A Manifesto of Freedom
In a great short post on the contradictions of being Republican, Scott Ott offers a superb, succinct conservative manifesto:
We don’t need more politicians who want to help people through government programs. We need folks who want to become guardians of freedom by reducing the oppressive, confiscatory power of government.
And when we’re more free, we can better help those in our communities in need of assistance. A less confiscatory government means we have more resources to devote to private organizations which help the less fortunate. Fewer regulations give private enterprises greater opportunities to innovate and expand, increasing efficiencies and creating jobs.
Oh, and about those contradictions:
We’re working to elect politicians, but we believe the ultimate answers don’t lie in government, but rather in private-sector liberty, industry and the resulting dignity…and often prosperity.
Read the whole thing, print it out, post in in a prominent place.
Oh, yeah, about that other supposed contradiction. When self-righteous liberals accuse our gay conservative readers of being a contradiction in terms, we can readily cite this “manifesto” because it defines the essence of our movement (conservative) in terms of that great idea which has animated American patriots for over two centuries: freedom.
The freedom to live our lives as we choose applies to gay people just as it applies to Christians. And anyone else for that matter.
(H/t: Mark Tapscott.)
18 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thanks for the link.
Printed and forwarded near and far.
Comment by heliotrope — January 4, 2010 @ 11:35 am - January 4, 2010
Whoa.
Really? You Republicans think of your politics as an act of *self-sacrifice*?
If true, maybe it is part of why I should remain an Independent. I had enough blather about self-sacrificial redemption-through-politics in my years as a liberal Democrat. Also, maybe it’s part of why Republicans fail to actually reduce government, whenever they do hold power: They are too busy conceding the Democrats’ basic premises, about the glory of self-sacrificial redemption-through-politics. Blech!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 12:49 pm - January 4, 2010
P.S. To be clear: One’s political convictions ought to be an act, not of self-sacrifice, but of self-fulfillment: an expression of one’s deepest, most inspiring and self-energizing principles.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 12:50 pm - January 4, 2010
You don’t think it’s a sacrifice to be a target/scapegoat for liberals?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 4, 2010 @ 1:08 pm - January 4, 2010
“Self-sacrifice” is a clearly mushy, psychobabble soaked term. Shame on Scott for including it. That is why editors are useful.
That said, I can let it pass, because Ott means well. I am sure that Hitler, Pol Pot, Bill Gates, Nancy Pelosi, Arlen Specter, David Letterman and Mark Sanford can all produce some sort of drool about self-sacrifice.
However, I do believe that George Washington did sacrifice comfort and personal gain in wealth to serve as President. I would like to think that my representatives in government are willing to do the job for the sake of service and not as a path to riches. I would prefer that when they stop representing us, that they go home and live among the people they represented as a neighbor.
One should not keep track of “self-sacrifice.” But one should be acutely aware of any penchant for greed one develops and to keep careful track of its corrupting effects.
Comment by heliotrope — January 4, 2010 @ 1:11 pm - January 4, 2010
To my point. Socialist propaganda (in which I include both fascist, communist, and “social Democrat” propaganda as sub-categories) characteristically stresses self-sacrifice and the importance of the individual living for the community/tribe/State. Bill Gates is not notable for his insight in these matters: he is part of the Warren Buffett school of politics, professing a kind of apologetic (almost self-hating) mushy liberalism in public.
Indeed. But Washington did not sacrifice his “self”; that is, he did not sacrifice his honor or deepest values as a person. To the contrary, he lived them out.
I am not sure that “selfishness” is the right word either for what Washington did, any more than “self-sacrifice”. Perhaps English has no good word for it. Perhaps we need one.
Agreed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 1:30 pm - January 4, 2010
“To be active in Republican politics is to live…a self-sacrificial life for the benefit of others…”
Instead of arguing with the word choice, one should just step back and marvel at the delusion and insanity of this sentence. I mean, putting out some aspirational, inspirational BS is one thing, but making yourself a laughingstock is quite another.
Or do any of you think you could find one non-Republican who wouldn’t laugh their rear end off if you made this statement to them?
Comment by Tano — January 4, 2010 @ 1:45 pm - January 4, 2010
Amen to that.
However, please leave a tad of room for us religious primitives who do care to serve others …… on our own terms. (Mother Teresa I ain’t.)
Comment by heliotrope — January 4, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - January 4, 2010
“The freedom to live our lives as we choose applies to gay people just as it applies to Christians.”
Here here. But you do need to recognize, whether you like it or not, that freedom TO BE GAY, has NOT been part of the conservative agenda, at anytime in our history.
If it is your mission to help change the hearts and minds of American conservatism then great, bully for you. But why deny so constantly the obvious facts that FREEDOM for gays has always been a liberal project, that ALL of the advances made to date have been the result of liberal advocacy, and all the resistance has come from people who you are crawling into bed with.
It is certainly possible to acknowledge all these facts and still fight your mission, to still be a conservative. In fact, you would win a lot of credibility and respect from liberals (i know, i know, you dont care about that…) if you were to simply acknowledge why it is that you have the freedom, as a gay man, that you do today.
Maybe you can shame your little conservative friends by pointing out to them how more enlightened liberals are on these matters of FREEDOM and LIBERTY for gays, so the right had better catch up. Lets face it, that is the standard formula for all social betternment – liberal leadership, and conservatives playing catch-up. Your role seems to be as a leader of the catch-up brigade, and I think it would be good if you could be recognized for doing good work in this area. (like Andrew, who before he was castigated by the right for heresy, probably did more for the acceptance of gays on the right (at least the literate right) than any other single person).
Comment by Tano — January 4, 2010 @ 2:28 pm - January 4, 2010
Heh
Oh yes, I am into serving others myself… “on my own terms”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 2:57 pm - January 4, 2010
Note how Tano attempts to portray the Liberals as freedom loving. Yet their actions are anything but.
Forcing the citizens of the US to buy a product or pay a fine.
Not accepting the legal actions of allied nations.
Defunding the monitoring of human rights violations in a known terrorist supporting country.
Supporting various fascist states.
abandoning our democratic allies in Europe and Asia.
The questions Tano won’t answer are legion, but here’s mine. Why do you hate free people?
Comment by The_Livewire — January 4, 2010 @ 3:04 pm - January 4, 2010
Maybe you can shame your little conservative friends by pointing out to them how more enlightened liberals are on these matters of FREEDOM and LIBERTY for gays, so the right had better catch up.
LOL…so Tano is proud of the fact that liberals support giving gays like himself the freedom to sexualize, rape, and molest children without societal repercussion?
Liberals amuse me. They oppose freedom and liberty in every respect, except when it comes to their sexual needs. Tano doesn’t think it in the least restrictive that the government dictates what he should buy, what he should pay, what he should earn, with whom he can associate, who he can hire, what he can eat, how much of what he earns he can keep, and so forth — because Obama supports his pedophile needs to teach fisting to elementary-school children.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2010 @ 4:09 pm - January 4, 2010
It appears to come down to the Liberals believe in freedom FROM responsibility while Conservatives believe in freedom OF responsibility.
The sacrificial ‘service’ our representatives provide {Corrine Delivers!} is certainly very lucretive.
Comment by Jax Dancer — January 4, 2010 @ 5:21 pm - January 4, 2010
NDT, great point.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 5:52 pm - January 4, 2010
So DADT and DOMA are all about FREEDOM and LIBERTY for gays? Who the fuck knew?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 4, 2010 @ 6:37 pm - January 4, 2010
Sure it has. It is right now. It always has been. Where are conservatives or Republicans trying to prevent you from being gay? They never have! For that matter, what have liberals ever done to promote freedom for gays? Liberals have never done anything to increase gays freedom, liberals never increase anyone’s freedom, they only TAKE freedom away from other people.
And please, before you bring up anti-sodomy laws, please remember that those were enacted by DEMOCRATS.
Comment by American Elephant — January 4, 2010 @ 6:43 pm - January 4, 2010
Now there is a tightly wrapped concept you can really wrap your arms around.
Can I get a copy of the Gay Constitution?
Comment by heliotrope — January 4, 2010 @ 9:49 pm - January 4, 2010
It’s on page one of your manual and on the back of your ID card.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 5, 2010 @ 7:45 am - January 5, 2010