Thanks
@roamer_1 and
@Smokin Joe. You have both replied in your customary concise, effective, well-constructed manner, and I appreciate the time and thought reflected in each of your posts. I will respond separately in order more easily to manage quotes from your posts.
While I agree with much you've both stated, about results, I don't think either of you has closed the gap I've posed in reasoning. If I'm correct, this is not a difference that should separate us, rather one that should call us to further collaborative thinking, as iron sharpens iron.
American Conservatism is well defined. Where the problem lies is in the ever present hyphenation that tries to change it to something else. The issue is not what Conservatism is, but rather, that people don't know the answer, and consider themselves to be conservative in ignorance.
I agree fully that people claim to be conservatives, but then argue for some distortion of it, or demonstrate that they are nothing of the sort even as they extol it.
But I still do not know a *definition* of American Conservatism. *Not* a list of example positions nor a taxonomy of distinct-but-mutually-supportive schools of thought, but a *single* principle that unifies low taxes, sanctity of unborn life, traditional marriage, RKBA, etc. Is the principle a moral one? The "progressives" believe their own morality, what distinguishes ours? Is the principle spiritual? What does that have to do with low taxes? Is the principle fiscal? How does that justify pro-life? Is the principle about individuality? Then on what grounds do we argue against the distortion of sex and gender and the legality of homosexual marriage?
I suspect the failure to articulate a single unifying principle is a large part of the reason that American Conservatism has, in my opinion, failed. We long ago ceased being a bulwark protecting the verities, and became a mere speed bump on the progressives' road to re-defining fundamental truth. Given the immediacy of the re-definition of sex taking place around us, we aren't even much of a speed bump - more like an expansion joint.
Of course. That others hold the same unalienable rights is not the question
Perhaps that assumption merits further thought. Is it possible that God has endowed Americans with rights He withheld from others? At least logically we should consider it, and if we could convince ourselves of it then the problem I am posing might quickly be dissolved.
Proceeding from the belief that our rights *are* endowed by
God, it behooves us to consider what we can know of His character. Free men can differ on that question, personally I consult what I understand to be His revealed, written word. If one's theology is Calvinistic, that God in His sovereignty will save whom He will save, one could also conclude in His sovereignty He might endow with rights whom He will endow. I have never been able to square that Calvinistic belief with John 3:16 or 2 Peter 3:9, so I reject it, and I would therefore reject the idea that He would endow rights in this temporal, fallen, material world to some but not to others.
Having considered the possibility and, I hope, rejected it on a sound basis, let us agree that God endows *all* men with unalienable rights; we Americans enjoy no special status before Him.
It is beyond the aegis of this government to protect the rights of those outside her borders, and equally those within her borders that are not citizens - Those citizens being the benefactors of the compact, and justly in receipt of the bounties produced therefrom.
It's establishment is defined by jurisdictions.
Its laws are not extended beyond its means.
Nor should they be.
And that, friend, is a position based in principle, not in practicality.
*Why* should the law not extend beyond the means? Have we not agreed that all men are endowed equally by God, and are not governments ordained by God, as stated in Romans 13:1? *Why* are some men's rights to be protected by our government, which we still believe is of the people, by the people, for the people, while other men's rights are to be excluded?
The statement I've bolded is in fact a *pragmatic* statement, not a principled one. That the statement is pragmatic does not make it bad or untrustworthy, it simply means it's rooted in our recognition of material limitation, not our fundamental beliefs about morality or rights or government. If, in some science-fiction future, the United States actually enjoyed unlimited resources and unlimited space, if we actually had no material limitation, could we still justify controlling our borders? Could we still argue that the God-endowed rights of those born in Honduras or Iraq or Somalia are simply their own issue to sort out, and no concern of ours?
The only remedy beyond those jurisdictions is to enter in - Either by becoming a citizen (Loosely extended to those visiting legally under some visa), or by expansion by way of application and adoption of new lands as a territory or state.
I find it much harder to justify going to war (to include police action, etc) for the purpose of defending human rights, for exactly the same reason - it is outside of the jurisdiction of the contract. That is not to say it cannot be done, but that it cannot be done according to the letter. Which leaves it in the swamp lands of foreign policy, where we might debate all day.
Subject to my comments above, I agree here.
