Classic conservatism

I believe that the term "conservative" has lost its meaning since it was applied to Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. In short, I think the term refers to someone who applies the Constitution to contemporary issues according to the intent of our founding fathers.

The premise behind the Constitution is two-fold. First, the framers meant to create a nation ruled by laws which were to be written, enforced, and interpreted by moral and spiritual men. Secondly, the men who formed this great nation held the belief that only individuals can have "rights", and that the only just government is one which "derives its power from the consent of the governed". As per the 9th and 10th amendments, only those powers specifically articulated in the language of the Constitution shall be the jurisdiction of the US government. Only the funds necessary to execute those specific obligations shall be taken from the People.

The current crop of Republicans seem to believe in global expansionism of the American empire through the guise of establishing democratic governments in countries and regions around the globe. They seem to believe in expanding the size of the federal government via budget deficits and foreign lenders instead of raising taxes like the Democrats. Today's current GOP leaders believe that the right-wing is firmly committed to the Republican party and that the party can move as far to the center as it wishes without the risk of losing the confidence of the classic, fundamentalist conservative voting bloc.

Well, they've moved too far for me. I voted for George Bush in the election of 2004, with the hope that he would make a dramatic shift back to the right in the aftermath. I was hopeful after seeing him announce his intent to spend the political capital that he had earned by beating John Kerry by roughly 3,000,000 votes.

I accept the fact that I am on the fringe of America politics. I accept that most label me and my ideas as "antiquated" or otherwise unsuited for the world we live in today. I accept that my ideas are not going to be easy or even possible to implement.

But my allegiance is to God, not some political party who expects me to follow blindly as a sheep because their candidate is the "lesser of two evils". I will not violate my principles, my values, my responsibilities, or my integrity by voting for any man who does not see our political future in much the way I do.

With history as my guide, I fully reject the implied notion that America is and will continue to be the "super power" no matter what policies we implement. Surely, men in Rome, London, Beijing, and Moscow have used that argument countless numbers of times. In each case, their respective empires crashed and gave rise to the next in a sequence of "super powers". How can today's "neo-cons" be so arrogant as to assume that America will not go the same way as those which came before? Do they think that if we just don't call ourselves an empire that we aren't one and therefore we can avoid the inevitable downfall which has ended the reign of every single super power before the United States?

I believe that Joseph McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond and others produced a generation of Republicans afraid to stand up for their principles. The Communist Goals of 1963 have been advanced tremendously well since the time they were entered in the Congressional record, and today's politicians seem more interested in going along with the far-left than with standing up to them and opposing their views.