3rd Party Conservatives-The Self-Righteous Guardians of the Right

Ever since Rudy Giuliani became a very real possibility as the Republican Nominee for President, I have been faced with a difficult decision. Whether to sacrifice some of my hard-core Conservative principles and support a man with whom I have very fundamental disagreements on core Conservative principles like gun-control legislation, the right to abortion on demand, and gay marriage, and vote for the Repbulican nominee, or to allow my own personal principles to endanger my fellow citizens and the nation which I so dearly love and defend.

I have made that choice based on that very last factor. I know what my ideal candidate would look like, but it is highly unlikely that I could carry my own neigborhood, let alone the national electorate.

We all have our own ideals which we would, were we dictator of the world, see instituted as law. I would make it mandatory for all free, law-abiding citizens to acquire, train in the use of, and carry openly, a firearm of sufficient caliber to defend themselves or their neighbors.

Such an idea would probably not sell very well in some areas of the nation where, unlike in the South, people have grown up in abject fear of firearms (and practically everything and everyone around them, like New York). Freedom does have its price, but apparently not everyone is willing to pay that price and I understand that.

Having stated that, I understand that some in this nation feel threatened by the possibility that their specific rights to keep and bear arms might be limited in some way or even assailed.

It doesn't particularly frighten me, because I will never yield my firearms to the government regardless of what they say. Why, because like the other many other rights which have not been enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the right to self-protection is a God given right and therefore the government has no right to take that from me which God has given me. So I don't fear my government...yet.

Now as to the subject of Rudy Giuliani and others who the self-appointed "Guardians of Light" (read Conservatism) are rebelling against, I only say that Rudy at his worst is better by several magnitudes than anyone the Left (Democrats) are offering up.

What follows is a portion of what one such self-righteous Guardian posted on the internet, on the website "Capitol Hill Coffee House" with a link to the entire article, followed by my e-mail in response.

When did Life, Liberty and Freedom Become an extreme Right-Wing Idea?
By JB Williams on (Oct 08, 07)

If the GOP isn’t a conservative party, there is no need for it…

So-called “right-wing conservatives” (the foundational base of the Republican Party) are prepared to grant Republican moderates who hijacked their party, their 2008 election wish.

You want a liberal? - We’ll give you one!

Almost every political pundit in America is asking if hard-headed “Christian conservatives” are really prepared to defect from their Republican Party in ’08 if they can’t get a conservative nominee from the RNC. But my question is; - when did respect for the “unalienable” right to Life, Liberty and Freedom, become an extreme right-wing ideal, held dear only by “Christian conservatives?”

Who told RINOs that Life, Liberty and Freedom are extreme ideas? Who told moderate Republicans that they belong to a secular socialist party? America already has a liberal party pushing secular socialist ideals in America. We don’t need two. Who is offering the nation a conservative alternative?

If not the Republican Party, then there is no need for the Republican Party.

And since when is the conservative “base” (foundation) of the Republican Party, just some “extreme wing” of the party?

Dear Mr. Williams,

A simple question deserves a simple answer. When it becomes a threat to the good of the nation. When such blind adherence to principle endangers the American people. It is a simple case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. A simple and realistic view of life.

At what point does principled conservatism degenerate into self-righteous pig-headedness? It’s a simple question with a simple answer. When the so-called “principled conservative” is willing to let the nation be victimized by a Stalinist/Marxist government simply because that conservative” is not getting his or her way.

America has always survived and prospered under Republican guidance whether RINO or Conservative. Nixon, by your standards was a RINO; Ford, by your standards was a RINO. Problem is, Reagan by your standards was also a RINO. You disagree? Look at his record. He was pro-gay rights and even made the battle against HIV/AIDS a part of the national agenda. He claimed to be pro-life, but he named Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court as a nod to the feminists [are you saying that was a conservative action]-he could hardly have done worse by “conservative” standards, His other appointment, Arthur Kennedy has been adequate at best [George W. Bush by contrast is not a Conservative, rather he is a moderate, but at least his Supreme Court Appointments, as well as his lower court appointments have, virtually without exception, proven to be superb]. Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon 6 months after the Marine barracks was bombed. Surely no “Conservative” would capitulate to terrorism.

America is almost always damaged beyond recovery by Liberal Democrats. From Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” we became partly socialist. From Johnson’s “Great Society” we became even more socialist and anti-life. Under Jimmy Carter, we gave away the Panama Canal and became the laughing stock of the world, and damn near became a unilateralist (nuclear disarmament) nation. Because of Clinton, we became the target and victim of a terrorist attack, and involved in a war which had zero to do with American security, and where we still have troops on duty.

Now you, Mr. Self-Righteous “Conservative,” would for the sake of your ego and your own definition of who or what is “Conservative” and “correct” for this nation, would endanger our national security. The primary obligation of our President and our federal government is to “secure our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic”. You would willingly turn control of this nation to a bunch of Marxists and Stalinists simply because you are not getting your way.

Any person who would willingly see his nation endangered for the sake of his own “principles” is by my definition a coward and a traitor; and a selfish one at that.

The current crop of Democrats in Congress and running for the Presidency are the most extreme in history. They are Marxist/Stalinist in philosophy and temperament. They do not care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights except as they may see fit to apply it. They do not believe in freedom, they believe in control. They do not believe in capitalism, they believe in the complete and equal redistribution of wealth. All of the Democrat Presidential hopefuls from John Edwards to Barrack Hussein Obama, to Hillary Rodham Clinton would be willing to destroy our nation simply to instate a socialist system of government, and none of them would hesitate to strip you or any other American of whatever rights the saw fit to limit to achieve that end.

Do you really think that a House led by Nancy Pelosi or a Senate led by Harry Reid would stand in their way, or do you believe it more likely that they would be sympathetic to that aim. Are you really so naïve as to believe that there is no difference between Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, or even John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Your entire rant is a paean to self. Your self-righteous arguments ring far more of the tone of the self-loving, know it all, emotionalism of a Liberal than they do of rational Conservatism. So I will ask you a question in return.

When did it become patriotic to allow “Life, Liberty, and Freedom (it’s actually the Pursuit of Happiness, by the way) to be jeopardized by a tyrant simply because you are not happy with the choices being offered by the Republican Party. Do you really care more about the faithfulness to your own ideals than about the welfare of the nation and its people? Are you really that selfish?

Even Rudy, with his highly questionable stance on our inherent right to keep and bear arms, his repugnant stance on abortion, and his openness to gay marriage, even he, at his Liberal worst, would never sell the country down the road to socialism and Marxism. Even if he turns out to be the nightmare you self-appointed “Guardians of the Right” assume he is, he is yet a long, long way from the alternative.

I find it personally repugnant that anyone would contemplate allowing, either by their action or by their inaction, our nation to suffer the long term damage such a capitulation to Democrats would cause.

You claim to be a conservative, I believe you are a juvenile, emotional thinker who, like James Dobson, Richard Viguerie, and Patrick J. Buchannan is more interested in his own agenda than in the good of the nation.

The philosophy you are espousing is the philosophy espoused by freedom’s greatest enemies, “The end justifies the means.” It is the philosophy that one is willing to see the total destruction, or near total destruction, of his nation and his fellow citizens simply so that next time, assuming there will be a next time, the people will have “learned their lesson” and will vote the way you want them to. It is granting to the
voting masses a level of awareness and concern that may not exist.

In a nation in which more than half the population believe that the Jon Stewart show is a hard news program, you are expecting a level of rationality which probably doesn’t exist.

Sometime, Mr. Quixote...err...Williams, the perfect really is the enemy of the good enough for now.

Interesting that you allow no comments on your webpage, no contrary views to be expressed. Is that the sign of a courageous conservative, or is it the sign a closed-minded, self-righteous, self-appointed know-it-all? Reminds me of a Liberal.

Will Malven
the houston conservative

There is no greater threat to our nation and the interests of our citizens that those who appoint themselves the guardians of what is right for all. The standing effort by those such as James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, and Tim Lahaye, in seeking a third party candidate to oppose Rudy or Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, is an intentional act of sabotage. It is an effort to make things turn out so bad for the people that they will change direction and move to the Right as apparently happened in the 1980 election.

The problem is, Ronald Reagan was a phenomenon of his time. As I stated above, even he could never reach the standards now being set by the self-appointed "Guardians of Truth." If there was a "Ronald Reagan in the offing, he would be making noise right now. We would not, in the Repbulican Party be desperately searching for him, he would already be here. Ronald Reagan was well known and respected in Conservative circles long before he stood for office. He gave the nominating speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964. He was governor of the most populous state in the nation for eight years.

If such a comparable Conservative icon exists right now, please someone point him out because I don't see him. I see lots of great Conservative politicians; men who impress me greatly, men like Jim Sessions and John Cornyn in the Senate; men like Dundan Hunter, Jeb Henserling, and John Culberson in the House, but I see no Ronald Reagans.

Ronald Reagan was a rarity, a man combining humor, compassion, vision, and strong Conservative ideals with an ability to reach out and touch the commonality we as American all feel.

I fear that until some one like him comes to the forefront, we may be faced, as we are today with choosing from a less than perfect lot. I am a Conservative. I will put my life-long Conservative advocacy and credentials up against those of any who care to challeng me, but I am not a fool, not will I betray the trust of my fellow citizens out of any sense of outrage at not being center-stage in the next Republican Convention. I will support the Republican Candidate whether it be Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney, or perhaps Huckabee, not because he is a Republican, but because he is not the extreme Left-wing Stalinist/Marxist Democrat against whom he will be running.

I will support him because of what he is not, a threat to the freedoms and liberties of our nation. I will support him, whoever he is because he will not be, unlike our Democrat Party opponents, ignorant enough to repeatedly state that we live in a "Democracy" rather than a "Republic."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below