Friday, March 17, 2017

A question for 'REAL Conservatives'™

I've got a question for my 'REAL Conservatives'™ friends out there. While I've come to think of myself as more as more of a Liberal Conservative - Politically Liberal (Not Leftist, but Liberal in the classical sense of advocating for liberty), and culturally Conservative (not socially conservative, but seeking to conserve the ideals and treasures of Western Culture) - I like to think of myself as someone who has an understanding of the nature of Principles, to the point of preferring Principled thinking, over attempting to think with prefabricated store bought 'principles' (IOW I can get a bit obnoxious over it).

Between Scylla and Charybdis

I like to think of myself as someone who has an understanding of the nature of individual rights, the vital role that property plays in upholding them under a system of justice based upon the Rule of Law, which restrains and restricts the necessary power of government to defending the lives and rights of its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I've spent a lot of time thinking through how those abstract rights, follow from perceptual realities, in a conceptual chain that is perilous to abridge. And while I rarely find politicians who think as I do, I do seek out and support those who at least show a deep regard for our rights, for the rule of law, and the structure and purpose of our Constitution.

Given that focus, I couldn't find a way to support Donald Trump in the Primaries, because I didn't see any evidence that he understood, or gave much thought or regard, for what I did. I couldn't exactly support him in the general election either, although I strongly advocated for casting your vote, as I did, with his name on it, as the most effective means of defeating the greater evil facing us, from the Pro-Regressive Left.

My question for 'REAL Conservatives'™, is this: Why is it, that with all the 'REAL Conservatives'™ we've supported and elected over the decades, why is it that this billionaire, Twitter headed, Reality T.V. star, Donald J. Trump, is the ONLY one to propose the type of budget measures he has, the ONLY one who's moved to slay the Hydra of the Administrative State, the ONLY one who's used his executive powers to attack it, the ONLY one whose told the hell hole of North Korea that the era of 'strategic patience' is at an end, and the ONLY one to begin to pull back from the Charybdis of suck that is the United Nations?

That seems like a question that might be worth giving some thought to.


Jess said...

Out all of the candidates running against the Progressive candidate, Trump was the only one that understood how to fight a propaganda mill impersonating as a free press. Operating out of the control of the press allowed his message to reach those that could vote him into office; and his message included addressing the concerns of the majority of citizens.

Van Harvey said...

Yep. The Alinsky rules are mostly ineffective against Trump, because they require (Rule #4) him to be and believe, what he isn't and doesn't (that's going to be my next post) . The Pro-regressive Left (and right) are still in a state of shock from watching their bullets bounce off of him.

But my question is more one of questioning 'REAL Conservatives'™ and why they've been so ineffective, than about why Trump has been as effective add he has been so far.

The question to be considering, for 'REAL Conservatives'™, and their supporters, is why it is that over the course of decades, they have Not been able to even get to the point of even credibly PROPOSING, or even taking the stances (towards U.N., etc), which Trump has done in just a few days - even though they've supposedly always wanted just that.

Until that's answered - what do 'REAL Conservatives'™ mean by 'REAL Conservatives'™ - until that's answered, I think 'REAL Conservatives'™ will have zero place in our political future.

Which seems worth considering.