I have been concatenating the two because it is the theme of the original posted article. So I was trying to keep my discussion within this context. And you are correct, I am not "conservative" with respect to the "modern conservative" definition, and neither are you.
Quite the other way around: I remain Conservative, by the definition. As the old saw goes, just because someone decides to call a tail a leg, does not mean a cow has five legs... Or perhaps, more apropos: Just because someone decides to name a jackass as an elephant does not make it true.
In accepting hyphenated conservatism, one only confuses the issue. And this is no new thing. The embrace-and-extend began with Reagan legitimately, in bringing social conservatives to the table, but continued illegitimately by Poppy Bush with 'kinder, gentler' and Dubya with 'compassionate'... And so on.
That isn't to say that some hyphenation isn't true - Reagan Conservatism is legitimately distinguished from Goldwater - Both of the same lineage, with Reagan adding the Judeo-Christian faction. 'Social conservatism' is valid as conservatism (note the small 'c') in that it defines a legitimate faction within greater Conservatism, as does civil-libertarianism (Constitutional conservatism), fiscal conservatism, and defense/foreign policy conservatism.
But these 'hyphenations' only serve a purpose in definition wherein the factional description functions as a part of greater Conservatism - The minute the faction is 'embraced and extended' at the expense of the others, it is no longer Conservatism per se. That is the fault of those that have birthed illegitimacy.
The issue in todays society is that you and I are now being equated with the new definition. We have lost control of the proper label of conservative. [...] I believe this is part of the point that this article is making.
Only if we accept the new definition. And this is no new thing - Had we been born a couple hundred years earlier, that which you and I practice would have been called liberalism. There is trouble in accepting it - In renaming one's self in order to redefine, as one's definition gets lost in a great sea of euphemism. Better to deny them, remaining what one is, and correcting the error by informing others as necessary.
What is lacking is in the preaching.
Another example of this type of redefining is "Christian." How many people and churches today are pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, willing to throw real "Christians" in jail, etc., and yet claim to be "Christian?" This is how the muslims claim that everyone in the western society is "Christian." We could almost take your and my discussion and replace "conservative" with "Christian" and I think this helps make my point.
Yes it does, and I see it perfectly. It's a very good illustration. It is very much the same. But what then? Rename Christianity? Hardly a feasible solution. Even the same with Conservatism.
Again, what is lacking is in the preaching - Those that are on the inside know the limits of Christendom, where the fringe lies. Those that are on the inside know the acceptable norms that loosely define the area, with all it's legitimate 'hyphenations', which have become apostatized, which have never been legitimate from the first...
It is the lack of transmission of that information to the outside that allows the definition to be sullied.
I voted for Cruz. Cruz was excellent, but is still on the inside
No, he has been framed as being on the inside. That is different than the truth.
They wanted a total outsider.
But that isn't what they got.
So now, the ONLY two people that will be president is Hillary or Trump. Cruz is no longer running. Castle is great, but no chance to win.
The only reason Castle wouldn't win is because of people discounting the possibility. If Conservatives would but vote their heart, he would walk away with it.
Her supreme court nominees will be the most leftist liberal we will have ever seen.
Judges exist only at the whim of Congress - They can be impeached. Likewise Congress can redefine against the fiat of judges as a matter of law. And one is not assured that Trump's nominations would be any different at all.
He is a total outsider, only an outsider has the possibility of breaking the stranglehold of corruption by both R's and D's,
OK, this is where the wheels come off:
He's a total insider. He's been practicing the very crony capitalism you consider yourself to be fighting against for his entire career. He does business with Soros, he owes more money to Wall Street fat cats than all the other candidates combined - Far, far beyond that... He has blatantly admitted to bribery and corruption to further his means. He blatantly admits giving money to political candidates for that purpose.
has given us a list of PRO-LIFE supreme court nominees, is PRO-2nd Amendment, anti-illegal immigration, pro-Christian, etc. etc.
And what is it that you use to secure these promises? As an instance, if Cruz lays out a promise, I am guaranteed the value of that promise by his history - His actions when it didn't matter prove his promises when it does matter. He keeps his word, and he works tirelessly to fulfill what he has declared.
In Trump, not the slightest whiff of same. He has always been of low character, has always been involved in shady businesses and shady business practices, he seldom keeps his word, and a multitude of lawsuits confirm it. He's been a liberal his whole life, loves big government, promotes Planned Parenthood and single payer healthcare, and where he has not been pointedly liberal, he has been on all sides of all issues.
Forgive me for the directness, but putting faith in Trump to restore a federalist small government and moral stability is tantamount to inviting a pagan headhunter to be your church's preacher in order to get closer to the fundamentals of the Word... Not merely incompatibility, but direct opposition.
I will accept the risk with Trump; compared to the no-risk hardcore leftist Hillary who has threatened to force Christians to leave their faith or she will throw them in jail, bring in more islamicists, steal more of our money, take away everyone's right to 2nd A, surround herself with more corruption, etc. etc. This is the point of this article! I am willing to accept the risk. Hillary is a no-risk, Trump is a risk.
Now comes an economy of fear. the demon you don't know must be better than the demon you do (because he promises it is so). Conservatives don't operate from a position of fearfulness - They stand upon principled ground, knowing full well the courage of their convictions.
As I said, your position is opposing itself directly... It remains incoherent to me.
