What is a Conservative? Part I

A headline on Townhall.com got me thinking about something I've been mulling over for several weeks already. Now that I'm blogging about it, of course I can't find the story, but it was something along the lines of "John McCain's record shows he is actually a conservative."

(OK, for those of you that like real time, I just found the story. I could have just deleted the above paragraph, but doesn't this feel more action-packed and fast-paced? :) Here is the headline: "McCain: More Conservative than His Image." The author is Libby Quaid, and on closer examination, I have found that this is actually an AP story, which changes the picture completely. I wish Townhall would make it clearer that such is the case; AP is believed by most to be a neutral news organization when nothing could be further from the truth. I'll never forget their reporter, Ron Fournier, authoring a "news story" within hours of Mitt Romney's victory in the Michigan primary about how he had only achieved victory through blatant pandering to the voters. If that is "news", I'm in line for a Cabinet position. Fournier has a right to his opinion, but he is not in the opining business, or shouldn't be.)

There is plenty of time to discuss whether or not McCain is a conservative; we will get to that later, let me assure you.

In contrast to Mr. Fournier and his AP cohorts, I am going to be very upfront in announcing that this is an opinion piece (probably will turn into a series of pieces) on what a conservative is and does, which springs from what they believe. This is a discussion that is in progress, and needs to continue.

David Frum has authored a book entitled Conservatism That Can Win Again. I have not yet read it, but it is purported to argue that conservatism must be redefined to include some government intervention in certain sectors of the economy, including healthcare. Michael Gerson's Heroic Conservatism, also unread as yet by me, ostensibly makes the same case on a more modest level. Perhaps I shouldn't be citing books I haven't read, but that misses the larger point here; in any event, I've heard this from enough sources that I don't think it's even debatable. That point being: these are not conservative ideas!

Frum and Gerson both held positions within the Bush Administration. Gerson was Bush's chief speechwriter; he authored both the National Cathedral address Bush delivered on September 14, 2001. As for Frum, he claims responsibility for the "axis of evil" phrase incorporated into Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. I have seen both men on Larry King, Meet the Press, etc., and heard them on Laura Ingraham's and Alan Colmes' shows among others (yes, you have to listen to the enemy sometimes, and Colmes is hugely entertaining; I wish he was one of ours)and they are articulate and persuasive. Gerson's credentials as a Christian who lives his life with conviction and principle are unquestionable (he is a Wheaton grad who worked for Chuck Colson before transitioning into government service).

The above examples serve as bolstering for my first point: a conservative believes, with Thomas Jefferson, that "government is best that governs least." Ronald Reagan, in his 1981 address, declared that "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem!" I have seen nothing in the ensuing years to disprove his assertion.

Conservatives are realists. We understand that there are some things for which government should take responsibility. The national defense is one of those. Even here, I have serious reservations that the government can perform many defense/national security functions in a superior fashion to the private sector. But, the Constitution clearly provides, in a number of places, for the maintenance of a standing army and for its funding by the taxpayers. This is foundational to the central obligation of Constitutional officers, i.e. public servants, which is to protect the Constitutional rights to life and liberty of all citizens of the United States.

Government has little to no incentive to seek efficiency and continuous process improvement. In the business world, if a company fails to do this on an ongoing basis, it will wither and die. Government programs continue on in perpetuity, regardless of their results. (Again, to quote Reagan, the closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program.) There is virtually no incentive to improve the status quo; in fact, often, if changes are made to that end, it will result in the elimination of jobs, which no bureaucrat wants.

There are more problems with government expansion than misplaced trust in government's ability to solve problems. And a conservative, above all, should understand the foundational fact that this country became what it is by virtue of individual self-determination and perseverance, not reliance on Washington's assistance! The Obamas, both Barack and Michelle, don't even come close to grasping this. That is not a slam; it is clearly observed in their public quotations, e.g., Barack's latest reference to Americans as "bitter people" because of how they've been so sorely mistreated by big corporations. (More on that later, too.) Add to that Michelle's constant references to how difficult her lot in life has been, having to pay back those big Harvard loans out of her $300,000 annual salary. INCREDIBLE.

A conservative, then, intuits that America's power is in its people. Once America believes in herself and acts accordingly, there is no stopping her or limiting her potential. Government assistance and subsidy does not foster such growth; it feeds complacency and discourages innovation. This is not the right path to take, although we're a good ways down it already in our mixed economy (to use John Stossel's phrase).