Leslie Carbone has a very moving post up over at dontgomovement.com. I like her passion.
principles
I keep reading commentary, even in respected conservative forums, that Paulson’s gigantic bailout plan is bad, and admittedly un-conservative, but that we must do “something” and the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate.
As Colonel Potter used to say, “Horse-hockey!”
Protecting the long-term value of the American dollar is more important than a quick fix. So is teaching our bankers, traders and lawmakers that the government is not going to bail them out of future messes. If there’s a pot of government gold at the end of every financial rainbow, what’s to stop everyone from chasing the green leprechaun again?
Federal action is warranted, but the focus should be less on debt and more on protecting present and future capital. If we go about this rationally and take this opportunity to promote pro-growth policies and tax reform, investors will respond to the prospect of higher future returns. It’s that simple.
Conservatives: we cannot abandon our principles in times of crisis. We must remain steady at the wheel.
Whenever some Postmodern New Conservative annoys me with their “Down With the Establishment” and “Up With Me” rhetoric, I turn to one of the greats, like Kirk, or WFB, or Hayek, or Freidman, or Burke, or John Adams. Here’s Kirk on Conservatism:
“Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries…
“Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.
“The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers…”
!!
I recently ran across this blog post by David All that says the Republican party needs to stop having a core set of principles and/or a limited agenda and be more like iTunes and NetFlix – i.e. offer conservative, libertarian, and independent voters more and varied choices under the larger brand “Republican.”
.
I’d like to hear more about the “choices” Mr. All thinks the GOP ought to offer in order to endear people to the “brand.” I do see the wisdom of having lots of worthy mini-causes flying under the flag of the Conservatism and drumming up support through issues that click with different voter groups.
.
I’m just concerned that when you start talking about “branding” and “diversification” you sound more like a corporation trying to make a profit than a political party rooted in unwavering values. A loyal following and free-flowing cash are needed to win elections, true.
But is this Coca-Cola, or is this the Grand Old Party of the Republic?
I think we must stick with the traditional ingredients of cold-filtered Conservatism and persuade people - through the intelligent and passionate presentation of facts and ideas - that it is well worth preserving.
