My politics, and stuff we may disagree on as conservatives

(Good thing I'm running a few long term experiments and the annoying as hell undergrads are out of my hair for today, and I can actually think and write about this stuff. Sorry for being so acerbic lately, but it comes with the bitterness of being surrounded by obnoxious douchebag libruls all freakin day. My apologies.)

So, with the conservative movement looking a little fractured nationwide (and also in our little microcosm of a group) - I thought I'd lay out my worldview so you can see how well yours matches up. I'm particularly interested in points where we will likely disagree, so I'll focus on those the most.

When I read all the books about conservatism and the history of the conservative movement, I found out about a whole lot of groups and worldviews that all lumped themselves under this label in order to form a coherent national movement and win elections. They've all got their respective labels (paleocons, neocons, etc) but I think the major unifier was the Cold War. I think the watershed moment of conservatism was RR's election and the defeat of communism - after that, we started to see some of the coalition beginning to fracture.

Anyway, of these worldviews, the one that resonated with me the most was termed "classical liberalism". This worldview is, to me, the most "true" to the Founders' intent, as they built the Constitution based upon principles laid out by some of the great 'classical liberal' thinkers of their time like Smith and Paine. Hayek is probably the first to revive it in the modern world, although all the Austrian school were vocal supporters. I could write for days about this worldview, but in a nutshell it is this: individual liberty and free markets.

Individual liberty and free markets - simple and to the point. The 'free markets' part is really just an extension of individual liberty, if you ask me. Whatever the case, first and foremost to me is the importance of the Constitution, because I believe it to be a document constructed with this worldview in mind. To me, the problem of the past 100 years has been a lack of respect for the Constitution, especially from the folks whose role it is to interpret it - the courts. Since dictator-for-life FDR's reign, we've had these guys running roughshod all over the Constitution to promote what they believe is right. The damn thing has a mechanism for change built into it, but sometimes democracy can be a bitch, eh?

For this reason, I had my issues ranked the way I did. 1) Justices, 2) War (there isn't a bigger outside threat to our liberty than this), and 3) free markets.

So, where do I think I would fall in disagreement with many conservatives? Let's see - one big area would probably be social conservatism. I just don't place the weight on it that others do. I think banning gay marriage would be a good thing, but only in the state I live in. I'd rather a couple queens up in Vermont be able to get "married" than have an unconstitutional law. I'm a NIMBY conservative when it comes to social issues, which dovetails nicely with my stance on the Constitution. Doesn't really place me at odds with other conservatives on principles, just on methods, so it probably isn't a big point of difference.

The big areas of disagreement I see would be immigration and trade. I'm a free-trade advocate. That means free trade with anybody and everybody. I can see only benefits from the free exchange of goods and services. If you believe that something is good enough to have domestically, then it should be good enough to apply internationally. If Johnny American is better at making widgets and Joon-Bok-Thai is better at making whatchamacallits, then it behooves you to allow the free exchange of those to benefit both parties. The latest arguments that have been raised against it - displacement for American workers, CEOs "getting rich" while we "slave away".......those are all arguments that are used by modern liberals to support their anti-business policies domestically. Using them to support an argument against free trade on the international level is a little inconsistent, if you ask me.

When it comes to immigration, I'm a whole lot more "open borders" than most conservatives, primarily because of what I believe on free trade. I was pretty laissez-faire on the border, even pre-9/11, because I think that one of the big problems we have is Mexicans "do the jobs we won't do" because we make it difficult for Americans to do those jobs (minimum wage laws, taxes). Anything that could help move people in the direction of removing barriers to business is a good thing, in my opinion. After 9/11, though, it's obviously different. My compromise is to really loosen up legal immigration (particularly for the Latin Americans) and beef up security on the border - both borders, actually. A little weak, because that's what I should have been saying before, but whatever - there are some things regarding what we should do now (like amnesty) that I probably disagree with conservatives on. At least I'm on the side of many conservatives now regarding the border, so that's not really an argument. However, I suspect a prime reason for anti-immigrant sentiment isn't just the "law-and-order" aspect of it. There is a certain fear of different cultures and languages and the lack of assimilation, and it exists all the way up here in New Jersey, unfortunately. Yeah, it's the same fear that led to anti-immigrant sentiment towards the Irish, Italians, Chinese, and eastern Europeans. Look, those guys turned out all right, and so will the Latin Americans.

Well, I've said my piece for now. Enjoy!