The Sheila Variations

Damn, Sheila. I wish *I'd* written what you just wrote. That was great.

Thanks, emily ... good to 'see' you, by the way.

Who is being self-righteous now? I would assert that not all change is progress, and I would caution against categorizing all conservatives using a definition which sounds suspiciously like that liberal classic: facist, homophobic, sexually-repressed Neanderthals. Anti-gay hysteria doesn't describe the entire staff at National Review(many of whom support the legalization of marijuana, by the way). Nor does it describe most conservatives.

You say that the conservative label carries a lot of baggage--most political labels do. You say you know what a conservative is, and "want nothing to do with the kind of mentality which thinks change is bad, and which fears progress." I would argue that quote proves you do not know what a conservative is, you know what conservatism has come to mean to some people. There are many thoughtful, reasonable conservatives who seek a smaller, less-intrusive government, who wish to preserve that which works while seeking to improve that which does not, who cherish artistic freedom(or, rather, human freedom), and want nothing to do with any individual's bedroom activities.

In your heart, I think you know this is true. There will always be certain elements of any movement that individuals will find offensive or even repulsive. That is the nature of human beings. Don't let the comments or political stances of some turn you away from the many.

Best--David(a conservative, not a Republican)

David:

Who said anything about not being self-righteous? I'm definitely self-righteous when it comes to stating my opinions. It's my opinion. I'm self-righteous about them.

I thought I made it clear I wasn't talking about all conservatives. You KNOW the kind of conservatives I am talking about - and they're the ones I have the beef with - and they're the ones who keep me from saying that I am one of them. Did you read the article I linked to? That's the essential issue. The word "conservative" now has all of this stuff attached to it - and that is not just because some people are ignorant - Conservatives must take some responsibility for that.

It doesn't have to do with the actual MEANING of the word conservative. The actual meaning of the word is now clouded. Perhaps you can look at it in what you think of as a clearer way - but I am telling you - from my side of the fence, I don't like what I see.

And to be honest: the fact that National Review publishes John Derbyshire is enough for me. I don't read them anymore. It's a matter of conscience for me. I cannot visit their pages anymore. It's not right. I'm not saying that everybody should feel the way I do. It's just not right for ME.

I also don't think that we can choose, ahead of time, which change might be good for us, and which will be counter-productive. This is just how my life has gone, anyway, how I see things. I may think I know what's best for me, what I need - and then, it turns out, that what comes to pass was a much better thing. Even if I fought it every step of the way.

I am talking in this post (as I thought I made clear) about the conservatives who want to halt change, who "look back" to the good old days, who want to muzzle artists who they do not agree with.

Don't throw the baby in with the bathwater, please.

Best,
Sheila (not a conservative, not a Republican either. I reserve the right to not declare myself.)

Great writing, Sheila, even if I may take issue with some of it around the edges.

I've accepted the conservative label not because I always oppose change--I most certainly don't--but because I oppose the idea that change is invariably positive (well, and the fact that I worked for the Tories in England, but that's another story). This was something I first grasped reading Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, arguably the wellspring of conservatism as a political philosophy, and from that having an epiphany that completely broke me out of the dogmas I'd been raised with as the child of two party-line Dems. And then I found P.J. O'Rourke, and it was all downhill from there... ;-)

With respect to "The Reagans," specifically, I've never claimed to be an artist, but I have claimed at times to be a historian, and with that hat on I find deliberate misrepresentation of the historical record--on anyone, regardless of their political leanings--to be absolutely outrageous and completely irresponsible. I'm certainly not accusing you of this, but many of the people who defended CBS over that piece of tripe started shrieking "censorship" at the first word of criticism, and that's one of my biggest pet peeves: disagreement is the opposite of censorship, an EXERCISE of free speech just as much as that which is being criticized. A boycott (or just the threat of one) is as much an act of free speech as making another movie, but it's a hell of a lot less expensive.

And finally, about NR: yes, Derbyshire is a schmuck, but it's unfair to tar the whole publication with that. Most of their staff are fairly sensible people with a lot of well-thought-out stuff to say, even when I disagree (which isn't terribly often, mind you). A fair number probably lean more toward your position on many things than to Derbyshire's. You may want to reconsider in light of your own advice not to "throw the baby in with the bathwater, please.

Classifications suck, as they're most always inaccurate to some degree, but are so damn convenient to use that they often get abused.

By all traditional definitions, I am a "conservative", but I have Eminem on my iPod and enough electronic gadgets to make the space shuttle look about as technologically advanced as a brick.

That said, I do have a problem with a lot of dare I say "liberal" concepts and actions. A "clean environment" for example. Fine, sure. Just prove conclusively with hard data that anything we're doing is actively harming the environment. Real science, not junk science. That's but one issue among hundreds.

The term "Southpark Republican" tends to be a good term for the "new" conservatives, but even among them, there are those who are closer to the center, and those who are closer to the right. It's easy enough to apply the term to a group of people, but the lines get a little blurry when you take it to the single person level.

However, one must be at least somewhat flexible in their beliefs, or they'll be living a rather lonely life indeed. And, so far as that goes, I'd rather have dinner with a group of bible-thumping hard-right conservatives than a group of flaming liberal atheists. While I'd disagree with them on some points, I'd probably agree to a degree on most others, and associating ones self with people you mostly agree with tends to be a tad easier than with those who are vehemently opposed to everything you believe in.

I'm fine with change and progress, so long as it isn't a blanket for chipping away at pillars of society and/or founding values that make this country what it is. The reason, I think, you'll find most "conservatives" against "change and progress" is that most of a liberal mind use the terms as a blanket statement to cover their own agenda.

So, if "change and progress" includes a fifty percent income tax so we can pay for government-mandated socialism, you can count me in the group that's rather harshly opposed to it.

Dave, I know you're right, to some degree, about NRO and the baby-bathwater thing. I love Victor Davis Hanson - I love a lot of the stuff there. It may be irrational, but a couple of weeks ago I read one of Derbyshire's pieces and - I felt so offended and so angry that I personally can no longer go back there. I just can't. It feels like a betrayal of some of my dearest held principles. Again: I don't think everybody should follow my lead or even agree with me.

And the Reagan thing: The problem with making a film based on a historical figure is you are never going to please everybody.

The Frida Kahlo film. The John Nash film. Oliver Stone's Nixon.

Filmmakers, artists - are not objective. Nor should they be. Art comes from a passionate expression of self and conviction - (good art, I mean) - so if people are looking for a history lesson in art then that's their problem.

When Dr. Laura was run off the air by the gay lobby - that pissed me off as well, even though I don't like her views on gays. Dr. Laura is exercising her free speech - Get a competing radio show and invite Dr. Laura to come on your show and debate it out. Don't try to shut her up.

I don't think disagreement is censorship. I think that's ridiculous. I think the fact that we can disagree, and loudly, that we can all "live out loud" here is one of our greatest strengths as a nation and as a people.

Mr. Lion:

good comment. Thanks. I don't agree with all change and progress either. Like - the debacle of our education system right now. "Let's change how we teach our kids ... let's focus more on self-esteem as opposed to the three Rs ... let's never make them memorize things by rote because that demeans them..." Etc. I think it sucks. I think a little rote memorization is good for the soul. I can still recite WB Yeats' "When you are old and grey and full of sleep" from when I was made to memorize it in 11th grade, and quite honestly, I didn't feel demeaned by the experience at all.

Education is one of the areas where I catch myself thinking: "Let's just go BACK to the way it was..."

I can only hope that it is a phase - like any other phase - like the Freudian psychoanalysis craze in the early to mid 20th century - something which needed to happen, something which started out with good intentions - and something which eventually ran off its own rails.

So no. I completely agree that not all change is positive - but I still think that you can't pick and choose HOW things will change and WHEN.

and about your dinner party companions you mention: I guess I would rather have a dinner party with people who know how to converse and know how to listen, and also who know how to laugh. and people like that come from both sides of the political fence!

great comments, y'all. i had a feeling this post would generate some attention. just had to get it out. Live out loud, you know.

I hope I made it clear that I wasn't saying YOU thought disagreement was censorship, just that it infuriates me to no end when people do seem to assert that. And what you said about art based on history is true, but sometimes I feel there's an attempt going on to have things both ways: to say both "this is fiction" AND "this is an accurate portrayal of how things actually occurred." Maybe not simultaneously, but certainly in the same work, and I still have problems with that.

That the poem you mention knowing by heart is by Yeats surely says something about you beyond just that it was drilled into your head in school, so what does it say about me that the one I know by heart is Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwockey" from Alice in Wonderland?

I suppose you may be right about the memorization - I'm not sure. I remember my dad reading us Longfellow, etc. We memorized stuff by osmosis, I guess.

Jabberwocky has one of the best beginnings of a poem. Ever.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe

Lewis - put down the opium pipe. WHAT?

But that's as far as I can get! I'm sure there are many more verses. I have a beautiful old version of "Alice" - with the original Tenniel illustration - and the one of the Jabberwocky in the forest used to give me shivers up my spine.

And yes, back to the topic, to reiterate: People screaming "censorship" when really all they are experiencing is "disagreement" is very annoying.

Thank the good Lord we can disagree! That means we have an open society.

Last time I checked, Susan Sontag wasn't shivering in some Alaskan gulag because of her anti-war views. She continues to write, to express her disagreement.

I kind of like the "South Park Republican" title or the "Republican Party Reptile" one. My main problem with those is that it is obviously tied to a party and lately the GOP has been doing some stupendously stupid and shortsighted things.

It would be nice if we could resurrect the old term "strict constructionist." That would probably encapsulate what people mean by conservative pretty closely. The Feds have two jobs: to facilitate interstate commerce and provide for the common defense. Outside of that they should keep their damn hands off.

What's unfortunate about the "fair-weather Federalism" phenomenon is that drastic very un-conservative and very loose constructionist tactics may be required in order to head off those who would completely circumvent the Constitution for their own social-engineering ends. It's a damn shame that folks can't just let the democratic-republic process work but if lawyers and judges intend to leap-frog over the people entirely and enact who knows what deviltry by fiat then sometimes a great big Constitutional roadblock will have to be erected. A shame, but sometimes a neccessary step.

-bp

That is one wonderful post!

Thank you!

To begin with, the remark "Conservatives once defined themselves as ?standing athwart history yelling ?Stop!??" is taken seriously out of context. It was made by William F. Buckley in reponse to the Marxist assertion that "history" was a scientific process leading inexorably to the Utopia Marx had posited. Having seen enough of the road to Utopia and the bodies that littered it, Buckley offered it as the justification for starting National Review. Considering the course of history in this century, I would say that stopping "History" is not something anyone should be ashamed of or apologetic about. The "History" being stopped was perhaps second in malevolence to Naziism, but in body count it undoubtedly came in first.

Agreed, no one in their right mind would resist all change, but, as has been stated above, not all change is progress. And I think conservatism is best understood as a disagreement on the nature, extent, and direction of change than an adamantime insistence on freezing reality.

For the record I'm a religious skeptic who thinks that most change authored by government is unnecessary, inefficient, expensive and usually produce some results directly opposite to those intended.

Steve - great comment, but I wonder how you got to me. Feels like I posted this eons ago.

All of your points are extremely well taken.

But I continue to assert, from my anarchic standpoint, that there is only so much we can control. Change comes. Whether we like it or not. And we, as a human race, may think we know what change is good, and what change is destructive - and sometimes this is obvious - but sometimes it is not so obvious.

This post was in response to those who want to halt social change, to those who oppose gay marriage, to those who are old fuddy-duddies. I have a lifestyle not approved of by a lot of people and this was my "fuck you".

if believing in a strong military and a tiny government is conservative then I am definitely conservative. If defending our country is seen as #1 on the list is conservative, then I am definitely conservative.

But there's a lot about established conservatism I despise and this was my response to that.

People always freak out when I criticize conservatism because they seem to need a rank and file agreement.

There are those conservatives who resist gay marriage for carefully cultivated and articulated reasons - but they just sound to me like elaborate intellectual justifications for prejudice. NOT ALL OF THEM, (conservatives are so damn sensitive and take any one criticism I make as a criticism of ALL of them - they're like little weepy fainting Victorian women when it comes to perception of insult.)

Anyway. In terms of social and cultural issues - I think change is a runaway train and you cannot try to stop it, because that is not the nature of the beast, and ours is not to reason why.

People thought that when women were given the vote it was the end of the world. Some people still think that, because they believe that women ushered in a nanny-state mentality. Well, you know what? That's EQUALITY people. It's not always gonna be HOW you want it.

I'm not speaking to you, specifically, by the way.

I just don't think that change can be altered - at least not social change. I also don't think it should be. I'm far more interested in seeing the chips fall where they may, and see what we have to work with then.

This may not be addressing your point - but it is connected to the general response to this post. I got a ton of email about it, mostly from the weepy sensitive (all male) conservatives, begging me not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, begging me to not judge ALL of them because of the likes of that bigot John Derbyshire.

Oh, and Steve, I completely disagree with any change engineered by a government, especially social change. the 1.5 billion dollar marriage bill is an outrage against my ideals of government.

I got to you by clicking on one of the links on the right of your homepage. I discovered you by linking from Mark Steyn who had a reference to your post about Tolkien's letter to a German publishing firm. I liked what I saw of your commentary and one thing led to another.

My point about change is the change that is forced upon us from above. And by above I mean our legislators not by Jovian thunderbolts from the heavens. I am for minimum interference in personal lives by impersonal agencies who know what's best for everyone else. So in that regard I guess you and I are pretty much in agreement concering conservative issues. I would say you are much more of a libertarian than a conservative, but too many libertarians are as squishy on national security as the Democratic candidates for president.

In an ideal world we could have open borders but we do not live in an ideal world yet and I don't think we ever will. Human nature will see to that. Churchill once referred to Great Britain in the 1930s when they and the French were refusing to respond to the Nazi menace as "A great fat cow tethered in an open field ringed by woods filled with the ravenous yellow eyes of predators." I think that pretty well describes this country vis-a-vis terrorism prior to 9-11.

That's it for now as I have to be off to work. I'm sure I'll be tuning in for more in the future.

By the way, I'm one of the first of the Baby Boomersl, so I may not be typical for my generation.

Steve,

I have to just say what a joy it is when random (to me) people get to me and leave thoughtful commentary such as yours. I get a lot of random comments, but it is not thoughtful, and along the lines of "u suck, bitch!!!!!!! who do u think u are???????"

Uh ... I'm just me. Thanks.

Anyway, nice to meet you.

I grew up a raging Democrat for most of my life. I come from a huge family of Boston Irish, so you can imagine. But over the years - other views came into play - mostly from hearing stories my sister told of teaching little kids - and what's happened to the education system. Also - the complete and utter politicization of literature and the hijacking of humanities departments by idiots who want to redress grievances. The great literature is precious to me, and I think that it is a crime. I'm a female, but dammit, I love all those "dead white males" and we should not throw them out. I am militant about it. I also have been very interested in foreign policy, totalitarian regimes, and despotic governments. Through my reading, I began to see that "liberal" approaches were not always the best. To those stuck in Eastern Europe, Ronald Reagan (a bogey-man to me at the time) was a hero, because he actually called a spade a spade with the "evil empire" speech. This is difficult stuff - but it opened my mind. Then September 11 happened - and I witnessed the whole thing with my eyes - and my sister was missing (she worked down there - and she eventually turned up after walking 80 blocks to my cousin's house) - but with September 11 my conversion was complete.

I became a hawk. Not in a blood-lust kind of way - like the folks on Little Green Footballs - although I do read that site if I feel like getting pissed off and outraged - but in a "let justice be done" kind of way. These people cannot be allowed to bully us and kill us ANYMORE. I see it in quite apocalyptic terms: we are fighting for Western civilization to survive. We are fighting for our LIVES. I literally do not understand those who don't see it that way, when they have the evidence of Sept. 11 (and so many other incidents before that) in front of them.

So I don't know much about libertarians - I am uncomfortable with labeling myself. Maybe it's a commitment problem, I don't know.

I'm pro-choice, but anti-PBA. I think gays should be allowed to marry. I am anti-censorship of any kind. I'm an actress, and a writer - I cannot stand moral scolds. I cannot stand those who idealize the 1950s or earlier - and that we should 'go back' there. I come from a family with lots of women in it - and from their side of things - I would never want to go back. I feel much hostility towards those who are uncomfortable (still!!) with female liberation.

But I'll tell you - I would rather read the Wall Street Journal than the New York Times ... and that would have been unheard of for me before September 11.

Weird. I still haven't quite gotten used to this new self - and my friends are all horrified. They love me but they are horrified.

Always, in my mind's eyes, I see those burning towers and I remember that day. I remember George Bush shouting to the workers thru the megaphone. I love America, and I do not want to see it defeated. I love other countries, too, but I certainly love my own.

Nice meeting you too.

Home for lunch as I write this and so it will be short.

Going away for the weekend, but I'll check back in later to reveal my own political journey.

Regards,
Steve Wilson

send me a essay about "Republican Not Conservative"

Shah -

Huh? What do I look like - the Library of Congress?

Dear Sheila,

I would like to suggest using a different term than South Park Replucians. whenever I hear the term South Park, I always wonder who killed Kenny. I like to refer to my particular brand of politics as being a Liberal Republican.

Like the democrats, I am in favor of most public works programs but I temper it with the How are you going to pay for it aspect of the republcns.

Beware the Frumious Bandersnatch in all of it's guises though.

Personally, I am in favor of allowing most things as long as some simple rules are followed:

1) As long as all parties are consenting, who cares what sex the participants are. Just remember the following: Children and other animals are NEVER consenting.

2) Don't forget to stay on the green side of hte grass. Even when smoking it.

3) Life is too short, if you don't like what you are doing, do something else.

4) An hour spent reading to those who can't (your kids or someone else) makes up for a multitude of sins.

On January 10, 1963, the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled "Communist Goals for Taking Over America." It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed in that document.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

You can see the entire list on this web page - http://www.truthtrek.net/politics/takeover.htm

Now, I am not saying that the U.S. is under some kind of Communist control, (yet) but what I do find frightening, is of the 45 issues listed, nearly all of them have come to pass. Remember this was in January 1963.

In 1963 the news media showed women burning their bras as the women's liberation movement took off with the publishing of "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan. Martin Luther King was jailed in April and civil unrest was being brought to the forefront. On August 28th the media brought us live coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous "I had a dream" speech. The Cuban missile crisis found its way in to our homes and our nation was gearing up for conflict.

So you see, while long since forgotten, 1963 could very well have been, one of the most important years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States. Which brings me to one final and extremely important decision that was made during this most provocative year.

On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.

While American's have endured great prosperity over the past 40 years we have also lost our moral compass and direction. In reviewing the research, data supports 1963 as a focal point, demonstrating a downward slope in our moral and social decline through 2001. Ten years later abortion became the norm since that time America's Pro-Choice movement has been responsible for some 43 Million murders of innocent babies. Aborition kills more Americans each day (7 days a week) that the terrorist of 9-11.

Certainly, one would have to agree that all of these events have had a profound impact on the way our current social structure has been changed. Personally, if I had to choose one specific event that has demonstrated the demoralization of our country, it would have to be the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in June of 1963. Wake up people, Our future is our past!

Something I've never quite understood about "conservatives" is how they can equate a "strong" military with "small" government. Military spending isn't exactly peanuts! I also don't agree with America being the self-appointed World Policeman. This isn't necessarily just a left position. "Libertarians" and some conservatives agree with this as well. What was it that John Quincy Adams said? "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy". I also agree with Pat Buchanan that unlike Hitler, America's post-Cold War enemies are our enemies only because our government insisted on "butting in" so to speak. Even today, it seems like we can't fight some tyrants (like Saddam and the Taliban) without allying ourselves with others (like the Saudi royal family and Islam Karimov). In 5-7 years will we be going to war against them as well? Is America supposed to be a capitalist version of Bolshevik Russia: forcing the rest of the world to adopt our political and economic systems whether they want to or not?

Ed:

Small government? It means I don't want government in my personal life, interfering in my personal choices, I'm a fan of the IDEA of affirmative action, but I despise how it is being carried out - I am a fan of meritocracy. Not handouts. i don't think government should be involved in trying to level the playing field, make it fair for everybody (affirmative action, sexual policemen, blah blah - Jesus Christ, government has no business being involved at that micro-management level. People need to learn to take care of themselves.) -

Government shouldn't dictate to us what we can read, what we should read, they shouldn't dictate who can marry whom, they shouldn't scold me for how I live my life, they should butt the hell out of private life. I hate "big government", in that respect. I resent it.

Big government comes on BOTH sides of the political fence. There are those liberals who want a nice cozy happy-ever-after land for everyone, and as far as I'm concerned, these people have their heads up their asses and have no understanding of human nature, politics, or reality.

Then there are those conservatives who probably lie awake at night WORRYING over the fact that I have a vibrator. They don't want me to have a vibrator! They don't approve!! They want to control me, and my life.

Well, those big-government conservatives (who want to ban books, who want to dictate who can read what in high school) are just as bad.

But damned if I want a "small military". I believe the government should be strong as a lion when protecting the interests and safety of this nation as a whole.

This is the essence of conservatism, I guess. I'm a hard-core conservative in that respect. But I'm also an artist, an actress, and kind of a bohemian wild-child. I don't fit in anywhere. :)

Fitting in is over-rated.

Oh, and about your comparison to Bolshevik Russia:

If our "capitalist" system is so horrific then why do we have such an enormous ongoing influx of immigrants? Did people emigrate to Bolshevik Russia in DROVES, wanting to be a part of that great (stupid) experiment?

No. But people flock to this country. I assume because, at this moment in history, capitalism (while cruel, and at times unfair) also gives everyone an equal shot at success.

This goes back to the meritocracy thing.

I come from immigrant stock who came here with nothing and made successes of themselves, and assimilated. People come here with the hopes that they will also get to cash in on the American Dream ... This is a beautiful thing. Yes, a cruel thing, because it's not a level playing field - but anyone who believe in the utopia of a level playing field is not dealing with the reality of different abilities, different levels of motivation and ambition.

People bitch and moan aboutr America's influence and yet they die to get their asses here. They want a piece of that pie too.

If people want to come here that's fine. I'm still not convinced why this obligates us to dictate to others how to run their countries. It has nothing to do with human rights either. For every tyrant we oppose, we're friends with one or two others. We roll out the red carpet for Cubans but throw back Colombians and Haitians. I guess my comparison to BR came from this poster I saw that depicted Lenin with a broom sweeping away, well, everyone who didn't fit his new social order. It seems we've become the same way, becoming more aggressive since the end of the cold war. Yes people are jammed at our gates wanting to get in. But numerous as they are, they're just a minority of whatever population they're coming from. We shouldn't assume that these pro-American migrants are accurate representatives of world opinion.

That's another thing: what exactly is our "national interest"? It seems the one field of politics that people should suspect the government the most is foreign policy. Domestic social policy is one thing, because we all live here, we know what's going on. But overseas? We don't live in Iraq, or Palestine, or whereever else and we usually don't know their languages either. What do we know what's being done in our name? It just seems so Orwellian that since we've renamed our Dept. of War the Dept. of Defense, we've been pretty much waging war overseas. "Conservative" politicians constantly slash domestic "social" programs, yet manage to scrouge up $87 billion to "rebuild" Iraq! Is this what they mean by "compassionate conservatism", the govt. can lend a hand only when it involves shooting people and blowing things up? "Conservatives" don't want to spend taxmoney on people who "won't" find a job but they'll spend taxmoney on people who "won't" fight to free themselves? It doesn't make any sense! That's what I admire about the "libertarians", they're more consistent in their ideology.

I don't know what to call myself politically either. But I hate the idea that the govt. should "get off our backs" and yet go tramping around the globe getting involved in other people's fights!

I define national interest as our right to not have fucking freaks drive planes into our buildings and kill 3000 innocent people. That's just one example.

I'm one of those types who hated the term "compassionate conservative" because i actually felt it was redundant.

I agree a lot with what you are saying. But I think when people refer to 'big government' they are referring to getting the government out of their wallets, rather than out of their bedrooms. Yet the people that are against big government seem to be all for telling you that you can't have a vibrator, that gay people are bad, etc. This is one of my issues with people clamoring against big gov't. That they clamor about getting the government out of people's lives. (in other words, cut taxes). And at the same time are telling you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home. I really don't think western civilization is going to fall because Hugh provided the fuel for my adolescent fantasies or because we are becoming more accepting of gay people.

The point you made about 'meritocracy' is exactly correct, capitalism is the glue that holds our society together. Its not our 'moral values', and it shouldn't be. The whole gay marriage debate just shows how much moral values in our society vary. Is this really something on which we should base a political ideology?

I take issue with the term compassionate conservative, not because its redundant, just the opposite, because its a contradiction. Today's conservatives are promoting the defense against marriage act, they are telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of there own homes. And I fail to see the compassion in telling gay people that they are of less worth to society than straight people.

"Today's conservatives", you say.

Careful. Careful. There are as many shades of conservatism as there are liberalism. Most of the conservatives I know think the FMA is a load of bollocks, and a terrible idea. Because it moves into the realm of BIG government, and we want government to be SMALL.

That's why many of us have problems with Bush's fiscal policies and domestic policies. This is the biggest 'small government' we've seen in a while.

I find a meritocracy to be far more compassionate than the victim-politics bullshit our society is pretty much drowning in right now. To me - backing off and seeing if people sink or swim on their own is far more compassionate, even though it's a tougher lesson.

About gay marriage:

A lot of gays I know will be single-issue voters in this next election. It's all about gay marriage. And that's fine! That's completely understandable, actually.

But I will also be a single-issue voter this fall - and my vote has to do with foreign policy and the war on terror. That is my main concern, my main issue - and where I am mostly in line with conservative ideology. So that's what I'm voting on.

I understand why my gay friends think the other thing takes priority - but I'm sorry - I have to vote my own conscience. And to me, our national security is far more important at this particular moment in time.

In reading all of this over, I guess I'm mostly a libertarian - except for my hawk attitude.

I don't like labels ... but that's basically what it boils down to.

Government should stay the hell out of everyday life choices - and yet it should defend our territory to the fullest.

Saw a poster on the sidewalk the other day that called for a "guaranteed housing constitutional amendment". Jesus Christ. That's the brand of liberalism that makes me crazy. A constitutional amendment?? For housing? Jesus. Let's just have government hold our hands from the cradle to the grave then!

Oh, and I agree with you about the whole "moral values" thing. I don't want "morals" in our constitution. John Adams said, over and over, that America needed to be a "rule of laws, not rule of men". Men are fallible, power-hungry - and mores change from generation to generation. But laws? Put into place thru checks and balances? We can count on those to endure.

I agree with you about letting people sink or swim. People don't learn how to survive unless they have to.

I guess to put it in general terms, my thought is that the government's job is to ensure the future of america. (Not americans, mind you). In other words I have no problem with spending on education and defense because for our country to stay strong we need to dominate in technology and defense. And one of the above posts mentioned ensuring interstate commerce as a role for the government. Again, without capitalism this country is going no where.

The whole idea of a constitutional amendment for guaranteed housing is appalling.

By the way, when I said 'todays conservatives' I didn't mean everyone, I was more referring to the generic perception of what conservatives believe. (which is of course biased due to the media).

I don't really label myself as anything. I find that my personal values are more in line with the liberal democrat. Though, like you I am more of a hawk than most. And I am also pro-business. The thing I don't understand about the republican party now is that even though they always say they are against big gov't. They seem totally content to increase spending and increase the deficit. And thats been the last three republican presidents, not just Dubya. I am all for lowering taxes, but damnit, do it responsibly.

I don't know if you have read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. But I think it would really appeal to you.

I appreciate that you are voting based on the issue of the war on terror. But I do question whether Bush is the right choice for the issue. I believe we made several tactical mistakes in the war and that we need new leadership to remedy the situation. These are the mistakes as I perceive them:
1. IRAQ. (yeah, the whole war in iraq, mistake).
2. Pre-emption. While I agree with this in principle, the cavalier attitude of this administration is going to cost us the war on terror. While I do think that if we see a reason to attack then we should, we also need to get the support of key allies. And not the half-assed support we have gotten from every country except Britain. The war on terror is not something we can win without support.
3. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. - We should not be calling it a WAR if we are not going to give the opposing fighters the basic level of treatment dictated in the Geneva Conventions. Torturing the prisoners and denying access to the Red Cross makes us little better than Saddam, and in my opionion, is dangerous for our soldiers.

Well, again, most conservatives I know are completely disgusted with the big-government spending of the Bush administration. I'll be voting for Bush, mainly because I'll be DAMNED if I'm gonna vote for Kerry.

I disagree with you about the war in Iraq. What troubles me is your assumption (and maybe I've got it wrong - after all I don't know you!!) that any sane person MUST agree with you.

And I agree that Abu Gharib was a disaster from which it will not be easy to overcome. We need to be better, we need to be more vigilant about stuff like that. I'd like to be locked in a room with that bitch in the photos. I'd kick her teeth in. Heh.

I also am disheartened by the lack of support. I have friends and cousins in the military, who are over in Iraq - and it is amazing the stories they tell. It's shit the media isn't reporting, I can tell you that.

And about politics - remember how Clinton practiced triangulation like nobody's business, co-opting Republican talking points so that Republicans were left without issues. Welfare reform, etc. Republicans went berserk while Clinton was in office. The same thing is true with Bush. He has co-opted so many of the Democrats issues, and seems to be speaking in the language normally reserved for liberals (human rights, money for AIDS research, there are countless examples) - that that is why (to me) the Democrats seem like whiny little bawling babies right now. They can't "own" any of those issues anymore.

Speaking of which, I pretty much hate politics - at least as it is practiced now.

I'm a huge reader of history, and the American Revolution (and its aftermath) is one of my passions. I read about all those guys, and I look at the choices we have now, and I feel despair.

I'm a big John McCain fan, if that gives you any idea. I don't agree with him on all the issues - I'm pro-choice, for example - but damn, he doesn't seem like a career politician. There's nothing I despise more than a career politician.

Ever see the movie Election? It's kind of a brilliant satire about politics.

Oh and by the way:

-- Thanks for your generous comments. It's nice to talk with people about such issues, even with disagreement. Actually, especially with disagreement!!

I definitely do NOT assume that any sane person would agree with me. I am way too disagreeable for that ever to happen. And life would be dull if they did. Sorry to give you that impression!

I didn't want to go into detail about why I think the war in IRAQ was a mistake, mainly because there has been enough discussion about it in the media. And it has gotten overly politicized. My reasons are simple: lack of justification (where are the WMD?), lack of evidence (faulty intelligence? or biased analysis?), and lack of international support (Screw the french, we're americans). I also think its just the wrong war. We don't know how to fight a war against something that is not a country. So we attached a country to the war in order to give the enemy a face Joe Public can understand and hate directly. We selected a country that was strategically convenient. Having a free Iraq will be a huge benefit for us (as long as we don't leave too soon, or screw it up in other ways). But I still don't see it as a haven for terrorists, much less a state sponsor of terrorists.

My two favorite politicians are John McCain and Joseph Biden. Neither act like politicians, they say what they think and don't give a damn what others think about them.

I like Biden, too. He seems to see that his job is actually a public-service job - I very much appreciate that.