In determining ones political stance, it is often asked whether one is a conservative or a liberal. These two titles, while being the most common and oft repeated by the general populace fail to accurately describe the opinions and views of many who tend to break with their party lines on issues which seem to be otherwise “democratic” or “republican.”

The issue of homosexual marriage is one along which republicans and democrats seem to be nearly completely polarized, with democrats favoring and republicans opposing the legalization thereof. There are, however, a number of democrats who oppose the notion on a basis of morals and a number of republicans who favor it, or are at least opposed to a government ban on the act on the basis of opposition to a large, overreaching government. Likewise, on the issue of gun control, the republican party tends to favor a policy allowing for much more leeway in terms of owners rights and the kinds of arms available for purchase, while the democratic party tends to favor stricter gun control and more stringent laws governing the purchase thereof. As with homosexual marriage, there are card-carrying republicans and democrats who embrace what is typically the opposing party stance on these individual issues.

How then is a republican, who is opposed morally to the idea of gay marriage but also opposes a government ban on the act to describe their ideals? Or conversely, a democrat who believes in a less restrictive arms policy while aligning themselves generally with the party on other social matters?

It is the ideals of these voters that the conventional titles “liberal” and “conservative” fail to accurately describe. One who favors a fiscally conservative government (IE, lower taxes and less expansive social programs) and a socially liberal one (no government ban on gay marriages, abortion rights, etc.) will find themselves torn between the two, and may be often mistakenly described as a “moderate.” This is a fallacy, and can have severe implications when it comes time to cast a vote for an elected official who will forward that voters ideals.

To describe oneself as a “moderate” is to say that one seeks a “middle ground” on issues fiscal and social.  This is a completely different stance than would be taken by one opposing government interferences in said matters. The chart below best presents the differences between the ideals of those who favor heavy fiscal and social regulations (high taxes, more taxpayer/government funded programs and social regulations such as controls on marriage, speech and press, favoring authoritarianism,)   One identifying with libertarian ideals would tend to favor a government with less restrictions and regulations both on a social and fiscal level.  A liberal ideology (as understood by the standards of our modern American system) is more likely to favor higher taxes (more government involvement/interference fiscally, coupled with a larger system of taxpayer funded programs) and less social regulation (such as legalization of homosexual marriage and abortion.)  Conservatives most often favor a government which encourages moral ideals (implying restrictions on homosexual marriage and abortion, most notably,) and allows for a greater amount of freedom fiscally (favoring more equal tax policies or the lowering of taxes therein.)

And, that I may best avoid bias and remain objective, I encourage my readers to explore the definitions and interworkings of all the above ideologies more in depth, and use that knowledge to determine which candidates best represent and are most closely aligned with their respective beliefs and ideals.

– The Author


 A conservative wrote that? Egad!!

Yes, I am a big environmentalist.   I don’t subscribe to the idea that global warming is directly caused by fossil fuels, but I do think they contribute.  I think the sooner we find a petroleum substitute, the better, and I think businesses should be more environmentally responsible.  That being said, I don’t believe the federal government should impose fines on companies that burn fossil fuels, unless it is in an extremely irresponsible way.  I honestly think the only feasible way to save/salvage/protect (depending on your view of how dire the situation is) our environment is to be personally, voluntarily responsible.  Each person can do that, and we need to demand as consumers (not lobbyist to the government) that the CEO’s and corporate heads take greater steps in having less of a negative impact on the environment.

Far too often, when  we see something that needs to stop or start happening, we petition the government.  This is a fine idea in some cases, but often we should appeal directly to the parties who’s actions we seek to change. Instead of demanding that the government impose fines on companies (or communities)  that negatively impact our world, we should appeal directly to those powers that be through the different methods of communications that are available to us.

As for the environment, it saddens me to see multiple acres of woods cleared to build new houses and apartments for a booming population.  With the world operating at far above it’s carrying capacity, a rising standard of living across the globe is going to sap the earth of it’s natural resources extremely quickly.  The rate of population in the US is declining,  but in Africa and India, the birth rates are increasing.  Unless the governments of those respective continents do something to suppress this, our environment is going to collapse under the burden of a rapidly growing population fueled by apathy and an ignorance of the consequences of our actions.

This is my plea to the world: Please don’t make this prophetical.

Stepping onto the field…

September 21, 2007

Hello, all.  This is my blog for the ideas and beliefs of mine that are purely political.  Though I do profess myself to be an “Undercover Conservative”  I do not permit myself to believe that I can truly understand the structures and political workings of this nation and their effects on her people without seeing both sides of an issue.  My bookshelf currently holds (In this order) a Copy  of: “The Communist Manifesto,” by Carl Marx, “The official handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” by Mark W. Smith, “The Audacity of Hope,” by Barack Obama, The Bible, and several other books pertaining to world politics, philosophic problems and moral dilemmas.  I say this not to try and appear over-intelligent or to sound puffed up, but to prove to the reader that I am not, as some will in all probability call me, a close-minded conservative.   With that out of the way, I hope that you will, regardless of your political affiliation (if any) be able to take away at least something from this Blog.

Thanks for reading.

–  The Undercover Conservative.