Not Conservative Enough

Almost since the first campaign word was spoken, the Republican presidential contenders have been competing for the title, "Most Conservative", and have been trying to present themselves in the truest tradition of the late former president Ronald Reagan who was a movement unto himself. Because President Reagan was so unique and so popular, it seems almost irreverent, and yet understandable, for present-day candidates to try and fit themselves into a mold that was, in my humble Reaganite opinion, broken long ago. This does not mean, however, that such a tradition is not worth protecting.

Candidate Mitt Romney has most recently leveled accusations against fellow Republican candidates Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani in challenging their conservative credentials relative to measures enacted or advocated in Arkansas and New York City while these men were at their respective helms as governor and mayor. Of course, Mr. Romney's accusations brought swift rebuttal from Huckabee's camp regarding the so-called "sanctuary" cities which apparently came into being under then-Governor Romney's watch in Massachusetts. Sad to say, none of these candidates for federal office has acknowledged the fact that immigration is a federal issue and that cities and states can only deal with the hand that is dealt them at any given time. Such administrators and mayors may be able to work through their state's US senators and representatives, but that is about as far as it can go. If anyone could be held politically responsible, it should be them and not the governors or mayors.

Let us not lose our focus, however. The issue itself is not immigration, illegal or otherwise, but the idea of what adequately and accurately constitutes a "true" conservative, that coveted title which seems to be the focal point of each Republican post-debate analysis. Now that these discussions, charges, and counter-charges have come to serve as a postlude to any debate topic, I have seriously begun to question exactly what being a "true" conservative really means, what being a "true" liberal really means, and whether it can be said that "moderates" really cannot seem to make up their minds. In the end, however, the question will be which one is best suited to serve as the nation's chief executive, not whether one is "more" Republican or "more" conservative than another.

18th-century statesman and philosopher Sir Edmund Burke once said, “We owe an implicit reverence to all the institutions of our ancestors.” The underlying principle associated with such thought is that we as a people, as a nation, cannot completely disconnect from our past. There is a sense of respect for successes of the past, as well as failures, which must be acknowledged and embraced rather than completely forgotten. It is entirely a philosophical consideration which maintains a certain sense of order and continuity with established standards by which to measure societal norms. These norms, lacking consistency or any link to the past, cease to exist as norms and become, instead, arbitrary standards absent any recognizable foundation.

Because these standards would tend to shift according to whoever is doing the most talking or whoever is willing to make the most noise, the danger of "pure" democracy by which the simple majority could potentially trample the rights of any minority would come to life. Witness the recent prayer meeting on the steps of the Georgia state capital during which the governor and others gathered to offer a common prayer for relief from the drought. No one was rounded up and forced to attend the prayer meeting on public property, property which belongs to the whole people and not merely a small segment of that people, yet there were also protesters nearby who took exception to such a meeting taking place on "state" property. Would such a scenario present a challenge to the perceived "separation of church and state" even if the governor or the preacher had not been present, or could it not be considered a reality that praying people still exist in this country and do not always feel compelled to hide behind a church door to offer a common prayer for a common problem?

Few conservatives want government directly involved in the business of American churches or synagogues or mosques or temples, and these most certainly do not want government involved in mandating a particular type of worship practice or advocating for or against a particular religion. Yet because of the Jeffersonian concept of the separation of church and state, which many mistakenly believe to be constitutionally mandated, these Georgia protesters - in exercising their constitutional right to protest - would deny the praying people their constitutional right to gather in peaceful assembly or in prayer or even in protest merely because they happen to be calling on a deity's name under the leadership of ordained clergy on the steps of the state capital.

Conservative leadership recognizes and even embraces this reality as it must also respect the reality that not all citizens are willing to embrace such reality. In fact it is incumbent upon conservative leadership to make sure that while citizens may certainly exercise their rights, those very rights cease to exist when such rights interfere with the rights of others. If the praying people in Georgia had somehow interfered with state business or interfered with non-believers in any way, they would have been in violation of the principles of what should constitute a “right”.

If conservative Republicans hope to gain in next year’s elections, they are going to have to go far beyond pointing out the flaws of extreme liberalism; they are going to have to sell conservatism in responsible government. In fact, they are going to have to convince a conservative like me that they have something to sell. I’m willing to listen, but I already think I know what’s wrong. Now I want to know how any of these gentlemen intend to make things right.