Thursday, February 19, 2009
Conservative Political Action Conference
February 6, 1977
I’m happy to be back with you in this annual event after missing last year’s meeting. I had some business in New Hampshire that wouldn’t wait.
Three weeks ago here in our nation’s capital I told a group of conservative scholars that we are currently in the midst of a re-ordering of the political realities that have shaped our time. We know today that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority.
Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.
A Harris poll released September 7, 1975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 percent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality, those polled by Harris said they would “prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one.”
Last October 24th, the Gallup organization released the result of a poll taken right in the midst of the presidential campaign.
Respondents were asked to state where they would place themselves on a scale ranging from “right-of-center” (which was defined as “conservative”) to left-of-center (which was defined as “liberal”).
Thirty-seven percent viewed themselves as left-of-center or liberal
Twelve percent placed themselves in the middle
Fifty-one percent said they were right-of-center, that is, conservative.
What I find interesting about this particular poll is that it offered those polled a range of choices on a left-right continuum. This seems to me to be a more realistic approach than dividing the world into strict left and rights. Most of us, I guess, like to think of ourselves as avoiding both extremes, and the fact that a majority of Americans chose one or the other position on the right end of the spectrum is really impressive.
Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.
You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues—law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems—are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues—inflation, deficit spending and big government—are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.
Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism—or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.
In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn’t it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?
I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.
Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.
This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.
I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” Whatever ideology may mean—and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it—it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country “ideology” is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don’t happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.
I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.
When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing—he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.
When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education—he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.
When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.
Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way—this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.
The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations—found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.
One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: “Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for.” That is not “ideological purity.” It is simply what built this country and kept it great.
Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right—those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.
Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.
Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?
I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.
I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over.
Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.
And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply “making room” for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.
The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: “Look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support.” We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs—and we believe that the long-range interest of black Americans lies in looking at what each major party has to offer, and then deciding on the merits. The Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted. Well, it’s time black America and the New Republican Party move toward each other and create a situation in which no black vote can be taken for granted.
The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem.
They should be discussed in human terms.
Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups. We can find attractive, articulate candidates if we look, and when we find them, we will begin to change the sorry state of affairs that has led to a Democratic-controlled Congress for more than 40 years. I need not remind you that you can have the soundest principles in the world, but if you don’t have candidates who can communicate those principles, candidates who are articulate as well as principled, you are going to lose election after election. I refuse to believe that the good Lord divided this world into Republicans who defend basic values and Democrats who win elections. We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing economic idiocy of the liberals in Washington.
It is at this point, however, that we come across a question that is really the essential one: What will be the basis of this New Republican Party? To what set of values and principles can our candidates appeal? Where can Americans who want to know where we stand look for guidance?
Fortunately, we have an answer to that question. That answer was provided last summer by the men and women of the Republican Party—not just the leadership, but the ones who have built the party on local levels all across the country.
The answer was provided in the 1976 platform of the Republican Party.
This was not a document handed down from on high. It was hammered out in free and open debate among all those who care about our party and the principles it stands for.
The Republican platform is unique. Unlike any other party platform I have ever seen, it answers not only programmatic questions for the immediate future of the party but also provides a clear outline of the underlying principles upon which those programs are based.
The New Republican Party can and should use the Republican platform of 1976 as the major source from which a Declaration of Principles can be created and offered to the American people.
Tonight I want to offer to you my own version of what such a declaration might look like. I make no claim to originality. This declaration I propose is relatively short, taken, for most part, word for word from the Republican platform. It concerns itself with basic principles, not with specific solutions.
We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.
We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.
Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character—such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties—must, of course, be handled on the national level.
As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.
We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.
Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.
Families—not government programs—are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.
Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.
Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?
Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.
Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.
The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.
The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom.
We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none.
In his inaugural speech President Carter said that he saw the world “dominated by a new spirit.” He said, and I quote: “The passion for freedom is on the rise.”
Well, I don’t know how he knows this, but if it is true, then it is the most unrequited passion in human history. The world is being dominated by a new spirit, all right, but it isn’t the spirit of freedom.
It isn’t very often you see a familiar object that shocks and frightens you. But the other day I came across a map of the world created by Freedom House, an organization monitoring the state of freedom in the world for the past 25 years. It is an ordinary map, with one exception: it shows the world’s nations in white for free, shaded for partly free and black for not free.
Almost all of the great Eurasian land mass is completely colored black, from the western border of East Germany, through middle and eastern Europe, through the awesome spaces of the Soviet Union, on to the Bering Strait in the north, down past the immensity of China, still further down to Vietnam and the South China Sea—in all that huge, sprawling, inconceivably immense area not a single political or personal or religious freedom exists. The entire continent of Africa, from the Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, all that vastness is almost totally unfree. In the tiny nation of Tanzania alone, according to a report in the New York Times, there are 3,000 people in detention for political crimes—that is more than the total being held in South Africa! The Mideast has only one free state: Israel. If a visitor from another planet were to approach earth, and if this planet showed free nations in light and unfree nations in darkness, the pitifully small beacons of light would make him wonder what was hidden in that terrifying, enormous blackness.
We know what is hidden: Gulag. Torture. Families—and human beings—broken apart. No free press, no freedom of religion. The ancient forms of tyranny revived and made even more hideous and strong through what Winston Churchill once called “a perverted science.”
Men rotting for years in solitary confinement because they have different political and economic beliefs, solitary confinement that drives the fortunate ones insane and makes the survivors wish for death.
Only now and then do we in the West hear a voice from out of that darkness. Then there is silence—the silence of human slavery. There is no more terrifying sound in human experience, with one possible exception. Look at that map again. The very heart of the darkness is the Soviet Union and from that heart comes a different sound. It is the whirring sound of machinery and the whisper of the computer technology we ourselves have sold them. It is the sound of building, building of the strongest military machine ever devised by man. Our military strategy is designed to hopefully prevent a war. Theirs is designed to win one. A group of eminent scientists, scholars and intelligence experts offer a survey showing that the Soviet Union is driving for military superiority and are derided as hysterically making, quote, “a worst case,” unquote, concerning Soviet intentions and capabilities.
But is it not precisely the duty of the national government to be prepared for the worst case? Two Senators, after studying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have reported to the Armed Forces Committee that Soviet forces in Eastern Europe have the capability to launch, with little warning, a “potentially devastating” attack in Central Europe from what is termed a “standing alert.”
Reading their report, one can almost see the enormous weight of the parts of the earth that are under tyranny shifting in an irresistible tilt toward that tiny portion of land in freedom’s light. Even now in Western Europe we have Communists in the government of Italy, France appeasing terrorists, and England—for centuries the model or the sword of freedom in Western Europe—weak, dispirited, turning inward.
A “worst case”? How could you make a good case out of the facts as they are known? The Soviet Union, poised on the edge of free Europe, capable of striking from a standing start, has modern tanks in far greater numbers than the outmoded vehicles of NATO. We have taken comfort from NATO’s superiority in the air, but now the Soviet Union has made a dramatic swing away from its historic defensive air posture to one capable of supporting offensive action. NATO’s southern flank is described in the Senate report with a single word: shambles.
The report is simply reality as it was, with different names and faces, in Europe in the late 1930s when so many refused to believe and thought if we don’t look the threat will go away.
We don’t want hysteria. We don’t want distortion of Soviet power. We want truth. And above all we want peace. And to have [recognition] that the United States has to immediately re-examine its entire view of the world and develop a strategy of freedom. We cannot be the second-best super-power for the simple reason that he who is second is last.
In this deadly game, there are no silver medals for second.
President Carter, as a candidate, said he would cut five to seven billion dollars from the defense budget. We must let him know that while we agree, there must be no fat in our armed forces. Those armed forces must be capable of coping with the new reality presented to us by the Russians, and cutting seven billion dollars out of our defense budget is not the way to accomplish this. Some years ago, a young President said, we will make any sacrifice, bear any burden, and we will, to preserve our freedom.
Our relationship with mainland China is clouded. The so-called “Gang of Four” are up one day and down the next and we are seeing the pitfalls of making deals with charismatic personalities and living legends. The charisma fades as the living legends die, and those who take their place are interested not in our best wishes but in power. The keyword for China today is turmoil. We should watch and observe and analyze as closely and rationally as we can.
But in our relationships with the mainland of China we should always remember that the conditions and possibilities for and the realities of freedom exist to an infinitely greater degree with our Chinese friends in Taiwan. We can never go wrong if we do what is morally right, and the moral way—the honorable way—is to keep our commitment, our solemn promise to the people of Taiwan. Our liberal friends have made much of the lack of freedom in some Latin American countries. Senator Edward Kennedy and his colleagues here in Washington let no opportunity pass to let us know about horrors in Chile.
Well, I think when the United States of America is considering a deal with a country that hasn’t had an election in almost eight years, where the press is under the thumb of a dictatorship, where ordinary citizens are abducted in the night by secret police, where military domination of the country is known to be harsh on dissenters and when these things are documented, we should reject overtures from those who rule such a country.
But the country I’m describing is not Chile—it is Panama.
We are negotiating with a dictatorship that comes within the portion of that map colored black for no freedom. No civil rights. One-man rule. No free press.
Candidate Carter said he would never relinquish “actual control” of the Panama Canal.
President Carter is negotiating with a dictatorship whose record on civil and human rights is as I have just described and the negotiations concern the rights guaranteed to us by treaty which we will give up under a threat of violence. In only a few weeks we will mark the second anniversary of the death of freedom for the Vietnamese. An estimated 300,000 of them are being “re-educated” in concentration camps to forget about freedom.
There is only one major question on the agenda of national priorities and that is the state of our national security. I refer, of course, to the state of our armed forces—but also to our state of mind, to the way we perceive the world. We cannot maintain the strength we need to survive, no matter how many missiles we have, no matter how many tanks we build, unless we are willing to reverse:
The trend of deteriorating faith in and continuing abuse of our national intelligence agencies. Let’s stop the sniping and the propaganda and the historical revisionism and let the CIA and the other intelligence agencies do their job!
Let us reverse the trend of public indifference to problems of national security. In every congressional district citizens should join together, enlist and educate neighbors and make certain that congressmen know we care. The front pages of major newspapers on the East Coast recently headlined and told in great detail of a takeover, the takeover of a magazine published in New York—not a nation losing its freedom. You would think, from the attention it received in the media, that it was a matter of blazing national interest whether the magazine lived or died. The tendency of much of the media to ignore the state of our national security is too well documented for me to go on.
My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created.
And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk.
Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.
We’ve succeeded better than we know. Little more than a decade ago more than two-thirds of Americans believed the federal government could solve all our problems, and do so without restricting our freedom or bankrupting the nation.
We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass.
And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin.
Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.
The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?
Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.
Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.
Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
- As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe that the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press.
- I'm a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.
- It's time for conservative Americans to do what Reagan did.
- It's time for conservative Americans to right the ship again.
- The conservative movement today is like that tall ship with its proud captain: strong, accomplished but veering off course into the dangerous and uncharted waters of big government republicanism.
About Rep. Mike Pence
Mike Pence was born in Columbus, Indiana, graduated from Hanover College in 1981 and earned his Doctorate in Jurisprudence from Indiana University School of Law in 1986.
Following graduation from law school, Congressman Pence ran for Congress in 1988 and 1990. In 1991, Pence was named president of a conservative state think tank based in Fort Wayne known as the Indiana Policy Review Foundation.
In 1992, Pence started a career in radio broadcasting and, two years later, Network Indiana syndicated his show statewide. The Mike Pence Show aired weekdays on 18 radio stations. Pence also hosted a Sunday morning political television show in Indianapolis from 1995 to 1999.
Mike and his wife Karen have three children and reside in Columbus, Indiana. The Pence family lives in Arlington, Virginia, while Congress is in session.
Mike describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order."
Congressman Pence was elected to Congress in November 2000 and was re-elected to represent the Sixth Congressional District, encompassing much of the eastern half of Indiana, for a fifth term in 2008. In November of 2008, he was elected to serve as Chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
From: John, http://reaganlegacy.wordpress.com/
I'd encourage you to bookmark or follow John's blog. Great inspiration from the conservative master Ronald Reagan!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Can a Feminist be a Conservative? and Can a Conservative be a Feminist?
Red State Feminists are convinced that you can sincerely be both a feminist and a conservative. Many believe that feat impossible, but millions of women in the United States already live its precepts everyday.
What is a feminist? As you can imagine, the definitions are legion. However, all share the view that women are the equals of men while being different from men. What "equal" means and how "different" women are from men are terms also subject to debate. For example, can women be as brave as men? Sure. Can the strongest woman lift a heavier weight than the strongest man? No. Does that make them different? Well, they are apparenty different in some things but not others. Does that difference mean women and men can never enjoy a relationship of equality? Red State Feminists reject such a belief.
But it is also important to realize that even our knowlege of the capabilities of men and women is deeply infected by culture. For example, in the Koi-San culture of Africa, women are considered to be physically stronger than men, and so they carry the family's goods on their shoulders when the group moves, while men walk beside carrying their bows and arrows. Even in cultures where men are considered physically stronger than women, they may still be assigned to physcially demanding work while their husbands stand by, as this photo from Albania shows:
We in the United States have also been served a bill of goods regarding women's math and science capabilities. It has recently been shown that in Finland, girls do better than boys on standardized math tests. It is clear from this study that math ability has little to do with X and Y chromosomes and a lot to do with the socialization of girls in our culture.
So, yes, there are real differences between men and women--but probably not as many as we have been led to believe. Women should be immediately suspicious when men and male-dominated institutions tell them of a difference between men and women that justifies male dominance over women in any form.
Furthermore, in the things our religious faith tells us are the most important to God--integrity, courage, compassion, honesty, teachableness, righteousness--men and women certainly stand as equals. That being the case, men and women stand as equals before God, as well as before each other. As Christ says, "What manner of man among you having twleve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one; Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there--and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?" Just so; and what manner of men among you have six sons and six daughters and saith to his sons, Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here, and to his daughters he says, Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there? No, God, respects and values his daughters as much as He respects and values his sons, and it is that example that we are enjoined to follow.
What, then, is a conservative? Again, there are probably as many definitions as there are self-proclaimed conservatives. The American Heritage Dictionary defines conservatism as "a political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order." On one level, then, there does appear to be a serious disconnect between feminism and conservatism. To the degree that the history of the human race shows a pervasive devaluation, oppression, and even abuse of women, any traditional institution that sanctions such cannot be upheld by feminists. Further, it is undeniable that governments in the West have played an important role in elevating the status of women beyond what certain traditional institutions would be comfortable with. In that sense, feminists do indeed want change from the bad old days where women could not even be considered second=class citizens, but were considered more on the level of livestock.
But what if there was a tradition that preceded what we commonly consider "traditional"? If we truly believe that men and women stand as equals before God, and that God loves his daughters as much as He loves his sons, then we have an unsullied, ultimate, and divinely mandated tradition of equal regard, respect, and valuation of women. In a sense, then, feminism could be construed as the most conservative retrenchment possible! Traditional institutions, such as religions and marriage, are but contaminated with a misogyny that God never intended, and must be restored to their true and original culture of equal valuation and respect for women. Government intervention to facilitate this restoration is thus not only acceptable, but admirable to a conservative with this viewpoint. Change, then, is not change in the direction of some anti-traditional unknown, but change back to the way human society was meant by God to be. We reiterate, we see no force more conservative, then, than feminism, which seeks to restore that joy that God meant men and women to have through their equal partnership in life.
Nevertheless, we do think there are policy issues that would divide a conservative feminist (or a feminist conservative) from both the stereotypical conservative policy agenda and also the stereotypical feminist policy agenda. Consider the following list:
- Women should be accorded the same respect and valuation as men; daughters should be valued as much as sons. Comment: We don't think either conservatives or feminists would disagree.
- Women should not be subjected to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, and the government should take action to prevent abuse and punish abusers. Such abuse includes practices considered traditional in some cultures, such as forced marriage, marriage of underage girls, polygamy, female genital mutilation, prostitution, human trafficking, and so forth. Comment: Ditto.
- Women should be paid the same as men for equal work, and the government should take action against employers who will not uphold this principle. Comment: Ditto.
- The standard of sexual behavior deemed appropriate for women should be the standard to which men should be held. Comment: Ditto.
- Women, even married women, have the right to say no to sex, without punishment or retribution. Comment: Ditto.
- The government should ensure equal access to health care, education, and training for both men and women. Comment: Ditto.
- Women and men should stand as equals before the law of the land. Comment: Ditto.
- Men are not more intelligent, more rational, more reasonable, or more virtuous than women. Comment: Ditto.
- It is not incompatible with feminism to be a Christian. Comment: Some schools of feminism would disagree.
- Abortion is a poor band-aid for what ails male-female relations in this nation; aside from cases in which the mother's life is at stake, the true issue underlying the abortion debate is the degree to which sex is truly consensual for women in our culture. Abortion is not the best answer to that problem, and a better answer should be urgently sought. Comment: Many feminists would disagree.
- The institution of heterosexual monogamous marriage must be upheld and privileged because of our devotion to feminism, and this is what we should teach our children. Comment: Many feminists would disagree.
- The single standard for sexual behavior in #4 should be abstinence before marriage, and perfect fidelity in marriage, and this is what we should teach our children (along with an age-appropriate understanding of human reproduction). Comment: Many feminists would disagree.
- It is not anti-feminist to have a large family. Comment: Some feminists would disagree.
- It is not necessarily anti-feminist for a woman to be a stay-at-home mother. Comment: Some feminists would disagree.
- Men are redeemable and perfectible, and as our brothers, we are concerned with their welfare both individually as as a group. Comment: Some feminists would disagree.
- Motherhood is one of the most profound female experiences, and if it is possible for motherhood to be voluntarily chosen within the bounds of marriage, a woman should seek it. Comment: Some feminists would disagree.
- Just as we would oppose prostitution and human trafficking as being anti-feminist, we also believe that practices that make women's eggs and wombs and embryos commodities to be bought and sold are also anti-feminist. In that light, we also oppose the exploitation of fetal stem cell research as being anti-feminist. Comment: Some feminists would disagree with one of more of these assertions.
- Women are as capable of being government leaders as men, and offer a unique perspective that should be proactively sought in government, perhaps by the institution of quotas for women in government. Comment: Some conservatives would disagree.
- Men and women were meant by God to be equal partners in marriage; a woman is not the subordinate of her husband, and they should share equally in the governance and finances of the home. Comment: Some conservatives would disagree.
- The Supreme Court ruled egregiously in the Lily Ledbetter case, mandating that a woman had to complain about wage discrimination within 120 days even if she did not know it was happening at the time. Comment: Some conservatives would disagree.
- New regulations that would ensure that the living standards of women and children after divorce were on the same level as that of men should be promulgated. Comment: Some conservatives would disagree.
- Men and women should more equally share housework duties, and there should be equally shared parenting where possible. Comment: Some conservative would disagree.
- Social Security should not penalize women for the years they spend in unpaid labor taking care of children, the ill, and the elderly of their families by denying them labor credit for those years. Comment: Some conservatives would disagree.
- The tax code should be reformed to permit credits or deductions for those, usually women, who are the primary caretakers of children, the ill, and the elderly. Any such benefit, if it resulted in a payment, should be paid in the name of the caretaker alone. Comment: Some conservatives would disagree.
- Part-time workers, overwhelmingly women who are also unpaid primary caretakers, should be entitled to wage and benefit parity with full-time workers. Comment: Some conservatives would disagree.
- Women should use their God-given talents in the public sphere, where that be in paid labor, government service, volunteer work, social commentary, or church service: they must not bury their talents in the home, lest a female sensibility and perspective disappear from the public realm. Comments: Some conservatives would disagree.
As can be seen, Red State Feminism has the potential to ruffle the feathers of both stereotypical conservatives and stereotypical feminists. And yet this very Red State, very Feminist space, described above, is healthier than either sterotypical viewpoint, in our opinion. Red Sate Feminists are committed to the equal valuation of women; but they are also committed to God and family. Yes, we can have it all--if "all" is our heart's desire.
Thanks to Red State Feminists for permission to reprint.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
In 2009, I hope to accomplish the following:
- One, to finish my book on Sarah Palin and get it published, perhaps by Christmas;
- Two, to generate as much opposition as possible to Obama's "pro-death" agenda;
- Three, to continue recruiting people for TeamSarah, ReadMyLipstick, and similar groups.
- Steve Maloney (http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/, plus you'll find Steve on Twitter and Facebook, and a few other blogs and websites...)
My resolution right now is to get out the truth, whatever it is, and stop Obama from destroying this country. - Lyn
1. Be more vocal, while resisting becoming combative.
My thinking and feelings and beliefs are conservative, but I tended to keep my opinions to myself when around others whom I suspected were liberal-minded. No more being mute on political subject matter when faced with opposing views. While I don't plan to instigate lively debates every time I turn around, I will have confidence in being armed with facts, along with having a strong faith, to be ready to defend traditional American values. I will not shy away from challenging people's statements that I hear which go against what I know is right.
2. Actively engage in conservative communities to help them grow and strengthen the movement.
I have no problem expressing frustrations & disappointments with fellow conservatives about what is happening throughout the world. However, being truly engaged means more than just "preaching to the choir." It requires action. Sure, I visit conservative blogs/websites/message boards to converse with other conservatives, as well as listen to talk radio to be informed, but my activity level needs to be upped some notches.
I should also be:
*networking with other conservatives by attending meetings and/or conference calls or online chats where activities are being organized/planned to advance the movement
*doing more political blogging to reach out to people and share the conservative message instead of just reading other's blogs
*more vigilant in boycotting companies who give money to progressive organizations or causes and instead spend/send money to those who support and defend traditional American values
*in regular contact with members of Congress to voice my opinions and offer constructive feedback or encouragement (whether they represent my state or not!)
*volunteering in campaigns to help conservative candidates get elected to office
- Tracy (Tracy TN - http://twitter.com/TracyTN)
Send your Conservative New Year's Resolutions to: readmylipstick at live dot com!
Conservative is marriage between a man and a woman.
Conservative is accountability, i.e., taking responsibility for your own actions, and refusing to blame others for your shortcomings.
Conservative is being informed and doing your own research on topics of the day, rather than falling for media spin.
Conservative is using rational logic, not programmed talking points fed to you by liberal teachers, media talking heads and socialist professors.
Conservative is learning history by delving into many sources.
Conservative is discernment.
Conservatism IS! Like God, it IS!
-- Juli Betz