Comments on: Ten Books That Changed My Life #7: The Conscience of a Conservative

By: Caroline

Caroline — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:49:30 +0000

I’ve been reading Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean. He mentions Goldwater as a conservative with conscience. I can live with conservatives WITH conscience. You can’t even argue with those without one.

By: Annette

Annette — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:45:38 +0000

With all the talk of Reagan Conservatives today, they all need to read this book. Discover true conservatism.

By: Valerie

Valerie — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:00:56 +0000

I believe that the individual and the group are equally important. No one is self-made. Yes, individuals can succeed through their own hard work, but even then they would need to be given opportunities to do the work required for them to succeed. Take Bill Gates for example. He became an expert computer programmer through the thousands of hours he spent working on programming. But he could not have spent all that time programming if he was not fortunate enough to have access to high-end computers from middle school through college at a time when few schools had such computers. I would recommend reading “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell for more on what contributes to success.

When you place the individual over the group, you end up with a minority that has power over the majority because the individuals in that minority had better opportunities to succeed. They end up gaining a large amount of power and influence to make rules that give them even more power and influence. On the other hand, when you place the group over the individual you stop caring for individuals. Individuals have inherent value just as societies do. We should not place one over the other.

I agree that not all people are equal, but I do believe that we should do our best to give people equal opportunities. Government cannot solve all problems and not all governments are effective, but some problems can best be addressed by an effective government. Governments can play a part in providing more opportunities to more people, for instance providing funding for computers in schools.

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:38:09 +0000

As a borderline poor person, I have found that local governments cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the poor. Under federalism, local governments typically find it preferable to drive out the poor (e.g. through exclusionary and discriminatory zoning) than to actually address their grievances.

My general rule is, if the interests of the poor are in conflict with any other interest, the poor lose. As far as I have been able to tell, the only interests which cannot prevail over the poor are those of sex offenders and other convicted criminals.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:20:48 +0000

Read an introductory essay plus the first 2 chapters at this link:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/PresidentsEssay/PresEssay2004.pdf

By: Keonne

Keonne — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:00:49 +0000

“What I wouldn’t give to have a man like Goldwater in mainstream American politics today.”

You mean like Ron Paul?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:49:55 +0000

mike I think you mean he’s grown the executive branch, but I guess he has appointed supreme court looks like you were in a rush when you posted it… buu I agree with you.
plonkee… I believe you’ve been mislead. Individuals rights is the foundation that a constitutional republic, the government that this nation was founded on (NOT a democracy which the media constantly tries to portray this nation as). Ben Franklin basically made the point under a democracy 51% of the voters control the other 49%, saying democracy is 2 wolves fighting over the lamb. A constitutional republic is a well armed lamb. In a constitutional republic where the states have rights and the federal government is out. The idea of a democracy was hated by the founding fathers. The concept of limited government federally protects the minority to which not even 99% of the people could take away the rights of the other 1%. So if you believe in the good of society and minorities rights being respected, you almost have to have a limited federal government.

The reason we revolted from England in the first place is because they were too big, and they would tax too much in order to grow even bigger.
This nation didn’t have taxes OR inflation for about 150 years and people weren’t worried about their rights or anything. If you think that more government will protect the individual, This book would probably be an eye openner for you.
-Thomas

By: notsure

notsure — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:59:32 +0000

we gave away our power to the federal reserve first during the federal reserve act of 1913 passed during christmas with only 3 members present.
Roosevelt made it official when he declared this country bankrupt in 1933.
One of the Rockefellers in his memoirs basicaly said that the allegations of him and his family using his extrodinary amount of political and economical influence to move towards a world government are true and if that’s the charge he’s guilty and proud of it.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:56:00 +0000

As far as I’m concerned, if you had to pick a side, conservative or liberal, Bush is a liberal.
Hell, the economy gets in a bind he prints MORE money and trys to stimulate it by giving people money and having more government involvement. He’s grew the federal government and specificially the legislative branch more than anyone ever. It took me until just last year until I woke up and realized it, but he is
I would agree with Sean. Ron Paul is a refreshing return to the conservative values of individual freedoms and limited government.
It’s unfortunate that we have become larger than the government that we revolted from in the 1700s.
Fortunately we still may have hope if This truely is a free america, although with the diebold voting issues, to be honest with you I’m not sure people will even be elected anymore unless something changes, as 80% of votes are controlled by 1 machine that’s been proven to be easily hackable in less than 5 minutes.
Too many people working for the companies and special interest groups that funds both republicans and democrats that help the presidents get elected.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:21:00 +0000

You do have a man and his name is Ron Paul, he is getting more mainstream by the day.

By: icup

icup — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:28:26 +0000

We did away with the concept of states rights when Lincoln squashed the southern rebellion in the ’60′s. Sure, on paper the states have stronger powers than the fed, but in practice that is extremely difficult to acheive when the congress holds the purse.

Not that that is a complaint. Just an observation.

By: SayJude

SayJude — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:54:39 +0000

We are no longer what the founding fathers desired. One only has to read the Federalist (and Anti-Federalist)Papers to see that we are rushing towards Socialism. The Federal govt. was to be very limited, it’s influence limited.
We see how the rights (and obligations) of the states have been usurped! And before the “States Rights” abusers get their panties in a wad, that does’nt mean that some states would still have slavery,etc. Please, none that tired argument defending the growth and abuse of the federal govt.

By: HustlinPete

HustlinPete — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:09:16 +0000

Check out the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is the fundamental difference, as well as the “why”. See how the individual and states are treated differently than the fed? Whether or not this rings true today, or that states’ rights still exist at all, is another topic.

By: plonkee

plonkee — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:07:35 +0000

I’ve worked out what I meant now.

An emphasis on the individual which leads to non-interference in the discrimination of minorities is a bad thing. Because the majority is made up of individuals too, and if they each act on their own interests only then that can (but not necessarily does) lead to making things worse for the people in the minority. I think that one of the roles of government (at some level) is to protect minorities – you may or may not agree.

I also don’t ‘get’ that there is a fundamental difference between state and federal government and its ok for one to interfere and the other may not. But I’m not an American so I happy to accept that I may not/never understand properly.

By: terry

terry — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:06:57 +0000

The problem I have with many conservatives is that they support free markets everywhere but in their own neighborhood where the poor need free markets the most.

By: lorax

lorax — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:24:50 +0000

I don’t think it’s (just) Democrats that are wasting 50% of what is taxed. This administration and the last few congresses have, in my opinion, done a poor financial job.

That said, I disagree with a tenet here. Not everything can be solved at the individual level. Sometimes a national system or standard is needed. That’s why we have a federal government with a bill of rights afforded to every citizen. The federal government has to create a level playing floor for a number of things in the economy for their would be pandemonium (think of the SEC). The feds are also responsible for national defense and environmental standards. All these things benefit the groups at the expense of the individual. I think most conservatives would agree.

The question is where you draw the line.

Personally, I think Ayn Rand was much too idealistic. Sort of a novel-writing Marx for the right-wing set.

By: Rebel

Rebel — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:12:40 +0000

I haven’t read this book, but those beliefs are mine as well. I consider myself a consistent conservative. This forces people to actually ask me what I believe. I just need to follow your lead and be more involved locally.

By: plonkee

plonkee — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:22:44 +0000

Yeah, I guess it doesn’t make as much sense written down as it did in my head. I can assure you that I have got a point somewhere in there, I’m just not clear on how to express it.

This is why I should avoid writing about politics until I can get what I think clearer.

By: Timothy Totten

Timothy Totten — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:49:26 +0000

I’ve been struggling with my own political identity for the past few years. Am I a Republican, conservative, Libertarian? My desire to preserve individual freedoms isn’t shared by Democrats (who ask me to give up my money and my freedoms for the “Good of the people” as if they could keep from wasting even 50% of what they steal from me) and Republicans who claim to defend freedom while telling me whom I can marry, what websites I can visit and what I worship.
And then people like “Plonkee” above join in the debate with seemingly serious arguments with glaringly obvious flaws. How can an emphasis on the individual lead to a majority?
Just reading the definitions of the words “individual” and “majority” should make a person rethink that logic.
I still don’t know where I stand politically, but much of my philosophical belief was shaped while I read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.

By: HustlinPete

HustlinPete — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:45:28 +0000

Isn’t it the opposite? By definition, doesn’t emphasis on the collective (majority) usually turn toward the majority imposing on the minority (individual), in a bad way? What is more of a minority than 1 individual?