Conservatism, What the Hell Does It Mean?

                The GOP pundits perpetually clamor, “We must nominate the most conservative candidate?  The trouble is Mitt, Newt and Rick all claim to be the most conservative.  So the pundits trumpet, “We must nominate the most ‘pure’ conservative.”  In responding to the word “pure,” at the moment, the pundits tend to point to Santorum, at least for now. 

                My complaint is how do we define conservative? 

                I’m not going to let the Internet tell me what a conservative is.  Nor am I going to let pundits like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh define conservatism for me.  I didn’t survive seventy-nine years on this planet to let some self-appointed pundit do my thinking for me.  That’s one of the perks of old-age because there sure as hell aren’t many.  At least we can speak our mind. 

                Basically, a conservative is one who would like to preserve the present and resists change.  (If it’s not broken don’t try and fix it.) But the conservatives today, it seems, who will be voting Republican, want to return to the conservative environment of the Reagan years.  So in essence the pundit who touts pure conservatism points to who he thinks is the most Reagan-like or has a past that reflects his own conservative values. 

                But before going any further I think I’m a conservative and the following is what I think it means to be a conservative.  A conservative believes in:

                First and foremost, the repeal Obama Care, free enterprise, in letting the market place work, getting government out of the capitalistic process, energy independence, a strong military, controlled immigration, marriage confined to one man and one woman, opposition to abortion except in the case of rape and only then within the first two weeks.  A true conservative is a keen supporter of Israel and is dead set against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.  He is very concerned over the spread of Islamic radicalism.  He is against totalitarianism in any form, be it religious or political.  He is appalled over the corruption in government especially with entitlements, grants and foreign aid.  He believes socialism and sharia law are enemies of our republican, capitalistic way of life.  He would like to see term limits in Congress.  He doesn’t like the Supreme Court legislating.  If there is a strong middle class, meaning opportunity, it will open the doors for the poor to become part of the middle class.  (Instead of giving the able poor a fish, hand him fishing pole and teach him how to use it.)

                A true conservative thinks our government needs to take a more stringent look at China, Egypt, Syria and of course Iran.  And a conservative government will not let America be sucked into a “world order” commitment where we submit to the dominance of socialistic, communistic or Islamic interests. 

                You may recall some other conservative points but I think you get the point. 

                As far as I can see Mitt, Newt and Rick all feel pretty much the same way as I have outlined.  As far as I’m concerned, one is no more conservative than the other. 

                When the pundits say we must nominate the most conservative candidate, they seem to think it will be the Tea Party and religious right that will have the power to select our Republican nominee.  But let’s look at the general election.  Is the Tea Party and religious right strong and numerous enough to elect a Republican President without the independent vote and Democrats crossing the aisle?  I don’t think so.               

                Furthermore, I can’t help thinking about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax.  According to the Internet there are over 313 million Americans.  So how many of the 147-plus million non-tax-payers vote?  How many of the 47% are dependent upon government welfare?   How many of that 47% are the professional poor - takers as opposed to workers?  How many are succumbing to Obama’s class envy propaganda – pitting the poor against the rich?  We know Obama and his social democrats are attempting to energize that 47%.

                The recent vote in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota was embarrassingly small.  The vast majority of Republican voters stayed home.  Why?  Was it the weather or was it the negativity – or just plain complacency?  Rick won all three states but with such a tiny turn out how significant are the wins?   

                Mitt Romney had to compromise in order to be elected governor of Massachusetts.  Newt Gingrich did some compromising with the left in order to make a living after he left Congress.  Rick Santorum’s past is not squeaky clean either, he had to compromise also in Pennsylvania, a big union state.  So knock off the “who is the most conservative” bullshit!  (Sometimes spicy language is called for.)

                The word “conservative” is tossed around by pundits as if it was the “holy grail.”  But in my opinion Mitt, Newt and Rick are equally conservative.  I believe each will repeal Obama Care if elected.  What matters to me is which one is the best equipped to turn the economy around, will do something positive and bold about foreign affairs, and is the most electable.  By that I mean which candidate will appeal most to the independent voter and the Democrat who no longer trusts Obama?  In other words, which candidate appeals most to the rational thinking voter as opposed to the emotional voter?

                Mitt has both business and executive experience.  Newt probably knows more about how Washington works than the other two.  Santorum also has knowledge of Washington, having been a senator, and is strong on national defense.  Newt is touted as the smartest guy in the room, and his demeanor shows it, but he is a poor loser and is the most vindictive.  Where virtue and morality is concerned I think Mitt and Rick are about the same.  But which one presents himself confidently as the most presidential?  Which one by character and reputation will command the most respect from our enemies, friends, NATO, and the United Nations?   That’s very important. 

                I hear the word “principle” used in discussions over candidates.  But I think the word “principle” is as arbitrary as the word “conservative” in this GOP political process.  Just whose principles are we talking about?  Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Capitalistic, Socialist, Islamic?  Ron Paul is probably the most principled candidate of the four because of his consistency.  The most principled people in the world are radicals and fanatics.  But if we mean the most principled conservative, say the best of the best, the Republican with the least dirty laundry, we must remember that if we want to kick Obama out of the White House, there are millions of “unprincipled voters” out there who are not part of the Tea Party and religious right.   Who can attract the vote of Patriotic Americans, the silent majority who work hard, pay their bills, educate their kids, may or may not attend church, believe in the American dream and mind their own business?  Whoever survives the GOP “conservative” contest is going to have to win their vote.

                If we equate emotion with the heart, and rational with the brain, we may feel good supporting that candidate whose principles are synonymous with our own, but can he win? 

                To reiterate, what are our priorities?  Is it the economy, is it national defense, is it reducing big government, is it entitlements, is it national resources, is it immigration, is it trade, is it abortion and same sex marriages?  Or is it, who is the tallest, the most religious or the best looking?  Or maybe it’s stature and statesmanship?  And don’t discount personality.  Which candidate has the stature and personality, the vitality and stamina to demand and receive respect from our allies and enemies?  If we take all that into consideration I think one man stands out, and it sure as hell isn’t Barak Hussein Obama.