Now that I'm the token conservative in Madison, I thought it was time for me to review my notes on what it means to be a conservative.  After all, I'm gonna have to explain it lots of times to people who've never been exposed to an educated, articulate example of the species.  So, here is my first installment of my self-review, entitled, "Limited Government."

Conservatives believe that there is a role for government.  One of the favorite gambits for liberals is to portray conservatives as radical Libertarians or Anarchists, somehow not wanting any government.  Plainly stated,  conservatives believe that:

The role of government should be LIMITED, with the roles performed at the lowest possible level (the most effective level).  

Conservatives usually agree that the Federal government should do the following: Protect life and liberty of its citizens, provide for the national defense, minting of money, and facilitation interstate commerce.  Crime is much more a state and local issue, as is education, and need to be handled by local governments.  If a task can be done more effectively by the private sector, conservatives always argue that the private sector should be doing it.  And, certainly, "He who governs least, governs best." (Thomas Paine)

(As an aside, let me freely admit that Ron Paul's discussion of a very limited role of government is certainly interesting, and perhaps the reason why many conservatives find him appealing.  I simply disagree with his belief that the Iraq war is unconstitutional, perhaps because I don't want to be cold, hungry and broke when our oil supply is cut off.)

Liberals throw in issues like redistribution of wealth, medical care, mail delivery, economic stimulation, public education, retirement / pension plan, housing standards, environmental protection, energy conservation, support of the arts... the list is endless.  The liberal dogma is that government is the way to solve all problems of humanity, which is strange given their paranoia when it comes to the military, CIA, FBI, etc etc.  One of the ways that the media is "liberal" is that their script on documentary "news" shows always feature some problem, then rant that the government needs to do more to fix the problem.  

Likewise, liberals cannot content themselves with local government, but rather, want everything to be run at the highest level - isn't that what the United Nations is all about after all?  Therefore, you have a local pollution issue taken to the United Nations as an "environmental terrorism" issue against blacks, for instance.  

By comparison, conservatives break out in a rash when people propose that government - at the highest levels - address every social ill of our day.  One reason is that we know that large government doesn't work in many instances.  We agree that, "Were we to be directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread (Thomas Jefferson).  We know "The magic of the marketplace" is much more efficient, and much more powerful, than the will of a bureaucratic government.

Another reason that we believe in limited government is that, "A government that is big enough to do everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything that you have." (Gerald Ford, repeated often by Ronald Reagan).  Taxes are collected at gun point, under the threat of jail and property confiscation - if you don't believe it, just refuse to pay your Social Security "contribution" and see how long you keep your freedom.  Taxes are then handed out to people that often times are not deserving of those funds, for projects that are directly opposed to our beliefs, and always spent less effectively than if the earner had spent it themselves.  

Lastly, we support limited government because we wish to be moral beings.  In order to be a moral being, we must be "free moral agents" --  we much choose to do right, not forced into our decision.  If we are forced to give up our money so that we support the poor , or education, or the arts, (or any other project), we can claim no moral righteousness.  We can only be moral when we decide to contribute, when we put forth the effort, when we care enough to make a difference.  

The good news is that conservatives do indeed contribute to address the problems of humanity.  Just because we don't believe in government programs like the welfare state and Affirmative Action doesn't mean that we don't care deeply about the problems of poverty and racism, for instance.  While liberals talk like they've got the only answers, and the only ones who care about these issues, the truth is that conservatives out-give liberals by a wide margin when it comes to money and volunteer time, often addressing the issues that are the heart of liberal angst.  Never, ever, let a liberal get away with saying that conservatives are evil, or indifferent, because we don't support their latest big-government solutions!!!!

Lastly, I note a split in the Conservative movement.  In our country, there are SOCIAL conservatives, and then there are POLITICAL (or ECONOMIC) conservatives. Sometimes, life's issues split them deeply - the case of Terri Schiavo is a recent, and painful, example.  On one side of the debate were conservatives that very much wanted the painful life-end decisions to be a private, family matter.  On the other side were people who saw this as a question of the sanctity of life.  Conservatism, at it turns out, struggles the issue of having a small, non-intrusive government, but also one that enforces the values of our faith(s).