I joined this community a few weeks ago to voice my opinion in the newly-formed Scarlett fanclub. Several of the posts in that particular club made disparaging remarks about conservatives by assigning that philosophy to those who ridicule her transgender status. This struck me as very odd, as there is no particular tenant of conservatism that addresses transgender persons one way or the other. Then I began to read the "Obama v. Romney" post in the general forum and it became painfully obvious that sincere, thoughtful individuals are grossly mistaken about some of the beliefs held by conservatives. So, at the risk of starting a wildly abusive, short-lived topic, I'd like to offer my expertise on the subject.
If there is anything that a member of TL would sincerely like to ask regarding either conservative beliefs or justifications thereof, I'd like to answer to the best of my ability.
Now, who the hell am I to speak for conservatives?
For the past seven years, I have worked on various campaigns for conservative U.S. politicians at the state and national level. Currently, I am a manager in the North Carolina branch of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. I have a B.S. in Mathematics and Political Science and an MBA from Millsaps College (small liberal arts spot) and a J.D. from Tulane University School of Law. Perhaps most importantly, I have had some personal experience with a lot of the social and financial issues that plague American politics. If this takes off, I will get more explicit as necessary.
I also have a fairly good understanding of constitutional law. I suspect I'm not the only law school graduate around here, but if you'd like the conservative tint to a decidedly ambiguous area of the way our legal system works, feel free to ask.
From where do these answers come?
Only myself. I do not propose to speak for any particular politician, including my candidate. That's for other times and other forums. I am a practicing Catholic, but I try very hard to not allow my faith to be my sole justification for political convictions. Also, I am NOT a libertarian. The distinction between libertarians and conservatives is very important to me, and I believe to the country at large. Again, if someone is interested, I will develop that further.
Why do you care?
Obviously, I would love nothing more than to convince all of you that my understanding of the world is the truth and the way to approach life. Barring that, you should know that somewhere around 40% of the country self-identifies as conservative, and that 40% tends to vote quite reliably. If for no other reason than "know thy enemy", I hope you will ask anything you want to know.
I'm fully aware that this could be an obnoxious disaster. Furthermore, as the campaign begins to shift to the general-election phase, my time to check and answer this blog will vary wildly. However, ICCup Tesla's recent post on female gamers has proven that this community can be reasonably respectful and coherent if sufficiently engaged. Hopefully, this post will do just that.
Highest Regards
EDIT: For those who come late to this blog, there have been one or two occasions when I have admitted a mistake somewhere up the page without necessarily editting original posts. This is particularly true regarding the Intelligent Design discussion around page 8. So please read all the way through. And thank you for the civil interaction. This has been a very fun project and I have learned a lot so far.
This is a really cool idea I went to a fairly liberal university (Rutgers in New Jersey), and only really had one token conservative in our circle of friends, and he was very extreme (and not very good at speaking his mind or defending his positions during discussions). Over time, I met more conservatives and clear Republicans, but it's always nice to learn more!
1. What are your top three most important ethical/ moral issues (either in the upcoming presidential election or in general) that you hold a conservative position about, and what's your rationale for leaning towards the right?
2. Are there any platforms or topics that you hold a liberal position towards, or are you 100% conservative through and through?
1) What do you think the relationship is/should be between religion and politics in a secular democracy?
2) How would you respond to social critics who say that democrats and republicans are just different flavours of the same brand, and that Americans have no real choice when it comes to politics?
3) Why do you think the voting rate in America is so low?
On April 26 2012 14:55 Coramoor wrote: how can you support and campaign for a candidate that is so incredibly flip floppy on every issue and clearly wants nothing more then power
And this is why we can't have nice things.
Great blog idea by the way. I like the idea of open communication as it relates to politics. Try not to let obvious inflammatory posts like this get to you.
How do you feel about political conservatism getting tangled up with social conservatism? Does it upset you that most people think of hyper religious rednecks when they think of conservative voters?
1. You say you are catholic. What makes you believe in god? 2. What makes you think that right wing politics works when you see that socialist countries like Norway have a way better living standard than USA? 3. I don't know if you know, but do you think/know if this clip is a serious clip, or just a joke?
Love the idea =) ... Note that my second questions is mostly based on me not being American and despite having been over there for quite some time I find your republican vs democrats thingy highly confusing at times. I don't really see where the actual differences are between your parties. =P
How old are you?
Why did you choose to become a conservative? What are your main grounds of believing that this the "right" approach to todays politics?
1) do you consider the social conservatives of today to be real conservatives or just socialists? 2) why would you go to a liberal arts school when you're a conservative ( in other words, do you believe these two groups of beliefs conflict?)
On April 26 2012 14:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is a really cool idea I went to a fairly liberal university (Rutgers in New Jersey), and only really had one token conservative in our circle of friends, and he was very extreme (and not very good at speaking his mind or defending his positions during discussions). Over time, I met more conservatives and clear Republicans, but it's always nice to learn more!
1. What are your top three most important ethical/ moral issues (either in the upcoming presidential election or in general) that you hold a conservative position about, and what's your rationale for leaning towards the right?
2. Are there any platforms or topics that you hold a liberal position towards, or are you 100% conservative through and through?
ANSWERS for DarkPlasmaBall
1. "Top three most important ethical/moral issues" is going to have to be off the top of my head for now. I may have to revise this answer after I see the next month or so of campaigning.
A. Healthcare
Obviously, this is somewhat of an umbrella term. It kills me that we have spent 20 months under a President who clearly does have the motivation and charisma to effect real change in this matter, and yet all that has been accomplished is a shift in the regulation of payment for service. The dirty little secret of the healthcare debate is that regardless of whether we call it an insurance pool, a single-payer system, or simply a new tax, the end result is we are simply expanding the list of health problems for which the government will pick up the tab.
Now, morally, there's nothing wrong with that except for the dishonesty exhibited by those who discuss it. The issue is that nothing has been solved. The staggering overhead and redundant costs of the American hospital system and its interaction with government at all levels have not been reduced. Sooner or later, we will need to make the decision whether we are going to have a socialized system or a profit-driven system, because this current state somewhere in the middle is far worse than both. The consumer gets hit with all the profit margin and all the compliance costs simultaneously. I believe that profit is a fine motivator for most if not all systems, but there is certainly an argument to be made on the other side. I think there is a lot of merit to the stopgap measure of allowing interstate sale and portability of health insurance. That would not fix the ultimate issue, but it would drop insurance costs quickly with no political backlash.
I just realized these need to be a bit shorter.
B. The 1%
I almost hate to elevate this to top three status, but I know it is an effective campaign tool. Calling it "class warfare" is too generous to the Democrats, in that by the traditional Euro-standard of class-based society, we have no classes in this country. There will always be those who think the rich don't "need" as much money as they have. To be frank, in the Hierarchy of Needs sense of "need", that's very true. But the morality of this issue is actually quite interesting. Each "rich person" will have to come to peace in his or her own mind about greed vs. charity, but in terms of taxation, it is wrong to pretend that the US can bail itself out with a new Buffet Rule. We've all heard the stats about how if we confiscated all the wealth in the country from the top 1%, it would pay the governement's bills for about two months. I don't pretend to know THE PERFECT TAX SYSTEM, but I do know that we are wasting time dealing with Warren Buffet's secretary trying to score political points when we could be making some prudent investments and tough decisions which would cement the social safety net for a few more generations. The bottom line is, each generation will face its own existential crisis as it ages. So far, our parents have not stepped up.
C. Nation-Building
It amazes me how little press Afghanistan gets these days. President Bush was raked over the coals constantly, and perhaps rightfully so. But President Obama represented himself as willing to change things, and so far, we are actually spending MORE per year on foreign military operations. As we have left Iraq, Afghanistan expenses have grown, and Libya has entered the picture. Iran and Syria are probably coming soon. We need to decide the purpose of our military. Personally, if Bush had simply said, "we're going into these places to murder those who attacked us and anyone who has even smiled at them since 9/11," I'd have been more enthusiastic knowing that once it was done, my brothers in arms would be coming home. This indefinite occupation is not accomplishing much, and doesn't even seem to be scoring political points for either side. It will be interesting as the world changes to see whether or not we have learned anything about starting what we are not willing to finish.
2. Do I take any liberal positons?
I'm going to assume that we're talking about stereotypical conservative and liberal positions. As a practicing Catholic, I cannot support the death penalty. To take the life of one who has not received penance for a mortal sin is the worst sin I can possibly imagine. But, stepping away from the faith, I know as an attorney that some defendants have simply walked into court with no chance of a "not guilty". Maybe it was incompetent counsel, maybe it was a jury who had been introduced to improper evidence, but the system is not infallible. Furthermore, by the time an accused is put through all his trials and appeals, is housed in prison during that time, and is actually executed, the cost eclipses the average cost for a life sentence. So any argument supporting capital punishment on financial grounds is just false.
Liberals tend to believe that certain things are fundamental rights which simply aren't. Abortion is the typical example. My understanding of constitutional law is that a state should have the right to outlaw or allow abortion, and to restrict it as it sees necessary. I don't particularly think a state SHOULD outlaw abortion, but the notion that somewhere in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Bill of Rights is the right to abort a pregnancy is just false. If you ever want an interesting read, go to oyez.org and search on Roe v. Wade. You can read or listen to the transcripts and watch the court lead the lawyer through their arguments. The lawyer for Roe had no idea how to frame a constitutional argument, but she knew the Court was sympathetic, so she basically showed up and agreed with the Justices.
In the time it's taken to write this reply, nine more have come up. I will have to make future answers shorter and I will also bundle a few that are similar. If you see me answer a question posted after yours, it's because I think I have answered yours elsewhere. Please repost if you didn't think I got to it.
Saintbadger, the response to DarkPlasmaBall was thoughtful and well-written. Thanks for your hard work in this.
I have been feeling an intense frustration recently at the incredibly poor quality of our political discourse in America. Our democracy has degenerated into sound-bites. So I appreciate the time, effort, and thought that is clearly on display here.
First of all, in my book there is no such thing as a non-fiscal issue. Homosexual marriage involves substantial decreasing of tax revenue at the state and federal levels. Abortion has HUGE HUGE financial implications. So, as I said in the last post, I don't subscribe to the notion that everything a person might want to do is a fundamental right protected implicitly in the Constitution. Having said that, I don't necessarily want all of the things I morally disapprove of to be outlawed.
I believe it is morally wrong to have sex without taking precaution against pregnancy unless it is your intention to have and raise a child. I do not think abortion is murder, and furthermore, I don't think the country could survive at the current state of society without it. I think homosexual marriage is a matter for the church, and I think ALL marriage incentives should be removed and replaced with increased child credits, since the whole point of marriage incentives is to help ensure two-parent households for children. There are millions more social issues, but I tend to stick with these when asked a blanket question.
As to what a government's role is, that's a little too broad. I think for the most part, it can be whatever its people wants it to be, with a few fundamentals not up for discussion.
I am not a libertarian for pretty much the reasons I indicated regarding social conservatism. Libertarians generally do not acknowledge the simple truth that we are going to have a safety net in this country funded by taxpayers, and thus, it is very much my business whether you are doing something that is likely to incur tremendous costs to the government. Striking the balance between personal liberty and society's willingness to financially forgive certain mistakes by an individual is the work of statesman, and not to be ignored.
@ Coramoor
All politicians want power. I believe both Romney and Obama intend to use that power in a way that pursues what they see as a better future for the country. You might think me naive, but I have some idea what the job of President entails, and believe me, there are easier ways to be very powerful. As to the flip flop, I'm very slow to judge people as dishonest when they claim to have changed their minds. I change my mind frequently, and I think it takes a particularly stubborn individual to not admit they've learned new things and evolved because of them. In the end, I'm not the one stepping up to the plate to be the leader of the free world. If he governs as he represents himself to me and my party, we'll be happy. No one can be sure how it's going to go beforehand.
Do women (in general) find your conservativeness to be offensive? I'd imagine that since the conservative stance could be interpreted as a more misogynistic political stance that anyone outside the conservative standpoint would find it an automatic turn-off as opposed to having a more liberal stance would have possibly zero.... something like, "meritless conclusions based on prejudice".
1. What's the proper relationship of religion and government in the US?
That's a big one. Personally, I try to live my life by my faith and vote on empirical evidence and educated guesswork. The death penalty and a few other issues are so big and so intertwined with faith that I have given up trying to avoid my religious convictions. I think we'd all be a little better served if we knew what our religion ACTUALLY had to say on the matters at hand, and I don't just mean scripture.
I'm going to plagarize a West Wing episode for a moment: "The Bible says a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. It says a prideful child can be stoned at the gates of a city. It says [a few other things that I can't remember from that episode]. For all I know, this represented the most learned and wise of philosophy at the time. But it's just wrong, by any modern standard." I think that scripture was written by man and man is fallible. So be careful and err on the side of compassion.
As to the public sphere, I think we've actually done a good job. Employment law and the IRS have carved out fairly liberal exceptions to religious organizatons. There are a few lasting issues with gender discrimination in the Catholic Church, but they're being resolved slowly but surely.
Having said all that, I'm sorry to break the scholarly tone, but to hell with these people who say Congress can't start business with a prayer. Nowhere in the Constitution are you guaranteed freedom from annoyance or offence. I checked.
2. Aren't Dems and Reps two sides of the same coin, with no real choice involved?
At an individual level, that is provably false. Ron Paul really does want to go back to the gold standard and legalize all drugs. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) really does want to abolish private property. But the FUNCTIONAL truth of the matter is probably a lot more in line with your question. WIth the veto, the fillibuster, and the looming high Court, not a lot of stuff gets done. From 2009 - 2011, we had the rare privilege of seeing what happens when one party manages to secure the presidency and enough votes in Congress to override parliamentary maneuvers. I speak of the Affordable Care Act. In my book, that was a very bad time. But regardless of which side of the line you stand, it was a bit scary to see how different the political realm looks when one party amasses that many seats in government.
3. Why is the U.S. voting rate so low?
We vote on Tuesdays. No, seriously, that's the reason. All of Europe has a holiday to vote. Obviously there's some apathy inherent in all populations, but I think we'd be comparable with Europe if we voted on Sunday. Frankly, I've never seen the merit in trying for a higher voter turnout when we aren't trying for more voter UNDERSTANDING. I like the idea that only those of us who are engaged enough to have an opinion actually make the trek to the booth and pull the lever.
ANSWERS @SnipedSoul (think I answered the first part earlier)
Do conservative stereotypes bother me?
Not really. I think deep down, everyone understands that their are some fiercely intelligent and motivated people on both sides of the aisle. There will always be some who insist on characterizing religion as ignorant, but I gladly accept the mantle of the "religous party" if they really want to give it to us. Ironically, of course, the same people who decry "bible thumpin' rednecks" are strangely silent when Nancy Pelosi reaches out to her "fellow" Catholics.
And let's face it. No matter where you stand on the issues, if the zombie apocalypse ever breaks out, y'all bettter get your asses to the deep South. God may not be taking a personal role in things at that point, but the guns sure will.
If people finally run out of things to ask conservatives, I may make "Ask a Catholic Anything", but by then, I hope to be working at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (we can dream). I really can't do the long answer right now. The short version is that given all the evidence I can perceive, Occam's Razor points me in the direction of some sort of prime mover. As to the Christian tenants, the EXTREMELY condensed version is that the passion story rings true in some preternatural part of my brain, and my gut reaction to things which Christianity holds as virtuous or evil generally validate the teachings. That's a weird answer, but it's a hard thing to write quickly.
2. Why be conservative when more liberal European countries have better standards of living?
For one thing, we're seeng the beginnings of what I think will be a massive restructuring of old Europe. I don't know enough about Norway, but I do know quite a bit about Sweden, and the bottom line is that that system of government is extremely precarious, and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation. I don't think the U.S. can count on someone bailing us out if we ever get out of control.
I do realize that the governement can maintain increasing levels of debt to fund itself, BUT that debt increase should not outpace GDP growth. Over the past ten years, the US has shown no restraint whatsoever. Also, it just grates on me, this idea that we have trillions of dollars spent on ourselves that we never intend to pay back. That may be a sustainable framework, but it's not how I want to sustain my country.
One last thought: Be careful reading about standards of living as compared between America and Europe. When Dems want to talk about socialized medicine, they talk about how our infant mortality rate is so much higher (one of the big factors in calculating standard of living). The only problem is, they're lying thru their teeth and they know it. In America, any pregnancy that reaches the 8th month of gestation is counted as an infant because viability is 100% established (barring some sort of deformity, of course). In Europe, an infant has to be living and breathing outside the mother for 24 hours before it's counted as an infant. So yes, America has a higher rate of infant mortality by its definition, but if we used the Euro definition, ours is something like 3% of Europe's. It's comparing apple seeds to apples.
3. Youtube clip = I can't watch right now, but please repost later or remind me.
@r.Evo
I am 29 years old.
I chose to be a conservative at first because the people who identify themselves as conservative are generally more accepting of their existing a right and a wrong absent any relativism. Now, the failing of conservatives is that too often, they proclaim they know exactly what that right and wrong is in every circumstance. I don't pretend to be an arbiter of right and wrong, but the moral relativism argument upon which a lot of liberalism is based, in other words the "it's right for you but wrong for me" idea, is just an untenable logical fallicy to me. Later, as I learned the economic side of it, I did a lot of research on the numbers and decided that in order to sustain the kind of government that can accomplish most of what liberals desire, we would have to sacrifice a lot of the incentives that I think make the US a special place to live. I want the opportunity to be filthy rich if that's what's important to me. I am willing to pay taxes, but I will fight hard to never allow a penny of them to go to things that I don't see as worthwhile.
That's a sort of idealistic answer, but that's a fairly broad question.
EPT
I went to a fairly liberal university (Rutgers in New Jersey), and only really had one token conservative in our circle of friends, and he was very extreme (and not very good at speaking his mind or defending his positions during discussions). Over time, I met more conservatives and clear Republicans, but it's always nice to learn more! 
