Not a
Conservative
Charlie Earl
John McCain,
Lindsay Graham and Chris Christie are labeled as conservatives. So too are Bill
Kristol, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Why in the name of all that’s holy
and true would I wish to be characterized or identified as one like them?
Never, ever do I wish to be associated with unprincipled opportunists? These
men (and they are mostly men) are masters at fighting for the tiny nuance while
compromising away the most fundamental aspects of liberty. They remind me of the
sniveling, sneaky guy in the squad who speaks with bravado, but when the firing
starts, he disappears but survives to claim credit for the victory. They are
unreliable and untrustworthy. Why would I claim to be one with the likes of
them?
“Conservative”
has been transformed into a pejorative anachronism by the mainstream media and
the most noteworthy carriers of the descriptor. It has gone the way of
“federalist’ and “whig” as defining tags for positions of rock-solid principle.
As an example, my columns were once included on a popular conservative “tea
party” site, but when I published a series of columns promoting a third-party
candidate as an alternative, a site monitor rejected my “Alinsky-like” writing.
He appeared to be so entrenched in his so-called conservatism that he failed to
grasp my underlying premise: all career politicians are unworthy of our trust.
His slavish slurping of the “Romney as conservative” KoolAde clouded his
vision, short-circuited his thought process and radically ticked me off. My
goal is to prompt people into considering liberty as the primary issue. Also…I
hope that citizens will entertain the notion that our current methods for
selecting leaders of a free nation are not working. We are losing our freedom,
our opportunity and our prosperity each and every day. It requires a RADICAL
rethinking of how we go about preserving our freedom short of insurrection. If
“conservative” is defined as preserving the status
quo (as some inadvertently seem to endorse), then I want nothing to do with
it.
When it
comes to fiscal matters, I prefer “responsible or accountable” to conservative
because so many self-proclaimed conservatives have been irresponsible and
profligate. In addition…many conservatives boast of their affection for “smaller
government”…. whatever that means. The only legitimate form of smaller
government is constitutional, law-abiding, and oath keeping. Any other form of
smaller government is indefinable and unachievable. Without firm standards and
starkly-defined parameters, smaller government becomes either a guessing game
or a structure made of Jello. It has no substance as a concept or as a
realistic goal.
The
“conservative brand” has been betrayed by its holders. Many of you may be aware
that the general body of principles presently identified as conservative was
once upon a time defined as classical liberalism. Today’s “conservatives” would
react with horror if they were called “liberals,” so why is there so much
resistance to discarding a descriptor that has been perverted, distorted and
corrupted so badly by so many? In the final analysis there is not much worth
conserving about 2013 conservatism. It has been maligned, misapplied and
misused. I am aware that many of those who agree with me are also queasy about
libertarian as a definitive identifier for our points of view….and for similar
reasons. We must agree that personal liberty, individual responsibility and
accountability have to be the cornerstones of a movement that limits government
to the absolutely smallest involvement possible. The bare minimum is the ideal
because people have generally proven too willing to coerce their neighbors into
following their preferences and points-of-view.
Jonathon
Swift may have subliminally provided a clue to the answer long ago. How does
the term “Liberputian” strike you? After all we are the little people that our
professional political class claims to adore.
Charlie Earl
