Right-Wing Conservative Republicans

By Scott Lilly | May 11, 2014

Now that it’s voting season I’m starting to see the political fireworks show.  When I hear political advertisements, I’d like to think most of them are not effective as they levy gross generalizations and distorted truths against the other side.  But then, I notice something: we’ve been doing this for so long that there is an entire class of people out there that don’t know the foundations on which the criticisms are based.  Or those that “made up their minds” did that so long ago, the might not realize how the political world has changed in the last 50 years.  So I’d like to take a moment to dissect the “Right-Wing Conservative Republican” as I recently heard this implied in a negative way.


What it is:  Well, this part is easily explained.  The “right” believe that although all people may be created equally and deserve the same opportunity, not all people are inspired equally or make the same decisions and effort in life to prosper equally.  This results in varying degrees of success and prosperity which is an inherent fact of human life.  The more right-wing you are, the more you believe that people have the right to succeed or fail at their own risk and choosing.  The opposite of right-wing would be to attempt to make all people equally prosperous by various methods such as: redistribution of wealth, unequal taxation, and heavy use of social programs.

Why do we need it:  In a right-wing world, there would be a real risk of failing in life that will cause suffering of some sort.  That risk would motivate most of society not to fail as they measure “that’s good enough” in their accomplishments.  Conversely, the result of hard work would be rewarded with prosperity.  That reward will motivate the rest of society to perform well as they think, “I can do more”.  Those left as non-motivated individuals would be the “what’s left” of society that need consideration.  Unfortunately, the extreme right-wing has little to offer here other than to slide a little left on the left/right scale.  Normal human beings do not want to see suffering of any type and it just becomes a question of: At what point is social welfare appropriate?  Right-wing folks would agree that a severely mentally-challenged person is appropriately supported in part by the public as it can be too much for a single family to bear.  The right-wing support of public assistance diminishes as you have a less compelling case to make.

Extreme Example: If someone is supposedly unable to be successful in life, if the penalty for failure is to be thrown into debtors prison where you will only get bread and water in solitary confinement, the human spirit will take over and find a way.  (Where there’s a will, there’s a way.)


What it is:  This part I think is the most misunderstood.  Conservative means the preservation of the good parts of history and tradition.  Conservatives believe that if intentional efforts are not made, “moral decay” is the natural progression of human nature and society.  Conservatives want to make that intentional effort to slow (and sometimes reverse) moral decay.  What is moral decay?  It’s what causes us to move as a society from Elvis dancing on stage to Miley Cyrus “twerking” on stage.  It’s what causes shows like “Leave it to Beaver” to be a thing of the past replaced with “Family Guy”.  Some argue morale decay is what allows the biblical term “marriage” to actually be redefined in the English language dictionaries.  Those are social examples.  A financial conservative is appalled by not passing a federal budget since that would be not respecting tradition and the time-tested rules of fiscal responsibility.

Why do we need it: If a conservative today could wave a magic wand and fix only one “problem”, it would likely be the problem of the broken family.  Various social conditions fail that cause broken families – which in return cause poverty, child neglect, and a new generation that is even worse on the “moral decay” scale.  The social conditions that contribute to a failed family: premarital sex, having a child out of wedlock, a high divorce rate, taxes that penalize marriage, and a culture of selfishness.  All of these issues have been historically kept more in check by social pressures – the social pressures that Liberals of today diminish.  Find a case of poverty today and almost certainly you will not see a functional family unit supported by the previous generation’s family units.  When a conservative sees an example of a single-parent with children in poverty, they remember how their own parents taught them not to have premarital sex, how a gentleman was expected to ask the parents for their daughter’s hand in marriage, and how to protect your good name in the community and church.  All of those traditional safeguards had a purpose; a purpose that reduces the chance of being a single-parent in poverty.  Liberals of today seem to want to blend the words “Christian Conservatives” or “Evangelical Conservatives” to make a point.  Conservative is conservative; and religion (morals) is naturally a big part of that – even if the majority of those embracing religious value are Christian.

Extreme Example: Imagine a world where morality/tradition is thrown out the window and it is socially and legally acceptable to do whatever feels good or is convenient.  How does humanity thrive in that environment?


What it is:  A Republican should appreciate our country as a Republic more than a Democracy.  A republic means a Constitution exists that limits government.  Most Republicans of today believe government has grown too big and oppressive.  (This is what attracts those that say they are “Tea Party”.)  Democrats believe more in majority rule; and government is a tool to serve the majority at the expense of the minority.  Maybe a little more controversial comparison to make, Republicans more focus on government serving the people and Democrats see more people supporting the government.  (It’s the same glass half-empty/half-full but it’s the philosophy behind it that is the differentiator.)

Why do we need it:  Look at the debt clock and the government’s inability to stop it from ticking upwards.  Look at how many times the President of the United States says “we’ll get to the bottom of this” and seemingly is incapable of doing so.  Look at what the government can do now to monitor who you talk to and who you e-mail.  Look at how many taxes you pay: employment tax, income tax, social security tax, Medicare tax,  Medicade tax, State Income tax, sales tax, property tax, motor vehicle tax, hotel occupancy tax, consumption tax, gasoline tax, alcohol and tobacco tax, and the list goes on.  Republicans are increasingly concerned that the government is too big and no longer serves the people as much as the people serve the government.  Republicans look toward the Constitution as what should be limiting government (protecting We The People) more.  Democrats like to say Republicans serves the rich when the truth is that Republicans want to serve everyone equally – it’s just the “rich” that have more to lose/gain than the rest of us.

Extreme Example: Imagine a world where the US Constitution is merely an old document that might only suggest what is proper and does not really constrain government.  What will government eventually do to its subjects?

Put it all together and what is the perfect “Right-Wing Conservative Republican” world look like?

Government starts to shrink in size and power.  This in turn reduces our debt and eventually our taxes.  Some entitlement and social programs (some of which spoiled us using the country’s credit card) will be eliminated.  People return more to the church and family for support and social programs.  As a result, the family unit is strengthened and the next generation appreciates more family value than the previous generation.  A renewed American spirit is developed that emphasizes “personal responsibility” and everyone doing their part.  (As opposed to everyone paying their fair share.)  It would be very much described as JFK did when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  That sure is a Right-Wing Conservative Republican kind of thing to say!  What has changed in the last 50 years since perhaps your parents or grandparents taught you to vote the way you do?  No longer can you trust the simple “R” or “D” after a political candidate’s name.

There’s a perfect “Left-Wing Liberal Democrat” world as well.  As I’m not of that persuasion, anyone else want to take a whack at what that perfect world looks like?

Comments (13)
Posted by: Grass Roots WNC | May 12, 2014 10:36

Mark Levin described it in the book "Ameritopia". Utopia is a perfect world which can never be achieved.

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat*, French economist(1801-1850)

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other." --Voltaire (1764) (This is the opposition 'philosophy' to the American Revolution)

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -- *Thomas Jefferson* (Think NSA Spying on American citizens, drones and IRS targeting religious and conservative groups!)

Posted by: Scott Lilly | May 12, 2014 10:48

Mark Levin described it in the book "Ameritopia". Utopia is a perfect world which can never be achieved.


Agreed.  But perpetually seeking the right balance is a good activity I think.


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat*, French economist(1801-1850)  "In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other." --Voltaire (1764) (This is the opposition 'philosophy' to the American Revolution)


These are references to a SOCIALIST government.  (Left-Wing)  It's my opinion that we ought not to be that.


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -- *Thomas Jefferson* (Think NSA Spying on American citizens, drones and IRS targeting religious and conservative groups!)


A cautionary example of why a republic should appropriately constrain its government.

Posted by: Joe Vescovi | May 15, 2014 08:54

Wow!  Talk about having no passion for the less fortunate.  Not everyone has the same abilities.  I know a lot of people who work, and work hard 40 hours a week at near minimum wage.  Wouldn't it be nice if the more fortunate who actually have all the power over their workers would feel that it is only fair to share some of the success with those that are making it happen for them.  Seems to me there is too much greed and not enough compassion.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | May 15, 2014 09:54

"Seems to me there is too much greed and not enough compassion." -- Perhaps.  But in a Right-Wing Conservative Republican point of view, it's not the government's job to take from some in the name of supporting compassion and fighting greed.  Taking taxes from Ebenezer Scrooge does not make him compassionate -- nor less greedy.  It just makes him more bitter.  Having government teach the less wealthy citizens to envy the rich does not help the rich feel compassion for those that despise them.


It's the government's duty to stay out of people's lives as much as possible.  I *would* agree that compassion should be taught more and more people should look toward the church (of their choosing) for constant reminders of how to be compassionate.  Still, everyone won't be compassionate.  There will always be an Ebenezer Scrooge among us.  And the Right-Wing Conservative Republicans would hopefully wish compassion for someone with that much greed in their heart.  The story of Ebenezer Scrooge is two-way.  The story reminds the less wealthy to be compassionate toward everyone -- even the rich.  Yes, a politician can easily drum up passionate envy toward the rich -- that takes no skill.  Be smarter than that.  What is it that we really want from out rich?


"Not everyone has the same abilities." -- Agreed.  Right-Wing Conservative Republicans likely would want to see MORE opportunity for everyone.  A bum named Ted Williams never was motivated to use his ability until late in life.  Mr. Williams' success is celebrated by Right-Wing Conservative Republicans.




"Wouldn't it be nice if the more fortunate who actually have all the power over their workers would feel that it is only fair to share some of the success with those that are making it happen for them." -- Yes, it would be nice.  Most people that I know that provide jobs (not all) are people who indeed take pride in providing those jobs and find lots of gratification when people's lives are better as a result of the partnership from providing them a job.   


I would sharply disagree that people providing jobs "have all the power over their workers".  It's common that people take the skills and experience they might learn at one job and find another job willing to pay them better for those skills and experience.  The people have the freedom to use their power of choice to work for any employer or not.  If someone is so bad an employer, nobody would work for them.  And they would have no business except for what they could do themselves.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | May 15, 2014 10:58

"Talk about having no (com)passion for the less fortunate." -- It stands to reason this is the position of the Left-Wing Liberal Democrat world.  What is important to distinguish is "intent" from "reality".


If you take money from "the rich" and redistribute it to "the poor", what have you done?  You made "the poor" more comfortable being poor.  "The poor" are less inclined to do anything about improving their situation.  And with a progressive tax, you even tell "the poor" that when you do earn more, the government will take more from you.  So sit there and take what the government gives to you and be happy about it.


If you want to increase minimum wage, that might sound like a good idea.  But then employment costs rise and more jobs are sent to places (China/India) that have lower minimum wages.  Or those higher minimum wages just eliminate entry level jobs making higher-end jobs do more work.


Yes, most Left-Wing Liberal Democrats I know are well-intended.  They are compassionate.  And they want the best for everyone.  (Even the rich if you remind them to be.)  Just that they might need help forming smart policies that really do help those in need.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | May 15, 2014 16:59

I know almost nothing of the local Haywood County Republican group other than the unflattering article that was published recently in The Mountaineer.  I am suggesting in this open forum that the group hold open meetings to discuss these kinds of matters in a forum that would be fun and inspiring.  I'd love to see an open meeting in a wine cellar or a coffee house where the various political elements are explained.  And it should be a forum where our friends, the well-intended Left-Wing Liberal Democrats, should feel comfortable so that they can come learn about how really not mean-spirited Right-Wing Conservative Republican people are.


Mr. Vescovi is a perfect example.  If he wants compassion and consideration for those that work hard 40 hours/week for a low wage, let's talk about how those people can be inspired to be more in life.  Let's talk about what it takes to create a system of government that assures OPPORTUNITY (not entitlement) for those willing to put in the work and sacrifices it takes to prosper for opportunity.  Let's also talk about the right to do what's minimally required to survive as some people want to do.


I really believe most every active political lefty has a good heart and wants good things.  We just need to get them beyond "giving a man a fish" policies to "teaching a man to fish" policies.  That's how we can be better together.

Posted by: Grass Roots WNC | May 16, 2014 01:02

"Talk about having no passion for the less fortunate.  Not everyone has the same abilities." J. Vescovi

Every one is "less Fortunate" than some one else - and most people are still compassionate.

Those with the 'abilities' to provide jobs... also must work longer than 40 hours a week to 'cover payroll'.

Conservative Entrepreneurs say "I will work harder to provide a salary to employees - I will not give up because I am less fortunate. I want the opportunity to do better... I am willing to work harder. I want to be paid for my efforts and the risks I take. I am willing to share the profits with the people that work with me."

What would a Liberal Entrepreneur say - "I don't deserve it?"

Posted by: Scott Lilly | May 16, 2014 08:13

What would a Liberal Entrepreneur say - "I don't deserve it?"


I think you meant to say Left-Wing or Democrat Entrepreneur.  Liberal would describe someone who would discount tradition and values.  Left-Wing or Democrat would be where you take from the rich and give to the poor; so a prosperous person with Left-Wing/Democrat persuasions would presumably want to part with their earned fortune in compliance with their beliefs of "outcome equality".

Posted by: Grass Roots WNC | May 18, 2014 10:03

Left-wing social Democrat entrepreneurs do not like to pay higher taxes either... that is 'common ground' that both left and right wing agree on.

GE (General Electric) is a Multi Billion dollar corporation - friends of the President - that pays NO Taxes... Is that 'fair'?

Watch what they "Do" not what they "Say"... Follow the money!

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | May 19, 2014 09:11

           How fortunate We are that the "WE" in "We the people" were not "conservative".

           Liberty of self-determination is what "Almighty God" gave to the first creation. They, by the means of their own conscience, chose their own path and passed down their rights to their "posterity". As no God has ever interfered since that first creation, these inherent rights are inalienable.             

 "Without due regard for individual rights there can be no justice. Without justice there can be no peace. Where there is peace prosperity will follow." C.Z.


              The primary stated purpose of OUR secular Government is to equally protect "All persons" from oppression. This requires all to pay taxes in support of said govt. in proportion to what they earn to pay for OUR govt. as defined by OUR representative govt. by means of OUR Constitution.

              Just as the First Amendment "seperates the church from the state" so too should OUR tax system. progressively applied, result in income redistribution in order to meet the requirement of "General welfare".

              The constant attacks on Liberty by those not in support of its being an inherent inalienable right have caused many a person to declare :"The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance", proving Jefferson's admonition: "The weakly, sickly timid man fears the people, and is a Tory(conservative) by nature".



Posted by: Scott Lilly | May 19, 2014 14:34

How fortunate We are that the "WE" in "We the people" were not "conservative". -- There is a time and a place for everything.  With on-stage "twerking", an uncontrollable debt clock, and church attendance levels low, I am comfortable making the claim that more conservatism is what is needed right now -- from Democrats and Republicans.  (There are "conservative Democrats" and "left-wing conservatives" out there that ought to say the same.)

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | May 19, 2014 19:33

    How Fortunate OUR Constitution does not provide any recourse for your repressive intentions.

     "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..."



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | May 20, 2014 12:01

           A step forward would be when, as elected president, 'Hillarity is twerking on George Washington's desk.

           Another step would be the impeachment of 'scaly, "uncle Tom" clarence, alito, Roberts.

            mcrory administration is alreddy saddled with many civil liberties lawsuits. Perhaps he will learn to uphold his vows.



If you wish to comment, please login.