Posts Tagged 'Democrats'

Ten Conservative Principals

From time to time I believe we need to re-visit the roots and foundations of Conservatism especially today as we are engaged in this great battle with modern progressives who seek to transform our form of government,a Representative Republic into another form of government.
And not just for those new to Conservatism but for those of us who have long been engaged in the battle. We need to be able in the battle of ideas to articulate the principals of conservatism that is the foundation and springboard of our activism.

Russell Kirk is considered one of the pioneers of modern Conservatism His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the conservative movement, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. Kirk was also considered the chief proponent of traditionalist conservatism.

The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal is a nonprofit educational institute based in Mecosta, Michigan, home of the American writer and thinker Russell Kirk (1918–1994).

Ten Conservative Principles

by Russell Kirk

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims. In various editions of my book The Conservative Mind I have listed certain canons of conservative thought—the list differing somewhat from edition to edition; in my anthology The Portable Conservative Reader I offer variations upon this theme. Now I present to you a summary of conservative assumptions differing somewhat from my canons in those two books of mine. In fine, the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology. What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era. The following ten articles of belief reflect the emphases of conservatives in America nowadays.

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.
Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk.

By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act.

To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.

Adapted from The Politics of Prudence (ISI Books, 1993). Copyright © 1993 by Russell Kirk.

Additional reading from Russell Kirk

Advertisements

AFTER ACTION REPORT: LIBERALS GONE WILD!

The most egregious action was before I could whip out my trusty Flip camera. However, the pudgy man, Erin Fox, in the extreme close up (sorry) is a usual suspect, “community organizer” and MoveOn.org operative

I have encountered him at other actions and his modus operanti is always the same, trying to get in your face to disturb and/or name calling. Although his physical intimidation is getting more aggressive as he realizes that his “religion” the Health Care bill is in big trouble.

The young man with the dark hair that I point out as another “usual suspect” is either a MoveOn.org operative or works for the Democrat party. I recently had another “close encounter” with him at the Sanctity of Life Rally January 22 at our state Capitol, where he was counter-protesting life in favor of abortion.

We had formed a line in front of the counter-protesters and so our backs were turned to them, (not really a good idea when dealing with progressives). His tactic was to come from behind and lean in as close as possible without actually touching to yell things like, “Keep your rosary off my body” (odd coming from a man?) and “pro-family, pro-life”. He can be seen carrying the sign “Keep Abortion Legal” while clutching his upscale brand coffee I am sure Biggy’s is grateful for the pro-abortion “advertising”

See video below of Sanctity of Life counter-protest by these usual suspects

What is really disturbing about this is how militant against life these people are at such a young age. Hearts hardened and conscience seared. However when we realize that these young people have known nothing but legalized abortion in this country, the acceptance of what is “legalized murder” is sadly understandable. Seeing and knowing this, we must consider giving greater time and energy to the pro-life movement. Its a historical facts history that when any civilization no matter how great loses its moral underpinnings then that civilization falls.

The upshot of all of this is that if progressives do not respect life, how can they be expected to respect free speech? Obviously answer, they can’t and they don’t

America Rising

Grassroots in Michigan.com

Dems Refuse GOP Efforts to Strip Bribes From Health Care Bill

Gateway Pundit

December 23, 2009 Jim Hoft

Senator Mike Johanns asked consent today to strike the special carve-outs from the Senate health care bill. Democrats immediately objected, thwarting the effort.

“There should be no special deals, no carve-outs for anyone in this health care bill; not for states, not for insurance companies, not for individual senators.

“All of the special deals should be removed. If the bill cannot pass without carve-outs, what further evidence is needed that it is bad policy? No senator should vote for the final cloture vote until all of the carve-outs and special deals are removed.

“Nebraskans don’t want a special deal, they want good policy. They don’t believe the Federal Government is the answer to every problem and they don’t like backroom deals.”

Below is a sample of special deals he offered to strike:

** Eliminating or reducing the Medicaid unfunded mandate on Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts (starting on page 96, line 9) ** Exempting certain health insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan from taxes and fees (starting on page 367, line 6) ** Providing automatic Medicare coverage for anyone living in Libby, Montana (starting on page 194 – section 10323) ** Earmarking $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” reportedly in Connecticut (starting on page 328) ** Giving special treatment to Hawaii’s Disproportionate Share Hospitals (starting on page 101, line 6) ** Boosting reimbursement rates for certain hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut (starting on page 174 – section 10317) ** Mandating special treatment for hospitals in “Frontier” States like Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming (starting on page 208 — Sec 10324)…Excerpt..Read More at

ObamaCare for Idiots

The British are Coming!

This is crunch time folks, all hands on deck needed to defeat the unconstitutional abomination Pelosi Bill in the House H.R. 3962

Join your fellow patriots around the country in a nation wide Nov. 5 D-Day Push to the Defeat Pelosi Health House Care Bill

Melt the phone lines, fax, email, send letter, show up at their on their doors. Fax or Take along a PINK SLIP if you visit your Rep’s Local Office and he/she supports the Bill.

DO WHAT YOU CAN BUT DO SOMETHING!

10 minutes to phone/fax to the time it takes to hop in your car and pay your Rep a visit TO HELP SAVE YOUR COUNTRY.

This BILL is a nail in the coffin of our Republic and every citizen will lose more of their liberties and pay for the “privilege” with INCREASED TAXES

BOTTON LINE: It MUST be stopped

DO WHAT YOU CAN BUT DO SOMETHING!

The phone lines, fax, email, and address of all Michigan Reps can be found HERE

Here is a phone script or Fax page to use. Add or subtract as so desired.

My name is____ I am calling from Michigan, my zip code is_____I am calling to tell Rep or Senator ______ that the Pelosi Health Care Plan needs to be killed.
It is massive government control paid for on the back of the taxpayers and future taxpayers, our children. We need to start fresh with a 10-20 page Bill that includes tort reform, medical savings account, tax breaks, buying insurance across state lines.

We want choice NOT control.

If the Congressman/woman votes for this Bill in any form, I will do whatever I can to see they do not return to Congress.
The very future of our country is at stake!

Thank you

Setting Brush Fires…Why not Filibuster?

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds. Samuel Adams

Finance committee vote on Baucus bill scheduled for this coming Tuesday….
This is crunch time folks. We need to flood the Finance Committee members with faxes, phones, call and e-mails (least effective)

Here is a link to all members of the Finance Committee and their contact information

Debbie Stabenow is on the Committee. She needs to be flooded with e-mails and faxes and pink slips! Turn you e-mail or fax into a pink slip! YOU’RE DONE DEBBIE!

What happens when the Baucus bill gets out of committee?

Washington Examiner Opinion

“Whatever the content of the Baucus bill once it is voted out of the finance committee, it will disappear into a legislative black hole as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and their key aides do what they did on the economic stimulus package back in February — huddle together behind closed doors to write the final bill, which will then be presented as a fait accompli in the form of a conference report. Everything else is mere sound and fury signifying nothing until Harry and Nancy do their thing in the dark.”

From FedUpUsa

Nicholas Ballasy reports “a senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told CNSNews.com that it is ‘likely’ that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a ‘shell’ for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting.”

This procedure is the same unconstitutional procedure they used to pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) back in November to give Hank Paulson his ‘$700 Billion Bazooka.’

Article I, Sec. 7: ALL bills for raising revenue will originate in the House.

They are doing exactly what they did with EESA/TARP – by passing the house by putting the HC bill on a revenue bill. This results in the Senate originating a revenue bill!

Washington DC must be shut down now. We are about to lose our country entirely.

Stephanie S. Jasky, Founder, Director

I agree with Stephanie, we must call/fax AND we need to include top Republicans/Conservatives. They SHOULD be shouting this from the roof tops and planning a Senate filibuster
Why aren’t they????

Senate filibuster from “The Making of America, the substance and meaning of the Constitution” by W. Cleon Skousen…

…the principled devise for is for a small group of Senators to get con troll of the floor and talk in tandem for long periods of time. The whole object is a delaying action”

In 1935, Huey Long of LA (Democrat) held the Senate floor for 15 hours while he read form the telephone book, a mail order catalog and the newspaper. The longest filibuster on record is that of Strom Thurmond of SC (when he was a Democrat) He held the Senate floor in 1957 for twenty-four hours

CRS-20
The Impact of Filibusters

Obviously, a filibuster has the greatest impact on the Senate when a 60-vote majority cannot be assembled to invoke cloture. In that case, the measure or other matter that is being filibustered is doomed unless its opponents relent and allow the Senate to vote on it. Even if cloture is invoked, however, a filibuster can significantly affect how, when, and even whether the Senate conducts its legislative and executive business. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that filibusters and the prospect of filibusters shape much of the way in which the Senate does its work on the floor

Why shouldn’t Republicans/Conservatives filibuster now? Is there less at stake then in the past? Wouldn’t that get press and therefore give them an opportunity to expose the plan to more Americans?

So the Democrats/Liberal/Fascists can use cloture to stop the filibuster but it takes 60% of the Senate, every Democrat and both Independents and…. time

“The votes of only 51 Senators are needed to pass a bill on the floor. It can, however, require the votes of 60 Senators to invoke cloture on the bill in order to overcome a filibuster and enable the Senate to reach that vote on final passage.”

Conservatives can use the filibuster to our country’s benefit, to tell the American people why they are doing it. The Democrats/Liberal/Fascists can counter with the “Nuclear Option”

But would they? They want bi-partisan, or at least the illusion of it and if they do go ahead with a Nuclear Option, Republican/Conservatives can counter…Democrats/Liberal/Fascists squashed debate again, rammed through another massive government control spending bill. They wanted this thing; we didn’t want any part of it!

Either way this bill is going to get passed because the “usual suspect” RINOS will defect (think Olympia Snowe) but it could be in lesser form and with the Republicans/Conservatives showing that they did everything to stop another massive spending bill of over a trillion dollars coupled with a government take over of our liberties! In other words, their job.

Lets’ face it what do they have to lose?
Republicans/Conservatives have been shut out, disregarded and disrespected 37 ways to Sunday by this administration, especially by Pelosi and Reid. Remember Pelosi hissed, “We Won” and then proceeded (excuse my language) to bitch slap the Republicans/Conservatives around.

We have had tea parties, calls/faxes e-mails, taken to the streets, counter-protested, gave and went to Town Halls, blogged, YouTubed, we have went toe-to toe and sometimes face-to-face with the opposition. And worked over time because we know it takes ACTION!

I want to see some courageous forget-about-my-career action from The Hill!

Where is our William Wallace?

Instead of focusing on the opposition entirely, perhaps we need to focus and demand that those on our side have a tea party of their own!!

The very future of our country is at stake…TEA PARTY ON THE HILL!


Click the Picture to help “TAKE MICHIGAN BACK”

TAKE MICHIGAN BACK LOGO4

Household Cap-and-Trade Burden Calculator

Tea Party Tweets

Advertisements