Have you ever looked at an interactive map of historical Europe where the centuries fly by in seconds and the national borders and sovereign national authorities change like an amoeba running in place? That might be a good analogy for America’s political heritage. Ever heard of the Whigs, the Bull Moose party, the Federalist? Titles and labels are misleading because what they meant yesterday was different and today, perceptions and definitions change, radically in fact. Nevertheless, I am conservative.
In the mental image of my audience here, I anticipate two primary orientations, generically known as liberals and conservatives, or more crudely, Democrats or Republicans (I am currently neither of those btw). Those border lines are no longer accurate. If you read Northeast Reader often enough, you’ll know that I’m either conservative, deeply conservative to others, or whacked out conspiracy theory angry white male conservative to still others, and finally, you might be surprised to know I’m a sellout leftwing bleeding-heart commie to a few. To the latter especially, they can stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. You might be familiar with the meme collage where it is asked: ‘How my clients see me’, ‘how my parents see me’, until it finally reaches, ‘how I see myself’. The disparities are amusingly huge. In that light, this is how I see myself:
I am a conservative because I believe in the historical America, the United States of America that fought a war with England after being founded upon the United States Constitution. The Constitution is the soul of our country and without it, we have nothing, no freedoms and no identity; otherwise, we would be a melting pot spilled on the floor. I believe in fiscal restraint and balancing the checkbook at the end of the day. I believe in capitalism. As one expression states, ‘it’s a terrible system, until you consider all the other alternatives’. Its responsible for our prosperity, our living standard and for well over a century, for drastically changing the course of history for the entire global population and bringing them out of disease ravaged poverty and serfdom. I believe in science, free from all political manipulation. I believe in male and female, determined by xx or yx chromosomes. To the extent that there are biological mutations from this, they are what they are for that individual, but not for other’s imagination of themselves. I believe all men and women are free and that those rights and freedoms are given by God and should not be taken by governments except for the most basic consideration of mutual civil benefit not attainable by any other means. I believe in law and personal responsibility. In matters of race, the words of Martin Luther King cannot be exceeded. I believe America should leave a light footprint in the rest of the world and stay out of its wars except when our interests are impacted. I believe in America’s own absolute sovereignty and our obligation to maintain our own identity, indeed for the sake of the world which in many instances has chosen to emulate our example over the course of our history.
These are the broadest strokes to my conservatism. Further details are articulated in the essays of Northeast Reader.
In addition to my core conservatism, there are what I regard as qualified exceptions, or to some, traitorous defections. These, with brief explanations are:
Immigration: I believe in ‘America first’ but also in well-regulated immigration. Both are what we did for most of our history. Speaking of my lifetime, only since the Obama years have both liberals and ultra conservatives forced the matter of immigration to be construed only by its extremes. Obama favored immigration targeted to meet his long-term political vision, the ultimate dilution and globalization of the United States. Toward the end, this also entailed an open southern border. That was wrong. Ultra conservatives rightly rebelled against that and wrongly against what comprised our historical stance on immigration. That too was wrong. Immigration is determined by congress. Make laws you intend to keep and keep the laws you make. All other efforts have no legitimacy.
Wage disparity: I believe it’s possible to reach a point of unsustainable disparity between wages and cost of living. I do not believe that market forces will always bail us out of those disparities before unacceptable social rebellion takes place. There is a place for regulating minimum wages, representing human capital, just the same way we regulate money supply.
Hyper-capitalism: I do not believe the Bezos’ and the Zuckerberg’s of this country should be accorded the same standing as capitalist as a mom-and-pop grocery store and yet this is invariably how I see conservatives weighting the latest generation of oligarchs. When these concerns reach the size of small to mid-sized nation states but with much greater power, they have a different obligation to their constituency, the United States, and the world. These thoughts are conceptual as I leave it to economic theorist to adjust what conservatism might mean for them.
Environment: I consider myself an aggressive conservationist in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and like-minded crusaders. I believe in the potential for technology to save and reclaim our environment where it has undergone decades of abuse. I believe we can afford to say no to some instances where industry and agriculture would compromise an ecosystem and that the same focus on technology for environmental mitigation can also compensate for development needs and ambitions. At the same time, I abhor politicized environmentalism (climate change hype) which is frankly, a faith-based religion and provides little to no relief that could not be provided directly by technology through profit incentivized efforts. Socialistic governments, benefiting directly from climate change initiatives are among the most environmentally destructive forces in the world today.
Native Americans: Native Americans should be subject to a long-term review of their historical handling by the government of the United States. This should not be on the basis of a racial or even economic motivation but as a just legal cause. I believe it’s also a spiritual cause. In the course our own expansion, we wronged them, and we were wronged but in net, we made hundreds of agreements and treaties that we broke for our own convenience and ambition. I believe this has not been adequately rectified.