[nucklepunche]

In the past year to year and a half I have referred to myself as a traditional Burkean conservative, and occasionally a "Hamiltonian conservative" in a more specifically American context. I was a libertarian for a long time, but began abandoning pure libertarian positions and eventually began calling myself a moderate. However in reading the works of conservative authors like Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk I came to realize I had a lot in common with their thoughts, as well as the political outlooks of statesmen like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Disraeli. I have also come to realize that "moderate" is not a coherent political philosophy and merely a position relative to the social context.

My hesitancy to embrace the "conservative" label is because in my country (the USA) the label has, in my humble opinion, been poisoned by those who have used the conservative label to justify their prejudices in terms of race, class, religion etc. and have engaged in inflammatory rhetoric and extremist tactics to those ends. I recognize many of the people in the aforementioned group would not consider me to be a conservative.

I would like to take it to the crowd and give a brief overview of my political views and allow the audience to decide if I am really a conservative.

FIRST PRINCIPLES

I believe that the fundamental difference between left and right is between those who view inequality as the natural order of man and those who believe egalitarianism can be legislated. Class distinctions will naturally arise in every society, even the Soviet Union had class distinctions between those who were politically connected and those who were not.

I believe private property rights are linked very strongly with the preservation of liberty and virtue, and capitalism is the best economic system to those ends.

I believe that the people should elect their representatives via democratic processes, but that there ought to be limits on democracy to secure the rights of minorities in the form of legally enshrined rights that are untouchable in the political process.

ECONOMIC POLICY

I support free market capitalism and fiscal conservatism in most cases, however I believe there are three areas in which the government can legitimately intervene in the economic sphere. 1) Reducing negative externalities, examples include taxing alcohol and tobacco to reduce demand and regulating pollution. 2) Providing public goods, examples include defense, police, and most infrastructure. 3) Providing a limited social safety net in order to prevent destitution, as history has shown that destitution breeds crime and revolution, both of which are greater threats to property rights than the taxation to pay for safety nets.

I favor reducing taxation on labor and investment in the long run, and support increasing taxation on consumption and the introduction of a Land Value Tax.

I support free trade and a relatively liberal immigration policy, with a pathway to citizenship or current undocumented immigrants.

SOCIAL POLICY

I have a unique perspective on social issues in that I think most political debate about social issues is pointless. I believe social issues are fundamentally a reflection of culture, in that social changes happening outside of politics impact social attitudes, and in turn the law follows. I don't think there is much that government can do to legislate social trends in one way or another. Civil rights laws did not create racial tolerance, merely society grew more tolerant of racial equality and the law followed. Gay marriage did not lead to social acceptance of homosexuals, instead social acceptance of homosexuals led to gay marriage being legal in many states. Ultimately it doesn't matter because society evolves outside of politics, and politics reflects that social evolution. Economic policy by contrast is within the influence of political debate.

FOREIGN POLICY

On foreign policy I am generally supportive of a realist approach. I believe the primary focus of our foreign policy should be twofold, first we ought to advance our national interests, second we ought to pursue a stable world order, the second tying in with the first. I have little patience for those who favor democratic crusades abroad that are not justified within the national interest on one hand, on the other hand I am not pacifist and believe that a strong military is a deterrent to our enemies.

So am I really a conservative?

[slybaldguy]

I'd say you are a centrist. You might want to consider joining the Centre Ground private members club. We already have a couple of sane Republicans so i'm sure you'd fit in.

[nucklepunche]

The problem with the idea of the "center" is that it entirely depends upon social circumstances. The "center" in America is generally something akin to an Inside the Beltway ideology that is constantly preening for the center ground at all costs, and mostly consists of pro-business Democrats talking up the benefits of public-private partnerships, free trade, and the like and moderate Republicans who agree with the Tea Party on 80% of the issues, but just wish they would say it in a nicer tone of voice and use bigger, more intellectual sounding words.

I'm not sure there really is a "center" per se, I believe there is instead a far-right and far-left, and also a center-right and center-left. At some level people are going to break more in favor of one or the other, although arguably a lot of Democrats in the USA are in fact center-right.

[AFAIK]

What do you mean by 'free trade' and 'national interest'? I think these words are used dishonestly in USA. NAFTA isn't a free trade area because it doesn't allow the free movement of labour. It is also designed to marginalise environmental and labour concerns. The national interest is usually a euphemism for business interest.

[nucklepunche]

I do not consider NAFTA to be free trade, but free trade I mean authentic free trade, not managed trade similar to NAFTA. My immigration system would be points based and give points for things like education, work sills etc. I believe this would tend toward a higher skill class of immigrant, as opposed to our current family reunification based system which although politically correct, leads to an oversupply on unskilled third world labor from south of the border, when what we really need is more doctors and engineers.

As for foreign policy I do not believe that the US should assert itself into conflict unless our territories are threatened, or if global stability is threatened. For instance reducing nuclear proliferation, even if largely happening abroad, is in US interests even if not directly inside our borders because there is a possibility it could fall into a terrorist's hands. I feel like Ron Paul would simply say we should let the Russians sort it out on their own, and that would be a deadly mistake. On the other hand, I think the whole neo-conservative approach is even worse, and led to the Iraq War which I would argue had no benefit to the American national interest.

I do not think that promoting democracy should be our first priority, instead it must be stability. I essentially embrace realpolitik in these regards. I don't believe foreign policy is about a moral crusade. Humans have the technological capabilities to destroy our entire race, and I think preventing that from happening is the most important thing.

[AFAIK]

As for foreign policy I do not believe that the US should assert itself into conflict unless our territories are threatened, or if global stability is threatened. For instance reducing nuclear proliferation, even if largely happening abroad, is in US interests even if not directly inside our borders because there is a possibility it could fall into a terrorist's hands. I feel like Ron Paul would simply say we should let the Russians sort it out on their own, and that would be a deadly mistake.

Do you think the USA should decommission and destroy much of its arsenal? How can you preach non-proliferation whilst sitting on a massive stock pile? Many countries view the NPT as a method of preserving the balance of power and holding them back.

[keso]

I'd say your best bet is to avoid feeling the need to label yourself.

You clearly have well-thought out and rational ideas, and you do your best to avoid or at least deal with conflicting principles and concepts. Given that you do this, you wouldn't fit into the "liberal" or the "conservative" mindset, as each of them, as a whole, have conflicting principles and concepts.

Are you really a conservative. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Perhaps a better question is?

Am I really Nucklepunche?

And the answer is, "yes," and that's a good thing.

[keso]

I think your question is related to this

"I'm a uniter not a divider."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/poll/

During the 2000 campaign, Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider."

Forty-nine percent of 1,007 adult Americans said in phone interviews they believe Bush is a "uniter," according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday. Another 49 percent called him a "divider," and 2 percent had no opinion.

International support during the Bush years.





So much got wrapped around what it meant to be a conservative in 2001-2008, that it has wound up having a standard set of litmus tests as to whether or not you're a true conservative, when really, what it is, is a test of whether or not you will fit in to the Republican Party.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... t_Read.pdf

Proposed RNC Resolution
on
Reagan’s Unity Principle for
Support of
Candidates

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

"President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent," the resolution states.

But if a candidate disagrees with three of the above, then the group wants the RNC to withhold financial assistance and an endorsement from that candidate.

It's not yet clear that the resoultion will actually be formally introduced.

As a result of all of this, you're worried as to whether or not you'd fit in.

[Rich]

ISOCIAL POLICY

I have a unique perspective on social issues in that I think most political debate about social issues is pointless. I believe social issues are fundamentally a reflection of culture, in that social changes happening outside of politics impact social attitudes, and in turn the law follows. I don't think there is much that government can do to legislate social trends in one way or another. Civil rights laws did not create racial tolerance, merely society grew more tolerant of racial equality and the law followed. Gay marriage did not lead to social acceptance of homosexuals, instead social acceptance of homosexuals led to gay marriage being legal in many states. Ultimately it doesn't matter because society evolves outside of politics, and politics reflects that social evolution. Economic policy by contrast is within the influence of political debate.

Welcome to reality Nucklepunch. I don't think the Pilgrim fathers came to America in order to lay the foundations for the gay marriage vanguard. But such is the capricious nature of the historical process. I don't think Thatcher came to power seeking to smash the traditional working class family and the working class work ethic.

[Varax]

You sound like a right-liberal - which in American parlance is generally considered synonymous with "conservative" since it essentially wishes to "conserve" the status quo with strong reverence for what it sees as the founding principles of the American Republic which is itself essentially a liberal project.

You could also qualify this by saying you're a more "modern conservative" as opposed to the reactionaries who wish to see a return to the way the US was "before" in respect to race and gender relations rather than what is the norm now. This too, however, is consistent with mainstream right-liberals. It can also be seen as "moderate" compared to the far-right and again in the sense that is in-line with the generally accepted status quo.

[otokage]

By reading your post, I would say that I'm sure you are a conservative. Some have said you are a centrist, well, to me, in the economical aspect you are, but no more. I would define you as a "right-wing person" no doubt, not a centrist and of course I would never think u are left-sided.

Hope it helped

[Voluntarism]

ECONOMIC POLICY

I support free market capitalism and fiscal conservatism in most cases, however I believe there are three areas in which the government can legitimately intervene in the economic sphere. 1) Reducing negative externalities, examples include taxing alcohol and tobacco to reduce demand and regulating pollution. 2) Providing public goods, examples include defense, police, and most infrastructure. 3) Providing a limited social safety net in order to prevent destitution, as history has shown that destitution breeds crime and revolution, both of which are greater threats to property rights than the taxation to pay for safety nets.

There's no need to jump toward an interventionist stance because of these things. Yes, from where we are now it will require a large shift in institutional frameworks and societal norms to address some of these (because they have been monopolised by governments for so long. Focussing on #3 (which I posted in response to a similar problem that AFAIK had a while ago) this is such a fundamental worry of pretty much everyone that people naturally band together to try to address them:

There are various non-coercive ways of obtaining healthcare, welfare, insurance etc not just ones "dominated by a handful of philanthropists". The simple fact that so many people would be concerned by such a situation means that there is a desire for alternatives. One simple alternative is a co-operative and indeed if you look back to history, this was the dominant form of private welfare and insurance support via the Friendly Societies.

People like Tom Palmer and John Chodes have written about the workings of the Friendly Societies and quoting:

Various forms of friendly societies have existed since ancient China, Greece, and Rome. In Britain, they arose out of the guild system. Daniel Defoe wrote in 1697 that friendly societies were "very extensive" in England. In the mid-18th century, as the Industrial Revolution hastened the growth of British towns, the friendly society system became well established. Sometimes they were called fraternal societies, mutual aid societies, or benefit clubs. Similar organizations developed in the United States in the 19th century. Friendlies usually were formed by people with a common denominator, like the same occupation or same ethnic, geographic, or religious background.

Their lengthy success reflects that they were much more than benefit institutions. Friendlies were voluntary serf-help associations, organized by the members themselves. Friendlies served social, educational, and economic functions, bringing the idea of insurance and savings to those who might not have planned for the future. The social aspect of the friendlies should not be underestimated. Their meetings included lectures, dramatic performances, and dances both to inform and to entertain members.

Nineteenth-century commercial insurance companies couldn’t compete with the friendlies, so they focused on business clients and the rich. Workers were suspicious of the companies because of their numerous failures and scandals. Besides, insurance rates were higher than those the friendlies charged for comparable benefits.

Originally, friendlies insured against "disability to work," with little distinction between accident or sickness. This also came to mean "infirmity," i.e., insurance against old age. Most friendlies paid for a doctor’s services, burial expenses, life insurance, annuities to widows, and educational expenses for orphans. They built old-age homes and sanitariums for members and their families. Even in their early stages, they offered unemployment benefits for those in "distressed circumstances" or "on travel in search of employment." The most common pay-outs were for maternity leave and retirement pensions.

Largely they flew under the radar of the centralised measured economy but before they were largely wiped out by the coercive Government welfare programs and crony capitalists-inspired regulations early last century they were prolific and the dominant method for people to receive these services. Their voluntary nature brought many social benefits and community support and automatically dealt with the standard moral hazard problems of insurance and welfare by being very local in nature in terms of the accountability. Some large ones, like the Odd Fellows, allowed members to travel internationally, rock up to the local Lodge and gain accommodation and support from local members - either as part of their ongoing travels or to find new employment etc.

The Loyal Order of Water Buffalos Lodge that Fred Flintsone and Barney Rubble were members of were an example of the Friendlies living on in American popular culture in the 1960s. I'd jump at the chance of restarting these (even if funny hats seemed to be obligatory).

I'd recommend reading up on these to help overcome some of your recent doubts about what can fill the vacuum.

My final comment would be that there is a difference between the ideology that you want

[Dude]

Your views are part of a journey. Along the way, you determine that two beliefs are not compatible with each other. They do not lead to a desired result. You seem to have some libertarian leanings in social issues. You identify with Conservatives on the basics of the market. Its the government intervention part that usually gets in the way. The question becomes how often and how much. Its a short distance to government control and socialism.

While I would not say Conservative, I would say you live to the right of center. If you are happy with most republicans, there are plenty of people to support the status quo. The high profile Conservatives are fed up with Republicans who won't stand and fight. Too often people link Conservatives with racism. I haven't experience that. Republicans supported the voting rights act, as well as other legislation. Many blacks used to be republicans. I don't know what motivated them to switch. But it seems that Welfare type legislation used to "cure poverty", just allowed husbands to leave and put the wife and kids on the government dependency train. Those who believe its Democrats that were always the friend of minorities, need to look at the Civil war, Voting rights and LBJ before he became President.

As I see it, the left is looking for more people to be dependent on government, and as long as Democrats are in charge, its all good. The moderates seem to want in on the deal. These people get very rich. Only recently did they revoke the insider trading information, that allowed politicians and staff to profit from upcoming legislation. Most of these people are out for themselves and will say anything to get your money and your vote.

The label is less important than how you vote and who gets your donations. You may benefit from getting the "Liberty Amendments" by Mark Levin. His efforts have already resulted in a meeting to discuss the rules for Convention of the States, under Article V. 32 States sent 100 legislators to the meeting in December, at Mt Vernon.