Preach it, brother!! A real conservative party would base their decisions in science and reason. A real conservative party wouldn't give a shit about your religion or sexual orientation. A real conservative party would want to reduce government programs that did not produce the results they promised. A real conservative party would avoid committing military force to foreign engagements. A real conservative party would see the waste of money it is to incarcerate drug addicts, and adopt effective (and fiscally responsible) drug programs like Amsterdam and Portugal. A real conservative would understand that every new law or regulation creates multiple unintended loopholes, and would avoid creating new legislation until it was actually warranted by data. Wouldn't it be nice to have actual conservatives supporting actually conservative principles? Having debates about methodologies and numbers, rather than whether the 10 Commandments should be on City Hall? I keep thinking there is room for a party that takes centrist liberal positions and centrist conservative positions, and leaves the Republican and Democratic parties to deal with their lunatic fringes.
As a religious conservative.... I couldn't agree more. I am so tired of the conflation of politics and religion. It is SO ridiculous. Despite being a Christian, I am so tired of people calling the USA a "Christian Nation". blergh. Separation for a reason people... I got boo'd out of the republican caucus in 2008 for suggesting we should discuss fiscal responsibility and foreign policy and drop the ridiculous conversation around gay marriage and abortion. My comment "Let's stay out of each others' wombs and bedrooms" was the last straw for a lady in the back... who felt the need to Boo me... in a tiny elementary school classroom... with maybe 40 people in attendance. I quit the party that week. When I realized that the people around me cared more about that crap, and less about actually governing, I knew it was time to go.Wouldn't it be nice to have actual conservatives supporting actually conservative principles? Having debates about methodologies and numbers, rather than whether the 10 Commandments should be on City Hall?
Thanks for commenting. It is nice to hear a Christian actually support genuine conservativism, rather than what the bible-thumping Christian-right has redefined as "conservative". Do Christian understand the irony of calling themselves "conservative", and then legislating what people can do in the bedroom? Creating more laws, legislating behavior, that are practically unenforceable, is pretty much the polar opposite of the original meaning of "conservative", as one who chooses inaction until action is warranted.
even worse.... do they realize that Jesus (allegedly) spent his life giving to the poor, sick, and needy? Do they understand that being rich and prideful is the opposite of the purpose of a "christian" life? Do they understand that Jesus hung out with "sinners" like adulterers? Nope... and I could get all judge on people who get it wrong... but then I'd fall into the same self-righteous trap that they do. The reality is.... religion shouldn't be in government or politics... period. My beliefs help shape who I am... but that's true of every person regardless of their faith, or lack thereof. The ten commandments aren't a terrible set of rules to govern one's self by.... but they shouldn't be the basis for a modern government. You know... 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s Those are pretty solid rules that could apply to self and society, you know? like - it's just not cool for me to murder anyone. And I don't want people stealing my crap... so go ahead and figure out a way to work those into your rules/laws...but: 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. These all require some kind of believe in god... which, in a country with "freedom of religion", should not be forced on anyone. And as such... shouldn't be on city hall walls, or schools, etc. just my $0.0212 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
There needs to be some kind of vast interfaith effort to brand anyone who does something shitty in the name of god as a heretic, not a 'true' believer, what have you. Something like the C.S. Lewis idea that all good acts, even done in the name of the devil, bring glory to God, and all evil acts, even done in the name of God, bring glory to the devil. I don't think it will happen though. The book says to stone gay people to death, but you go to jail for doing that so we'll decide to not bake cakes for them.
Sure. And many other programs, too. Hell, it's been proven time and time again that a UBI is superior to welfare in almost every way. What other viable solutions are there to the problems that welfare tries to solve? What has worked elsewhere? Why? Is it replicable? Etc... My hope is that a truly conservative platform would look at the core problem they were trying to solve (rather than just lump a bunch of different problems under the one solution titled "welfare") and then use evidence-based analysis to determine the most effective plan to solve the problem.
Kinda sorta. He did some clever shit by grabbing a couple of good Republican programs, slapping a new name on them, and then claiming them as his own. And they worked! But Bill Clinton still had that essential Democrat belief that government can solve problems. It can't, really. It can incentivize the private sector to focus on a set of problems, but government involvement in a problem rarely helps the situation. And, it leads to more government. If Bill Clinton could have shaken off that central tenet of the Democratic platform, then he would have been even more effective.
I'm curious, can you mention any programs that lead to "more government" or that didn't involve financial incentives that haven't worked? I can't think of any.
It depends on how you define "programs". But, generally speaking, the Republicans try to legislate behaviour: Sex toys are illegal, anal sex is illegal, gay marriage is illegal, etc, etc, etc. One of the oodles of problems with legislating behaviour is that these laws are generally unenforceable, and require MORE government to monitor people's activities to see if they are behaving properly. Maybe it's a single form that you need to have notarized that attests that you are your partner are of different genders, and have been since birth. A form that needs to be designed, printed, notarized, stored, and referenced by everyone else down the line as you move towards your wedding. Or maybe it is a security camera monitoring a public space, which produces 24 hours of video every day that needs to be monitored/reviewed by a "technician", who needs to be paid, have benefits, and leave, and shifts, and managers to schedule the shifts of the different techs, and then they need backups and off-site storage for a period of X years, and.... The thing that everyone needs to understand from all walks of political life, is that every new piece of legislation has innumerable unintended consequences and introduces new loopholes. Case in point: Reckless driving laws have been on the books since that first accident in NYC in 1909. And yet, at some point, some moron decided that "drunk driving" was different than "reckless driving" and therefore we needed a new law. So now we have a drunk driving law. But we don't have a heroin driving law. Or a marijuana driving law. Or a Xanax driving law. Or a Monster driving law. So now we have literally THOUSANDS of loopholes in the driving code, and every single one needs new legislation to close them. Which then introduces new uncertainties... and on and on and on.