What is a true conservative?

Voice of Reason asked at OoL what a “true conservative” could be defined as.

It’s like defining what electricity looks like or whether water is wet – it’s easier to see the conservative mindset in his choices, in the language he employs to describe events than in a verbal definition.

For example, if there is a drowning man, the leftist will think, “Oh dear, I can’t rescue that person because I don’t have the necessary certificate,” whereas the conservative will kick off the shoes and jacket and swim out there to try to save him.   He’ll speak of heritage, the rule of law, discretion, initiative, he’ll look at the social code which underpins the nation and will try to defend it, whereas the leftist will be “progressive” and want change for change’s sake, applying a feelgood spin to it.

That spin sees him using the words fairness, tolerance and equality, he’ll speak of human rights, whereas the conservative will speak of working for a living, the sanctity of marriage, of private property.   The leftist will support grandiose social schemes costing billions to eliminate social ills whereas the conservative will support small and medium businesses to create employment and then many of those ills fall away.

The leftist doesn’t really mind runaway bureaucracy if it will produce a more egalitarian society, whereas the conservative will see what that bureaucracy is costing the taxpayer – he’ll speak of the taxpayer a lot.    Where the leftist says there must be quotas of women in any job, the conservative says only the best person should be in the job.   If that means all men or all women, then so be it.

He’s always been for small government, low taxes and a well-equipped defence force.   In America, he’s more Tea Party and in the UK, more UKIP.   He’s a classical liberal who says live and let live, as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else.   Therefore he is a libertarian, by definition.   A left-libertarian supports the personal freedom to do as he wants but also supports the right of intervention in people’s lives by the state and social engineering.    It’s cognitive dissonance.

There are differences between social and fiscal conservative and there are so many CINOs in the Republican Party and the Tory Party here that those parties are meaningless in defining the term conservative.    Many old labour people are socially conservative.   The whole rise of UKIP over here is because the Tory Party leadership is not conservative.

Just as Blair followed a bastardized version of what a socialist was, so Cameron follows a bastardized version of “conservatism” – taking all the bad parts and adopting them, whilst ignoring the sound parts, e.g. cutting taxes and supporting small businesses.

The true conservative thinks you should be able to gather money together and start up your own business, not crippled by federal, state and local money-grubbing taxes and levies before you even start.   He wants porn kept out of the hands of kids and kids to grow up as kids.   He thinks the crims get off in court these days whereas the innocent who make one error get clobbered by the courts.

He says a person has the right to bear arms in his own home, to defend his space.   The leftist wants guns banned so that when the crim, who’s armed of course], bursts in, the homeowner must phone the police and wait the half hour before the police arrive.   In a left society, the homeowner will be prosecuted for bearing arms.   In a conservative society, the crim will be put away for a long time and the homeowner praised for defending his family.

Those are just a few things defining a conservative. I agree with much but not all of this:


11 comments for “What is a true conservative?

  1. Voice of Reason
    May 21, 2014 at 3:31 am

    I am curious. If by ‘sanctity of marriage’ you mean anti-gay marriage, then that is in conflict with ‘live and let live’, is it not? How people choose to live their own sex lives is none of my business.

    • May 21, 2014 at 7:42 am

      To answer that, go back to the drowning man issue. To “live and let live” means not to intervene. In that case, intervention is desirable and is not live and let live. It’s direct intervention to save a life.

      Classical liberalism says free to do until it harms others. Gay lobbies going into schools to get children to define their sexuality is anything but live and let live – it’s intervention of a pernicious nature. Saving the drowning man is not pernicious.

      To then ask well who defines pernicious or not – there used to be a thing called common sense in this society. Obviously children and sex don’t mix, obviously there’s no such thing as gay “marriage” as marriage is a bonding for the purposes of procreation, whether it takes place or not.

      To even have to explain this to anyone shows how far left society has gone, i.e. abandoning common sense.

      And of course, in bludgeoning it through parliament [over here] against the wishes of many people, is directly interventionist in itself. I don’t wish to see gays kissing but if it’s on some poster in the underground, then I’m forced to see it. This is the coercion of the left. Nothing to do with live and let live.

      Live and let live is that gays can go off and do as they wish and we don’t have to put up with it. But they don’t do that, do they, the gay lobbies? They have to rub our noses in it and twist what marriage is.

      It’s not enough for gays to be free from from violence, free from threat, both of which I agree with. It’s not enough. The gay lobby has to MAKE me acknowledge they can “marry”.

      Never, simply because it’s not so. It’s a universal. It’s like Life of Brian’s right to have babies if you’re a man. It’s insanity. It’s not me saying it, it’s biology. Sky is blue, night follows day.

      They speak of gay “rights”. There’s no such thing. There are simply the rights of any citizen, irrespective, no more, no less. This is the unprejudiced view – neither fear nor favour towards any group.

      But the gay mafia have to single out a minority, don’t they and have “special” rights for them, which involves the majority having to accept something which doesn’t exist, which debases something further which was already under threat. It’s social destruction so please don’t put the argument that it’s victimless.

      It’s bizarre, it’s hypocritical and it’s leftist.

  2. Viscount Rectum
    May 21, 2014 at 9:57 am

    Conservatism is a word just like racism, or if you will “fifty shades of gray” the Islamic Republic of Iran is conservative, the Conservative government of Britain is not, its a front for EUSSR/NWO reptiles and Cameroid is one of them.

  3. Voice of Reason
    May 22, 2014 at 12:56 am

    James – let me give you a case from my own experience. There was a long-term lesbian couple in our church, one of whom died of breast cancer. Her family did not approve, and were able to legally keep her out of the hospital and away from the funeral, as well as ensure that she couldn’t inherit without gift tax. All because she could not legally marry her partner.

    As for procreation, I know several lesbian couples who have raised ‘their’ children. We are only a few years away from using the DNA of two women to create a baby. Will that change things?

    • May 22, 2014 at 9:40 am

      Not going to argue against your heartfelt experience but will just note it is not “their” children. biologically, two females can’t have a child. That child has a father somewhere, by definition. Perhaps they could try to find him, for the sake of the child.

      Worth a read.

  4. TDK
    May 22, 2014 at 9:05 am

    “For example, if there is a drowning man, the leftist will think, “Oh dear, I can’t rescue that person because I don’t have the necessary certificate,””

    That doesn’t capture it at all.

    The Leftist would demand the government employ more lifeguards. (It would be the lifeguards who would be saying unqualified members of the public should not attempt a rescue).

    The underlying thought is that everything ultimately originates with the state: “You didn’t build that”. That if the state didn’t build libraries then there wouldn’t be any libraries.

    • May 22, 2014 at 9:40 am

      Quite right, was forgetting.

    • Voice of Reason
      May 23, 2014 at 2:52 am

      President Obama’s comment, if you watched the whole thing, didn’t refer to the State as building roads, etc., but to the rest of society. We should, in my opinion, at least acknowledge what others have built, especially if we use it.

  5. Voice of Reason
    May 23, 2014 at 2:55 am

    James – in earlier discussions, you explained that all of the bad things done in the name of Christianity meant that those people weren’t ‘true’ Christians. By those kinds of definitions (consistency comes to mind), the ‘true’ conservative is an idealized fiction that no-one can achieve, like Buddhist perfection.

    • May 23, 2014 at 9:05 am

      In the light of the current political thing over here, would you mind if I were some days in replying? I shall get back.

      • Voice of Reason
        May 23, 2014 at 2:20 pm

        Of course not. This is my daily dose of thought and reflection.

Comments are closed.