Mac and me.

Moderate. You really know how to insult a guy (ha). I am reminded of a class I once took - Political Geography. An interesting course. As the title eludes to it was a study in how politics influence our local environment - water supplies, zoning, city incorporation's etc. Within that course we went over a phenomena called NIMBY. Which stands for: Not In My Back Yard. It described those such as the Kennedy's (for an easy example) whom advocated wind power use on a large scale, as an alternative to fossil fuels, but refuse to let the large turbines be placed in the Sound near their compound because it would obstruct their pristine view. So, here I am, a rock-rib conservative my whole life, years later, practicing my own version of NIMBY. Always having opposed unions it would appear that I find them convenient when it serves to protect my back pocket. James would assign this to the embracement of my inner moderate. I'll get back to that in a second, let's first address "Mac." I always viewed "Mac" as someone who thrived on self reliance. Someone who was a social traditionalist. A person who disliked the concept of the public "dole." And yes, someone who wanted the 401k to surge with effective companies making the most amount of money possible. I NEVER intended to be or looked upon "Mac" as somone whom wanted to maximize company profits at any human price. Nor did I think of him as someone that would deny health care to poor or lower class children, or cut taxes so low that infrastructure crumbled. I understand that the people you mentioned Jambo, like Limbaugh, Hannitty and the rest, espouse and come off as THAT type of Mac. But I enjoyed their programs all these years in spite of that - not because of it. Call me an idealist or naive, but I always assumed that record profits, low taxes, that big 401k, and private sector freedom in general could be accomplished on the up and up - no shady or dishonorable practices being employed. And I'm sure that by and large that does occur. But what are we, as conservatives, to do when those whom labor under the auspices of our ideology go overboard? Wal Mart - a genuine American success story to be admired by all conservatives. What am I to say when it is shown that the over seas working factories are rampant with unsanitary working conditions, child labor, and brutal management? Or, in a less serious but still relevant scenario, the Harrah's dilemma I'm facing. Another classic Americana, successful company, employing business practices that punish long term service and try a reverse Robin Hood - rob from the poor (or "less rich" with our toke rate) to give to the richer. As conservatives are we to defend EVERY single aspect of legal, but dishonorable business practices simply because to criticize them somehow betrays our ideology? I don't see it that way. I think it's wonderful that Rockefeller built Standard Oil into a huge success under the auspices of my ideology. That doesn't mean I am then required to hold my tongue when he crosses the line. That's not conservatism. Not to me. Conservatism also includes law and order. A fair shake, not a guaranteed outcome, as liberals advocate, but a guaranteed chance at it. And that's where I disagree with you Jambo on what I am embracing, as I think it's part and parcel of my conservatism. In this instance (Harrahs) we have a group of individuals that feel they have been or will be wronged. Do they turn to the government or whine? No. Individual dealers stood up and said we're not going to put up with this, got together, and are democratically trying to ensure their voice is heard in future business decisions - and to boot the vast majority of us (although not me personally) are shareholders. They are relying on themselves to right what they see as a wrong. I don't find that in conflict with conservatism at all. Now, as I said, when unions get into unapproved political donations and requesting unreasonable pay packages, my ideology kicks in then too. And I would be quick to call them out, and have been. I don't like the term "compassionate conservatism." It's almost apologizing for being a conservative. So lets call it "sensible conservatism." That's what I am. A low taxes, small govt, social traditionalist, sensible conservative. I want the smallest govt possible, and in that trillion dollar budget, if "waste" was properly dealt with, I think low taxes can provide both health care for poor children (not people in my income bracket, despite how "nice" it would be for me personally) and a huge army. Because that makes sense. And that's what all conservatives have to contend with - how far will you personally carry your ideology? Because at the end of that conservative road stands a Libertarian like Ron Paul who would abolish every institution not specifically allowed for -by name - in the constitution. So where do you put on the brakes? At what point? I'll stop at "sensible conservatism."



So ....



Sensible Conservative (ism), (n) - a self reliant individual whom advocates traditional morals; low taxes; a small efficient government; honorable business practices, not just legal; helping the truly underprivileged with a hand up rather than a hand out; a large defense budget; the destruction of our war time ennemies; 2nd amendment protection; a secure border followed by reasonable solutions to those already here; and is typically good looking.



I know, I know. That sounds like a "moderate" to you Jambo. Maybe in today's political landscape of fringe politics it is ... but it's how I define conservatism.
FR