What Does It Mean To Be A Conservative?

Ronald Reagan What does it mean to be a conservative?

With the political winds now blowing favorably for liberals, or “progressives” as they have more recently labeled themselves, another label (conservative) seems to have gained a negative connotation among some.

Actually, there’s really nothing negative about conservatism, at least compared to all other alternatives.

First, we should think about what conservatism actually is.

The first definition in Webster’s Online Dictionary, by Wordnet, defines conservatism as “A political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.” The second definition, by Webster, defines the term as “The disposition and tendency to preserve what is established; opposition to change; the habit of mind; or conduct, of a conservative.”

Alright, I can already hear the static anti-establishment crowd now. Relax. If conservatism means the preservation of an establishment, what is that establishment?

It obviously can’t be any current establishment, or conservatives like myself would be silent and content with any political winds that blow through. The establishment that conservatives mean to preserve is that of our founding, including American first principles like contribution to society, independence from unnecessary assistance or control, common-sense in financial matters, honesty, free speech and religious practice, the pursuit of happiness, the protection of human life, and ultimately reliance on God as the giver of all rights and possessions and provider of all needs.

In this dictionary, definitions for the terms liberal or liberalism can’t be found…hmm. The term “progressivism”, however, can be found. As the first listed definition, Wordnet states,:”The political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society.” Well, that’s a vague no-brainer. It’s no secret that’s how those who follow this philosophy want the rest of us to perceive it. But don’t give up on me yet.

Moving down the list, there are more specific definitions of progressivism, such as for Economic Progressivism, defined as “…a political economic ideology that supports a progressive tax.” But wait, there’s more. It gets better.

Progressivism in the United States is defined as “…a cluster of political, activist, and media organizations ranging from left-liberal to democratic socialism.” Oh, it’s a cluster, alright.

Sold yet? Within the given definition for Social Progressivism, it is stated that this philosophy “…today generally supports same-sex marriage, birth control, and women’s right to choose an abortion.”

There are plenty of examples of progressive or liberal figures we could discuss. They’re plastered all over NBC, CNN, CBS, and ABC on a daily basis. If you occasionally check up on these figures from news and commentary on FoxNews or talk radio, then double-check the facts next to other sources (especially official public records and statistics such as with the CBO); you’ll likely see the hypocracy of these liberals.

I’m much more interested, though, in the figures who have stood for conservatism, as we now understand it. In modern history, Ronald Reagan comes to mind as the most influential figure for conservatism in our lifetimes. He is often praised, myself included, as a great leader in this regard. But what made him great?

He was a great conservative because he supported the same basic principles that our nation was founded upon. He might not have been great if it hadn’t been for our founding fathers, whom he resembled, such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, etc.

These great men are now often misrepresented (even in public school textbooks) but always examples of what can be possible with little more than faith in our Creator and in His creation, when bound only by His will and the principles of His Word.

To cite the “establishment” definition of conservatism, it does seem that the establishment that even many elected Republicans seek to preserve is the Republican Party itself, by any means necessary, and not our founding documents, principles, or conservatism.

If this is true, they’re going about this preservation in all the wrong ways, bowing down to the president and the liberal democrats in concession just moments after the re-election of the president and others.

Neither the Republican Party, while obviously our last organized hope in our government, nor conservatism or our republic will survive if this approach continues. That will only lead to an even more unified effort by our government to further raise taxes of the working people, redistribute those dollars to the non-workers, and further erode the constitutional rights and freedoms of the majority of American citizens.

What we instead need to do, as conservatives, republicans, and as a nation, is to hail back to those founding  principles, make our voices heard, and turn back to the God of the Bible and first God of America for help.

We can only accomplish this by first placing our trust in Him through the sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ as the payment for our sins.

As of now, it’s still my right to share this belief; my intention is to do so more by the day, and my hope is that you’ll come to this belief while there’s still time for you and for our country.

God Bless.

Bypass the Mass Media: Get Articles Straight To Your Inbox!


Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.


Comments

  1. America is in deep trouble trying to solve the entire World’s problem’s and we have no money except what we borrow from China.

    I pray for our Country

  2. The author misuses the term “nation”. A nation (as in nation-state) is a group of related people, sharing a common ethnicity, language, religion, culture. Obviously, the USA is a multi-national state today. Every society, animal or human, is a dominance hierarchy. Competing nations (anywhere where more than one co-exist) engage in a zero-sum game. Dominance is the very definition of a zero-sum game. The interests of any one nation are irreconcilable with those of any other nation (that’s what ‘zero-sum’ means). Conservatives used to understand this, along with Rightists. The Founding Fathers beleived in religious freedom — for certain believing Christians; not for non-Christians, atheists, or even some Christians. Just as they thought it unnecessary to define marriage as being between man and woman, they saw no reason to exclude Mohammedans or Bhuddists from public life (some states did exclude Jews). This was understood — that’s what maintains any society — shared values, assumptions, prejudices. Conservatives diverged from Rightists after the massive non-NW European (i.e., non-American) immigrations at the turn of the 19th Century. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. That’s why his terms in office solved no problems. Stopping was 80 years too late; things had to be reversed or abolished, and conservatives don’t do that; Rightists do. If Hispanics threaten to vote en masse for Leftism, then Hispanics mustn’t vote. Ditto Africans-in-America. Realistically, few of these people did vote before the mid-60s evils of Great Society legislation were passed. The only rememdy for evil is right, not preventing additional evils.

Speak Your Mind