What (Who?) Is a Conservative, Part II

See Sunday's entry for part I.  To be a conservative, you MUST believe:

2.   That the size of the Fedral Government should be REDUCED (certainly relatively), and in a LIMITED Federal government (really, conservatives believe that ALL government should be limited to one degree or another, but especially the Federal Government).   You can't be a conservative and not believe this.  I do not believe trhat either President Bush or John McCain believe it, and I can't see that ANY Republican (or member of Congress) who voted for the recent, bloated Farm Bill believes it 

Obviously, this does not mean conservatives oppose every proposed Federal law, or that any one Federal bill is determintative.  But some Federal laws are just so obviously a violation of this principle that no conservative can support them and be a conservative.  I regard the Medicare Drug Benefit Program in that light.  The Farm Bill, as stated, belongs in that category, with the only caveat being that SOME conservatives might feel that they were obligated to support it to represent what their consitutennts want--an excuse that, unfortunately, quickly leads to a vastly EXPANDED Federal Government. 

You will notice that this principal goes back to principle no. 1:  which is basically that people should be responsible for their own lives, to the extent possible.  It also goes to the subsidiary principle that CENTRAL PLANNING is indefensible, and always a disaster in the end (when it is substituted for individual or localized decision making). 

Does not John McCain oppose "earmarks" (one avenue of Federal expansion--spending being one indication of such expansion).  Yes, BUT.  McCain, for example (besides McCain Feingold), also slupports the biggest current expansion of the Federal Government being lproposed:  the outrageous "cap and trade" system on "carbon footprints".  That outrageous legislation represents an attempt for the Federal Government to directly determine who uses what kind of energy, in a "comprehensive" way, and in a manner amounting to a massive TAX.  The government assigns an allowable "carbon footrpint", and taxes you if you go beyond what is allowed.  But it also sets up this SCAM (inviting outrageous fraud and scams only limited by the ingenuity of the human mind) where green "credtis" can be TRADED (purchased by "bad" carbon footprint people and businesses from "good" carbon foot print people and businesses).  That is EXACTLY the kind of massive Fderal control that rightly gave CENTRAL PLANNING a bad name.  It represents an attempt by the Federal Government, and leftists, to have the Federal Government essentially take over our entrie industrialized economy in a way that gives FEderal politicians CONTROL over TRILLIONS of dollars.   As I have said before, this "global warming' "regulation" (this is hardly the only example) is likely to CRUCIFY our economy on a cross of "global warming".   No conservative can blieve in this type of legislation, even if the conservative buys into some part of the "global warming" idea.  This alone disqualifies McCain from being a conservative.

When conservatives talk about "believing in the Constitution", this is what they mainly mean.  The Constitution set up the Federal Government as a LIMITED GOVERNMENT, supposedly having only the powers specifically granted to it (NOT including, for example, the power to interfere with the "right to bear arms"--whether the Second Amendment existed or not).

The Supreme Court is part of the Federal Government.  Therefore, a power grab by Federal Judges imposing their policy views (the entire Federal Judiciary is part of the Federal Government) represents an UNCONSTITUIONAL grab for Federal power in the hands of Federal Judges.  This is a subversion of democracy and the Constitution.  You can't be a conservative and believe otherwise.  Thre is just no doubt that the Federl Judiciary has been a willing accomplice in the vast expansioin of Federal power--including power usurped by that judiciary itself.

Again, no one deicision or Federal action is determinative.  Some definitte conservatives favor Federal action on something like medical malpractice.  An aberration or two does not affect a person's overall belief in this principle (okay, I MIGHT have to admit that an aberration on the Farm Bill does not alone disqualify you from being a conservative, although the "global warming' legislation clearly does because of its extent and scope).

Nevertheless, you MUST believe strongly in this principle, and aplly that belief consistently (barring isolated aberrations), to be a conservative. 

Now Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve.  Do you have to go that far to be a conservative?  Nope.  You have to face certain realities, and can't keep fighting battles that have been long decided.  However, you CANNOT continue to favor EXPANDING the Federal Government from where we now find it, and MUST favor actually REDUCXING the power, size and control of the Federal Government, to legitimately consider yourself a conservative.   Merely favoring "fiscal restraint" does NOT make you a conservative.

I will address this further at the end, but it is obvious that people do not HAVE to fit in one category or another.  If you are not a conservative, it does not mean you are necessarily a "leftist", in the sense I use that shorthand term.  However, the point of this series is to show that modern conservatism IS an internally consistent, principled philosophy that COULD govern thin country well.  Further, I hope to point out that it is DANGErOUS to start making exceptions for things like expansion of Federal size and power.  Eventually (may already have happened), the exceptions consume the "rule" and byou have a monster out of control.  I think that description now fits the Federal Government. 

It is a bad mistake (see entries on the evils of central planning) to regard the Federal Government as responsible for "solving" all of our problems.  Once you go down that road, you have adopted the disastrous, central planning approach to problem solving. 

WHEN has the Federal Government shown, in modern times, that it is capable of operating efficiently to "solve" our problems?  Katrina?  Simply passing a FEderal law does NOT "solve" a problem.  It often makes a problem much worse, becaues SOME Federal laws will be WRONG.  And they can't easily be changed.  The beigger the Federal Government is, the MORe laws will be WRONG, and the more chance that some will be WRONG in ways that can destroy us.  For this purpose, "laws" include regulations and even FEderal court decisions. 

The conserfative idea is that if a problem CAN be addressed at less than a Federal level (and most prolblems, including health care, can), then it SHOULD be addressed either privately or on as localized a level as possible.  Any other approach is the discredited (by history and theory) CENTRAL PLANNING approach to problems.

Conservatives believe in the individual.  This is an essential coponent of individual FREEDOM.  What difference does it make if no one is tapping your phone, if the Federal Government is dictation how you live your LIFE (see "global warming" legislation; it is hard to imagine a more direct assault on FREEDOM).

Part III will be coming, but I am off to Boston until June 12.  Therefore, there will be few, if any, entries between now and then.  No applause please!!!