"Diversity" is one of those politically correct buzzwords I have really come to loathe. The concept itself is benign enough if left to a traditional definition, but it is one of many words whose meaning has been distorted by leftist zealots to hide more nefarious meanings and intentions. But one of the things I despise most about how we use this term is as if it is a high virtue that only the left possesses, and that conservatives are by contrast militantly dogmatic and oppressive. As with many things in the perverse world of liberals, the truth is almost the precise opposite.
When liberals say that conservatives are not "diverse", or that they are non-inclusive, what they are really saying is that conservatives are opposed to the ideas favored and promoted by liberals. It just sounds a whole lot more damning to call them names like "intolerant" and such. Conservatives tend to believe that the traditional family model is the backbone of society, but liberals take every opportunity to seize upon that and twist their views into something resembling an almost violent hostility towards gays. Conservatives tend to believe that charity is handled best at the local level instead of an inept federal bureaucracy, but rather than investigate the evidence, liberals rage that conservatives want babies and old women to die in the streets. Conservatives tend to believe in a strong military and law enforcement apparatus, and for this we are made out to be proponents of a police state in favor of a nazi regime. The list goes on and on and on and on...
Conversely, liberals portray themselves as lovers of freedom, and the deliverers and ensurers of "rights" (that we never had until they came around). It's kind of handy that they also see themselves as the saviors of "oppressed minority" groups who's suffering comes exclusively by the hands of their political and philosophical rivals, despite the fact that they are completely dependent upon the perpetuation of class warfare and division rather than any real unity.
The truth is that liberals are extremely dogmatic in the sense that they reflexively refuse to consider conservative points on virtually any and all issues, all the while claiming to espouse diverse views. This is quite a feat in that conservatives comprise the largest percentage of traditional American sensibilities. But the question remains, are conservatives in lock-step agreement as the libs portray them to be?
Conservatism does have a few main ideas that are generally held in common. The two main features are limited government and a capitalist free-market system, from which come a plurality of other positions that help support them. Inspired from the Declaration of Independence inalienable rights passage that all are endowed by their Creator (a notion considered passe and even offensive by liberals) with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a slightly longer list of typical conservative views include the following: strong national defense, pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family, low taxes, and individual rights and responsibilities.
But there is no real litmus test to determine whether or not one is a genuine conservative, just as it appears to be with liberals. You can be a conservative and be pro-abortion, although some might consider you to be less conservative than others (and I personally loathe the practice as barbaric). Likewise, you can support gay marriage or some measure of federalist tendencies, and overall be considered conservative. We can amass a checklist of common conservative views, and judge an individual by their specific results, but this shows the degree of conservatism a person embodies is not a matter of which boxes are checked, but by how many. It is very easy to consider one conservative although they may not share a typical position or two, but at some point when they do not share a larger number of views, they at some point can no longer be considered a conservative.
Perfect recent examples include Sen. John McCain, who claims to be a genuine conservative but is well known to stray from typical conservative views quite often. This tendency to think and vote contrary to conservative values as a member of the Republican party has for some earned him the title of "Maverick", a much nicer title than others (like myself) would apply. Another example includes the now infamous Sen. Arlen Specter, who was notorious for voting contrary to conservative interests, and who eventually "came out of the closet" for the liberal he is by joining the Democrat party. In a magnificent stroke of divine justice, Specter is now on his way out of office, having lost the primary to a rival.
The point is that conservatism, much like liberalism, is a matter of degree, and there are all sorts of deviances from the "standard line". There is every bit as much "diversity" in conservative camps as those of liberals. Leftist propagandists cannot permit the reality of this comparison to stand, however, and they are compelled to distort and demonize their opponents at every turn.
It is my opinion that most conservative principles are superior to the alternatives presented, that they follow the traditional wisdom of our forefathers, and are not the result of devotion to out-dated ideals and values, but rather the continuation of wisdom gleaned throughout the ages with an acute understanding of human nature. Liberals, on the other hand, gravitate fiercely towards new-age utopian idealism that has forsaken wisdom in favor of a fantasy world that does not correspond with human nature. Because the ideas are so foreign to what nature reveals, they must engage in constant propaganda, misrepresentation of facts and issues, and assorted skulduggery. Alas, we (they) have bred entire generations now groomed to be receptive to such things, thanks to the abuse of the public school systems and clever punitive programs such as "diversity training."
I've come to consider myself a conservative libertarian. The strongest link between conservatives and libertarian is fiscal policy. It is primarily on the social issues that the two part. I find myself somewhere in the middle of conservative and libertarian social ideals, and since libertarians are best distinguished by being liberal in many or most of these things, by default I must specify my conservative views...hence, I am a conservative libertarian.
I am no longer sold out to the Republican party, since I feel that they have become weak and willing to sell out our values rather than fight for our cause. And I have also come to reconsider or modify certain views that are common in the party. Here is where this apologetically conservative American-Canadian Wiccan stands on some of the big hot-button issues...am I conservative enough for you?
MILITARY: We must maintain superior worldwide military strength. Failure to do so endangers our way of life. This is a first responsibility of our federal government. The military is not to be used for policing the world, or for blatant political purposes. Likewise, social engineering has no place in the military...it creates internal problems that reduce our overall effectiveness. In the words of the Great MahaRushie, the military is made for two purposes, to kill people and to break things. Stray too far from that, and you reduce their ability to effectively perform either of these two primary critical functions.
GAY MARRIAGE: Marriage is an institution developed for man and woman, the relationship of which is the very cornerstone of our society and our existence as a species. Our respect for this cultural cornerstone must be maintained, despite the soaring divorce rates. Gays should under no terms be allowed to infiltrate, distort, or change this institution which has been sacred to the majority for many centuries. On the other hand, gays are entitled to pursue happiness in partnerships with whomever they please, without government intrusion or discrimination. Same-sex civil unions should be legal, and provide most, if not all of the same partnership benefits and responsibilities granted to married couples. Let us bear in mind that if we are going to deviate from the traditional model in this respect, if we are to maintain integrity we must also recognize that other alternative relationships (i.e. polygamy) deserve no less consideration. If the government cannot discriminate against personal relationships on the basis of gender, it also cannot do the same on the basis of numbers. It's a can of worms we're opening here, if we are going to be intellectually honest about things.
TAXES: As Chief Justice John Marshall said, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." This also means that in a very real way, it is the power to control people. Liberals (and Conservatives) understand this. Government exists through the forced seizure of our earned assets, and produces no product or revenue of its own. Without limits set to curtail them, the class in power will inevitably use this power as a tool to increase and maintain their own power and interests over those they profess to serve. This is, once again, human nature...the nasty part of it that is very real, unavoidable if left unchecked, and so very appealing to liberals. The federal government was never intended to financially enslave the people as it has come to, and taxes will continue to rise while living standards decrease, unless we return to a limited federal government. Socialism does not work, people, it destroys.
RELIGION: The First Amendment specifies an ideal of separation of Church and State, not separation of Church from State, although neither verbiage is found in the document. What it says is that no law shall be established recognizing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Any honest interpretation must conclude that this amendment prohibits government, not religion. Therefore, there is no direction to remove religion from the public square. Quite the opposite, the government has no right to interfere with religious activity or display in public areas whatsoever, no matter what minority group might become sensitively offended. Also, our country was unquestionably founded on Judeo-Christian principles which should not be discriminated against, but honored, although not legislated. The Government should be weakest where religion is concerned, or else government may well become religion, as is frequently the case in our current era. I'm a Wiccan, folks. I don't say this to promote Christianity, but to give credit where it is due, and to be intellectually honest about the principles and values expressed by the founding fathers.
IMMIGRATION AND BORDER CONTROL: Legal immigration is acceptable but should be reduced. Under no circumstances should illegal immigration be tolerated, and serious policies must be implemented to solve this problem. Children born in this country without a parent who are themselves a citizen should not be entitled to citizenship status. Using children as a back-door winning lottery ticket is reprehensible. If you cannot respect the laws and sovereignty of this country, or have no willingness to assimilate, then leave. You are part of the problem, not the solution. Failure of politicians to support serious immigration laws should be convicted. It's simple: If you can't maintain our borders, we have no country. If you won't maintain our borders, you are an enemy of the State. (I'm looking at you, Barry, GW, John McCain, and a long list of others (primarily but not exclusively liberals). Massive efforts to deport illegals after punitive measures are taken is a minimum response. Amnesty or any other form of concession to persons whose first act upon entering the country was to violate our laws and disrespect our sovereignty is an insult to legitimate immigrants and natural citizens.
ABORTION: The term "pro-choice" is a misnomer that has been beaten into our heads to advance a power-struggle through confusion and misdirection. The results have had numerous catastrophic consequences in many areas, such as the cheapening of life, the further weakening of the family, and the increase of divide between men and women. Proponents often dishonestly warn of the dangers of returning to back alley abortions, should the laws be reversed or even modified from their current policy of abortion-on-demand, and repeatedly tout the three cases of incest, rape, and endangerment of life as reasons why current laws must be kept in place. They do not, however, mention the fact that these comprise less than 4% of causes for abortion election. The overwhelming majority are for reasons of convenience and responsibility avoidance (finances, aspirations, etc.). This is a cruel and barbaric practice that is designed to place full power in the hands of a single person where others involved (the father, and more importantly the child) are left powerless. It coarsens the spirit and is a cause of lingering psychological trauma for many women and men. The practice should be illegal, with the exceptions of endangering the mothers life, and perhaps incest. This is a matter of our character and soul as a nation, that we so eagerly dismiss and rationalize the brutal execution of the most innocent and precious of human life.
TERM LIMITS: All politicians should be restricted to reasonable term limits, and career politicians as a class should not exist. No retirement pensions should be granted to first time incumbents. Allowing careerist politicians provides an avenue for the likelihood of persons seeking power rather than service. By enacting term limits we greatly reduce this possibility, and should then instead attract service minded persons guided by a desire to positively impact our direction as a country rather than those concerned first and foremost with the perpetuation of their power and station.
FEDERALISM: As much power as possible should be transferred back to the States, and the Federal government should again be limited by law in it's role. The New (Raw) Deal is a colossal failure that defies the wisdom of our founding fathers. Wherever the State is able to do so while maintaining functionality, it should follow suit and return powers to the local governments. Centralized bureaucracy is a monstrosity that does not work, or at least works very poorly. It is also an avenue for tyranny, and history shows repeatedly that a government not kept firmly in check will inevitably veer towards this tyranny if given the opportunity. This is not theory, it is historically verifiable fact. In the words of George Santayana, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Modern liberals, being for the most part completely ignorant of history, concern themselves with revising it rather than learning from it. Is this the way we want to go?
These are but a few of the positions that I take. Some might say they are extreme. But then, I guess it's a matter of perspective. To me, conservatism represents wisdom and a responsibly mature approach. I see very little in it's goals and ideals that could be considered extreme, and in fact find much of it to be common sense...something that our culture increasingly rejects. If we have slid so far into irresponsible stupidity, then it follows that some will inevitably become irritated when they are faced with a contrast.
Give me the checklist. I believe that my results will show that I am not a sold-out Republican by any means, and I hold them to the same standards that I would hold any liberal to. But I would almost certainly be considered conservative...very much so. That to me is a matter of pride, an indication that I have matured as an intelligent and responsible person of character. It also means that I am "diverse" in that I can tolerate the existence of any opposing position, although I may fight against those ideas to the very end.
Liberalism is a social pestilence, my friends, a refusal of the developmentally stunted to grow up. The fact that we allow these obviously challenged persons to contribute so significantly towards the crafting of our destiny at the ballot box, very much at our own peril, is perhaps the most clear expression of conservative "diversity" and "tolerance".
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." - Sir Winston Churchill
-VSP
