Let me get this straight:
Eating baby = BAD
Eating baby back ribs = GOOD.
Nativism is another way of saying anti-immigrant. So if you were born here, good. Ancestors born here a long time ago, even better. Decendants of the Mayflower or Daughters of the American Revolution is best. But don’t take it too far, actual aboriginal people are not necessarily welcome.
So, my understanding is that Paul is saying that his conservative party would embrace immigrants as welcome additions as long as they also hold the other values true.
Racial discrimination is a tough one. Conservatives believe in the basic goodness of people. One must admit that a Conservative during the Civil Rights Era would have done little but march for equal rights and opportunity. We get all confused by well-meaning people who want to put everyone into some sort of racial classification. It just cannot be right to take something away from (or give something to) someone because of the color of their skin.
We do not like labeling people. It reminds of scary movies about World War II.
Still, history shows clearly that government action was required to slap people upside their fool heads.
Pollution control is easy. Tax pollution to death.
We need police, but Conservatives prefer the nice kind who will give you a break to the kind who like to boss people around.
Same sex marriage? All for it. We do not care who a person marries. We like gay people. We have gay people in our families.
Poverty? The best solution is a white-hot economy that provides a job to all who can work and enough spare cash for charity for those who cannot work.
Social Security? A huge, long-running, Ponzi scheme. Since we are stuck with it, we should at least means-test it. We say that although we do not like means-testing since it leads to lots of paperwork that makes us use our reading glasses.
Foreign affairs? Protection of our way of life at home, helping those who need help abroad, exporting our ideals to those mature enough to accept them.
The military? We like the military. We like the History Channel. We do not like the guys on TV who never seem to break a sweat and who say mealy-mouthed things. Soldiers should say what they mean. We have politicians to use weasel words.
(Did I double-post this? Sorry!)
Same sex marriage? All for it. We do not care who a person marries. We like gay people. We have gay people in our families.
Poverty? The best solution is a white-hot economy that provides a job to all who can work and enough spare cash for charity for those who cannot work.
Social Security? A huge, long-running, Ponzi scheme. Since we are stuck with it, we should at least means-test it. We say that although we do not like means-testing since it leads to lots of paperwork that makes us use our reading glasses.
Foreign affairs? Protection of our way of life at home, helping those who need help abroad, exporting our ideals to those mature enough to accept them.
The military? We like the military. We like the History Channel. We do not like the guys on TV who never seem to break a sweat and who say mealy-mouthed things. Soldiers should say what they mean. We have politicians to use weasel words.
Are you not aware, Paul, that we’ve already got several third parties embodying varying definitions of “conservatism”?
We have:
The Libertarian Party, which seems to be closest to what you’re calling for: http://www.lp.org/
The Independence Party – one of the fragments from breakup of Perot’s Reform Party; its politics have been described as “moderate libertarian”; no effective presence, at present, outside Minnesota, where it elected Jesse Ventura to the governorship: http://www.mnip.org/
The America First Party – the other major post-Reform fragment; led by Pat Buchanan; its politics are “paleoconservative” (nativist, isolationist, social-conservative, economic-populist): http://www.americafirstparty.org/
The Constitution Party – formerly the US Taxpayers Party; Christian-religious-conservative: http://www.constitution-party.net/
And several others, even smaller and more radical. (See the politics1.com political parties page – http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm)
If you have never had a chance to cast a not-entirely-wasted vote for any of these, the lesson you should take from that is not that we need a new party, but that we need a system more open to third-party challenges in general. IOW, we need ballot-access reform, ballot fusion, instant-runoff voting and proportional representation.
Until we get those things, you’ll just have to be satisfied with the Republicans.
I’m seeing some progress here, but, speaking for myself, I would prefer fewer (or no) statements in the form of “we like.” That doesn’t help me understand what a Conservative Party Government will actually do. More answers that are in the form of “It will be the policy of the Conservative Party Government to …” will help me.
Frankly, though, maybe that’s one of the basic differences between a left-liberal-progressive-Democrat like me and a libertarian like you. Personal likeabiilty and personal morality mean little to me when it comes to government. I demand public morality and want to know your public positions. When it comes to politics, I don’t give a crap what the personal likes and dislikes of the individual members of the party are. I don’t care whether you like having a good time or whether you are a midnight-lamp-burner. Your description of yourself makes it sound like you might be a right upstanding mensch in person, but that doesn’t mean I’ll vote you into office.
Be a personally reprehensible overprivileged drunken libertine like Ted Kennedy, a greasy redneck philanderer like Bill Clinton, a (possibly) vile racist like Robert Byrd, a scumbag corporate plunderer like Jon Corzine, you’ve still got my support if your policy positions, legislative votes, etc., are in the right (from my point of view).
If your conservatism kills corporate welfare, I’m all for it. American industries should be free to sink their own boats.
The Conservative Party would have policies
-
Favoring gay rights.
-
Favoring marriage.
-
Favoring gay marriage.
-
Favoring economic growth.
-
Favoring a dynamic economy with much ‘creative destruction.’
-
Favoring free trade.
-
Favoring drug legalization.
-
Favoring immigration.
-
Opposing Welfare (both personal and corporate).
-
Opposing race-based and sex-based programs.
-
Opposing complexities in the tax code.
-
Opposing foreign interventions.
Oh, I get it now. In a completely color-blind country with free trade, no welfare & no drug smuggling, alot of immigrants wouldn’t have any reason to come here in the first place, so the assimilation/over crowding issues disappear.
And it would differ from the Libertarian Party how?
There is no such thing as overcrowding in America.
Further, Conservatives like people. People are neat. Overpopulation is not a problem, poverty is. What is the difference between Bagladesh and Manhattan? Manhattan is more “overpopulated,” but is also much richer.
If I wanted to start a fight I would point out that there is no example of a White Christian “overpopulated” country. I suspect overpopulation is simply a codeword for ‘too many people who do not look like me.’
But I will not say that as I am going to bed.
Thanks, Paul. I’m getting a better idea. But I agree with other posters that this party doesn’t seem too different from the existing Libertarian party.
Sorry, this one seems more like a slogan than a policy.
so does this one.
This seems more like a policy, but I don’t know what it means.
Paul, your use of the editorial “we” is a cute rhetorical device, but it makes it very diffictult to determine if you are talking about
**A. **The philosophy of the majority of people who consider themselves conservative
B. Your ideal of what the conservative philosophy should be
or
C. Your own personal views
If it’s** B.** or** C.**, this is further confusing, because the word “conservative” already has a received definition, at least in American usage, and your “we are” rather than “conservatives should” makes it very difficult to follow. At times it sounds like you’re naively ascribing motives to the conservative party that may or may not be there, but then it sounds like you’re ironically acknowledging that these motives are not in fact a reality but you wish they were.
Statements like “We [conservatives] do not think America is a white Christian country” and “We [conservatives] (generally) do not care who people kiss or where” make absolutely no sense at all, and are either delusional or ironic, unless you intend them to be speculative or wishful.
To quote Flannery O’Connor, “you have the advantage of using a word with a private meaning and a public odor.” Please clarify.
I assumed that the OP defined “Conservative” to mean the party that Paul wishes existed. “We” indicated both Paul and the hypothetical new party.
Paul: You’re way over in the libertarian edge of the “conservative” party. Your political positions are very close to mine, and I can tell you that it is not very representative of what people mean when they say “conservative”. I dislike that label myself, and I’m not sure why you want to embrace it. Frankly, it just doesn’t mean what you are saying it means.
Could we use and old term out of use with a positive connotation. I recommend the Bull Moose Party. That would associate us with Teddy and not any of the baggage that goes with Conservative or Libertarian or Republican now thanks to Bush/Cheney.
Jim
From a marketing perspective I’d rebrand it as “The Freedom Party”…
- Freedom from Government intrusion in the bedroom.
2&3. Freedom from government intrusion into marriage/religion. - Freedom to grow the economy without government inteference.
- ??? Favoring a dynamic economy with much ‘creative destruction.’*
- Freedom of trade.
- Freedom of personal choice (even bad choices).
- Freedom to live where you choose.
9a. Freedom from the Welfare state.
9b. Freedom from Government subsidy of big business.
10. Freedom from racial and gender-based differentiation.
11. Freedom from complex and oppressive taxes.
12. Freedom from interventions into foreign disputes.
*Freedom to blow whole thing up?
And it would differ from the Libertarian Party how?
I mean, let’s not re-invent the wheel here.
I told you, (in that post) I’m just looking at it from the marketing perspective.