Conservative Fundamentals

Thank goodness, the election is over. For the first time ever the American people have elected a racial minority to the highest office in the country. That's very exciting! He happens to have been the most liberal Congressman in the Senate. That's not so exciting. I hope the conservative media are wrong about Obama. I hope he turns out to be more moderate than expected. I hope he's able to unite the country and keep taxes reasonable and improve our foreign relations and do many of the other things he's promised.

I have many fears and hopes for the next two years while the Democrats rule the roost, but that's not what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about the Republicans, a party that, with a good deal of personal and ideological compromise, I've recently embraced. I want to talk about the future of conservatism and my hopes and fears on that front.

Jed Babbin wrote:

Cong. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) got it right last night. He said the Republicans need a housecleaning. They need to reclaim the title of the “party of big ideas.” Those ideas have to be conservative ideas: smaller government, strong defense, and individual freedom.

This is a popular notion among conservatives right now. Get back to fundamentals. Get back to conservative idealism and reform: Small government, strong defense, individual freedom, and a strong commitment to the Constitution. Boy, does that ever sound good! A small government that allows capitalistic free markets to function with little or no interference. A government that provides for the defense of it's citizens and defends individual freedoms. A government that focuses on staying small so taxes can stay low across the board. A government that seeks to reduce it's responsibilities rather than grow it's power. A government that seeks to abide by both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. It warms my libertarian-leaning heart.

The problem with the Republican party arrives in the baggage. In recent conservative ideology, individual freedom doesn't appear to include the freedom to marry someone of the same gender. Nor does it include a woman's reproductive freedom. The Constitutional tradition of separation of Church and State doesn't seem to stop the far right from endorsing the ridiculous notion that the public schools should teach creationism. This is all baggage that the Christian Coalition dropped on the Republican Party. These three ideas in particular don't fit on a true conservative agenda.

For some reason a vast majority of conservatives have jumped on the anti-gay marriage band wagon. Not one single person has given me a good solid reason why we should disallow two people from marrying no matter their genders. People argue that a marriage should be about the potential to have children. If that's so, then why are infertile people allowed to marry? Or women past menopause? Technology and adoption allow same sex couples to have children just as they allow infertile hetero couples to have children. Others argue that the traditional family (man, woman, children) is the backbone of society. To that I say look at the rising divorce rate, look at all the single parent homes. Divorce is causing a lot more damage to the traditional family than gay marriage! Would it be right to ban divorce to protect the institution of marriage? I don't understand how people can oppose gay marriage for any reason other than pure bigotry. This is in direct opposition to the notion of personal freedoms.

Abortion is a tough issue and I don't believe that either party has it figured out. The folks on the far left want it flat out legal even when the baby is already half born. The folks on the far right want every abortion banned even when the mother's life is at risk and the baby has little chance for a meaningful life. Both sides take it too far. Either way I personally think decisions about abortions should be left to individuals and their doctors. Until we can objectively determine at what point a fetus becomes an individual human being, any legal restrictions on abortions should come at a state or municipal level where local custom and the local moral majority can decide for themselves. If we really want to minimize government and maximize personal freedoms, such questions should not be handled at a federal level.

The ridiculous notion of creationism is just that: ridiculous. How any right thinking intelligent person could embrace such an idea is beyond my comprehension. How anyone could want such bull-hockey taught to impressionable children is again beyond my ability to comprehend. In any case, the first amendment to the Constitution guarantees your right to practice whatever religion you like. There's a tradition of separation of Church and State in this country (contrary to popular belief, the separation of Church and State is NOT part of the constitution, but a concept adopted to help uphold the first amendment). Creationism is a religious concept, NOT a scientific one. If you wish to teach your children creationism, you are free to do so, just don't ask the public school to do so.

When faced with these issues I'm embarrassed to call myself a conservative. On nearly any other topic I'm likely to agree with the conservative point of view. Smaller government, strong defense, individual freedoms, free market economics, flatter taxes, fewer social programs, patriotism, tradition, and strong adherence to the Constitution, these are conservative notions I can get behind. If the Republican party is going to make a fresh start perhaps it should shed the anti-gay pro-life creationist ideologies. Such ideas are contrary to the most fundamental of conservative ideals. I'm all for getting back to the fundamentals.

As far as President-elect Obama goes, I'm planning to give him the benefit of the doubt across the board. I will set aside my concerns about his past and judge him based on his actions from this day forward. A clean slate and a fresh start. I hope that we can look back in 20 years and remember our first black president with pride and honor.