Since I started to post on Citizen Sugar it has come out that I am a Conservative. Since then I have received a disturbing amount of Forum Mail that has said that many of the people on this site are Conservatives, but are afraid to voice their opinion because they fear they will be ostracized.
This is sad. Have we really come to a point in this country that we voice our opinions without people spewing venom at them because they don't agree with others views
So I decided to clear up some common misconceptions about Conservatives. I am going to get a little personal, because I have only lived my own life and thus can only use myself and my experiences as reference. I am not being boastful, because sweet Lord do I have my share of faults (as I know my friends and family could come up with a long list if you asked them to).
My list of Misconceptions:
1) All Conservatives are Republican:
Nope. This is a false statement. Since there are so many different types of Conservatives, it is hard to put a blanket statement such as that. There are fiscal Conservatives, religious conservatives, social conservatives. There are Conservative Democrats, Conservative Federalists, and so on. So to say you are Conservative therefor a Republican, is a simply not true.
2) Conservatives are people of wealth:
Well I am a Conservative and so are my parents, although my father did not start out as one. He actually started a Democrat but after working as a social worker in NYC he changed his political party. I do not come from a family of wealth. I come from a middle class family of 5 children, foster brothers and sisters, and any extra money did not go to exotic family vacations but to charity. My siblings and I all started to work at the age of 12 or 13 to put money towards our clothes and other material goods that we wanted. I never went without food and always had clothes on my back. I never NEEDED anything, but I most certainly am not from wealth, and neither are my other conservative friends.
3) You are Conservative there for part of the Religious Right:
There are many different groups in the Republican party, and the religious right is one of them. This does NOT make all Conservatives or Republican part of the Religious right. I am a Catholic, which I have to admit has definitely swayed me in my stance of Abortion, but I do my very best to keep my faith and religion out of Politics and MANY MANY Conservatives feel the same way. Here is a great quote from Barry Goldwater:
“ When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. ”
And just an FYI, calling people of the Religious Right, Bible Thumpers is just as tacky as calling someone a J.A.P.
4) Conservatives don't care about the poor:
This could not be further from the truth. My mother who is pretty much as Conservative as they come, has devoted her life to charity. From foster children, to adoption, to reading to the blind, to lecturing about the importance of teaching girls science in schools, to being a Eucharist minister and visiting the elderly on Sundays so that they can receive an important part of the faith, she also donates money. Her christian children's fund child in Mexico, when she became too old to receive the benefits my mother sent her to nursing school to end the cycle of poverty. I myself have been more poor then people can imagine because of some situations when I was a teen. I was so poor that I actually had teeth rot because of malnutrition. I wound up dropping out of High School to work. I went back a year later, graduated from High School, received my AA, then went on to get my B.A. All with honors and without federal welfare aid. And through this time I still gave to charity, because I was in the mindset that if I have a roof over my head it is better then a large portion of the world. Just because people believe in welfare reform, that they want choices where their money goes, and I personally think that it is a State issue, does NOT mean I don't care about the poor.
5) Conservatives don't care about the Environment:
This statement is just plain stupid. Everyone but the sick and twisted care about the environment. There is a group called Republicans for the Environment or Green Republicans, but most of the Liberals out there did not know that. Just because many Conservatives are not sold on Global Warming and believe that there is more research that should be done and are against taxing and penalizing companies, that we need in the country right now and in the future for jobs, does not mean they don't care. They are not saying, things don't need to change, they are saying lets make the right decision without being rash. I am a huge advocate for the Environment. I believe we need to clean our water, work on a cleaner energy source, preserve our forests, I can go on but that is for a different post. But before you judge a Conservative on their views of the Environment listen to why they feel the way they do, and you will find out it has nothing to do with them not caring what happens to the earth. And if you really want to do something constructive stop buying things made in China, for many reasons on top Environmental issues. "I do not intend that our natural resources should be exploited by the few against the interests of the many."
Theodore Roosevelt
6) Conservatives are anit- homosexuals:
This simply is not true. Yes there are many people, especially in the Religious Right who are against gay rights. But there are many many conservatives who don't give a rats ass if Homosexuals serve in our armed forces or choose to get married. Another quote from Barry Goldwater: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”[20] He also said, “You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
7) If you are Conservative you support the Pro-War and Bush:
First and foremost I despise the term "pro-war". Nobody, but the mentally ill is pro death. And just because you differ in what the president or future president should do with the situation in Iraq does not mean you are pro war or pro Bush. Heck you could even agree with how Bush entered the Iraq and still not be pro Bush. I hate Bill Clinton, that does not mean that I did not agree with anything the man did while he was in office. And please don't judge a political party by George Bush (I don't consider him a true conservative anyway) and I won't judge the Democrats by Teddy Kennedy 
If you are Conservative you are closed minded:
Well who ever says that to me is the closed minded one. If you are not open to the thoughts and opinions of others then you are no better then a dictator. Conservatives are open to change, here is a definition to clear things up a bit: Radical change and unproven beliefs should not be quickly implemented before tested. I personally don't see anything wrong with this statement, since I am a Conservative I shouldn't. But it really gets me when people tell me they are Liberal there for open to change and are open minded. So am I and so are other Conservatives. It just means we don't like to jump the gun.
9) Conservatives judge people by the way they look:
I just laugh when I hear this one. If you saw me you would not guess I was a Conservative, Why? Because people think that Conservatives have a Conservative dress code. Um no. My politics have nothing to do with the clothes I wear, and I don't care what others choose to put on their bodies. In fact I have tattoos and piercings and used to have half my head shaved. So there are just as many Liberals as their are Conservatives that judge a book by it's cover.
So before jumping on someone because they are Conservative, listen to their points. Don't assume you know why they have their views. We are Democrats, Republicans, Religious Rights, Libertarians, Constitutionnalists and Federalists. I believe in small federal government and giving power back to the states. Don't generalize us. WE can all learn from each other, and really think about what you say before you pass judgment on a Conservative by calling them names. I know the Liberals don't like being called, Bleeding Hearts, J.A.Ps, Anti-American, Feminist b*tches, or any of the other creative names that people have come up with. Love others and love America!
And GO FEDERALISM!!!!!
No Romeo
This is a very interesting topic! I will comment more later after reflecting on your thoughts a bit, but I think this type of thing is so important. I think there are so many ways in which most Americans agree...and when we label people and make assumptions about their beliefs, we really ignore those areas where we could come together for progress.
More later!
1Thanks for posting this! So much of what you posted is true for me, personally, and true of many conservatives that I know. It is often hard for me to state my views, here and elsewhere, without worry that someone will think that I am closed-minded, un-charitable, and hateful. All of which are untrue.
2Thank you for posting this! Conservative doesn't equate heartless... I think that's the worst and most hurtful misconception of all. Personally, I tend to identify as a conservative because on the issues that impact that largest amount of people, I fall more right than left. But talk to me on issues of personal choice and you'd swear I was a liberal. Which makes me a libertarian.
I don't care if you want to do drugs, marry someone of the same gender, have an abortion, own a gun, etc. That's the beauty of America... we have personal freedoms to make these choices.
But the moment the government starts making decisions on my behalf and infringing on my right to choice... like how much money to save for retirement, where to send my kids to school, what kind of health care I need... that's when I get annoyed.
Freedom of choice comes with the burden of personal responsibility.
3That is quite an interesting list there cine_lover!!!
I actually love your list. It's a wonderful tool to prove that you Conservatives and us Liberals, LOL...aren't that much different...hahahaha!!!
4thanks you!
5so, you're NOT Republican?
6Not sure what you mean, Indielove. A Conservative is not necessarily a Republican. I do not call my self a Republican but I call my self a Conservative. I will vote Republican this election, and i am a registered Republican.
7I care more about animals and animal rights than most liberals do, so BOOSH.
8I consider myself a Lieberman Democrat, who supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein from the time of the first Gulf War. I am also an “originalist” when it comes to the Supreme Court. I also believe abortion is taking human life. Yet, I do not believe in an “immortal soul” or an afterlife. I envy those that can believe, and support their right to practice their beliefs up to the point that they insist I also follow their beliefs. I believe in a confiscatory inheritance tax, and do not believe the rich are over taxed, quite the contrary. Capitalism creates “wealth”, but must be monitored and controlled to avoid excesses, and insure the safety of the public. I enjoy your blog and comments they are fairly reasoned, and even educational
9Grandpa,
"I believe in a confiscatory inheritance tax, and do not believe the rich are over taxed, quite the contrary. Capitalism creates “wealth”, but must be monitored and controlled to avoid excesses, and insure the safety of the public."
What right does the federal government have to confiscate someones inheritance? I understand the theory of this, as to keep the class system at a minimal, referring to France, but we are not Europe, we have a Constitution that was written to keep the Federal government at bay. What right to we have to punish the wealthy? Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has unlimited access to peoples money, their "personal property"? Who says what is excesses? You? The government? Where is this money redistributed? Shouldn't that be the choice of the persons who earned the income?
What is your definition of wealth? It may be very different then my definition and different then the person sitting next to me. What wealth is in Arkansa is very different then what wealth is in New York.
What would be the point to strive for more if the government gets to tell me when I have had enough, and that my children don't deserve the fruits of my labor?
Socialist philosophies, and if you don't like the term socialist, I can also go with Marxist, such as these are dangerous to the Freedom of Americans. It will lead to a behemoth federal government and THAT is exactly what the framers of the Constitution were determined to avoid.
Additionally, if this is something that the American people want, then it must be done properly and have a new amendment ratified into the Constitution. Because otherwise it is completely unconstitutional.
On a side note, I have read your other posts, and I honestly would like to know, how your Socialistic theories are different of Obama's and Hilary's. They support shared wealth such as yourself.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
10
11Cine, Great post! I also totally agree with your comment right above 3M's comment.
12Cine, all you have to do is look at the Kennedy clan, the Rockefellers; here you have 3rd, 4th, and some 5th generation descendents of the makers of wealth. They are an example of what is wrong with inherited wealth. They are living in a world of privilege, every material need met, no need to provide for their heirs, it is all done already. They then are allowed to play with the rest of humanity’s lives. Experimentation has no cost to them. Take “global warming”, lets put caps on the producing capabilities of the those still in need of making a living, limit the resources available to the masses, after all the rules do not apply to the elite, they continue to have a mansion on both coasts, and the other playgrounds around the world, flown to on private jets, screw global warming consequences, we do too much “real good” to worry about things like that. Sacrifice is for the masses, not the privileged. Let Bill Gates spend his wealth as he likes. Let him provide the finest education for his children, his grandchildren even. But, the day he dies, he ceases to exist; his wealth should not pass down to others strictly because of their DNA. His heirs should be allowed to inherit no more then they could reasonably spend over a 20-30 year period. If they want to be selfish, and live in luxury, so be it, but his children, and grandchildren have to go back to earning a living. If on the other hand he is willing to be a producer of wealth, then he can pass down his accrued wealth subject to the 20-30 year rule. There would be no “foundations” to hide wealth. The Rockefeller, Ford, Kennedy foundations are an example, they pay no taxes, their heirs are administrators, and draw down all their needs as administrators of said foundation. A tiny percentage of their assets go to “charities”, but never so much as to allow for the total foundation assets to diminish. Even the charities are agenda driven; George Soros is a current excellent example. While a person lives let him build all the monuments to his name he wants, but no matter what his great grandkids at the very least have to go back to the working middle class, and make their own way. Look at Ted Turner he now owns almost 2 million acres of farmland, should that amount of land stay in his family forever? At what point does the United States become another Mexico, with all land in the hands of the Grandees, and the peasants forever landless and exploited.
13Just four more words to illustrate the above:
AL GORE
Paris Hilton
Case made.
14First of all Bill Gates children are not being left much money at all. Somewhere around $10 million a piece, the rest is being donated to various charities. This is also true of Paris Hilton. It was just all over the news how upset the family was that they will be receiving a very small amount of money as their inheritance. As for their trust funds. Eventually their money will run out. Money is not never ending. It is occurring all over New York with old wealth today.
Where do you stop when it comes to people's wealth? What if they have $20 million in Jewelry, do you take that? What about art, or coins? This is all personal property that they government has no right to take.
You did not answer any of my other questions. So I can't go back to that. It is unfortunate that these people have power due to money. But others with less of a fortune and lets say 6 kids should be able to pass down the money they work so hard to obtain. $5 million today is very different then 20 years ago. I have worked very hard, as well as my fiance, and if we are become people of wealth, it is MY decision where the money should go. The federal governement gives money where they are not suppose to as is, i.e. federal welfare, that I am COMPLETELY against. Why should I be forced to give my wealth to programs I disagree with and many are unconstitutional.
No government is perfect, as we all know. But the many should not be punished for the few.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
15Cine, I am not sure this is the latest data, but is the latest I could find. The figures are from The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. It is a chart of the “Distribution of Wealth, U.S. Households 2004”. I doubt the situation has materially improved for the bottom 90% in the last 3 years
Top 1% 34.3
Next 4% 24.6
Next 5% 12.3
Next 10% 13.4
4th 20% 11.3
3rd 10% 3.8
Bottom 40% 0.2
Notice that the top 1% controls more then the bottom 90% COMBINED.
The top 5% controls 58.9% of all wealth in the U.S.
The top 10% controls 71.20%
I dare say that the top 1% is not paying its fair share, and probably the next 4% could pay a tad more as well. My guess that if the top 1% pay any social security taxes at all, they maxed it out somewhere around noon January 2. I would further suggest that a case could be made to exclude the bottom 70% from any income taxes at all, and possibly even the bottom 80%.
You asked “What if they have $20 million in Jewelry, do you take that? What about art, or coins?” I would have these items appraised and tax them in this manner; this would also include homes, farms, and ranches.
Let us take your $20 million in jewelry and let us say we tax it the rate of 50%. The person would keep the jewelry, and only have to pay that $10 million inheritance tax at the time of sale, that amount would be fixed, so if it was sold 20 years later for $42 million, the first $10 million would be collected by the Gov’t., the remainder of the $32 million would then be subject to whatever tax laws applied at the time, if any. Now let us say that the property stays in the family, and the first inheritor died. We would then reappraise the jewelry, and it was again appraised at $32 million, the inheritance tax would be bases on the $32million, less the $10 million already owed, or 50% of $22 million. This $11million would be added to the already $10 million for a new “lien” of $21 million. These “liens” could then be used to provide backing for future bond sales.
Do I claim the above a perfect solution, not at all. Do I think it is an improvement on the current system, yes I think so
16Well Grandpa, we could go back and forth forever on this topic, and taxes in general. But before we tax the wealthy and penalize them for being successful and giving the fruits of their labor to their children. Before we give the federal government even more power and control, and take peoples freedom and personal property away, why don't we cut federal spending? Why don't we work on bringing industry back to America, and generate jobs for people in this country? Lets get rid of the socialist programs that just perpetuate a welfare society.
Lets work on these things, before we figure out how to "tax more" and "share the wealth".
And again, the federal government does not have unlimited access to peoples finances.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
17Well Cine Lover, you know I'M never afraid to speak my mind
18Cine Thansk for posting this. You're amazing! I really am not as eloquent on here as you are.
19Cine, don’t you think that the top 1% controlling more wealth then the bottom 90% combined is, or possibly could lead to a problem? Capitalism can not work where you have monopolies; you need competition to maximize efficiency. Look at what disparity in wealth has caused south of the border. How much wealth should the top 1% be allowed to control? Surely not 100%, if not 100%, what do you suggest as a cut off point, 99.9%, 98%, 95%, what would be a good number in your estimation?
20Grandpa I believe I have answered your question repeatedly. You on the other hand, have not answered all of mine. We DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEOPLES PERSONAL PROPERTY. This is not an opinion, but a fact. If you want a socialist society, then change the constitution. Until then, this is going to go around in circles.
You believe that the government has a right to my property, I do not.
The Liberals in this country are forming the class system. They want to tax everyone to hell, until the only people who can afford it is the wealthy and the only people who benefit from it is the poor. We will have no middle class if this continues, and the middle class are what power the economy.
And I completely understand monopolies, we also have laws against monopolies. No we do not have a perfect free trade, but then again nothing is perfect.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
21Cine, ss it socialist to fund a military? How about a Coast Guard? What about securing our Borders? Should we have or even maintain national parks? How about our roads, bridges or tunnels? Should we have food inspectors, FAA, FBI,hospitals, etc? I don't think anything I have mentioned can be called "redistribution", yet require funding.
22Grandpa,
I believe I have addressed all the questions you have just stated in previous posts, that I know you have read because you have commented. Do I really need to restate everything?
Almost EVERYTHING you have just asked me about, with the exception of funding for the military, should be taken care of by the state, NOT by the federal government. Refer to the Constitution if you do not believe me, focus on the Ninth and Tenth amendment.
If I am to pay for social causes, it should be with in my state, NOT put into the federal government. Who knows what the people in my community need better then the community in which they live.
If you believe the federal government should control everything, then that is fine, I do not agree. But as of right now, in this current year, it is against the Constitution, and if you want things to change then do it legally and amend the Constitution.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
23I just had to add, not only do I not agree with the federal government controlling everything, but neither did the framers of the Constitution. It is actually EXACTLY what they wanted to avoid.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
24Sorry I have to edit one thing I wrote; "Almost EVERYTHING you have just asked me about, with the exception of funding for the military, should be taken care of by the state"
I should have said, Almost everything you have just asked me about, with the exception of funding for the military, should be taken care of by the PRIVATE SECTOR, then the state.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
25Welcome to Thunderdome where a deal is a deal..2 walk in, one walks out. No sweat guys, we have an army to make sure there is no outside interference. No jews, catholics, blacks or homos can live in our state, the constitution says it is up to us.
26Cine, I am just now reading this. I'm late on the discussion. I just wanted to say how great it was.
27cine this is a great post - thank you for writing it!
28You obviously put a lot of thought and care into this. I am a registered Republican and consider myself a conservative. The fundamental tenets of the Republican Party are the following: less taxes (EVERYONE - not just the RICH keep more of your money and spend or save how you wish to benefit the economy), less government (we don't need to pay the additional salaries for superfluous levels of government and we certainly don't need government controlling every aspect of our lives) and more freedom. Our current president came in a compassionate conservative and left a liberal in some respects. His spending toward the latter portion of his presidency was quite liberal. We need to learn to live within our means. Our country is nearly 2 trillion dollars in debt to China. I am a Conservative first who has been having a hard time dealing with supposed Conservative Republicans who aren't Conservative at all. I will never be a Democrat, and (I) am going to work hard to make sure we elect Conservatives. There was a time where there was no distinction between Conservative and Republican. It is very disconcerting to see some of these elected officials cross over to the other side. When the religious right moved in, we faltered. Look at the last election. I am so afraid our Constitution is going to become a recycled document. Our president elect has already said it is a flawed document. Look it up if you don't believe me. Our constitution is a sound document. The destruction of it would be the destruction of our country. I do not want to live in The United Socialist States of America.
29Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.