More Liberal Confusion...Sigh...

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this issue. Among both Conservatives and Liberals. I received an email from a Liberal today, the contents of which will be easily inferred from my response. She is utterly ignorant of the fundamentals of Conservatism. Somehow, no matter what we say, Liberals insist on believing that being a Conservative is just a breath away from being a Fascist.

This shows the power of Big Media. They have defined us in terms exactly the opposite of what we are. That Fascism demands a big, all-powerful, all-controlling central government—and that such a thing is the very antithesis of everything we hold dear, doesn't matter at all.

Most Liberals do not know what Conservative means. It seems impossible in an age of "communication" and "information", not to mention the fact that half of the country is Conservative...but somehow we have failed to reach them. Not to convert...but merely to inform.

Most Liberals and Democrats are voting and thinking and making decisions based on complete fabrications, falsehoods and distortions they have been taught as truth by Big Media and Big Education. That so many equate or even associate American Conservatism i.e., Jeffersonian Liberalism, with Fascism demonstrates a sick, pervasive ignorance almost beyond our power to remedy.

Sometimes I despair.

Cervantes was prophetic. He was writing about modern American Liberals tilting at windmills; monsters of their own imaginings.

I don't mind if people disagree with our ideas. But for them to constantly fight us over ideas we don't have is beyond frustrating.

Sometimes I feel like a "residual haunt": a mindless, non-sentient ghostly image that walks the same path, the same way, every day for centuries...I find myself explaining over and over again in the same way what Conservatives actually believe, in contrast with what most people imagine we believe.

Every Liberal I meet thinks he knows what Conservatives believe...and he's agin' it. But in every single case he is wrong.

So, here I am, once again, explaining the basics to a Liberal who has accused Conservatives (me) of what might be called the "usual suspects". She is responding to my email explanation of the Stop McCain so-called "Suicide Vote" which was more or less what I posted here. I'll let her speak for herself:

"...thanks for the information you sent regarding a modern version of "conservatism" (including "suicide voters"), which prompted some quick googled research and the following opinion.

As suggested by its title, the views expressed in the "Suicide Voters" email are extreme, run contrary to scientific and legal knowledge, strip human liberties, promote a fascist state. The government was never intended to be a dictatorship, which is the reason we have Congress (check-and-balance).

And, the "suicide voter"counter political strategy is mean-spirited and obstructive when actual "common ground" citizen and infrastructure solutions are needed. Restricting, obscuring and twisting principled human liberties runs contrary to US constitutional law, human rights and virtue.

It may not be perfect, but the McCain-Kennedy bill to secure the boarders, require visas for legal and non-legal immigrants, creates an orderly "common ground" solution to a long term problem. This is a positive step in identifying all persons within our boarders, and those who cross our boarders-- whereas the current system fails.

Are views between conservatives and liberals so disparate that compromise for the "common good" cannot be achieved without the interference of egocentric attitudes? Shouldn't conservatives and liberals be directing their attention to more practical issues, including the influence and affect of big business interests (including overseas and off-shore) on the function of our government?

I couldn't quite follow the logic in the second and third paragraphs, particularly the parts I highlighted in red, but the tone was familiar enough for me to get her overall meaning. This is my response:

OK. Let's take this one statement at a time, shall we?

FIRST: This one-time-only tactic (so-called "suicide voting") is not a "Modern Version of Conservatism". It is a specific response, to a unique circumstance, at a particular moment in time. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, making leaps of illogic into vague and meaningless generalities.

SECOND: "MODERN VERSION of Conservatism" is a hilarious contradiction in terms—which reveals a profound ignorance of what "Conservatism" is!

Allow me to explain. American Conservatism is Jeffersonian Liberalism. Thomas Jefferson was very suspicious and distrustful of government. He fought for a small, weak central government that could be held in check by the power of the people and the states. He knew that government would grow as big and as powerful as citizens would allow it, until instead of being their servant, it became their master. That is why he stated unequivocally that when the government no longer serves the people, it should be destroyed and replaced. He meant it literally.

To be an American Conservative is to hold sacred the principles of the foundation of our Republic and the Constitution: LIMITED GOVERNMENT & INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. There is no MODERN VERSION of them. They are what they are; they remain what they were. Conservatism means to conserve what came before. American Conservatives seek to preserve, conserve and continue those bedrock, undergirding principles into the future against the tide of Liberalism, Progressivism, Leftism, Socialism, Communism, Modernism, Islamism, Multiculturalism or any other "ism" that would undermine them. "Modern Version of Conservatism" is a perfect oxymoron.

THIRD: By a Liberal, any Conservative idea will be termed "extreme". We'll just acknowledge that as the pot-shot, name-calling it is and move on.

FOURTH: I'm not sure what "scientific" knowledge I was running contrary to. Please explain.

FIFTH: Please tell me how preventing government from enacting more intrusive laws (its reason for living) is "contrary to legal knowledge", "stripping human liberties" or "promoting a fascist state". If your idea of Fascism isn't a Big, Powerful, Intrusive, Interfering, Regulating, Taxing, Censoring, Controlling Government, Ruling Every Moment of Our Lives, and Everything We Do, Say and Think, I'm not sure you understand the term.

Remember, in spite of efforts to convince you otherwise, Nazi Fascism was a form of Socialism, i.e. a Leftist phenomenon. It wasn't called "National Socialism" by accident. A big, all-powerful, all-controlling government is the very hallmark of the Left. Their refusal to allow privatization (i.e.people having control of their own money) of Social Security and their push for government controlled health care are just two of the most current examples.

The Right in America wants just the opposite: A small, weak central government that generally leaves the people alone. Fascism is not a phenomenon of the American Right. No American Conservative would countenance that sort of government power and monopoly. It is the very antithesis of everything we believe in. We abhor nothing more than government illegally exercising its coercive powers against its citizens (at Ruby Ridge & Waco, for example). That is the precise opposite of Individualism and Liberty which are at the core of American Conservatism.

As a Conservative, I want government out of our lives. I want people to be free of government intrusion, tyranny and coercion to the greatest extent possible. That's Anti-Fascism in any lexicon. Indeed: I want to restore human liberties that have been reduced, stripped and violated by our Big-Brother government.

SIXTH: McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy are not "flawed but reasonable" policies. They are monstrous assaults on the very fabric of America. Abominations. The first is an egregious violation of the First Amendment—flagrantly unconstitutional. The second is an open invitation to an endless flood of Third-World invaders that will change—for the worse—the face, the nature, the culture, the language, the promise and the hope of America.

You find these acceptable? I find them intolerable!

We can't find "common ground" because our basic ideas of the "common good" are diametrically opposed. You want a big, strong government busy "fixing" everybody's problems. I want a small, weak government that leaves me—and everyone else— the hell alone. What you want would inexorably destroy what is most important to me: Liberty. What I want would inexorably prevent what is most important to you: Assistance.

An example: We both want hungry people to have enough food.
The way Liberals would fix it would destroy people's independence and GIVE them a meal. (Assistance)
The way Conservatives would fix it would destroy people's dependence and teach them to EARN a meal. (Liberty)

We both want to feed starving people, but the Liberal solution makes them into helpless, dependent, needy sheep (think New Orleans during Katrina). The Conservative solution makes them independent, self-sufficient freemen. (think Mississippi during Katrina).

Liberals and Conservatives disagree fundamentally about what is good:
What you feel is compassionate, loving and helpful, I think is soul-destroying, dependence-creating and slave-making.
What you feel is cold-hearted and "mean-spirited", I think is respecting privacy, and "keeping my nose out of other people's business".
What you feel is greedy, I think are sound business practices.
What you feel is multicultural diversity, I think is tribal animosity.
What you feel is fascism (apparently), I think is freedom.
What you feel is egocentrism, I think is patriotic pro-Americanism
What you feel is dangerous Christian fundamentalism, I think is God-fearing goodness.
What you feel is tolerance, I think is libertinism and cultural suicide.
Where, oh where, is the common ground?

Liberals want to take my hard-earned money and give it to other people. I want to keep it. Where is the common ground?
Liberals want to take away my guns. I want to keep them. Where is the common ground?
Liberals are for abortion and against capital punishment. I'm the reverse. Where is the common ground?
Liberals think the Constitution is pliable, to be freely interpreted. I am a strict-constructionist. Where is the common ground?

SEVENTH: When the Liberals offer to compromise on Taxes and Guns I'll believe THEY are serious about finding "common ground". And when they acknowledge that unborn babies have rights too, I'll believe they are serious about the "common good".

The Gunslinger
-----