I have heard from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tammy Bruce, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, and etc, all claiming that the Republican Party has left its conservative “roots”, yet how can this be since we have had a Republican President for eight years and even a Republican Congress from 1994-2006? My friends we have been living under conservative rule, but it has been the policies of what is known as Neo-Conservatism. It is easy to fall under the belief that all “conservatives” believe the same thing, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are basically two streams of conservatism.

   The battle that is going on is between: Tea Party Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism. So what is the difference? Let me point out what each camp believes.

Neo-Conservatives on the issues:

1.) Their origins- Neo-Conservatism began in the 1970’s and they were semi-conservative pro-government Democrats who left the Democratic Party because of its move toward extreme socialistic liberalism and they joined the Republican Party (and brought their semi-liberalism with them).

2.) Their foreign policy- Is to convert the world to democracy, even in places where democracy will never work because of the cultural barriers to democracy.

3.) Government- They support big government and have a low opinion of states’ rights.

4.) Spending- They are big spenders on social programs and believe in deficits. Balancing the budget is not a priority.

5.) Welfare- They generally support it.

6.) Social issues- Generally give lip servive to conservative social issues, but rarely pursue them when in office.

7.) Economic issues- Very extreme in free trade and globalization. Supporters of big buisnesses.

8.) Immigration- Believe in open boreders and have done nothing to secure the borders and they support general amnesty.

9.) Education- The federal government must regulate it and support it.

10.) The Constitution- They never bother to ask whether the laws they vote for are constitutional or not. They reject the notion of federalism (divided government).

11.) Judicial Activism- They have no plans to oppose unelected judges who make laws that violate the Constitution. 

Faces of neo-conservitism: Both Bushes, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, The Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer, most of the Senate Republicans and especially John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the current Speaker of The House John Boehner and his fellow ilk (in fact the entire GOP leadership).

Tea Party Conservatives on the issues:

1.) Their origins: The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson’s Republicanism, Andrew Jackson’s Popularism, Edmund Burke, The Federalist Papers & The Anti-Federalist Papers, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and the modern Tea Party.

2.) Foreign policy- Use force to protect American intrests but it is not our job to always build and save nations and police the world in every particular circumstance. It is not the job of the United States to convert the world to democracy. It is our job to intervene when human rights are being completely trampled by evil tyrants.

3.) Government- Government is the problem not the solution. Cut government programs. Strongly protect states’ rights (federalism).

4.) Spending- Strongly believe in cutting government programs and radically reducing spending. Balancing budgets should be a goal. Primary spending should be on the military.

5.) Welfare: Oppose it.

6.) Social issues: Takes social issues seriously. The root of most problems in the country are the result of immoral behavior. Welfare and social programs is simply the goverment bailing people out of the consequences of their actions. A virtuous and prudent people has little need for government.

7.) Economics- Deregulate businesses. Tax cuts across the borad and remove many taxes such as the death tax and the corporate tax. Supports free trade and low tariffs if they be needed. 

8.) Immigration- Supports securing the border and the deportation of illegal aliens.

9.) Education- Is not the job of the federal government but is a state and local issue. Support vouchers or tax credits at most.

10.) The Constitution- They take seriously whether the Constitution prohibts a law or not. It is well understood that the Constitution mandates limited government. Federalism is passionately held up.

11.) Judicial Activism- Activist federal judges including the U.S. Supreme Court must be reigned in and their power to create unconstitional laws from the bench must be fought. Judges should have term limits, or be subject to popular elections. The U.S. Congress should have the power to overturn outragous and unconstitutional rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, thus the ultimate power must rest with the people and not unelected judges who are responsible to no one.

The most famous Tea Party Conservatives are: The American Founding Fathers, President Ronald Reagan, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Tammy Bruce, Senators Jim Demint, Rand Paul & Marco Rubio, and Sarah Palin.

We have not had a decent Republican President since President Reagan and we all know it. Bush senior led to Bill Clinton, Bob Dole was a dud and led to 4 more years of Clinton, and Bush junior (along with John Mccain) has led us to a radical Democratic Congress and Barak Obama. It is time to either reclaim the Republican Party or breakaway from the GOP and form a new major second political party, letting the GOP go the way of the Whig Party. The Republican elites are all neo-conservatives and the GOP base are mostly Tea Party Conservatives, and we need to reclaim the Republican Party from the neo-conservatives. This is why it is so important to pay attention in selecting Republican state chairmanships and in selecting true Tea Party Conservatives during the primaries (as well did last November): both on a local level and a national level. The last thing we need is another government growing neo-conservative. My friends throw the Republican neo-conservatives overboard and put Tea Party Conservatives in power and things will change for the better! Neo-Conservatism has been tried and has been an absolute disaster; now let’s throw the S.O.B’s out in the 2012 GOP primaries.

Advertisements

Here are 10 quick points which summarizes Traditional Conservatism. These were taken from Russell Kirk’s book The Politics of Prudence.

The 10 Cannons of Traditionalists Conservatism:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runs not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. The British statesman Edmund Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few. The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. Knowing that human nature is a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence.   Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.