we can and will never be true conservators of our republic.

On the subject of responsibility we must also address the issue of rights. Conservatives view individual liberty as existing in an ordered society. This again requires diligence and a constant balancing act - as conservators this is the role of true conservatives. It is libertine and dangerous to presume that man has natural rights outside of the community. We were not created (nor did we evolve) as solitary creatures. There is a natural order to the universe, there exists natural law and under that law man lives and has always lived as a social animal/creature/being. Our freedom and liberty springs from the culture and community that we belong to. God gave us certain rights to be utilized responsibly within our communities, our communities give sanction to governments to protect those rights. There is no other way to view rights/responsibilities and remain within the conservative paradigm.

We have failed as conservatives primarily because we have failed to act as the conservators of our community. By this I am speaking of culture, heritage, values, traditions and families. The issue of immigration is a simple on to a conservative. We welcome those that wish to join our community - meaning follow our laws, learn our language, respect our customs and traditions and contribute to society. Anyone that proposes anything other than deportation for that that have not attempted to meet these criteria is not a conservative.


To be a true American conservative one must be a federalist. We may depart from those that termed themselves Federalist during the 1790's and early 1800's and we may agree more with the Antifederalist but in principle we agree that a system of government that results in a decentralized government with certain specific delegated powers is best. Conservatives view the federal union as a compact between indestructible states. True conservative thought in America has always held that states retained certain powers unto themselves at the formation of the United States - the term states' rights is possibly a misnomer in this regard because these are not rights at all but inalienable powers never given to the Federal government at all, therefore the states do not need a right to exercise such powers as such a right is inherent in the sovereignty of the states. For clarity the term states' rights suffices however. A conservative knows instinctively that the federal government has no authority whatsoever dealing in issues such as education, health care, retirement programs, directly taxing citizens, speed limits, seat belt usage and a plethora of other initiatives.

Why then do so-called conservatives speak to these issues in terms of modifying existing programs? Why not simply read the Constitution and state unequivocally that any program that the Federal government is involved in that encroaches upon areas reserved to the states should not be modified but eliminated? Beware of anyone proclaiming the mantle of conservative that cannot fathom this point.


Which of course brings us to the constitutionalist pillar of American conservative thought. Despite that fact the the 18th century Federalist violated their charter to simply modify the Articles of Confederation they sold us a document that is the law of the land. As such a conservative realizes that this document is not a means to an end but rather a necessary result of building government - which of course is a necessary evil but a requirement of an ordered society. The Constitution is intended to protect the people from the rulers and the individual from the people. It is also a compact, a contract between the states and the central government that the states gave birth to. A true conservative views the Constitution in the sense that it was written and reads it plainly and literally. A conservative will not stand for altering interpretations of the document depending upon the mood of the polity - there are mechanisms established to alter the wording of the document without subjecting it to various interpretations.


What does all of this say for the current state of conservative thought in our present political arena? It says that there are not many conservatives among us and very few running for political office.

Stumble It!

Time For A Change

I read a post the other day and I cannot now recall where or by who but the point that the author made was that the Ron Paul Revolution will be short lived. Those disaffected souls that now support Dr. No will not throw their support behind any of the other GOP candidates and there is not another Ron Paul on the horizon to galvanize the troops and keep the revolution alive (assuming that Dr. Paul does not win the election).

Without discussing those assumptions much further I will simply say that I agree for the most part - what the author proposed is probably a realistic outcome. The fact is real conservatives do not have a home in either party. There is nothing conservative about the Republican or Democratic approach. One wishes to curry favor with the masses by transferring wealth through government programs, the other wishes to curry favor with big business by providing subsidies and protection. The end result of both approaches is bigger government, each approach is progressive, neither approach conserves anything that was or should be in our society.

In the 1980's many believed that conservatism had been vindicated after the failed attempts of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to win the presidency and not only thwart the Great Society but push back the nefarious New Deal.

My father was a Goldwater Republican (I was even named after Mr. Goldwater), I was a Reagan Republican. However something significant occurred between 1964 and 1980. Two significant things in fact. First, the real roots of the Republican party were always there. The GOP owes its very existence to the Federalist/Whig brand of ideology that is responsible for so much of what is wrong with he republic today. It was the Federalist that abandoned their charter to alter the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first legislated tyranny since the revolution. It was the Republican Party that single-handily redefined the Constitutional limits of federal power and killed States' Rights and Federalism. Republicans annexed Hawaii against the will of their monarch and people. The Republican Party played a large role in the idiocy of prohibition - something any conservative knows the Federal Government has no authority or role in. It is the Republican Party that has again passed tyrannical legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and redefined jus ad bellum to include the noxious notion of preemptive war. It is the Republican Party that champions the rights of non-human, soulless corporate entities.

For all of the evils and nonsensical ramblings of the socialist democrats and their flaky ideas regarding nationalized medicine and other inane ideological blunders - the Republican Party is not one inch more Conservative. The two major parties are just different sides to the same coin.

Many of my kin, blood and cultural, rejoiced in the 1980's with the rise of the Religious Right -"Finally, we will put things right". For all of the good intentioned notions of the rank and file followers of the Moral Majority and other similar groups the result and impact on American politics was even more disastrous than the nonsense surrounding prohibition. If the Religious Right was a truly conservative movement - in terms of conserving what America was and should be - their efforts at social conservatism would have been focused almost exclusively at the state and local level. Their national efforts would have focused on true conservatives that understood the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the nature of federalism and states' rights. Instead of acting as conservatives these groups acted as progressives, seeking to use the political system to effect change, change that required an increase in the role and power of the federal government. That was certainly not a conservative approach.

One day they will see that what you give to the federal government it is hard to take back. Perhaps there was a moral majority in the 1980's but what happens when there is an "immoral majority" that seeks to use that very same federal government power that they foolishly established? You wanted to define marriage, tell states about abortion, define prayer - would you want a majority of heathens doing the same? It will happen because of foolish progressivism in the name of "doing good" and we will be powerless to stop it if the precarious majority fails.

Religious conservatives dismiss Ron Paul because he will not come out and say things like -"If I were president I would work for (insert whatever moral legislation you wish)". This is precisely because Paul understands the Constitution and the dangers of progressivism. It seems we Christians are much happier supporting a reformed Rudy (hey Robertson says he is ok), or one of the other fellows because they take a stand on a moral issues (they talk a good game). We are missing the point, it is not the place of the federal government to regulate these issues, we ought to seek a man that would put these issues back where they belong - with us at out state houses.

Perhaps the Ron Paul revolution will be short lived - then again perhaps the pundits are wrong. Perhaps, just maybe true conservatism will again thrive, perhaps the supporters of Paul will not just fade away (win or lose). Third parties in the 20th Century have not fared well therefore maybe it is high time that the Republican Party became relegated to third party status. If folks that call themselves conservative fully understood what being a conservative meant there would not be a Republican Party - it would have been thrown on the ash heap of history in 1864 or soon thereafter and certainly it would not enjoy the support from otherwise good intentioned folk it counts on today.

If there is the be a Ron Paul revolution (i.e. conservative revival) I welcome it, I sincerely hope it shakes the very foundation of the current political system of a bad choice and an awful choice. It is unlikely that the Republican machine can or will be reformed from within as so many have hoped for - the basic ideology is just all wrong, their heritage of wrong is written all over the party. The only hope is to throw the system away and start anew.

I pray that Ron Paul wins the election but I am prepared for the possibility that the system will simply not allow such (send me your hate mail). This makes me no less of a supporter, it makes me a realist, it means I am committed for the long haul. I am fully prepared to adjure the realm, weather many moons of socialist democratic rule to stand true to conservative principles. A philosophy such as conservatism cannot die so long as people remember. It is time to stop compromising with a system that respects neither the law upon which our nation is built or the principles that gave that law birth.

I challenge you, if you are a true conservative, if you are truly an heir to the legacy of Jefferson and those men that envisioned a republic, not a socialist mobacracy then you must examine your entire concept of politics in America. If you continue to be blinded by the dog and pony show presented by the faux conservative GOP you are either a fool or an enabler.

It is time for a revolution (although it is not a revolution at all it is merely a revival of our conservative heritage and right thinking about the role and nature of our central government). Turn off the talking heads, read the Constitution and support Ron Paul and come what may refuse to ever go back to the role of loyal subject to a party that is neither conservative nor right.

Stumble It!