The Republican Party was formed in the 1850’s. The term “Republican” was chosen in part due to its meaning of “equality.” The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. Republicans then worked to pass amendments to our constitution which further solidified equality amongst our citizens including the abolition of slavery and the right to vote for both woman and African-Americans. In fact, it was a Republican who was elected the first woman in Congress.
The number one Republican party principle states: “I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.” Number two is “I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.” (www.gop.com)
McCain has been labeled anti-conservative because he championed campaign finance reform. Since when does wanting special interests to stop buying elections mean you are not a Republican? I experienced this first hand while running for Mayor of Eagle. The Ada County Association of Realtors (ACAR), one of the largest political action committees in Idaho, spent tens of thousands of dollars, violated campaign disclosure laws and engaged in a smear campaign against me in their effort to get Phil Bandy elected. The ACAR paid thousands of dollars for a phone poll that spread lies about me, and Phil Bandy jumped on their bandwagon and continued to spread those lies. Yet, this is who was elected Mayor of our city. But I’m getting distracted. This particular blog entry is not about dirty politics. It’s about the definition of the Republican party. And I don’t see where in our Republican principles it states that in order to be a Republican you have to agree to let special interest groups elect all of our representatives.
Other evidence that some are claiming to prove McCain is not a true conservative is that he promoted a bill to cut back on our emissions of greenhouse gases, which is part of an effort to cut back on our use of foreign oil. How is this anti-conservative? Is the desire to protect our environment anti-Republican? Is the desire to stop the dependence on oil from
So what is the definition of conservative?
Neo conservatives desire a strong, assertive foreign policy. Classical conservatives are opposed to sudden change in government. Cultural conservatives desire the preservation of our heritage.
Ideological conservatives are what are known as right-wing conservatives. This is further divided into social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and economic liberalism. Social conservatives do not desire a change in social issues; women in the military for instance. There is a sub-set of this, religious conservatives, who desire to preserve the teachings of certain religions, and some even want those teachings turned into law. If states don’t follow their moral beliefs they lobby the federal government to pass federal laws in order to protect them. Fiscal conservatives desire prudence in government spending and a balanced budget. Economic liberalism promotes less government interference in our markets.
However this right-wing ideology is not the party of
The next time you hear anyone claiming that any particular Republican is not conservative enough, I encourage you to ask him or her the definition of conservative. And then remind that person what it means to be a Republican, and an American.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Earl Larson // Feb 10, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I don’t disagree with you. People do get sort of mixed up on the usage of different terms. I may be wrong but I view liberals as those people that want the government to control every aspect of my life, therefore they take every little control they can get.
I am sorry for your loss. But do you want the government to regulate Who can give how much and when?
So McCain wants to protect the environment? Good! Me too. If he helps the government impose constricting regulations on our industries, maybe he will win a Nobel Peace Prize. Or did you say that it was because he wanted to cut our dependence on foreign oil? I think I missed the part where he was trying to get the ANWR opened for drilling. Oh but that would not only stop a new government control, but it would also loosen another.
I don’t disagree that we sometimes get our labels mixed up. But I assure you that my reason for not backing McCain has absolutely nothing to do with a “label”.
2 mtm // Feb 11, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I believe an honest and straight forward discussion and use of the term conservative to describe today’s Republican is long overdue. These words have been so effectively distorted and redefined by the far right of the Republican Party and media that the real meaning has been lost to the average American. Republicans of 10-15 years ago are at a loss to understand what is happening to the Grand Old Party. The questions asked in this blog – what defines a conservative and a Republican are avoided in the response from Earl Larson. Instead of addressing issues associated with protecting the environment this individual goes off on a political tangent belittling a Nobel Peace Prize won by a member of the Democratic Party. I would like to see conservative Republicans of this ilk discuss positive actions they think can be taken to protect the world for our children, grandchildren and mankind in general. The same tactic is used to avoid a serious discussion on reducing our countries dependence on foreign oil. To think anyone would reduce this problem to one issue, opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, is mind boggling.
The word “liberal” has been given such a negative meaning by the far right and fundamentalist of the Republican Party that it too has lost its real meaning. There was a day when respected and loyal Republicans defined themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals. I find it difficult to understand how an individual that defines this word as - “those people that want the government to control every aspect of my life, therefore they take every little control they can get - reconciles their belief of Government control in so many other aspects of an individual’s private life but that’s getting political and that’s not the intent of this discussion.
Finally, I hope this blog remains a forum for honest and positive debate and discussion on the very real issues facing our country and our communities. Although, your article concentrates on what it means to be a conservative Republican I am hopeful the era of politics of division is coming to an end and Americans of all political persuasions will join in and an honest to goodness old fashioned discussion will take place. One can only hope!
3 Earl Larson // Feb 14, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I suppose you are right MTM. I took it that Saundra McDavid was wondering why people were saying McCain was not conservative. So I stated why.
Now, for the issues you questioned. I did not belittle any Nobel peace prize winner nor the prize itself. I merely mentioned the award. There are many ways to receive it.
Second, my wife’s parents have about two acres of gardens, drink goats milk, eat the chicken and goat meat they raise and they drink well water. I think you would agree that these actions reduce there dependence on others for food. Why wouldn’t using our country’s own oil reduce our dependence on foreign oil? And I must agree with you that I didn’t go into my whole view on the subject since I was trying to stay on point(which I guess I missed anyway). But if you must know, I do support alternative forms of energy. A hydrogen powered vehicle for example would be outstanding.
Third, I must have been a little vague when I said sure I may have the definition a little wrong. but I do know that the terms Liberal and Conservative are completely relative. So even if I gave a dictionary definition of either, and placed anyone at all into that category, I could not be 100% right. I may be very conservative on one subject but to a more conservative person I may seem liberal. But that could be just one subject.
As Far as my feeling of the definition of liberal goes, you must have missed my point and the point of the article. First of all liberal has many definitions, most of which are good. But the one commonly thought of when referring to politics, is one who supports change. These are usually people who support government programs and more social programs. (This usually at the expense of the wealthy) There is nothing the government gives away for free.
So what about Conservatives? Well, they are more like old Fuddy Duddies. They like less change and they believe that the constitution should be upheld. They believe in a hard earned dollar and the harder you work the more dollars you should be able to get. Likewise, you should get nothing for free. They believe in all the old fashioned stuff.
So how did I get my definition that I stated? (If you are cleaver you can fallow me. I am an abstract thinker and a worse writer. ) First I am not calling anyone any thing I am merely conveying Ideas. Our founding fathers were big time Liberals. In a drastic way, they went against the prevailing view of how a government should work. But that was the original government we had. Therefor if you cling to it you are no longer liberal but conservative. Second, social programs are a big thing the liberals want to create. There have been a few leaders that have created social programs that meet the actual definition of liberal. One became the leader of Germany and totally rebuilt it in a great way becoming Time Magazines man of the year. (I guess just because you win an award doesn’t make you a great guy) Russia had a few guys that wanted to make change and did while enacting social programs. But we all know what happened in the end. The same thing that is happening now. The government eventually took all control and now people are trying to escape those countries. But like I said it’s all relative. I am against the conservative Muslims that want to impose control the population of their governments even down to the clothes they wear.
So am I against Liberals or Conservatives? Well I guess it’s relative. Oh and as for the coming together and all the holding hands and singing stuff, all those liberals I talked about believed in that too, because they were smooth talkers.
4 Earl Larson // Feb 15, 2008 at 6:29 am
I just reread my comment and I left something out. The country will go down the toilet if people stop having apposing views. I am not saying they have to bicker about them, but that is sort of inevitable. If there are not opposing views, our country will not advance. If everyone were behind change, we would have nothing to keep the government in check. We would end up with all sorts of social programs and the only way to support them would be to take everyones money and make it common government property.(socialism, communism) If there were no liberals then we would be less likely to search for lets say alternative forms of energy.
I wish we would unite on some issues that just make common sense, but the devision for the most part is a good and healthy thing.
Leave a Comment