WWTBAM Bored

Enough already of the hand-wringing and night sweats about the demise of the conservative movement!

Conservatives aren't challenged because of the basic principles that define us, but by the failure of the principles being translated into policy and practice.

Gandhi once said, "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today."

I would be so brazen to say that if conservatives would really live according to the principles of classic conservatism, all of America would be conservative today.

The crisis is not one over the precepts, but the practice. It's not that we've failed in our doctrine, but our "doing."

Conservatives believe that the best government is the most local government possible and that the 10th Amendment means something and should be followed. Yet, the supposedly conservative Republican Party has been a drum major for the expanded role of the federal government.

Our founders feared a highly centralized and endowed federal government, instead preferring a system of strong and virtually independent states so that no one person, party, or power broker would exercise a great deal of control.

The inherent danger of allowing too much power in the hands of the few was the heart of the major dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson won, believing that the dispersing of power among the states would by design keep the federal government from becoming too consuming and powerful in its approach to governing. The genius of the 10th Amendment, as is true of all of the Bill of Rights, was that it deliberately limited what the government could do - not what the individual could do.

The 10th Amendment defines the limits of the federal government in 28 words: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Over the past few years, Republicans have been either acquiescing in or encouraging the acquisition of more power and control by the federal government - in policy shifts in education, health care, and even how a driver's license looks.

[. . .]

Perhaps no other example is more glaring than having painfully watched so-called Washington conservatives abandon the most fundamental principle of conservatism - fiscal restraint. A Republican administration pushed for and got the authority to spend $700 billion that we had to borrow from our grandchildren's future so we could do what government has no business doing - picking out winners and losers in the private sector marketplace.

It was especially disgusting to me to watch some of the very leaders who had smugly dismissed my candidacy for president because I had the audacity to speak out against the excesses of Wall Street and Washington as early as February 2007 now stand up and flop-sweat as they explained why they were about to support the government taking off the striped shirts of the referee and put on the jersey of a team to play the game for one team against another all in the name of "saving the markets."

By abandoning our bedrock conservative principles, and those of our founding fathers, they risked ruining our country to save the markets.

What gives me hope is my belief that the party of Reagan will reunite behind the consistent conservative policies that have made our country great - policies that empower individuals, families, and entrepreneurs, not government, to shape our own destinies. If we do that, we will not fail.

We don't need so much to redefine conservatism. Just practice the real thing.

etaoin22 wrote: I am also going to check my knowledge base about Republicans, to say:

Spoiler

while I think Gingrich can perhaps write this well, of those candidates of 2008 only Ron Paul comes to mind who might have written this.

etaoin22 wrote:I am going out on a limb to say that the Gandhi quote sounds fake, fake, fake.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I know exactly who wrote this without looking him up... and this was a very good article by the man in question.

etaoin22 wrote:

Spoiler

I gotta admit were it Mr. Paul, I would expect a comment on the monetary system as well. Cant be Romney, Giuliani, Thompson or even Duncan Hunter , none of whom would have this much trouble with centralism, IIRC, and thus my second guess would be Mike Huckabee. If I am wrong again, then I relly am not learining enough from yu guys.

Nevertheless and also, it seems there are some (early debate) lectern-standers who had no chance of becoming standard-bearers, whose names I have forgotten.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Spoiler

Hunter wouldn't have been a bad guess, but you are correct that it's Huckabee. The fact that I posted it should have been at least a small hint since I was the biggest Huckabee supporter around.

Spoiler

Really? Did any of your kids walk around the house, singing, "Huckabee, Huckabee, Huckabee, Huckabee, Speaking words of wisdom, Huckabee."

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Spoiler

Hunter wouldn't have been a bad guess, but you are correct that it's Huckabee. The fact that I posted it should have been at least a small hint since I was the biggest Huckabee supporter around.

Jeemie wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Spoiler

Hunter wouldn't have been a bad guess, but you are correct that it's Huckabee. The fact that I posted it should have been at least a small hint since I was the biggest Huckabee supporter around.

Spoiler

Yes, but too bad for you he broke the "new conservative mantra" and actually raised taxes (even though the hero of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, also raised taxes several times) and had some thoughtful ideas on immigration instead of just knee-jerk reactions (although he knee-jerked a bit in his campaign), so that he would never get the GOP nomination.

I probably could have voted for him had he gotten the nod...if I could have overlooked his evangelical beliefs.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Spoiler

Why would you have to "overlook[] his evangelical beliefs"? Do you believe that evangelicals in general are less qualified to hold elected office? Do you have a personal reverse religious test?