Op-Ed: What is a Conservative?

The following Op-Ed was submitted by Michael Law. Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of those at the Idaho Dispatch.

There is so much rhetoric in today’s political atmosphere that ideas can be confusing as to who is a conservative, who is a liberal, who are establishment Republicans, who are liberty Republicans and so many other factions that it is impossible to list all. In particular, here in Idaho, we hear one faction say, “we, we are conservative,” and different faction say, “No, we, we are conservative,” to the point that a majority of Idahoans say they are conservative whether they align with conservative group A, B, C, etc.

The problem is defining what a conservative is, as so many groups both inside and outside the Republican Party claim to be conservative, all without a definition. Defining terms, defining ideas is of paramount importance. The reason for this is as simple as understanding past terms that have been redefined, which continues today. A couple of examples will suffice. Liberal is a term derogatory towards Democrats or the those on the left of the political spectrum. However, the liberal of yesteryear was one who respected liberty of others, who was marked by their generosity to others, who are averse to authoritarianism. Sounds like the ideas the typical Republican or conservative would agree with. Another example is choice. Republicans believe people should be allowed to choose, whether that means choosing a bad business model and failing or a good one and being successful, choosing the job one desires, the degree they want in college, the type of vehicle to drive and so on. But Republicans are typically NOT “pro-choice,” or, in other words, they are anti-abortion. Like the word liberal the word choice has been highjacked by those seeking to redefine themselves or their actions so they or their actions and policies do not appear evil or, at least, so they appear to be benevolent. The word gay is one final example. Gay used to mean light-hearted, carefree, happy. Today’s definition is anything but that. Wickedness is NOT happiness or a feeling of being gay, as the old definition meant. All this shows the importance of defining terms and ideas.

As you can begin to see, defining what a conservative is or who is conservative or what is conservatism becomes extremely difficult, maybe even impossible, especially when every faction both in and outside the Republican party, the typical and most numerous place where self-proclaimed conservatives tend to assemble, defines conservatism with major differences or with minor nuances when compared to other factions. I am thus taking a huge risk in my attempt to define conservatism, as many will agree, many will disagree, and likely the infighting will continue in the struggle to define who is conservative, what are conservative ideas, etc.

The apolitical definition of conservative is “averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values,” “relating to traditional norms of taste, style, manners,” and “marked by moderation and caution.” Another is one who tends to conserve. In many ways, this does reflect what a conservative is. Conservatives, for the most part, want to conserve traditional family values, to preserve the ideas of the Constitution and to maintain traditional God-fearing, rule-following, and peaceable societies. I believe few would argue with this. However, there will, of course, be some who might disagree, either because of their own nuanced definition or for the sake of argument—that is, just because they are of a contentious nature.

But let’s move on to the political definition(s). A definition of conservative is one “favoring free enterprise, private ownership and socially and religiously traditional ideas,” “tending to emphasize the importance of personal responsibility and traditional values.” I would also include that conservatives tend to hold to the traditional constitutional ideas. However, as I will argue, many self-proclaiming conservates do NOT hold to the constitutional concepts, and to many other conservative concepts as defined above. While I would love to hear what the differences might be, adhering to the proper English definitions, it is improbable that these definitions will change, unlike today’s liberals or progressives who are constantly trying to redefine terms to hide who they truly are and to try to show that they are the normal people and not the outlying, weird people that they truly are. The same can be said of more progressive conservatives who hide behind the term conservative to disguise who they truly are.

Moving into more details as to who or what a conservative is, I will start at the top—the Supreme Authority of all. Conservatives are God-fearing people. God is and must be first in the lives of all, especially conservatives, if they wish to claim any form of conservatism. God-fearing means obeying or, as is the case with all human beings, doing our best to be obedient to God, to following His teachings, but also accepting that we are all miserable failures in this respect. Nevertheless, recognizing our failures, pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps and doing better tomorrow than we did today is part and parcel to our God-fearing way of life. Or rather, accepting we are fallen but God has provided a way for us to succeed, to become more obedient, to become more God-fearing is His plan.

So, what does that mean? It means when God said, “Thou shalt not” kill, steal, or lie (10 commandments), we do our best to intentionally follow. It means when God created man in His own image, male and female, that those are the only genders He recognizes, or in truth, the only two genders that are, and thus by default, the only two we can and should recognize. When He says, “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord” He has made it perfectly clear that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman.

Returning to killing, as one example, when God tells Jeremiah, the prophet, for example, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee,” He is telling us that life began at conception, or really before. Ages past, we have been told that abortion is murder, as will be shown. John Calvin wrote “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.” Another individual, James Wilson, a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution wrote “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.” The supreme law of the land is the Constitution and “stirring in the womb,” scientifically, begins immediately when sperm enters the egg, creating a completely new life, with different DNA and endless possibilities. Another way to demonstrate the inherent evil of abortion is as scholar Neal Maxwell said, “Have we strayed so far from God’s second great commandment—love they neighbor—that a baby in a womb no longer qualifies to be loved- at least as a mother’s neighbor?” The other nine commandments are no less significant and just as easily applicable to true conservative values.

I hope you are starting to see the point and the importance of a conservative being a God-fearing person. Without the rules and teachings of God, in reality, conservatives have no moral foundation, as does nobody else. Moreover, any rules that are created that have no basis in God’s rules are man-made and may be altered or checked by any other person at a whim. God’s rules, however, are unchangeable and a solid foundation, rather than a sandy one that can be changed willy-nilly. If not built upon His foundation, we will be tossed about like a ship without a sail, anchor or a rudder being blown about by every wind of doctrine. Or in today’s terms, we will be sticking our fingers in the air to discover which way the political winds are blowing and heading that way, despite heading for a dangerous maelstrom which will end in death for all blown about by the devil’s tempests.

Next is the Constitutional details. Here, especially, is where we start to see divergences. The Constitution is the document granting authority to government to act, which purpose is to protect life, liberty, and property, as Thomas Jefferson so succinctly wrote in the Declaration of Independence. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Two points here are first, the securing of rights is the purpose of government and second, the just powers come from the consent of the governed. Any powers not consented to or any powers that the people are unable to consent to because that power does NOT exist in any individual is unjust. And any action taken by government that does anything but protect life, liberty and property are outside the sphere of government authority. Where the divergence occurs is in the idea of the authority of government to act, or the limits of governmental authority.

The Constitution (both US and Idaho) provides law making authority to the legislature, enforcement authority to the executive branch, and judicial authority to the courts. Here is where some division occurs. It comes down to policy. Fake conservatives believe that the legislature may pass a law that allows the executive branch to make rules/laws by creating departments or bureaucracies that are given authority to make rules, even arguing that the legislature cannot deal with all the rules that must be made for government to function without becoming a full-time legislature. Note that rules, laws, and orders are all synonymous. To assuage the fears of people here in Idaho, the legislature will review the rules made by bureaucrats and give them a pass/fail. However, a strict or real conservative, one who wishes to conserve the clear and obvious design of the Framers and their created constitutions, would disallow every rule, would never have agreed to any bureaucracy in the first place and would remove any official, whether in the executive or judicial branch who attempts to make any rule or law. In other words, no bureaucratic rulemaking by the executive branch nor legislating from the judicial bench.

Furthermore, some self-proclaiming conservatives believe that a legislature has authority to pass laws that regulate either people, property, or the liberties of the people. For example, numerous departments and bureaucracies have been created or laws have been passed in the name of “protecting” the people, liberty, or property, thus bastardizing the meaning. Take the idea of the creation of various boards, like the Idaho Electrical Board, Board of Dentistry, and a plethora of others whose job is to “ensure” quality licensees and protect the people from dastardly-deed-doers. Many of these boards came about via legislation in order to protect the people from unsavory characters working in those fields. Why? Because there are those who will take advantage of others, so they feel duty-bound to protect the people. Thus, by bastardizing “protection,” government promises better quality, safer environments for its citizens. However, there is no guarantee to this so-called proactive approach. Anytime this happens (any governmental proactive approach), government is using a “minority report” authority, declaring its omniscience and claiming omnipotence in prevention of crimes against the life, liberty, and property of citizens. Government is not even close to batting a thousand in their prevention effectiveness but they are, however, batting a thousand at enriching with money and power for themselves to the detriment of the citizens it’s sworn to protect.

On the other hand, a true conservative recognizes that government, ran by fallible people, is not omniscient nor omnipotent and can only act after the fact. In other words, until one individual violates the life, liberty or property of another, government cannot act, except to define the crime, define the punishment of the crime and then execute the law after being tried in the courts to determine guilt. Sure, self-proclaiming neo-conservatives may claim that that is exactly what the licensure laws will do but it punishes good people by forcing them to jump through all the licensure requirements and then fines them to get the license, despite no crime being committed by the licensee. Moreover, what is a license anyway? It is permission granted to work in a specific field. If the people granted authority to government where do the individuals get the authority or right to demand to be paid for permission to work? And that within parameters that the individual bureaucracy decides? I cannot go to my neighbor and demand $100 before I allow him/her to work as a dentist. Nor can I demand they take many years of schooling before doing so. So how is it that government demands it when it derives its authority from the people—unless it usurps authority? I cannot grant government power to act where I have none. Moreover, why would the individual who wants to be a dentist, in this example, agree to let me set all the rules and pay me for permission, or rather, pay me for having done nothing? No true conservative goes down this road because they understand the concepts of the Constitution and wish to preserve the integrity of it. This can be said about any situation where government demands certain action or payments before a citizen can act, where, in a state of nature, no individual can act without the violation of another individual’s rights.

Let’s take another example. Spending. This is a major determining factor as to whether a person or policy is conservative in nature. As government grows, as it expands its powers and authority, which authorities are not allowed under the powers granted by the people, it must necessarily steal (a commandment violation) more property from the people, in order to run as government desires to run. A true conservative would never have expanded any power of government beyond its proper sphere in the first place and would seek to remove any authority usurped, thus lightening the burdens place on the people by an extra-constitutional government. They would not be satisfied with maintaining a budget but in shrinking it and doing all to prevent growth. They would not compromise with government but would seek to require government to compromise with them, shrinking the size and scope of government to its proper levels. True conservatives, recognize that taxation is theft and thus should be kept to a minimum. But you ask how is taxation theft? Theft is the forced removal of property without permission from the owner. Living in society is NOT permission. Ask nearly any taxpayer, including liberal taxpayers, if they themselves individually think they should pay more in taxes. You will hardly find any who think they should pay more. Thus, taxes are not consented to by taxpayers. I, for one, NEVER have nor ever will give consent, especially while government continues to endeavor to violate my liberties and property, as well as my fellow citizens’ property and liberty and, in many cases, their lives.

Fake conservatives think that government has progressed to where it is because past and current legislatures have provided for it, which, as law makers, they are allowed to do, if the limits of the Constitution are not considered. After all, why shouldn’t law makers make laws, as law making authority was granted by the Constitution? However, the enumerated powers, the limits of powers that do and can come from the people are typically lost on fake conservatives. The policies they seek to implement are poor attempts to divine what a person or group of people will do to violate life, liberty, and property or how they will violate, all in the name of protecting the people. In truth, they are emasculating the liberties of the people, stealing more property from people, especially in a time of inflation, which is also stealing from people, and aggrandizing themselves with power, prestige and making themselves financially better off in the process.

Additionally, in the name of protecting life, liberty, and/or property, they may believe that providing for the needs of citizens is warranted, such as the numerous social programs that provide food, healthcare, housing, etc. After all, if the less fortunate have difficulty providing for what some think are the necessities of life, they may suffer or even die. Thus, by providing for the needs of others, one is protecting life, as they may believe. Never mind that what is a necessity continues to be redefined from basic food to providing for internet or phones, electricity, and many other things that 3^rd world people do just fine without. They seek to equalize everyone with all that one might enjoy in America. But we cannot forget that the things that are provided for others are taken from their fellow citizens to the detriment of those have their property stolen for the “charity scheme” of do-gooders who love to spend money that is not theirs.

Let me make one more point on the forced burdens that government places on its citizens. While Idahoans have been dealing with serious inflation on their basic needs or any other things that they would or might have wished to acquire, the “conservative” legislature and governor have seen massive increase in their fiscal year revenues during the current presidential term (2021-2024). With $14B for 2021 and $22.5 for 2024. That is only a 60% increase in 4 years! Do you think that wages increase by 60%? Not hardly. Moreover, every dollar spent by government is a dollar taken from taxpayers. The more taken, the less taxpayers have. Inflation, which is simply government printing money, making the purchasing power of the same dollar less, adds to the plight of taxpayers who are using more of their dollars to pay for government’s reckless and unconstitutional spending. And Idaho government is culpable in adding to the inflation as it continues to accept inflated debt-money from the federal inflators/thieves. The fake conservatives have little to no problem “investing” in roads, education, police, corrections, healthcare, economic development, natural resources, and a plethora of other pet programs. Fake conservatives are guilty of numerous charges found in the Declaration, just like King George. The example here is the charge “He (Idaho) has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither (to our towns) swarms of Officers to harass our people, in eat out their substance.” Every dollar taken is “eating out their substance” especially during this inflationary period and massive government growth both federally and in state and local governments. The harassing comes in all government’s mandates to act in certain ways and pay them for permissions to act.

Real conservatives would have none of this, as they trust in the free market and would keep government from any interference in the lives of citizens and their ability to provide for themselves. And for those that worry about their fellow citizens that are less fortunate, real conservatives, who are also God-fearing, will come to the aid of their fellow citizens individually or collectively through their church or other non-governmental organizations. We can witness this in the Hurricane Helene disaster, as government is failing to even provide what it promised with its creation of FEMA. But average citizens are diligent and prompt in providing help, even with FEMA’s intentional attempts to block the people from helping. God-fearing conservatives are still the highest contributors to charities and will continue to be so.

Another item of true, God-fearing conservatives is they wish for peace. They follow the two great commandments to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. And again, their purpose is to follow the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance to it. In pursuance, means that if a law violates the Constitution, whether it tries to supersede it or adds to the powers of any branch by usurping authority not granted, then the law is null and void. For example, Alexander Hamilton argued that a power to regulate the press was not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 (or anywhere else for that matter) so a “freedom of the press” right in a bill of rights was unnecessary. While thankfully, a bill of rights was provided, it demonstrates the extremely limited authority the federal government possesses. Conservatives understand and wish a return to the Constitutional authority as the Framers designed.

Returning to the idea of peace, only the Congress can declare war. And until war is declared, the US military has no business being deployed anywhere in the world, or within the US, for that matter. Where we have bases, ports, etc., that are NOT on US soil violates the Constitution. In fact, we have not had any declared wars since WWII. For the US Congress to continue funding troops at current levels when there is no war is an abuse of its war powers. The Executive branch is all too happy to use whatever power he can that Congress allows and as many as it can get away with that Congress does not allow. Never mind that the Founding generation was highly suspicious of standing troops, which the Constitution does NOT allow.

Furthermore, true, God-fearing conservatives will do all that is possible to avoid war, to avoid conflict to be peacemakers, even to turn the other cheek. War is destructive, creates so many physical, mental, and emotional problems for soldiers and non-combatants, and the price beyond the individual level costs nations untold trillions.

Actually, the military industrial complex (military budget alone) has cost the US taxpayer over $21 trillion since 1960 despite no declared wars. Add to the cost of foreign aid (also unconstitutional), the cost of state department used in conflicts, Veteran’s Affairs (separate from defense spending) and one can see the US is really racking up costs. NATO since its inception 75 years ago has cost the US another $21 trillion (unconstitutional spending) in its direct contribution requirements that are outside regular defense spending. This does not include the indirect spending required by NATO that comes from the US defense budget. Additionally, more “defense” and foreign aid related spending in the form of the UN (darling of Democrats and neo-cons) is not cheap either costing the US hundreds of billions of dollars since its inception. All these are designed to prevent war. All these are complete and total failures in their design. The costs alone of the military industrial complex, even if we kept the $21 trillion spent since 1960 in defense spending mentioned above, could easily have kept the US almost out of our current debt of nearly $36 trillion! At the very least, we might only be in single digit trillions of dollars of debt.

But the real cost is the lives of God’s children, both in the death and in the horrific mutilation of bodies that somehow survive, recklessly making the quality of life and the suffering of His children heart-wrenching—unless you are a heartless warmonger who actively condones war in the name of whatever god you serve. That god is not the God of the Old nor New Testaments.

Here I will begin to wrap this up. We must ask ourselves several questions. And they all must be answered as I have outlined. Any deviance provides liberal, progressive, and socialist tendencies, making one a fake conservative. First, in defining what a true conservative is the question one must ask is, “Are you God-fearing?” That is, do you believe in a Supreme Being, or more specifically, the God of our fathers and Founders, Jesus Christ, and His teachings, namely loving God and loving your neighbor? You may say yes but drawing near to God with your mouths and with your lips honoring Him but your hearts and therefore your actions are far from Him demonstrates you are not God-fearing. And do you believe His word, like two genders, marriage between only a man and a woman, the teaching Jesus provides in His sermon on the Mount, etc.? If your actions demonstrate that you are God-fearing, trying to live by His word, keeping His commandments, loving God and your neighbor, then in this point you may consider yourself conservative.

The same can be applied to the US Constitution. Are you paying lip service when you take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution? There are several questions here. Do you believe that all power of government is derived from the people? If so, then you must necessarily ask yourself “If there was no government, could I do such and such a thing to my fellow man without violating his natural rights to life, liberty and property?” For example, are you for regulations, bans on items, forcing someone to act in a particular and defined way, etc.? Next, do you think that the branches of government must remain separate? That is, do you think there should be no lawmaking for the executive branch, including departments, bureaucracies, etc., and no legislating from the bench? No congressional judging or executing the law either? Next, do you believe that the powers enumerated in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, are the only powers granted and no others? For example, do you believe that no enumerated authority exists for education, controlling energy, commerce within states, HUD, Social Security, and 100’s of other usurped powers the federal, state, and local governments currently maintain they can do? Finally, following these important questions, are you seeking or would you seek to shrink government to those very limited and proper levels, and matching the spending and regulations to the levels required in answer to the questions above or supporting representatives who do? Do you believe that the same applies to state level governments in these questions, i.e., power derived from people, cannot violate natural rights, etc.? If you cannot answer yes to EVERY question and defend your answer with your actions, you cannot consider yourself a conservative. True conservatives can and do answer yes with their words AND prove it by their actions.

Unfortunately, fake conservatives who cannot answer any of the above questions properly, or even miss out on one or two question only, are in need of being governed. Fake conservatives, liberals, socialists, progressives, and even so-called do-gooders who use government for well-intentioned purposes require government. They require it because they do and will violate life, liberty, and property to enforce their programs, their know-it-all ideals of government being the omniscient and omnipotent power in the universe. Clearly, they put their trust in mankind and not God. No man, woman or child should ever trust these types of people with power that they most definitely have and will continue to prove that they will abuse.

So, what is a conservative? A conservative is God-fearing in both words and actions. A conservative is one who will preserve the VERY limited government the Founder envisioned and provided us with. A conservative is as defined above, one who believes in America’s traditional values of marriage, family, self-reliance, being peaceable followers of God, doing good to your fellow men without the use of force (government). In reality, a conservative would work towards what Madison wrote in Federalist 51 that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Why? Because having learned correct principles, like the two great commandments, the 10 commandments and so on, government would be unnecessary because they would be governing themselves. That is what it means to be a conservative.

---

Tags: Conservative, Constitution, God, Idaho, Michael Law

---