« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How To Tell If You’re Not A Conservative

By: Loren Heal (Diary)  |  February 12th, 2011 at 12:47 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If you make fun of conservatives on the basis of their conservative beliefs, chances are you ain’t one.

If you identify yourself on the basis of a trait that you acknowledge not to be conservative, chances are you are not one, as well.

If you actively encourage others to hold a viewpoint that you acknowledge not to be a conservative one, you’re really on thin ice.

If you try to change the definition of conservatism to include something you acknowledge it doesn’t include, you simply aren’t a conservative.

Oh, and one other thing.

Reading is fundamental.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bobmontgomery

    …your points, and by pushing the recommend button, we ……acknowledge
    that they have some validity.

    • emmi

      Washington was and will always be right in that quote ,thanks!

  • aesthete

    what is/is not conservative? Is conservatism a governing philosophy, or a life philosophy: if it’s the former, how can traits be conservative/not conservative, and if it’s the latter, how can we earnestly say that conservatism is any different from the totalitarian communist (or the more moderate, but similarly all-encompassing and demanding, socialist) systems that it attempts to rebut? Is conservatism relative to the culture (or otherwise fluid) or is it absolute? If it’s the former (and conservatism’s embrace of Burkean change implies that it is), then it is not the case that you are attempting to change the definition of conservatism, it may very well be that the definition has changed on you, as it has countless times in the past. If it’s not, then what and where are the fixed ideological principles that define conservatism, so that we may know what, exactly, constitute deviation from conservative principle?

    I feel like this is becoming conservatism’s version of Freud’s un-answerable query of what women want.

    • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

      Or perhaps I caught you.

      First, note the title, and the lack of ambition for this little diary. I’m not trying to define directly what a conservative is, nor even generally what one is not, merely how one particular set of non-members might identify themselves.

      So note also the use the second person. I told you to read.

      See, fully recognizing that there was circular logic (begging the question) to be had, I wanted to avoid it. So I cleverly, or perhaps lazily, turned the definition inside out, leaving it to the individual.

      I leave each error to the person who acknowledges something not to be conservative, yet wants it anyway. By introducing that level of indirection, I generalize from particular beliefs of a given definition of what it means to be conservative to a more basic one.

      That doesn’t answer your full question — whether conservatism is a philosophy of life or of governance — but it should explain why your question is a threadjack.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        smile

      • Doc Holliday

        qualifier that one knows he is going against conservatism in some way,means he is not conservative. Instead of listing a litany of conservative traits, you made your point by saying said person must knowingly disavow conservatism. Said another way, you can’t be kind of a Cowboys fan if you are really a Redskins fan. Hey, you can publish that if you want. :)

      • tojoma

        …but I understand just enough of what is being said to know that you, Socrates, might be able to help me with a conundrum of my own.

        I am considered by many of my associates to be a zealous conservative. However, when it came time to take sides on the issue of smoking in public places in our small town, I landed firmly amongst a bunch of liberals. As a healthcare professional, my job for thirty years has been to treat, diagnose, and manage smoking diseases. As a diagnostic technologist, a large percentage of those diseases I’ve helped uncover have occurred in the lungs of non smokers who were either exposed in the home or (in days long gone by) by excessive smoke in the workplace.

        I angered many of my conservative friends when I took the argument for a workplace and public facility smoking ban into my race for a city council seat. Now, as a “conservative” I argued against the liberals who wanted to pass the rules via council ordinance versus a vote of the people. Meanwhile, my conservative friends were aghast that I would give my efforts to promoting the ban in the context of a local vote. What a vice grip. But I argued that conservative principles insisted that these sorts of issues be settled in the public square at a local level, not by elected officials. That makes the debate more personal and allows for greater involvement by the people.

        The debate was huge, and the council had to set up public meetings in large venues to allow for the tremendous participation. Anyway, the very strict ordinance passed by a 61% vote (with a larger than usual number of voter participants), and I received 69% of the vote.

        So you see, I feel conservatism won the day in the sense that the debate was take all the way to the people in the form of a local debate and vote. However, I was made to feel liberal by many because I insisted on smoke-free for the sake of those workers who might one day become the recipients of bad news in my pulmonary function lab.

        I’m not sure how to apply Socratic analysis in my case, but perhaps you can.

        • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

          You’re a conservative, not a libertarian. On the basis of this one action, I’d have called you a liberal Republican had you not self-described otherwise.

          You didn’t try to sell a smoking ban as something conservatives should embrace as a matter of course. You understood that controlling people’s behavior for their own good, and especially as a statistical matter, runs counter to our mindset.

          There is however a strong thread of of do-gooder in the liberal Republican tradition. Prohibition, civil rights legislation, the war on drugs, drunk driving laws, and even abolition itself arose from the same motivation as smoking bans. Bloomberg’s salt war and restaurant menu regulation come from there.

          See, it’s a balance between using the government to right wrongs and not wanting to give it too much power. Sometimes the evil we see is so bad that we are willing to unleash the dragon to fight it, hoping we don’t let it destroy too much else in the process.

          Each additional power we give the government inches us closer to giving it total control of our lives, and to disrupting the balance of power we have with it.

          When Lincoln chose war with the South to preserve the Union, it led to a United States without slavery. But it also led (oversimplifying of course) to the massive central government we now have, with states unable to opt out. The Civil War may have preserved the Union only to lead to its eventual self-destruction. We released the government dragon and are happy we did, but there are always consequences.

          To get off topic just a bit, I dislike workplace smoking bans. They are always sold as battles between those who like smoking and those who don’t, or as a means to keep people healthy. But what they really are are battles for control of the resources of the 0% of us (rounding) who own bars and restaurants by the 100% of us who don’t.

          • acat

            I’m not a rounding error, and am part-owner of a bar. (grin)

            As for how anti-smoking campaigns are sold, you’re leaving out quite a lot – maintenance costs go up (cleaning a smokers’ office vs. a non-smokers’ takes longer, smokers are more likely to damage furniture or carpet with a burnign butt, resale value of cubicle panels from a smoking office is lower as all fabric must be replaced piror to resale….) not just health costs.

            That said, this is something with a local impact, so should be decided on by local government, not the Fed. Period.

            Mew

          • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

            Those costs are real to you, but they are real to every other bar owner, as well, as a cost of doing business. If you don’t want them, don’t allow people to smoke.in your place.

            The trouble being, of course, that in doing so you would be at a relative disadvantage to your smoky competitors who could attract more patrons. Or could they? That is your risk.

            But comes now the government to the rescue, allowing you to go smoke-free without regard to someone else allowing smoking.

            It’s still a case of allowing non-owners to control owners.

          • acat

            Just like sales taxes, they’re there.. but hiding.

            The “non-owners controlling owners” argument, by the way, isn’t the strongest you could make. Non-patrons controlling patrons is stronger, and you can get there – especially in Illinois where the indoor smoking ban is statewide – by pointing out that the voters outside the reach of a local tavern are deciding for the patrons of the tavern.

            Seems to me, though, that the original arguments against were too much biased by the tobacco industry’s denial of the harm and costs of smoking, and not enough on principle.

            Mew

        • zroxx

          How do you define “public places”? And where do you draw the line on enforcing good health on others? A different health care professional could just as easily note the deleterious effects of eating a heaping plate of bacon, sausage, eggs and cheese every morning and then what? An ordinance against certain forms of breakfast?

          Here’s the problem. Wanting to see healthy citizens who don’t suffer from lung disease is neither liberal nor conservative. It’s what governing philosophy you adhere to when attempting to reach that end goal that differentiates.

          Authoritarian/Social welfare approach says, we should use the force of government coercion and forbid what we think is the negative course of action with the threat of punishment.

          Conservative/Liberty-focused approach says, we should persuade our fellow citizens to take responsibility for their health and choose what we think is the positive course of action.

          The latter approach touches on personal responsibility, freedom, and smaller government (in fact there is no role for government). And when you talk about public places such as restaurants, bars, theaters, and so on, the latter approach also respects private property and the rights of property owners to set the terms for patronage of their establishments.

          So, I feel the preponderance of conservative principles lies with the latter approach, which works outside of government.

          Where public places refers to a government building like a courthouse, I’d be fine with having the citizens decide by majority vote whether they prefer to allow or disallow smoking. It’s unclear to me whether your ordinance was in regards only to “civic” public places or privately owned establishments.

          • tojoma

            Eating fatty foods and smoking are not equal comparisons. In the one case, the person is hurting only themselves. In the other case, the person has the potential to harm others. I know that most conservatives dismiss this idea off hand, but the studies and my experience in health care are pretty conclusive. The two do not belong in the same argument.

            By public places, our ordinance went all the way to public vending places too. Reason? The workers in those places, some of whom will work in that setting all their lives, may develop the diseases associated with long term smoking though they may never personally smoke. Believe me, it happens, and the issue become one of safety in the work place.

            I wish I had time to go into a non-ordinance approach that is logical and might work to persuade workplaces to institute their own ban, but I just don’t have the time right now.

            As I said before, I’m trying to come to grips with this issue, and I appreciate the civil input offered by all.

          • powertothepeople

            with your line of thought and my opinion on why you were dead wrong to force your will via council seat on the people of your area.

            A) Science is not established on the risk of second hand smoke. I can produce as many if not more studies to show that second hand smoke is not a health risk as anyone can produce to show it is.

            B) Second, even if you believe that second hand smoke is dangerous, the conditions for it to be dangerous as quite small. The amount of exposure and the area of exposure eliminate most “public” areas from being danger zones. So any type of public ban does nothing to stop the “danger” of second hand smoke because a vast majority of public areas are not conducive to the danger of second hand smoke. They are too open, too ventilated, etc. So a ban is nothing more than one persons attempt at regulating other based on theories, not science and personal preference.

            C) Bans are socialism. Business is more than capable of deciding whether or not they want smoke in their business and the people who work or shop at the business are also more than capable of deciding whether or not they want a smoke free area or do not mind the smoky environment. People and business do not need government intervention and all it ends up being is an intrusion.

            For you ban to even be considered valid, you would have to have proven science on the risk of second hand smoke, you would have to have proven science on how confined a space must be to pose any danger, you would have to have proven science on what level of ventilation is needed to end the danger, and most importantly, you would have to have a situation where people have no choice in deciding the environment they are in which is not the case. So your friends are right, you did the wrong thing and what you did was not a conservative action. But what is really funny to me about all you anti smoking people, and I am a person who does not smoke and can not stand the smell of cigar/pipe/cigarette smoke, is that you always seem to go after business all while claiming smoke is so dangerous, yet you leave the only areas where even the best science can only prove may be the danger areas alone such as kids in the car of smoking adults or in the home of smoking people.

            Quite frankly, these bans are wrong plain and simple and are indefensible. No one is forced to work at a job and if the company they work for allows smoking in the building they can either petition the company to change the rule and or leave the company and go work for one that does not allow smoking in the building. And as to businesses that allow smoking inside such as a bar or a restaurant, same argument applies. No one is forced to go to an establishment that allows smoking, so the argument they need protection is absurd.

            If you are a conservative, you need to recognize that we do not need your intrusion in our personal lives especially since no one is forcing us to suck in someones smoke. We already have the choice in where to go and where to work, we do not need your help/intrusion. And since it is not even close to being a proven science, your intrusion is simply you trying to force us to abide by your preference. The best thing to do is just leave us alone and allow us to decide what is best for us and whether or not we want to be around smoke. And that applies even if science has or does prove second hand smoke is so “dangerous.” We can still decide to not be around it, and we should have to right to decide if we do not mind. I have avoided both workplaces and businesses that allow smoking for many years without you or any other politicians help so far, can not see why I need it in the future.

          • powertothepeople

            as my sentence structure, spelling, and so on get bad. Will return to this in the morning after some rest and when my mind is a little clearer. Hope you get the gist of what I was trying to say.

        • tojoma

          As with most things concerning health and governmental intervention, we are talking about an ulterior motive–the government has committed to paying for your health care at the end of your life, so when you do things to ensure a chronic disease that will cost that government a lot of money, it will want to control your activities out of a not-so-high-minded purpose.

          I definitely think that we gave a huge portion of our liberty away when Medicare and Medicaid Services came into existence. If we had not given the government reason to be concerned about our preventable chronic diseases, it wouldn’t give a hoot. But now those diseases make the cost of their promises too much to bear, so we go through this long, slow march toward tyranny.

          My support of the local smoking ban doesn’t quite fit the bill here, at least not for me. Once again, as a 30 year pulmonary function technologist, I know that people develop diseases due to the smoke of others, so I see the issue of local control of such an ordinance as within the pale of conservative ideals–the closer to home, the more we deal with small issues such as noxious behavior that affects other people. I do think Thomas Jefferson supports that notion.

          I’m still thinking about this. Thanks for your input.

    • bobmontgomery

      ….it will be easier to argue. Some lately are arguing about Islamism being just a religion vs. a way of life for not only them but others, trying to point out the evil intent of domination by the Islamists Even many Christians in so doing blithely ignore that, uh, excuse me, bu, Christian, t how you live your life is supposed to be right up there with what you call yourself. Christianity is on a par with Islam in that regard except in the details, wherein, of course, the devil resides You can render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to the Lord what is the Lord’s, you can live peacably under the dictum that no governing body can tell you what to believe, and you can acknowledge that the people who formulated the governing strictures that you associate yourself with were inspired by an ephemeral, almost mystical, yet empirically provable beneficial moral code that, in the end, works. As Bill S. likes to say, you can walk and chew gum and perhaps even think at once. None of this requires you to be a bully and none of this requires you to be unnecessarily pushy but all of this requires that you not deny who you are and all of it requires maintenance, or conservation. Occasionally, it requires a fight when you perceive that the agreed -upon arrangements by which you at the same time obey and live your life are being threatened. There is such a thing as American conservatism.
      Some call it patriotism.

      • bobmontgomery

        ‘Ephemeral’ was not the right word, aesthete. was searching for something more ….pleasing….like…..aesthetical…:-)

    • Doc Holliday

      I could swear I was really reading Socrates.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    What if one were conservative on everything but one or two issues? Let’s say for instance there was a person, let’s call him Bob, who was really right wing on almost everything, except he was a big protectionist, he really honestly thinks that high tariffs would be good for the nation.

    (I am trying to pick a non-controversial subject for the sake of argument)

    Now when Bob argues against free trade he obviously tries to get people to think like he does, he might even employ a little mocking and sarcasm in making his arguments. But it would not change the fact that he agrees on nearly everything else with an average conservative.

    But should he still call himself a conservative?

    • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

      except for the last one.

      I don’t believe that having one, two, or six non-conservative viewpoint makes you a non-conservative. But it’s up to you to recognize that you are the different one. You can argue your position, certainly, and still call yourself conservative (#3). But to argue that it’s the True Conservative position is something else.

      Bob isn’t trying to say you can’t be a conservative and for free trade, is he?

      Mocking someone for their conservative beliefs is out of bounds. Respect for tradition, and the people who adhere to them, is a fundamental. Mock, and you set yourself against tradition.

      I’m not saying you can’t be for drug legalization and not be a conservative, for instance, even though most conservatives are in favor of keeping the drug laws as they are, I think. But if you make fun of conservatives for being against drugs, or try to argue that to be a conservative one must be for legalization, you run into trouble.

      There’s a difference between advocating a position and saying that it’s the only conservative one.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        Ideas change over time. Some issues now considered normal for conservatives would not have been in the past.

        For instance, at one time being conservative would have meant you were an isolationist. At another time being conservative would have meant being for state’s rights and against national civil rights legislation.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • aesthete

            Inquiring minds would like to know…

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            3 – never more than 3 main points

          • Doc Holliday

            hence, “more later”. that is rule 6

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Don’t require that one click a link to know what the main point of the article is. Links should be used only as authority and supplemental.

          • Doc Holliday

            and since I do about one diary a year, be kind. Or not, in fact, screw you! uhh, what was I just saying?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            address them in the column/diary.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            My arguments have no apparent weaknesses.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • Finrod

        Using drug legalization as an example:

        What about those that are against federal drug laws because they see them as an affront to the Tenth Amendment?

        Certainly upholding the Constitution is a strong conservative position.

        There are a whole lot of issues where I tend to come down as more libertarian than conservative– at the FEDERAL level. I take the seemingly extreme position that under the Tenth, if it’s constitutional for a state to pass a law concerning a subject, then it’s UNconstitutional for the federal government to pass a law that applies to the states on the identical subject. (Certainly, the federal gov’t is not limited by this regarding the laws for federal territories.)

        There are other hard cases like this, where there are two different conservative principles at work against each other. In those cases, we should at the least agree to disagree politely, if necessary.

  • JadedByPolitics

    “news” show and beat up on those who call themselves Conservatives you are NOT a Conservative!

    • Newton E. Mchuckney

      np

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • fpete13527

    I think the way you pointed to what Conservatism ISN’T, you have very much hit the nail on what it is, at least for me.

    In my opinion, it generates responsibility for being a stand for, and demonstrating Conservatism, while at the same time responsibly ripping apart those who claim they are…..but aren’t.

    You do it without listing steadfast rules but rather by pointing to whether attention is on empowering Conservatism or finding where it is wrong or needs to be changed.

    I chose a context of empowering Conservatism.

  • Wayne

    As much as I understand the intent, my only wish is to end the debate. You know you are not a conservative if you do not honor, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of American.

    I have no doubt there will be those of you that will attempt a debate on this point, but be warned you credentials as a conservative will be a risk.

    My two cents…

    • Christine (Trelaina)
      • Wayne

        and there is much honest debate to be had by all. If one wishes to debate what a conservative is or isn’t, that would be their choice…

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
    • nick2000

      I definitely honor, protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America (and did swear an oath to it).

      Does that mean I am a conservative? As far as I know, all branches of the military have to take this oath, in addition to people holding public office. Does it mean that they are all conservatives too?

      I am not so sure that it’s related.

      • The_Gadfly

        Honoring, protecting, and defending the US Constitution does not necessarily make you conservative. But if you don’t you definitely are not conservative.

        And like Socrates diary, it leaves open the question of what exactly it means to honor, protect, and defend the Constitution. Which many leftists claim they are doing, even when it is obvious they are not.

        • nick2000

          The problem is that it is impossible to sort out wrong from right when it comes down to opinions as opposed to facts. This is why, after all, we have a supreme court that has the final say on what the constitution actually means.

          I have seen people affirm that the constitution does not allow standing armies but only “national guards” that can work in concert when needed to defend the country. It certainly never said anything about intervening abroad since the framers wanted to stay neutral (which meant letting other countries fight each other and benefit in the process I suppose).

          So, if being convinced that one follows the constitution does not make a conservative, what does? Would an ultra-conservative like an Amish person (talk about “conserving the ways from the late 1800) qualify as a “conservative” like we talk about here?

  • Scope

    what conservatism is, as though there are no definitions, just because you don’t like some of the definitions, chances are you are not a conservative.

  • merryj1

    Early in his “Road to Serfdom,” Hayek made the point about the word “gentleman” having been rendered meaningless by (similar) misuse.

    A second point Hayek made was that what we call “conservative” is in fact “classical liberalism” (and yes, he was a Brit and his work was completed during the run-up to WWII, but the point is accurate and valid).

    The Founders, who we conservatives quote and revere, were liberals – every one of them. The conservatives of that era were the loyalists and royalists (or quislings, if you prefer).

    The political labels (far left to far right: “radical,” “liberal,” “moderate,” “conservative” and “reactionary”) are fluid, with their respective practical definitions wholly reliant on what is, or has been, or what it is that (we) wish to “conserve” or “progress” to* (or from).

    * “Liberal” and “progressive” are synonymous, although common usage has added a somewhat sinister nuance to the latter.

  • Doc Holliday

    I have never been the type to say “this is not a diary”. but I will add that it might help if you define what a conservative is in your mind.

    I will add to your list. If you are so stupid as to spend most of your time deciding who is a conservative and who is not, you will never help conservatives win elections.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      http://www.redstate.com/socrates/2011/02/12/how-to-tell-if-youre-not-a-conservative/#comment-1010

    • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

      My point with this diary is just what it says, to identify one part of what conservatism is not.

      It’s not the whole subject of what conservatism is. I’d need a whole three-day conference full of all of the activists and headliners in the country, and still not get it done.

      So your two points answer each other quite well. It’s not a full diary because I don’t spend all day fretting over such things.

      • Doc Holliday

        I was just looking for a little context. Maybe my once a year diary just posted can add to the discussion, or not. BTW, to you and GC, I like Socrates more than Plato. :)

  • http://minorcan-maven.blogspot.com/ minorcanmaven

    recent conversations regarding events with CPAC participants! Doesn’t require further explanation!

  • conservativemusician

    Your purse is larger and more expensive than your girlfriend’s. :-)

    • Doc Holliday
  • conservativemusician

    n/t

    • Doc Holliday
  • Brian Hibbert

    But as always the wisdom of Socrates has come through. We’re all smart enough to know if what we’re pushing fits within the conservative umbrella or not. So in addition to self identifying as Conservative, you should also be able to self identify areas where you’re NOT conservative.

    I have one. Education spending. I’m of the opinion that education is something that the government has a vested interest in and should encourage education in every way possible. I lean towards the conservative end of this issue and believe that scholarship awards should be based on achievements, but I DO think the government has a legitimate reason to fund those who can’t otherwise afford college. I’m not trying to thread-jack with a discussion on education funding, only admitting that I’m not a perfect conservative.

    “Hi, my name is Brian and I’ve got some non-conservative ideas.”

    • zroxx

      Let’s be a little more direct with what you’re saying:

      “I DO think the government has a legitimate reason to take money from every one and give it to those who can?t otherwise afford college.”

      You could also say that:

      “?Hi, my name is Brian and I?ve got some socialist welfare ideas.”

      Point being, “non-conservative” ideas are going to fall under some other philosophy of governance, and it would do every one some good to consider what those philosophies are before embracing the idea.

      • Brian Hibbert

        It’s an area where I don’t claim to hold conservative ideas.

        Another is in medical benefits for veterans. I’m willing to take money from everyone and give it to them to compensate them for their service to the country.

        I’m a conservative, but not a pure one.

        • itrytobenice

          But maybe that means I’m struggling with ‘what is a conservative’ because I can’t think of anything I agree with that I don’t consider conservative.

          I suppose I must consider myself the keeper of the flame. Heh.

        • zroxx

          Taxation for the purposes of maintaining a military force is certainly within the Constitutional authority of the government. Veterans are employees of the United States and therefore it’s not an issue of socialist welfare but rather the government is competing for and hiring employees and then compensating them as they have contractually agreed to do.

    • Menlo

      Not only does it not have an obligation to fund college, it has an obligation NOT to! College often does more harm than good. It is far from a necessity, and there are much greater needs out there.

      I am vehemently and aggressively opposed to funding colleges through grants, aid or loans at any level of government. Even spending on health care, mass transit and transportation, more assistance for the poor and disabled, and consumer safety protections would be a much better use of the same government funds.

      It makes me want to vomit to see the percentage of Americans who want federal funding of college and education and how high they value it.

      • Brian Hibbert

        I was just doing my 12 step process. We can debate the merits of government college funding and what it SHOULD look like elsewhere.

    • The_Gadfly

      Government does not have an interest in funding education for everyone. It does have an interest in having a population that is well educated and can engage in actual critical thinking (as opposed to typical college course which include the words ‘critical thinking’ in their titles these days). You do correctly note that scholarships ought to be granted on the basis of achievement. This ought to be the critical connecting link to how government provides money into the education system. Instead liberals replace it with another magical unicorn fart transmission widget. Where government has a legitimate interest in education, it could provide monetary awards based on an examination (math, reading, physics, civics). Depending on the extent of the examination it might provide the total cost of completed education, or it might be only some part of it. Such a funding mechanism could and I think should be extended to the primary education system.

  • 1stRichard

    Here are the first six, if you support any or similarity thereof you are not a Conservative.

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

    I don?t know how far the first should go, this could include public housing. The second seems obvious but given how popular this is, should Conservatives in general denounce a tax system from the Communist Manifesto or at least more then what they are now? The death tax should be considered a step toward the third, who allowed communism to get its foot in the door?

    I could go on but the point here is shouldn?t we be a bit more focused on the bigger issues?