[annatar1914]

Short answer;

Orestes Brownson.

Longer answer; the world is what it is, a world of republics, and the American Republic is worth preserving and conserving, it need not be 'democratic' however.

1. we need to repeal the 17th amendment, for example. (It is my view that article four of the 14th Amendment nullifies the 17th Amendment from the get-go, the only way the Federal general government can ensure that the particular States governments have a republican form of government is ensuring the election of US Senators by the individual State Legislatures of the States.)

We need not be slaves to the Founding Father's ideologies either; the Constitution is best read in the light of Natural Law and the Declaration of Independence. As such, the USA should be neither 'Capitalist' nor 'Socialist' but be under the 'American System' of Hamilton, Clay, Carey, and Lincoln. As Orestes Brownson once said; the poor need taken care of; the rich can take care of themselves". True American conservatism is a true 'Third Way', unlike any other Ideology in the world, and for good reason; America's Constitution cannot be compared to any other past or present, and indeed is a model for other nations. America's destiny is to complete the political goals of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian civilization and find the dialectical balance between Liberty and Authority, General and Particular, the Individual and Society, and Religion and State. We have the tools we only need Americans.... America confounds all political theories and with our truly Providential system, we can advance the progress of all Mankind.

But.... We've lost our way. Never fully understanding ourselves, like unreflective unreasoning children, we borrowed Strange and utopian European political ideologies in working through our own, Including Burkean 'Conservatism', and the System has broken down as a matter of course. In the 19th century we faced the political barbarism of Confederate Libertarianism, now we face the political barbarism of social Collectivism of the Liberal Federal State.

Let us find our way back as Americans, and Conservatives in America can save the fading Light of Civilization for future ages.

[Saeko]

[annatar1914]

What utter garbage.

Thank you, from you that's a compliment. Now kindly fuck off, Nihilist.

[mikema63]

Do you really see a viable future in the GOP?

[annatar1914]

Do you really see a viable future in the GOP?

No, none whatsoever.

My American Conservatism reaches back to the political heritage of the American Whigs and Federalist parties, but was seen more recently reflected in the socially 'conservative' economically 'liberal' era of President Franklin Roosevelt, and which petered out by the time of Reagan, allowing the GOP to steal the roman catholic/ethnic white vote from the Democrats.

[keso]

What would the platform of this ideal party be, in your eyes?

[Rei Murasame]

Won't all of this actually just cause a re-manifestation of Barack Obama? Given what the world economy presently looks like, how can a party be created that will revive Franklin D. Roosevelt? Roosevelt became an impossible person after 1971.

[blackjack21]

Longer answer; the world is what it is, a world of republics, and the American Republic is worth preserving and conserving, it need not be 'democratic' however.

Agreed. Universal suffrage was a really bad idea. We should repeal the 16th, 19th and 24th Amendments too. Terrible ideas.

America's destiny is to complete the political goals of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian civilization and find the dialectical balance between Liberty and Authority, General and Particular, the Individual and Society, and Religion and State.

Yeah, but the socialists have managed to reintroduce ritual human sacrifice in the form of abortion as the final rite in materialistic hedonism. Decoupled from basic decency, America is pretty rudderless as a society now. We're being over run, and what was once a great nation will be as dead as the Roman Empire within the next few generations.

Won't all of this actually just cause a re-manifestation of Barack Obama? Given what the world economy presently looks like, how can a party be created that will revive Franklin D. Roosevelt? Roosevelt became an impossible person after 1971.

What makes you draw on 1971 as some sort of magic year?

[Stormsmith]

You'll have a tough time getting judges in the Scalia camp to interpret anything in a contempory way as a policy to be going on with.

[annatar1914]

Won't all of this actually just cause a re-manifestation of Barack Obama? Given what the world economy presently looks like, how can a party be created that will revive Franklin D. Roosevelt? Roosevelt became an impossible person after 1971.

Barack Obama is a direct manifestation not of FDR and the New Deal, but of Nixon thru Lee Atwater's GOP 'Southern Strategy'. To kind of answer both your questions and Keso's, I think that the GOP will implode as other parties have, and then is when a new Conservative party can form, probably closest( in terms non-Americans can relate to) to the European Christian Democratic political philosophy. An example;

http://cdu-usa.org/

This probably comes closest to where i'm at right now;

Christian Democratic Union

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is a nascent American political party of pro-life Democrats, pro-labor Republicans, and independents that are attracted to the unifying principles of Christian Democracy (a centrist political philosophy common in Europe and Latin America, and profoundly resonant in our history).

WHAT IS CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY?

Christian Democracy is not a religion. It is not a church. It is not Christianity per se.
Christian Democracy is a 130 year old political philosophy that is based on biblical Christian principles; principles like human dignity, freedom, solidarity, and stewardship. These principles are not parochial, and are not unique to Christian Democracy, but they all have root in a Christian worldview, and they provide a solid foundation for moving forward together with confidence.

Christian Democracy tends to focus on the health of the community in all areas of community existence. This community orientation is sometimes considered conservative in regard to moral and cultural issues, and progressive in regard to social justice, labor, and economic issues. Christian Democracy is common in Europe and Latin America, and is considered a centrist political philosophy (sometimes center-right, sometimes center-left). Many current world leaders and heads of government in Europe and Latin America consider themselves Christian Democrats. Some notables in the past have been German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Chilean President Eduardo Frei.

Historically, Christian Democracy was formed along two related (and ultimately merged) paths: one Catholic under Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903), author of the seminal work Rerum Novarum, the foundational document of Catholic social teaching and Christian Democracy (as well as a guiding light to Pope John Paul II); and another under Reformed theologian and Dutch Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), founder of the Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands (the first Christian Democratic party) and founder of the Free University in Amsterdam.

Christian Democracy is profoundly resonant in our history as well. For example, the legendary three-time Democratic presidential nominee, and Secretary of State under Pres. Woodrow Wilson, William Jennings Bryan, would probably be leading this movement if he were alive today. Why? Because he was a man of the people. He spoke out loudly for the little guy; his economic interests and his cultural interests. This is what Christian Democracy and the CDU are all about.

To be clear, there is absolutely no religious or partisan requirement to join our cause . Our members may be members of any humane religious institution or political party, or none at all. Our members are committed to the historic principles of Christian Democracy, and to the success of Christian Democracy as a movement, as well as the success of their local community, the American commonwealth at large, and all people everywhere in the struggle for a better life.

Christian Democracy on the Political Spectrum

HUMAN DIGNITY
We are pro-life, believing abortion-on-demand to be a severe injustice to human dignity; and such offenses to human dignity are the business of the whole human community. To be clear, the Democratic Party position regarding abortion is offensive to human dignity, and should be abandoned. On the other hand, the Republican Party practice is far from praiseworthy. Republicans string us along, never actually doing anything about the massacre of the unborn, just taking our votes. Similarly (regarding human dignity) we also believe that wars that are initiated by Washington political pundits and foreign policy gurus are, by definition, unjust wars that should not be waged, because so many are so often killed unnecessarily. Likewise we believe that indiscriminate bombing in war is a great offense to human dignity. Also, we believe in the goals, and in furthering the positive gains, of the civil rights movement. We believe there should be no artificial barriers to human achievement. We believe in the dignity of work, and in the rights of all working people to a dignified work-life, including the right to organize trade unions and cooperatives.

FREEDOM
We are pro-choice. We very much believe in school choice, including parent-controlled fully-funded vouchers; for public, private, religious, and home school. This would give every young American the opportunity to go to the school that is best for them, according to the people that love them most, their parents. Similarly (regarding freedom) we very much believe in energy choice, and freedom from the whims of foreign (sometime hostile) regimes. This should begin by requiring that all vehicles sold in the US be so-called flex-fuel (i.e. multiple fuel) vehicles. This is already very inexpensive and easy to do for Detroit. We very much believe in healthcare freedom, especially the freedom from fear that is provided by a universal healthcare system. This would preferably be accomplished with a fully-funded voucher system that provides free, high quality, market-based healthcare for every American, as is aptly described in Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's recent book Healthcare Guaranteed. Unfortunately, current proposals on Capitol Hill for a voucher system to replace Medicare are not proposed to be fully-funded (and are not for those under 65, obviously). Given that a fully-publicly-funded private insurance system seems to be politically impossible with our current leaders, with House Republicans all voting for the overly-stingy Paul Ryan plan, and Democrats denouncing voucher plans per se; then we, the CDU, advocate a single-payer healthcare system, along the lines of the Canadian system. An individual mandate to buy health insurance (the Obama plan) is not a satisfactory solution, at all. It is both coercive and not universal.

SOLIDARITY
Solidarity is the idea that we are all in this life together. We are indeed our brother's keeper. When a necessary human provision cannot be obtained by individuals, we the human community in our nation are in covenant to obtain the provision for the group as a whole, if possible. Universal healthcare that is free at the point of enrollment and free at the point of service for everyone, is our greatest need at this point in our development. As has been mentioned, we would prefer this universal good be delivered via a fully-funded voucher program, because such a program honors the principle of subsidiarity, which is important. However, since some aspect of such a program is considered abhorrent by both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, it seems we are forced into supporting the only other universal healthcare system available, single-payer health insurance (like unto the Canadian system). Similarly (regarding solidarity) we believe in fair trade that is fair to all, with a goal of achieving genuinely free and fair trade internationally, similar to that which exists between the states. We believe in cooperation and cooperatives, including international cooperation.

SOCIAL JUSTICE
Social justice, similar to solidarity and human dignity, is the idea that we should be even-handed, and that systemic inequities require correction, require justice. We do not believe in equal outcomes. Rather, we believe in levelling the playing field, providing equal opportunities, and correcting past wrongs that warp the current system. Jesus said it best in the Golden Rule of reciprocity when he said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This ethic naturally and logically extends beyond merely personal reciprocity to social reciprocity. For it is not acceptable to do, or not do, to the group that which you would do, or not do, to the individual; unless there are inescapeable logistical barriers, or greater inequity is created in the process. Social justice properly conceived is not a right to be claimed but a duty to be pursued. It is not that the poor have a right to anti-poverty programs, but that those with much have a duty to help those with little. The rich did not get to be so on their own. Even if someone works hard for their wealth, their riches were given to them. Many work hard and smart, yet remain poor, because they live in a society that does not place high value on their good work. Most housemaids work harder and smarter than most investment bankers, yet the former live in poverty and the latter in great wealth (because we live in a society that worships money, and devalues service and manual labor). Should the powerful not help to create an economic floor under the poor, so that the vicissitudes of life do not claim them, and they have greater opportunity to escape poverty? To whom much is given, much is required. We favor progressive tax rates. The wealthy owe more to the system that got them to where they are, so they should pay more taxes to that system. The wealthy owe more to society, so they should fund charitable organizations.

STEWARDSHIP
We believe in aggressively moving toward a green economy with a national focus on green building and renewable energy. Regarding vehicle fuels, creating a competitive fuel market with a flex-fuel mandate is the short-term solution, plug-in hybrid cars and better public transport are the medium-term solutions, and fully embracing renewable sources of electricity is the long-term solution. Similarly (regarding stewardship) we believe in traditional marriage and in preserving it in a way that provides equal protection for heterodox Americans. The solution to provide said equal protection will require very creative thinking, but we are committed to it. Also, we believe in strong and bright sunshine laws for government and public corporations so that citizens, consumers and investors can make truly informed choices.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Unfortunately, our greatest need as a country is SYSTEMIC DEMOCRATIC REFORM. Believe it or not, our democracy is less representative than most nations that are still part of the British monarchy. This stunted growth is because of a mix of compromises and unintentional consequences inherent in the American experiment as constituted, as well as traditions and pragmatic changes made during its development. For example, congressional redistricting for future elections was given to existing Congressmen according to the Constitution. This in itself helps entrench existing power. However, having super-sized congressional districts as we do (now at 700,000+ constituents) only increases the power and strengthens the stranglehold that existing powers-that-be have. If the original Congress had representational proportions as today, there would have only been six, yes 6, members of that original Congress. The original district size was approximately 30,000 constituents (much smaller than today). Indeed, it requires a 1:30,000 max ratio in the Constitution! We need to go back to the Constitution here. We need to take as many steps as are constitutionally possible toward greater proportional representation. It is more democratic, and more accurately reflects the chorus of voices that make up the American electorate. We need major electoral reform, including standardizing voting means and methods across the country, a national popular vote through state initiative, campaign finance reform, ballot access reform for all federal offices (with state offices hopefully following), and embracing better voting methods like instant-runoff voting (IRV), because the American people are tired of supporting the lesser of two evils, just so that other guy doesn't win.

[annatar1914]

Here's a short article on how my kind of thinking relates to the truly abysmal state of affairs under Barack Hussein Obama, and a good definition and explanation of what Orestes Brownson called 'Political Barbarism';

August 20, 2014|Administrative State, Carl Schmitt, Constitutionalism, Executive Power, Group Rights, Orestes Brownson, Rule of Law
Return to the Barbaric

by Richard Reinsch|13 Comments
2114
19th century illustration of Severinus and Odoacer

19th century illustration of Severinus and Odoacer

The President’s use of executive power outside and above the bounds of the Constitution is well known at this point. In policies ranging from the railroading of creditors in the auto bailouts, to Obamacare by waiver, eliminating key work provisions in the 1996 welfare reform legislation, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and to the informed suspicion that he will unilaterally legalize 5 to 6 million illegal immigrants, this President has entered a new realm of abuse of power. Resulting from the stress he’s placing on our constitutional order have arisen significant interventions that attempt to underline how and why we have arrived at this new dimension of executive power, even in the case of Congress there is an attempt to reclaim its authority, if only in a pusillanimous manner.

Congress, with its quiver of constitutional arrows, perfectly designed to hobble such discretionary enthusiasms, has chosen to assert itself with a lawsuit (the highest form of politics in our age) alleging that Obama has made them constitutionally irrelevant. But that is a game for two, isn’t it? This suit is a prayer to the Federal courts, made in the hope that, ultimately, the Court will do for Congress what it won’t do for itself, namely, reassert the limits of the Constitution on the executive branch. What exactly the Court would order the President to do and how it would effectuate the outcome are both difficult to identify.

Chris DeMuth has put together a series of lectures and essays that grapple with the inexorable rise of executive power in domestic policy. DeMuth’s arguments here are worth considering in detail, as is his call for a return to a parochial congressional-driven politics.

From Philip Hamburger’s striking new book Is Administrative Law Unlawful? we learn that the rise of administrative power is the revival of something quite old–monarchical prerogative power–which spells the end of our constitutional government. The prevention of such discretionary executive power was precisely what the Founders tried to accomplish with the Constitution’s strictures and in the many state constitutions they drafted and ratified. Hamburger’s work, while obviously not aimed at the current White House occupant, helps us to understand that the present abuse of executive power through and with the administrative state has been generously prepared over many decades. Nothing new here, just the willingness of the president to press to its most logical extent every advantage the regulatory state affords him.

What if the symptoms of disorder, however, are found in even deeper sources that require different thinking? In this president’s willingness to rule by waiver, edict, and order he asserts a private right of rule on behalf of a progressive matrix of race, class, and gender that fundamentally undermines the public commitment of constitutional government. In this, our president is recalling the barbaric exercise of power. What do I mean? Barbaric government is not defined by lack of sophistication, nor by human rights abuse, rather its nature is in the assertion of rule by and for private interests exclusively. A barbarian exercises his reign for his private interests, and is unable to distinguish between public space and its claim on his loyalties and duties and the private realm and its separate claim on his interests. The two mix or co-determine each other. The personal is the political.

The eccentric and unfortunately somewhat forgotten 19th century American thinker Orestes Brownson located western constitutionalism’s initial victory over barbaric political rule in the Greek polis and in the Roman Republic. Athens, he states “introduced the principal of territorial democracy,” and subdivided power “into demes or wards.” The principle demonstrated was the “loyalty of all citizens” to Athens, and not to a particular ruler or ruling group. The Senate body in Rome organized the undifferentiated mass into a body politic that was governed by public rule. Only those heads of households that were “tenants of the sacred territory of the city, which has been surveyed and marked by the god Terminus,” could govern in the Senate. Their power was only public power or political sovereignty. Brownson formulated that the city or state takes the place of the private proprietor, and territorial rights take the place of purely personal rights.

Barbarian in the original sense is unknown, Brownson concluded, but if we look to the Greeks and the Romans, we know that they never applied it to all foreigners. The term was meant as a political category:

to designate a social order in which the state was not developed, and in which the nation was personal, not territorial, and authority was held as a private right, not as a public trust, or in which the domain vests in the chief or tribe, and not in the state; for they never term any others barbarians.

The epitome of barbaric rule was feudalism where the entire order was predicated on private ownership.

The feudal monarch, as far as he governed at all, governed as a proprietor or landholder, not as the representative of the commonwealth. Under feudalism there are estates, but no state. . . . The whole theory of power is, that it is an estate; a private right, not a public trust. It is not without reason, then, that the common sense of civilized nations terms the ages when it prevailed in Western Europe barbarous ages.

American constitutionalism, Brownson argued, with its division of powers vertically and horizontally, was centered on the principle of freedom. To effectuate this principle required a justification for both the authority that was due individual liberty and the rightful loyalty the citizen should give the constitutional order. The legitimacy of this order inhered in the shared enterprise of representative government attached to borders, state and national, which permitted direct accountability of rulers and ruled occurring across multiple layers of government. Due regard for self government would ensure that freedom flourished for individuals and their private forms of association.

Brownson’s principle helps us understand the powerful distinction between a personal right of rule versus a public right of rule or what he calls “territorial rights.” Interestingly, Brownson argued that the rise of majoritarian government in Europe in 1848, the supposed year of liberation, was the reincarnation of barbaric power. Races, ethnicities, and nationalities within Europe had expressed and claimed their control over territory, independently of their actually possessing legitimate authority to create and define the new territory as their own. Solidarity of a pre-political association, in this case, a perceived group identity, in some cases violently trumped the historical evolution of right and law and borders. So we see that even the claim of public right can actually mask a much deeper will that desires to express power for pre-political interests, ones that attach to a group because of race or ethnicity. In different forms, the tribe returns to power with its chief ruling in its name. In short, we have an expression of power that is barbaric, tribal, i.e., private, expressions that cannot be interrogated or disciplined by deliberation.

Where do we stand?

Our President’s fealty is obviously not to the Constitution and its principles that limit power. Where does it rest? We see that his loyalty to the law comes through its ability effectuate the private power interests, the pre-political group rights, call it the 21st century’s version of the friend/enemy distinction. Members of the illiberal literati might reply that these are public ordering principles, not private ones. For example, we are trying to end gender inequality so we must requisition insurance companies and employers to pay for contraceptives and abortions. Thus the charge of political barbarism fails. But the claim of public rule is that it is exercised in the form of a shared enterprise regarding policy subjects that can be rationally debated. Surely, a first requirement in the assertion of an interest is that it be open to deliberation, to “dry political argument.”

But we see that the claims of the progressive matrix that guide this president like none previous are impervious to rational deliberation. These identities resist being the subject of debate. If my sole claim as a public individual is racial or gender identity or being part of a class, then where exactly is there room for compromise? To interrogate these identities, to question them as a basis for law, for rights, is to seemingly deny that the person or group making them has public validity. When that point is reached Congressional power, the branch situated to rule by deliberation, compromise, and shared agreements becomes irrelevant. Instead, we enter Carl Schmitt land or the need for government by executive, government by discretionary enforcement. Our friends are obvious to us, all that remains is “to punish our enemies.”

The question for free men and women, for Americans, is why have we let this come to pass?
Richard Reinsch

Richard Reinsch is a fellow at Liberty Fund and the editor of the Library of Law and Liberty.

About the Author

[Soulflytribe]

You see, you are part of the problem. You haven't returned to "American Conservatism". You are just a little less commie now, but still a commie nevertheless.

The problems in your "speech":

- "we need to repeal the 17th amendment"
- "We need not be slaves to the Founding Father's ideologies either"
- "the USA should be neither 'Capitalist'"
- "the poor need taken care of"
- "True American conservatism is a true 'Third Way'"
- "we borrowed Strange and utopian European political ideologies in working through our own, Including Burkean 'Conservatism'"

You see? You are just a commie. A "conservative" that wants to repeal amendments of the US Constitution? You are truly revolutionary, you would be very well represented by any left-wing party in Europe. And make no mistake: this is a great symptom of American decay.

The problem is that throughout the years Americans have been gradually forgetting why the US has always been such an "exceptional" e fantastic country.

- The US is not "exceptional" because it has a lot of white people, for Russia has a lot of white people too, and it failed.
- The US is not "exceptional" because it has a big territory, for China has a big territory too, and it failed.
- The US is not "exceptional" because it has a lot of natural resources, for Brazil has a lot of natural resources too, and it failed.
- The US is not "exceptional" because it is a Christian country, for Mexico is Christian too, and it failed.
- The US is not "exceptional" because it has a large population, for Indonesia has a large population too, and it failed.

The US is exceptional because it has a exceptional Constitution, a Constitution created by blessed men who were way ahead of their time. This great Constitution is the legal framework behind every law and Institution in the US, and if you destroy that, you destroy the American exceptionalism.
If you want to return to American conservatism, read what is in this link below three times per day (when waking up, after lunch and when going to bed), and try to "convert" others to your cause. Also, stop wanting to change the US Constitution. If you follow my advice, you will help your country a lot more than as being such a commie.

http://www.institutoliberal.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ce6abe1563b06935acafbb39313b3af21.jpg

[mikema63]

To be a communist you have to believe that a literally revolution in required, and that workers should own the means of production exclusively.

He is, at worst, a social democrat.

Repealing an amendment to the constitution is actually a reactionary act, repealing the 17th amendment especially. It would literally be a return to a position closer to the founders not away from it.

His rejection of this nigh religious worship of the founding fathers that you see in republicans isn't unconservative, in fact the founding fathers would probably be very unhappy with blind devotion to them if their writings are anything to go by. It isn't in any sense a "commie" thing to not pray to Washington.

[SolarCross]

The US is (really was) "exceptional" only because you have (had) capitalism and WW2 smashed to pieces all your competition for many decades. Get over yourselves.

[annatar1914]

It is Conservative to conserve the lives of the poor, it is conservative to want to conserve the environment from the depredations of man, it is conservative to conserve the natural law written in the hearts of all men.

I just think that many American 'conservatives' are every bit as liberal as those they attack regularly, with their own brand of provisional majoritarian morality and identity politics.

I'm every bit the traditionalist 'reactionary' I always was, but I see now that the only way to safeguard mankind, to encourage the angels of his better nature, to preserve and advance true civilization and true progress, is via a Republic of Law, not on the Autocratic whims of one Individual or the fickle Anarchism of the Masses. This is the true American Conservative Revolution, the only one that has worked to any real degree.

[Istanbuller]

If the GOP can no longer run for a majority in elections, then it will only justify the agenda of anti- immigrationists. It will be a good excuse to target Hispanics and other foreigners as they are ones who broke American political system.

[Llamamall]

we need to repeal the 17th amendment, for example. (It is my view that article four of the 14th Amendment nullifies the 17th Amendment from the get-go, the only way the Federal general government can ensure that the particular States governments have a republican form of government is ensuring the election of US Senators by the individual State Legislatures of the States.)

Why should the Senate be so indirect in lawmaking? They are already untrustworthy, as they tend to be payed for by corporations, but to have them chosen exclusively by the rest of the state legislature would be the icing on the cake: Let`s say that view x and view y conflict. In the year 1980, most people in Washington State hold view x. They will tend to elect legislators that also hold view x as a result. In the year 2014, the majority of Washington`s population hold view y. In a system in which positions of power self-perpetuate, legislators will continue holding view x because they were chosen by politicians who held view x. In short, this system would further decrease the likelihood of politicians acting out of the interest of the public. Your rebuttle to my argument will likely involve the state legislatures being elected by the people. Fair enough. But in this case, the use of indirect senate elections has no inherent justification anyway. A republican form of government can be fulfilled by having voters who elect national legislators as well as having voters who elect state legislators who elect national legislators. However, if one is to argue for a statist institution which accurately reflects the will of the people, one must advocate for the most direct connection from the people to the legislative function of the state for the highest likelihood of legislation out of the interests of the people.

[MaxHen]

"Conservative" and "progressive" are contextual, relative terms. In the context of the American political spectrum, your views are simply not conservative. It makes little sense to describe yourself as a "true conservative" when conservatism by its very nature is defined by the political context in which it exists, not by any objective ideology.

[annatar1914]

"Conservative" and "progressive" are contextual, relative terms. In the context of the American political spectrum, your views are simply not conservative. It makes little sense to describe yourself as a "true conservative" when conservatism by its very nature is defined by the political context in which it exists, not by any objective ideology.

Historicist nonsense....

American Conservatism by it's very name is an ideology that seeks to preserve the unique American Constitutional system for future generations; both 'progressive' and 'conservative' in the best meaning of the term. Go back and read the links I provided concerning Orestes Brownson and the Ameican Republic.

[Political Interest]

Would you as an American conservative not be forced to be an "American conservative", in other words operate within the US conservative tradition? Is it possible to be a conservative in the tradition of a country not one's own? For example, a British conservative could not believe in Russian or French conservatism because these are foreign. How could it be possible to believe in anything but American conservatism if you are an American conservative?