Tuesday, January 24, 2012


Webster’s Dictionary definition: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

Wikipedia definition: a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.

Notice the difference between the two definitions? The other night I read something on a conservative web site and, for some reason, decided to look up the definition of the term “conservative”. I looked it up in Webster’s Dictionary knowing I would get an honest, unbiased definition. Then I looked it up in Wikipedia, knowing it tends to be a bit liberal, and found exactly what I expected – a definition that leans a bit left.

Webster’s defines it as “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability.” Wikipedia, known for its liberal contributors, says conservatives want “at the most, minimal and gradual change” and that some “oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.” They noticeably leave that last statement without explanation so people can draw their own, mostly misguided conclusions.

There has been a lot of talk in the last couple years about how the Tea Party wants to return to the way things were up to and including slavery of black Americans. Anyone and everyone with a working brain knows it’s not true but it’s a big liberal talking point anyway. And it’s only going to get worse as 2012 progresses and the election draws near. Those who oppose President Obama’s re-election will be labeled as racists by many on the left regardless of their stated reasons for their opposition. It’s happening already.

True conservatives want what is outlined in Webster’s definition: lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage). They want legal immigration, less interference by the government in religious beliefs and activities, less government involvement in their personal lives and less government spending as a whole, as well as less overall entitlements. The last one is also often viewed by the left as racist or they decide conservatives just hate poor people, old people and anyone who is dependent on the government. And it’s misguided thinking.

Many liberals I speak to regularly want taxes raised on the wealthy to make up for the massive government spending taking place in our country today. They see spending as a good thing even if it means spending money we don’t have and they want those who make millions or billions to pick up the tab for everyone. “After all,” they state, “they’re rich.” It matters not to them that the very wealthy already pay most of the taxes in the country while up to 47% pay nothing. Some of them (the liberals I know) proclaim a desire and/or willingness to pay more taxes themselves, albeit, knowing that’s most likely not going to happen. (It’s easy to claim you want to do something if you know it’s never really going to happen.)

Despite what some liberals want people to believe, conservatives really don’t want to return the country to the early 1800s. If that’s the case, and if conservatives and Republicans in general are racist haters, how do liberals explain the conservative support of Herman Cain or those who would support Alan West for President or a Vice Presidential nomination?

Janeane Garofolo tried to explain it in her own, odd, twisted thinking. “I believe Herman Cain is in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the tea party certainly. Herman Cain provides this great opportunity so that you can say ‘look this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement…look we have a black man over here! Look, he’s polling well and he won a straw poll over here.”

In other words – Republicans hate black people but if they nominate Cain, even though they’ll hate him for his race, it makes them look like they’re not racists. Janeane Garofolo needs to get a real life. And of course, if you point out the fact that many liberals voted for President Obama to show they weren’t racist that will be disregarded because “liberals are more enlightened and tolerant of everyone.” Uh-huh.

Bottom line is that regardless of the bad press by the mainstream media and the hateful, derogatory, inflammatory remarks directed at them by overzealous people on the left, conservatives want what they say they want and not all the ridiculous things alleged by the left. We don’t hate liberals – we merely disagree with almost everything they stand for. But we can do it without denigrating you.

No comments:

Post a Comment