I've considered myself "conservative" since the Reagan years (and I'm still a pretty young guy).  I've NEVER considered myself a "liberal" (at least in the modern form of the term) NEVER voted "democrat" and absolutely abhor "democracy" for what it is...mob rule where 51% can vote away the rights and wealth of the other 49%.  I am vehemantly opposed to communism, socialism, and any other form of authoritarian collectivism in any of their forms.
That being said, I'm a little disolutioned over the current definition of "conservative" versus what originally had me defining myself as such...   SO, I'm interested to see what beliefs and ideals people here hold that defines them as "conservative".

Let's try some of these but they are not all inclusive or in any order of importance:

*Less Government
*Less Spending
*Less Taxation
*Personal Responsibility
*Integrity
*Strong Defense
*Free Enterprise
*Freedoms designated by the Constitution = speech, religion, guns, etc
*I would like to say Christianity is in there but I don't because there are people of other religions and
             people of no religion who are staunch conservatives.  The freedom of religion not from religion
             is what is important.
*Patriotism for a free U.S.
*Sovereignty of our Republic as an ideology; no globalism and no socialistic democracy
*Enforcement of existing immigration laws; secure border first
*Constitutional separation of powers; no legislation from the bench

Sounds good!   Anyone else?

I think the issue that you might find most relevant, and what distinguishes conservatives from modern libertarians and Ron Paul-ites, is support for the War on Terror.

This has two components:
1. Strong National defense, even if it involves overseas military action or preemtive action; and
2. a realization that Islamo-Fascism is a real, not imaginary, threat -- not only to our freedoms and the freedoms of people world-wide, but also a very real and legitimate present threat to our very lives and the lives of our loved ones, friends, and fellow Americans.

I think that if you believe that Iran, say, could never possibly pose a threat to American lives within America, nor any threat to our National security, then you're probably not a conservative -- and you probably also suffer from delusional schizophrenia.

SoldiersMum did a GREAT job of identifying the major tenets of conservatism.  I understand her reservation about including Christianity, but I think it's fair to include Judeo-Christian values as a tenet of Conservatism.

The idea that are moral absolutes - a real right and wrong - that we are 'one nation under GOD' - these are certainly conservative ideals upon which our nation was built and prospered.

The zeal with which the ACLU and other 'left wingers' has tirelessly worked to remove all standards of moral absolutes - and basic Judeo-Christian religious values is appalling to me.  Their unrelenting attack on removing all forms of religion from the public square, has been way over the top.  Removing 'God', along with Judeo-Christian values from the public square was no small factor in the demise of the USSR, and it will certainly not be a plus for the future of the USA.

I'm not advocating 'shoving Christianity down people's throat'.  I don't think that has ever been a problem in our country.   However, we are creating a generation of young people without ANY moral absolutes.  

Is it just me?   Is anyone else just a little alarmed  to hear a president use as a defense that 'it all depends on how you define the word "is"'?

Eyas wrote:I think the issue that you might find most relevant, and what distinguishes conservatives from modern libertarians and Ron Paul-ites, is support for the War on Terror.

This has two components:
1. Strong National defense, even if it involves overseas military action or preemtive action; and
2. a realization that Islamo-Fascism is a real, not imaginary, threat -- not only to our freedoms and the freedoms of people world-wide, but also a very real and legitimate present threat to our very lives and the lives of our loved ones, friends, and fellow Americans.

I think that if you believe that Iran, say, could never possibly pose a threat to American lives within America, nor any threat to our National security, then you're probably not a conservative -- and you probably also suffer from delusional schizophrenia.

Are you kidding me?

Watch what we can do to this quote by changing a couple words:

I think the issue that you might find most relevant, and what distinguishes conservatives from modern insert provocative namecalling here.

This has two components:
1. Strong National defense, even if it involves overseas military action or preemtive action; and
2. a realization that Communism is a real, not imaginary, threat -- not only to our freedoms and the freedoms of people world-wide, but also a very real and legitimate present threat to our very lives and the lives of our loved ones, friends, and fellow Americans.

I think that if you believe that Vietnam/North Korea could never possibly pose a threat to American lives within America, nor any threat to our National security, then you're probably not a conservative -- and you probably also suffer from delusional schizophrenia.


Yep, and anyone who disagrees with neverending war is a traitor!   We have to fight them over there because we can't fight them here and the "domino effect" and such.

Or we can do it this way:

I think the issue that you might find most relevant, and what distinguishes Nazis from modern Communists and Jews, is support for the War on your freedom and whatever country is in our way.

This has two components:
1. Strong National defense, even if it involves overseas military action or preemtive action (We need to annex Poland/Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia because the communists attacked our Reichstag); and
2. a realization that Communism and a Jewish conspiracy is a real, not imaginary, threat -- not only to our freedoms and the freedoms of people world-wide, but also a very real and legitimate present threat to our very lives and the lives of our loved ones, friends, and fellow Americans.

I think that if you believe that Poland, the Sudetenland, and Czechoslovakia, say, could never possibly pose a threat to German lives within The Reich, nor any threat to our Fatherland security, then you're probably not a conservative -- and you probably also suffer from delusional schizophrenia.



Seriously, this looks like a Hitler sales pitch.   If all your political ideology is based on neverending pre-emptive wars and mindless fear an biggotry, you are probably NOT a conservative by classic definition.

The Great Owl wrote:

Eyas wrote:I think the issue that you might find most relevant, and what distinguishes conservatives from modern libertarians and Ron Paul-ites, is support for the War on Terror.

This has two components:
1. Strong National defense, even if it involves overseas military action or preemtive action; and
2. a realization that Islamo-Fascism is a real, not imaginary, threat -- not only to our freedoms and the freedoms of people world-wide, but also a very real and legitimate present threat to our very lives and the lives of our loved ones, friends, and fellow Americans.

I think that if you believe that Iran, say, could never possibly pose a threat to American lives within America, nor any threat to our National security, then you're probably not a conservative -- and you probably also suffer from delusional schizophrenia.

Are you kidding me?

Watch what we can do to this quote by changing a couple words:

I think the issue that you might find most relevant, and what distinguishes conservatives from modern insert provocative namecalling here.

This has two components:
1. Strong National defense, even if it involves overseas military action or preemtive action; and
2. a realization that Communism is a real, not imaginary, threat -- not only to our freedoms and the freedoms of people world-wide, but also a very real and legitimate present threat to our very lives and the lives of our loved ones, friends, and fellow Americans.

I think that if you believe that Vietnam/North Korea could never possibly pose a threat to American lives within America, nor any threat to our National security, then you're probably not a conservative -- and you probably also suffer from delusional schizophrenia.


Yep, and anyone who disagrees with neverending war is a traitor!   We have to fight them over there because we can't fight them here and the "domino effect" and such.

Or we can do it this way:

I think the issue that you might find most relevant, and what distinguishes Nazis from modern Communists and Jews, is support for the War on your freedom and whatever country is in our way.

This has two components:
1. Strong National defense, even if it involves overseas military action or preemtive action (We need to annex Poland/Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia because the communists attacked our Reichstag); and
2. a realization that Communism and a Jewish conspiracy is a real, not imaginary, threat -- not only to our freedoms and the freedoms of people world-wide, but also a very real and legitimate present threat to our very lives and the lives of our loved ones, friends, and fellow Americans.

I think that if you believe that Poland, the Sudetenland, and Czechoslovakia, say, could never possibly pose a threat to German lives within The Reich, nor any threat to our Fatherland security, then you're probably not a conservative -- and you probably also suffer from delusional schizophrenia.



Seriously, this looks like a Hitler sales pitch.   If all your political ideology is based on neverending pre-emptive wars and mindless fear an biggotry, you are probably NOT a conservative by classic definition.

1. You consider the term Islamo-Fascism to be provocative namecalling.  Despite the clear Fascist nature of Radical Islam - AS DEFINED BY RADICAL ISLAMISTS.
2. I agree with your second re-phrasing replacing Islamo-Fascism with Communism.  I did, and still do, consider communism to be grave threat to America and to free peoples everywhere.  However, in that particular case it would be more appropriate to distinguish the threats by Korea and Vietnam  by specifying the Communist (Chinese & Soviet) backed North.  You feel that Communism posed no threat to the people in these places, I think that the populace of N. Korea, and millions of dead Cambodians might disagree with you.
3. You've compared my ideology to that of the Nazis
      a. first, by incorrectly suggesting that I am promoting pre-emptive war against any and every nation in the world; and comparing my suggestion that we defend America and Americans with the Nazi quest of Global Domination.  This, despite the clear avowed goal of Global Domination of Radical Islam.
      b. second, by comparing my identification of an actual threat posed by Radical Islam - backed by previous acts and experience, with the clearly erroneous identification of Jews as a threat to Germany.  Your argument actually lends credence to the NAZI ideology by suggesting that the Jews were an actual threat to Germany.
      c. thirdly, I'm not sure if you are aware that the NAZI Party was a SOCIALIST party.
      d. fourthly, You compare Germany's invasion and annexation of neighboring nations in their quest for Global Domination to pre-emptive war by America against Terror-supporting regimes.  Thus, you again lend credence to the NAZI ideology & goal of global domination by suggesting - falsely - that Poland, the Sudetenland, or Czechoslovakia had actually attacked Germany.

You compare me to Hitler, suggesting that I seek the global domination and the genocide of an entire race or religion.  The only problem is that Islamo-Fascists such as Iranian Pres. Ahmedinejad have the stated goal of pushing Israel into the sea, annihilating all Jews, and forcibly converting the ENTIRE WORLD to Islam.  Furthermore, even a cursory examination of the Muslim faith will show that:
a. it is a legal and political ideology in addition to being a religious faith, AND
b. it has, as its avowed goal, the forcible conversion of EVERYONE on Earth, as succinctly stated in the Hadith "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

America and its allies have been repeatedly attacked by Muslim Terrorists.  Germany was never attacked by Poland, Czechoslovakia, or the Sudetenland.  

There are nations which have routinely supported or provided safe-haven for terrorist organizations which actively seek the destruction of the United States and its allies.  I'm pretty sure the same could not be said of 1930's France.

Your understanding of History is faulty.  Your identification of what is or is not a justified motive for national defense is confused.  You seem to equate all wars as evil and unjustified, even those conducted in defense against overt agression.  

You are clearly an advocate of MORAL RELEVANCE which is really nothing more than a lame excuse for amorality, and immorality.

Your arguments are patently absurd and your comparisons are bogus and childish.  

First, I advise that you try to decide if there is such a thing as right and wrong, and THEN try to figure out which side you're on.

If he has to determine the existence of Right and Wrong, he has already picked a side.

I agree fully with Soldiers Mum's list defining "conservative values". But a would add more. I think there should be no law allowing abortion on demand, but only to protect the life of the mother. I also believe there should never be a law allowing gay marriage. Period. And, I believe there ought to be a law preventing deficit spending except in a real emergency. I think if we are fighting a war that is based on very sound and rational decisions, then we need to cut out other government spending in order to pay for it. And, I think we have a right to expect free oil or low priced oil from Iraq in order to pay us back for the enormous spending in this war. We got Saddam Hussein off their backs, so why shouldn't they sell us oil cheap to help us regain what we have spent in this war.. We will wind up rebuilding everything in their country, even the things Saddam let go to the dogs, and we won't get a thing in return.

There are conservative values but more importantly there are conservative principles.  If you were to ask a room full of truly conservative people to make lists of conservative values every person's list would be slightly different.  And that is because it is a conservative principle to allow people to believe what they choose to believe.  Unlike liberals we don't mind if people have different views and even different values.  

I know good conservatives that disagree with me on many specific issues.  But on core principles we agree very closely.  That is why some conservatives support the "Fair Tax" and others support the "Flat Tax."  But the underlying principle is that the money people earn belongs to the people who earn it and not the government.  Liberals on the other hand disagree with the specific issue and underlying principle.  Liberals believe that the money you earn belongs to the government and they graciously allow you to keep a small portion of it until they can find a "progressive" tax that allows them to confiscate all your earnings.  

So what are our conservative principles?