It used to be that people joined the Republican party because they were conservative, and wanted to associate themselves with like minded individuals who share the same world view. It wasn’t so long ago that people were Republicans because they were conservative. Nowadays though, it seems that people believe they are conservative, merely because they associate themselves with the Republican Party. Conservative, in the political sense, is now decided by the actions of Republican leadership, and not by the literal definition of the word. Under this new idea of what defines conservatism, wouldn’t the GOP still be ‘conservative’ if they had sponsored the SCHIP legislation? Wouldn’t that then make SCHIP in itself conservative? After all, the Republican party is nearly unanimously sponsoring the expansion of U.S. might abroad, nation building, and the restriction of civil liberties for the interests of security. Why don’t we just jump right on the universal health care bandwagon as well?

Taking the occupation of Iraq as an example, literal definition dictates it is not a conservative thing to be doing. Yet many Republicans postulate that it is in fact conservative because Republicans are behind it. Republicans want ‘victory’ and ‘to win’. Do any ‘conservatives’ realize that ‘victory in Iraq means the Republican Party has completed a successful nation building exercise? Do they not see that ‘winning’ means the Republican party has spent a fortune to support and defend the government of Iraq and not the Constitution of the United States? The U.S. doesn’t even have the cash on hand to cover the fortune spent, so now it’s ‘conservative’ to borrow and print money? The military leaders in charge of this operation cannot say for sure if this occupation will lead to a better and safer United States. Does that mean it is now conservative to invest this kind of money, debt, and lives into something that might someday yield some sort of result? The occupation of Iraq should not be something that defines conservatism, yet it is quickly becoming so. Conservatism would be to take the money we do have on hand and use it on operations that are much more likely to yield a return on investment. A conservative would use the money to strengthen this country’s defenses, not Iraq’s.

This ‘War on Terror’ business is another prime example. There are many published, peer reviewed works, including our own 9/11 Commission Report, that conclude our enemies are motivated to attack us for political reasons. The Republican party disagrees and continues to believe that the cause is religious or ideological. When did it become conservative to dismiss researched facts and charge forward on emotion, belief, and gut feelings? I’m sure to the Al Qaeda foot soldier, religion and ideology are a huge motivating factor. However, the further up in their chain of command you go, the more their motivation shifts toward the political. All that being said, extending the might of U.S. military influence abroad for any action other than supporting and defending the Constitution is not, and never has been, a conservative thing to do. It should matter very little to us, one way or the other, why our enemies attack us. The Republican platform promotes a humble, non-aggressive, and profitable foreign policy. We should stick to it.

The conjecture regarding the cause of our enemy’s motivation is not nearly as important as what the Republican party has done about it. Why are the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the expanded powers of the executive a ‘conservative’ rally point? When did it become conservative to trade a single thread of liberty for an entire blanket of security? Will conservatives next ban swimming pools to keep kids from drowning, or automobiles to keep drunk drivers off the road? How long will it be before it is ‘conservative’ to trample the 2nd Amendment and refuse a man the right to defend himself? A conservative should abhor the thought of a man imprisoned without regard for Rights of the Accused or due process of law. Conservative individuals should leave no room in their mind set for unwarranted searches and seizures. The conservative thing to do would be to uphold the intent of the Constitution no matter the cost.

By very definition of the word, our Republican party is not acting at all conservative. Yet those within the party who advocate the expansion of government, increased spending, and the end of individual liberties are still being heralded as conservatives. Republicans must now decide; Do we alter the dictionary definition of conservative, or do we alter the direction of our party?
digg_url = \’http://digg.com/political_opinion/Defining_Conservative\’;

Popularity: 1% [?]