About four years ago, the late, great Reagan adviser Lyn Nofziger emailed me what he thought it meant to be a conservative. I lost it…and then Lyn passed away. Been looking for it ever since, but couldn’t find it until, by accident, I stumbled upon it in an old file this morning.
“Allowing for differences I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, ‘the right to be let alone.’
“Second, a conservative believes in small, limited government at every level. Along with this he believes strongly in individual responsibility. That is, a person or a family should take care of itself and turn for help to government only when all other means have been exhausted. It also means that society, before government, has a duty to take care of its own. Government should be a resource of last resort.
“Third, a conservative believes taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, catching and incarcerating criminals, minting money and filling potholes. Taxes should not be levied for the purpose of redistributing wealth.
“That’s about it.
“I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable.
“One other thing I think a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their children.”
If you can find a better definition for what it means to be a “conservative,” I’d love to see it. Not a bad definition of a “libertarian,” either.
Posted on May 27th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
I was just going to say….sounds fairly libertarian to me. But surely, there are differences; if not we render both terms meaningless. I generally distinguish the two by noting that conservatism tends to value tradition in of itself whereas libertarianism does not. Thereby, a conservative will likely have no problem with measures or subsidies that reinforce cultural and historical traditions. Sometimes, as is the case presently, this turns into a zealous patriotism where “national greatness” becomes institutionalized combined with a rather overt religious symbolism that strives to remind citizens of our “moral code”. Which, if you ask me, is somewhat worrisome and unnecessary.
That’s funny. I just finished reading Lyn’s biography the other day. He certainly was brilliant.
I guess this means that Republicans have abandoned conservatism completely. Interesting. I certainly subscribe to the definition, but fail to see any Republicans subscribe to it. Even Reagan could not reduce the federal budget and signed many pork and welfare bills into law. All talk, I guess.
I know Bob Beers subscribes to these ideals and proclaims so in public. Bob actually lives it in action as a state Senator. A rare combination of conviction and honesty…..with no hypocrisy. Unfortunately, this seem to be what Americans do not want. Also unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to embrace the workers paradise preached by the democrats. I would encourage people to look at actions, not words. No politician keeps their word, so we must look at their actions. All administrations in the last 70 years increased the federal budget, added employees, expanded administrations, and brought in more agencies. It is simply the way socialism takes over.
I guess Lyn talks a good game too. I do not see where we have any “major choices” if we want to bring back these values. I guess we better start teaching Chinese as a second language in our Government schools. It will save us time in the long run.
Remember those “500 words or less” writing assignments?
Yes, they were a nightmare for me, too, but Lyn aced this one.
God but I miss Lyn’s wisdom…
I’ve very glad I was able to meet him and have dinner with him along with the rest of my intern class at LI in 2002.
It was not William O. Douglas, but Louis Brandeis who, in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article, coined the phrase “the right to be let alone,” and then used that phrase while a Supreme Court justice in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928), which involved a wiretapping case. Brandeis wrote:
…The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment …
The right to be left alone is almost gone. Contnued intrusion into our lives by government at all levels has become the norn. VERY VERY SAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so Bob Barr yes
John McCain no
[…] Reagan adviser Lyn Nofziger: “I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, ‘the right to be let alone.’ […]
The best definition I heard is one Rush Limbaugh gave one day:
“Liberalism attempts to destroy the human spirit to the point of making enemies out of people who have achieved something, out of people who have become successful..Conservatism, on the other hand, doesn’t seek to control anybody. Conservatism seeks to liberate. Conservatism believes that the human being, the USA American citizen, is capable of anything he or she wants. Conservatism believes in the goodness and the greatness and the potential..in every human being and wants to get as much out of the way in terms of obstacles as possible. Conservatism wants to motivate those people. Conservatism wants to inspire those people. Conservatism wants happy, content people pursuing life and liberty. Conservatism believes that the greatest country we can have is where there is as much freedom as possible, as defined by the founding documents of this country where there is as little government as necessary, and when people are free to utilize their own desires and their ambitions.”
If Ronald Reagan is the model of conservatism, then pro-life beliefs have to be part of the equation. You can’t separate Ronald Reagan from his pro-life convictions. There’s no Reagan without those beliefs. If the most innocent and weakest members of our society can’t be left alone, then none of us can. When anyone is expendable, we are all negotiable. Can anyone think of any big essay Reagan wrote while in office on any issue that was bigger or more contentious than his essay “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation” that he wrote in the Human Life Review? It’s now a book. President Reagan wrote that in his first term while running for re-election. Many conservatives are trying to disconnect Reagan’s pro-life convictions from his legacy. It can’t be done anymore than separating his conviction that communism was an evil empire because of its violation of human rights and how it demeaned human beings. The right to life/pro-life views were a core belief for him. It was not ancillary to his conservative convictions. Nofziger was certainly important to him, but Judge William Clark has been doing his best to remind people that Reagan’s pro-life convictions were fundamental to his conservatism. No president since Roe has used the bully pulpit like Ronald Reagan did for the unborn. There’s no Reagan without his pro-life core beliefs. If Reagan’s the model, the pro-life issues are part of the package.
What I noted of importance was that nowhere was religion mentioned. I for one am tired of being told that only christians can be conservatives.
it is my philosophy that belief in a higher power(s) is central to a decent person’s manner of decent morality and ethics, but no one has the right to define any particular deity or form of belief or worship.
Many non-christians have died for this country and been less than honored for their duty because of their faith, including many who have died recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sandy, I believe I saw “freedom of religion” mentioned in the very first paragraph of Mr. Nofziger’s definition. I’ve never heard that only Christians can be conservatives. I know many non-Christians who are great conservatives. I’ve never heard of anybody dying to preserve this country’s freedom and being less than honored. These are disturbing things that you’re hearing. You should quit listening to them. You’ll feel alot better.
[…] While I declare myself a Conservative first, Republican second, I began to wonder how I would define that if ever asked. I think I found the answer. It was originally printed here: Muth’s Truth Allowing for differences I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, ‘the right to be let alone.’ […]
[…] This was written by the late, great Lyn Nofziger, a senior advisor to President Reagan and one of the premier conservative thinkers of my lifetime. Thanks to Chuck Muth over at Muth’s Truths for sharing this. I am in complete agreement. […]
[…] Thanks to Chuck Muth over at Muth’s Truths for sharing this. I am in complete agreement. […]
[…] Because of its prominence in the political landscape the party label “Republican” is often used interchangeably with the philosophy labeled “conservative”. The first and most important thing to do in teasing apart the Republican brand from the Conservative label is to define what it is to be conservative. Defining Republican is easy because it is nothing more or less than an organized political party – the confusion is that this party has been the primary vehicle through which conservatism has had its political voice. The best definition I have seen of “conservative” comes from Chuck Muth in an email he got from Lyn Nofziger. Muth’s whole post is worth reading but it can be summarized as follows: […]