Are You A Progressive or “Conservative?”

Pieces Of The Puzzle: The Living Heritage Of Republican Progressives

Republicans and American “Conservatives” have a problem: they have forgotten their own history.  This leads them to believe they believe the same things as our founders when reality may prove this is not necessarily the case.  Sadly, Republicans and ‘Conservatives” are just as well inoculated against any honest attempt to remove the scales from their eyes as our friends on the Left.  If you are a Republican or a “Conservative” and you are reading this, I would suspect you are not pleased with the tone of this post so far – and that is exactly what I mean when I say you have been inoculated.  Those Americans who think of themselves as being on the Right (where ‘Right” is understood to mean small, limited government) generally like to think of themselves as being open minded, tolerant and reasonable.  But if this is the case, why would my words cause a negative reaction with so many Republicans and/or “Conservatives?’  But they do, and they do so because they have been conditioned to reject any opposition to their beliefs out of hand – just like they accuse the Left of doing.  SO where am I going with this?  Here, let me show you by taking you on a quick tour of history.

Whether you consider yourself to be on the Left or the Right of the American political spectrum, ask yourself how many of the following quotes you would agree with:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.

The one absolute certain way to bring this nation to ruin … would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.

If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.

To educate a man in mind, and not in morals, is to educate a menace to society.

We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

Read the rest…

38 thoughts on “Are You A Progressive or “Conservative?”

  1. ay it ain’t so, Joe, say it ain’t so. I’ll admit, I fall more suspect to this than I probably care to admit, and I’m not even the brightest reader here! However, they say that admitting you have a problem is the first step…

    Are you going to be writing my more on this issue like you have on other subjects?

    • Libercrite,

      My name is Joe, and I have a problem: I have been inoculated from the truth, as well.

      Yes, Lib, as I learn where, how and why we have been deceived, I will present the information I discover and explain how it fits in to the bigger picture — to the best of my ability and understanding. Follow the OYL. I will not always crowed the RNL with these posts.

      • Joe,

        While we were inoculated from “truth”; the inoculation did not “take”.

        Ms. Gerritson shows me “we truth seers” are not alone.

        • Joe: I thoroughly appreciate your charm offensive in terms of recognizing that so many Americans share mostly common values, and that the 10 – 15% on which we differ is really just part of being truly American in our perspectives. How libertarian of you, my friend! The differences between libertarians and American Conservatives are tiny compared to the yawning gap between libertarians/Conservatives and any form of Collectivism, especially Mr. Obama’s virulent strain of Liberal/Progressivism. Lib/Progs share a view of human nature, the relationship of the individual and the state, private property, individual freedom, education/indoctrination, economics, integrity, the US Constitution and our Constitutionally protected freedoms that is not only more grounded in Marx than Madison, but that has been implemented all over the world and failed in every case. And while I embrace Hayek’s arguments in his essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative,” I have come to regard Dr. Hayek’s explanation as more applicable to the philosophical Conservatism of Burke and the Adams Family, rather than the modern American Conservative Movement, which has been strongly infused with libertarian ideas. I vote for Conservative Republicans because there are no Conservative Democrats anymore. I do not believe libertarians should seek political office under our own flag but rather should make common cause with our Conservative brothers., to our collective success in confronting the terrible Collectivist threat to our nation that Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow travelers represent.

          As for the Liberal/Progressive Movement, it is but the most recent manifestation of very old, very bad ideas. Whether totalitarians take the form of emperors and kings, or the all-powerful nomenklatura of a political party, centralization of power in human civilizations has always, always, resulted in lower standards of living for the vast majority of subjects in those societies. So while Jeremy Bentham and Fredrich Hegel provided the modern foundations for Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, Communism and Progressivism, the ideas were as old as the Pharaohs and the despots of Assyria, Babylon and Persia. Ramses, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all shared a vision of society with our American Liberal/Progressives…a society in which all the decisions for everyday life would be accountable by their subjects to an all-powerful state, with higher or “expert” knowledge than any commoner could hope to attain. So where we live, what we eat, what our children “learn” in school, where we are allowed to study, what we can say or write, who can choose or not choose to associate with, who we can hire, what we have to pay our employees, all the decisions protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights are subject to government control under Collectivist/Liberal/Progressive systems. I have often likened Liberal/Progressivism to the “Borg” of Star Trek…one, big brain controlling everyone in the civilization. But in the Liberal/Progressive world, the “Big Brain” isn’t so big, although the appetite for power over other Americas’ lives is voracious.

          “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” is a proverb with variations in many cultures. It certainly applies to libertarians and American Conservatives today. The Liberal/Progressives and their Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama are our common enemies. Their belief system has long embraced the concept that all means, legal and illegal, are to be utilized to serve the goals of the Movement and its all-powerful leaders/commissars. I often hold my nose and vote for less-than-ideal Conservative candidates. I view that action as warranted by the frightfulness of our enemies’ vision for America. CDE

          • CDE,

            Be careful. If we were talking DNA, a 10-15% difference could be the difference between a frog and a T-Rex. Here, that 10-15% difference can be the difference between liberty and tyranny. 😉

              • CDE,

                All I offered was a word of caution. I sense a tendency in you to ascribe characteristics to modern Libertarianism that have — in large part — been TAKEN from the Classic Liberalism of our founders. I do not like equivocation…even when it is coming from otherwise allies, hence my caution 🙂

                • Joe: Your are a wonderfully temperate friend (most of the time ;>) ), and I appreciate your caution. As you know, I view libertarianism not as the direct transfer of the Classical Anglo-American Liberalism of our Founders, but as the evolution of the earlier philosophy over 200+ years of human and American experience. Charles Murray and Milton Friedman are not the reincarnations of Madison and Smith, but their ideas build on the earlier giants. This may be something we agree to disagree on, but I find no Conservative equivalents to Murray, Friedman, Sowell or Hayek, hence I can only trace the Founders DNA through the libertarian line. I’m open to enlightenment on this issue, as on everything else. Cheers, CDE

                  • CDE,

                    This is because you cannot trace the founders through modern conservatism (a point I have been trying to make and for which I have been willingly catching arrows).

                    Now, my first degree was in philosophy, so I am well aware that everyone who comes today stands on the shoulders of those who came before. This is true of all human knowledge and understanding. However, what some may consider progress can just as easily be regression. Our Progressive friends claim progress and often point to science to support them, yet they argued for policies that are decidedly ancient and have been demonstrated by history to have neither a connection to science or to having worked — at least they do not work if the goal is to preserve individual rights and liberty and a free and self-governing society.

                    The same applies to much of modern Libertarianism. Our founders discovered the key to making their political principles work was to ground them in religion — and not just any religion, but the religion with the most pure moral teachings available. They decided this was the religion of the Bible, and they said so. And, for as long as we remained grounded by that anchor, this nation thrived. However, as soon as the chain to that anchor was cut, this nation started to drift. Looking back, can there be any doubt that this drift can be directly connected to the point where God was kicked out of our schools and public life in the 1960’s? (my second degree is in sociology 🙂 )

                    So, HERE is where I think we have to agree to disagree. But — sadly — this is a gulf that will keep us separated because I cannot cross over to you and you — apparently — choose not to cross over to me. This gulf will forever keep Libertarians from being a force for positive reform. It is the same reason the Articles of Confederation failed. And, IMHO, it is a regression from the ideology of our founding.

                    After all: if you do not anchor your claim to Liberty in the Creator, then to what do you anchor it?

                  • Charles,
                    If I may be of some assistance. . .
                    America’s, and her founding fathers’; principles, views, and design; have been maligned and misrepresented for more than a century. We all have a tendency to color our understanding based upon our past experiences, knowledge, and knowledge from indoctrination with LIES. It is very difficult to do that. Many individuals will be unable to be open to, realize, and admit they have been “tricked” or taught and indoctrinate with a fraudulent history of America and her design.

                    Understanding comes from study of original writings and thoughts, NOT from what Progressives/American Communists began to instill in America beginning with at least Woodrow Wilson’s writings and infiltration of his ideas through the pillars of education, courts, and bureaucracy. . .

                    To understand and realize what Joe, and I, are attempting to understand and share with other Americans, is truth and understanding of America’s birthright and progeny. True Liberty and freedom for all individuals. Not politically favored groups…

                    ?Is it possible libertarians are searching for an answer that has already been answered by America’s founders, but libertarians, fail to see and understand due to the misleading indoctrination of the “progressives” of the last century?


                    • Texas,

                      At the risk of poking my nose where it will likely get whacked…

                      I would offer a word of caution with regard to CDE. There is a distinction we should make between the rank-and-file Libertarian and those who actually know, understand and study the principles of Libertarianism. So far, CDE strikes me as the latter. Those who know and understand their philosophy are far different from the average Libertarian and, therefore, are much closer to our position than the rest. The problem is, he is in a decided minority.

                      IMHO, the divide comes from what true Libertarians — such as CDE — are actually trying to do: recreate our founders success WITHOUT the tie to religion and the Creator. Anyway, this is what I think you might be missing on your part :*)

                    • Texas: Thanks for your post, which is thoughtful as well as insightful. John Dewey’s strategy of gaining effective control of America’s state-run education systems was part of a broader strategy to re-write our nation’s history, along the lines of what Winston Smith did daily at Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. And it has been a continuing effort shifted the ground on which substantive discussions about America’s founding and Founders, our history and nobility as a people and related issues. So most of us graduates of the largely custodial public schools (mine were in Philadelphia) have been required to reeducate ourselves and reconnect with reality in the process. I’ve sometimes likened it to Neo in THE MATRIX becoming disconnected from his umbilical attachment to the Matrix and reengaging with his actual self. So yes, we have all had to work to get our own eyes open.

                      Libertarians, or at least my branch of the Chosen People, are directly attached to the writings, beliefs and philosophies of America’s Founders. We are the most bitter foes of Progressivism that exists anywhere, because our central values, individual freedom and liberty, conflicts totally with the Collectivists’ ant-hill that Lib/Progs are always seeking to build and force others into. More later, as I have to celebrate the New Year this evening. CDE

                  • CDE ,

                    Murray, Hayek, Sowell and even Friedman built on the Ideas and movements of Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand and Isabel Paterson……………..that is just Historica FACT………I believe the term Libertarian was in fact Lane’s or Paterson’s. All 3 of them were echoing our Founders/ Framers….and re-introduced many of the intelligencia to Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and even Locke……….significantly changing the beliefs from Communism / Socialism to Libertarian and Conservative of quite a few influential writers on the NYT and even at Columbia.

                    Leaving out this crucial part of Libertarian History only serves to perpetuate an incomplete and altered view of the actual Intellectual History ( and Social History ) of this movement.

                    • BTW all three of these women came to their beliefs after Intimate experience with Soviet ( and in the case of Lane Albanian and Soviet ) Communism / Socialism…….

                      Thus a Crucial point to pass on to the Youth in our country who “appear” to be drawn to what they think is Libertarian…….is that the Libertarian Movement got it’s start as a Response to what the Obama Regime and the Americam Progressives are in fact NOW trying to change America into !

                      I haven’t heard or seen anyone say or write that….but it’s True….each of the 3 above were VERY Clear about that !!

                    • Rand would have been (IMHO) absolutely BRILLIANT — were it not for the fact that she committed the same fundamental error as the majority of most modern Libertarians: she failed to provide a source of authority for her rights higher than herself. 😦

                    • Yes Correct about Rand…who is STILL brilliant.

                      But not so about Lane and Paterson …. very interesting and committed fighters for True Liberty !

                    • Joe,

                      You will enjoy the Discovery…….Lane’s mother of course wrote “The Little House on the Paries” series……

                      All 3 women happened to publish their seminal works in the same year I believe….and for a Time were mutually supportive.

                      Lane…. “The Discovery of Freedom”
                      Paterson … “The God of the Machine”……She was a Canadian Born BTW
                      Rand …. “The Fountainhead”

                      You should look at the African/American writer Zora Neale Hurston too BTW….she and Lane had similar thoughts on Race Relations.

                      Look at former Communist Columnist John Chamberlain who credits Lane’s writings with changing him to Conservatism……look at his Pedigree yale etc….!!……..There are others she changed as well…………….Happy Hunting.

                      I wish some of the “Libertarians” would give this info to the Younger “Libertarians” today.

                    • Don: I continue to be incredibly impressed with the breadth of knowledge within our little patch of the Internet. I know Wilder, Rand and Paterson, and have read and studied Rand’s fiction and philosophical works, including her development of Objectivism. Without question all three women moved libertarianism forward during a period when Progressivism was in the ascendant. I consider Rand to be one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, although I find her more effective at communicating her views in her fiction than in her straight philosophical works. I don’t often include the three female thinkers in talking about the libertarian movement and its connection to the Classic Anglo-American Liberalism of our Founders, mostly because so few people know of them, with the exception of Rand, and she is misunderstood to be the unnatural offspring of L. Ron Hubbard and Brigham Young.

                      If I were writing a history of the Classic Anglo-American Liberal / Libertarian movement, I would include Wilder, Paterson and Rand as transitional figures who toiled in the darkness cast by the worldwide pestilence of Collectivism that dominated the first 80-years of the 20th century. I would place Hayek and Mises in the same category, although the economists and others saw the reemergence of real-Liberal thought in the form of libertarianism. If the Progressives had not stolen the “Liberal” label in an attempt to rebrand themselves after the American people’s rejection of Progressive failures like Prohibition, the permanent Progressive Income Tax, and the Federal Reserve in the 1920’s, I would consider myself to be a Classic Anglo-American Liberal, in the tradition of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams and Hamilton. Libertarianism seeks to build on the basic values of the Founders by protecting individual freedom, private property, free enterprise capitalism, freedom of religion, speech, and association and by minimizing the size and intrusion of government into the lives of American citizens. Our basic requirements are not complex: every American citizen should be secure in his or her right to live as they wish and to use their property as they see fit, subject only to the limitation that their freedom should not be used to coerce, defraud or impinge upon the freedom of other citizens.

                      Interestingly on a personal level, my own journey to the libertarian values I’ve held for over 30-years, represented a path from being a committed Marxist as a teenager growing up in a working-class Irish ghetto in Philadelphia, to being a committed and successful entrepreneurial Capitalist who understands the anthill that Liberal/Progressivism is from the inside out. But that’s a story some have heard and others will need to wait for some other time. Good night, Gracey. CDE

  2. Joe;
    Agreeing with , or disagreeing with , any or all of those statements does not not make one a conservative , or a progressive. Who made them , and in what context they were made is a very important part of their meaning, and all of them are capable of being agreeable to both, depending on context.
    I rarely call myself “conservative’ or Republican. I am , first and foremost trying to be a Christian. Then a Constitutionalist, or small government , states rights kinda guy.(which immediately makes me racist in some eyes) I don’t like labels, because, as soon as you put a label on something, someone has their own idea of the definition. And we all know that definitions have been shifted to suit social and political expediency.
    I have enough confidence in myself, and my belief system and life philosophy, that I can agree with many of those statements, (as they sit there naked and unadorned with context) without fearing that I have been seduced to the DARK SIDE.
    I check myself regularly, first with scripture (daily study), then the Constitution(and the writings of those who worked so hard to accomplish that document).
    I can weigh all against Ecclesiastes 3 , knowing that everything happens in HIS time and for HIS purpose.And Psalms 127
    Unless the Lord builds the house,
    the builders labor in vain.
    Unless the Lord watches over the city,
    the guards stand watch in vain.
    In vain you rise early
    and stay up late,
    toiling for food to eat—
    for he grants sleep to those he loves.

    And of course when all else fails,; I play the banjo. (believe it or not, it helps me think) I know that sounds odd since a banjo sounds a lot like someone “draggin a cat ,claws extended, across a blackboard by the tail”, but, for me, it works.

    • Ralph,

      Did I say that agreeing with them make you one thing or the other? No. But the history here is important as it does play into what we ‘think’ we believe — and why. Many of the early Progressives used language that would sound solidly “Conservative” today, but — when you read their work — it is doubtful that their words were meant to convey the same meaning as a modern conservative would mean if she/he were to speak those same words. Deception is a primary characteristic of the Progressive movement, and Wilson made this very clear. I focused on Teddy because he was a nationalistic, patriotic, pro-military Republican. All of these are connected to the Republican Party to this day. So, to me, I see a connection that still echos through our history and influences us to this day.

      As for your explanation of why you do not like labels: this is actually part of the way you have been inoculated. By saying this, you show that you have internalized a Progressive idea intended to keep you from seeing and understanding reality. the truth is: we all use labels. If we didn’t, we would not be able to communicate right now. Language depends on labels. Ideas are labeled because it is the only way we can convey and discuss meaning. So, please, you’ll have to forgive me when I tell you that I am not sympathetic to this line of reasoning — especially when you consider that Christ’s Gospel is filled with labels.

      As tot he Scripture you quoted: I agree. But then, isn’t this what I am doing: looking to see where the ideas I profess to believe come from, and upon what they are founded? For example: you keep referring to the Constitution, but you will find NOTHING of the foundation upon which the Constitution is built in the words of that document. If you want to find the foundation, you have to look to the Declaration of Independence. So I would ask you: are you studying the wrong thing in vain? I mean no insult or slight, only to urge you to think one level deeper. this is all I am doing with the original post: looking deeper.

      I like the banjo, but I go for a walk or ride my motorcycle when I want to think. It’s just one of the beauties of our world — that we are all different. Still, Ralph, I do not think we are enemies here. In fact, I think we are standing on common ground and seeking a common goal. 🙂

  3. The problem with labels , as they relate today, is that those pesky progressives(Marxist /Communists) keep changing the definition to fit their world view, and the majority of the media go along and then it’s a new definition. The labels I prefer , and use , are those I spoke of above.Conservative is a relative term. Am I more or less conservative than you, or Rand Paul. We let (too often) the media define who and what we are and that for which we stand. As i referenced above, in today’s world, if you say you stand for “state’s rights”, you are immediately ‘labeled’ RACIST. And even the label”Progressive” we have let them get away with using, instead of Communist or Marxist. I am in favor of calling out Democrats as Marxists, ALWAYS..

    The ground upon which our Founders built is the Faith in God,, and , I DO read and see the Declaration as the footers placed in that ground, to support the building of this nation with the solid Constitutional protections. I have forced myself to read (sometime with nodding head) the Federalist Papers. It may be my advanced age, or what else I don’t know, but remembering what I read and where; gets to be a bigger problem every year. I have had to go back and re-read so much, that it crowds out new reading. And my TO READ list, keeps getting longer and longer.

    At any rate, I agree that we are trying to read the same page, and can agree on many larger issues. We cannot let ourselves be divided by picking at points of differing, As Paul told Timothy while charging him to continue in the faith, “They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth”
    Marxists love to see us disagree on point by point conversations as it distracts us from the larger picture , and they can move the goal posts closer to totalitarian government , without anyone noticing.

    That is , in large part, why I live where I do. Trying to make a world away from that world, so that the coming RaceWar/CivilWar, (and it is coming) will have to travel some to reach me.

    Keep posting , and keep us in lively debate, as I think it is missing from today’s political landscape. Too many feel disagreement of a point is enmity. To me a disagreement is just that. No more , no less. [however Marxist / Communist Revolutionaries should walk lightly down my road (2 track?)]

    • Ralph,

      I agree: Progressives do like to bastardize our language. They also like to revise history. But this is all I am trying to do: to defend both the language and the facts of history. But then, if we did away with labels, how would we know what a Progressive is? 🙂

      Now, you understand that the label “racist” is used to shut down debate. This is part of political correctness. But so is the rejection of labels in general. Research it and you will find the connections. Start with Alinsky and “Rules for Radicals.” He explicitly tells his followers not to let themselves get labeled. You see, once you can PROPERLY define something, it can be destroyed. The Progressives know this and use it against us. But this does not mean we accept their poison and refuse labels. It means we defend the language or we lose.

      I love that passage you cite (Paul to Timothy). Very applicable to the conversation at hand. We definitely agree and are most assuredly reading from the same page. Now, as an aside, have you been to my other blog page today? I think you will enjoy the post I put up about Benjamin Rush and the role the Bible played in the founding of the nation. Check it out at 🙂

      God Bless 🙂

      • I have a great reference “tome” which I have been trying to work through. It’s much like trying to read the dictionary or encyclopaedia, but harder.
        The book is “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamin Franklin Morris, and was mostly written and researched prior to the War for Southern Independence. ( I am smiling, as I use an unpopular “label”)
        It’s about 1000 pages, and many of his sources have been lost or destroyed, but many(such as SCOTUS rulings) remain.
        I like it mostly because many (here comes a label) “Secular Humanists” hate it.

  4. Joe,
    I agree with the first six items you have presented. Until I can read and digest the rest of your article, I have no comment on that part. Does my position (agreeing with the first six items) make me anything but a Reagan Capitalist Conservative?

    • EdwardS,

      Not to sound like a dodge, because it isn’t meant to be, but I can’t and shouldn’t even attempt to answer that for you.

      All I know is that I used to be a ditto head. Then I started following behind that clown, Glenn Beck. I had to prove he was an idiot. So I started reading what he said to read, which got me to reading other stuff he has never mentioned and that pushed me over a cliff. I was free-falling for a long time, but I kept reading and now…now I understand that much of what I believed has its origins in ideology I thought I opposed.

      All I have been trying to do on the RNL and now on The OYL is to share what I found and offer my take on it so YOU can figure out what it means for you. In this, I couldn’t be more sincere. I only hope this answers your question.


    • Edward?
      What is a Reagan Capitalist Conservative? I “think” I know what you mean, however. . . historically, in the ideas, ideals, and ideology of “government” and “societies”, Reagan Capitalist Conservative has no understandable meaning.

      Why not explore, Thomas Jeffersonian-classical liberalism, known for centuries as liberalism, before the American Communists assumed the misnomer, “liberal” under Wilson’s direction. Thereby stealing America’s legacy from future generations by hiding truth.

      Historical Truth.
      Philosophical Truth.
      Political Truth.

  5. Most Conservatives are statists just as much as any Liberal/Progressive nutjob. Sadly, most so-called conservatives that are against any collectivist notions, support the same exact collectivist ideals as long as a prominent Conservative is doing it. For many, its hard not to be sheeple.

    • Gemini,

      Exactly! But I believe this is because the majority — on both sides of this Statist coin — have been deceived by their leadership. The task then becomes to help them open their eyes and see what we both see, and to do so as gently and kindly as possible.

      At least, that is how I see it and why I started The OYL. I thank you for reading. 🙂

  6. Joe,
    Have to add to my above post, thought the words sounded familiar (in Theodore Roosevelt’s speech). Started reading “Theodore and Woodrow” by Judge Andrew Napolitano a few months back and will now continue this excellent read.

    Thanks for reminding me what I am missing by not finishing this informative book.

    • EdwardS,

      SO does this mean I am on the same path as the judge? Because, if it does, I consider myself to be traveling safe grounds.

      Also, thanks for the tip. I just bought a copy of the book (note: there is also an older book on the same subject with a similar name)

  7. Joe,
    Yes! Thanks to The RNL, this “Old Guy” has been informed and continues to to learn by being exposed to all the ideas and opinions on The RNL. I don’t credit the current educational process with misinforming our youth as being anything significant for the future, as most (if not all) of my current intellectual knowledge was self-taught. I don’t think all my time spent at college was a waste, because I did learn a few excellent trades.

    I have to thank my college professors who taught me how to extract the important information from the many informative books that I have read and disregard the filler prevalent in so many current writings.

  8. texas95,
    Governor/President Reagan and I were both Democrats in our early years, and although were honorably capitalists, we did not understand that “liberalism” as we saw it would evolve into the “Progressive” ideology of today. The current meaning of “liberalism” is in no terms identifiable with what I profess to be my ideologic political attitude. Although “Conservatism” has also taken on new meaning, it identifies my current thinking as does most of the public who thinks they are “Conservatives.”

    I would like to see constructive opinions regarding my definition/explanation of what my political status would be if I was not a Reagan Capitalist Conservative.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.