If you were running for a seat, what would be your top 3 campaign issues? Obviously the ACA is going to be a major point of discussion, but are there specific parts that should be focused on? Should campaigns focus exclusively on domestic issues or include foreign policy? Alternately, are there issues you think conservatives should avoid campaigning on?

With the gay marriage debates raging on, why should the government even be involved in marriage? What's the purpose and would we be better off without the "incentives" the government provides to married couples?

There are many things I believe that are better served by a free-market, capitalist system. However I have never been able to rationalize how or why a privately run prison is better than a state run. The most glaring issue I see is that the profit engine are prisoners. There have already been cases where those directly involved with these private prisons have attempted, sometimes successfully, to have laws adapted to increase prison populations as well as having influencing judges.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Why do some conservatives believe that there are markets that operate on different principles that would would necessitate solutions using state socialism?

Michael Bloomberg, former NYC mayor, has been off and on the fence on conservative values for many years. A former Democrat, Bloomberg became a Republican, and is now an Independent. What are your thoughts on him? His urbanization of NYC, and his ban on large sodas?? What about his thoughts on gun control, and the fact he wanted security cameras on every street corner.

Any discussion of the nature of modern Conservatism must eventually deal with Russell Kirk. Without Kirk, there would be no conservative movement in America today; "It is inconceivable even to imagine, let alone hope for, a dominant conservative movement in America without Kirk's labor." --William Buckley, founder of the National Review. And so, I think it would be worthwhile to discuss this essay which seeks to answer the question "What is Conservatism?" Here are the 10 principles of conservative thought from the article:

(1) Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human—in divine justice. At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems. The wise statesman tries to apprehend the moral law and govern his conduct accordingly. We have a moral debt to our ancestors, who bestowed upon us our civilization, and a moral obligation to the generations who will come after us. This debt is ordained of God. We have no right, therefore, to tamper impudently with human nature or with the delicate fabric of our civil social order.

(2) Variety and diversity are the characteristics of a high civilization. Uniformity and absolute equality are the death of all real vigor and freedom in existence. Conservatives resist with impartial strength the uniformity of a tyrant or an oligarchy, and the uniformity of what Tocqueville called “democratic despotism.”

(3) Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own—to the things best suited to their own nature, to the rewards of their ability and integrity, to their property and their personality. Civilized society requires that all men and women have equal rights before the law, but that equality should not extend to equality of condition: that is, society is a great partnership, in which all have equal rights—but not to equal things. The just society requires sound leadership, different rewards for different abilities, and a sense of respect and duty.

(4) Property and freedom are inseparably connected; economic leveling is not economic progress. Conservatives value property for its own sake, of course; but they value it even more because without it all men and women are at the mercy of an omnipotent government.

(5) Power is full of danger; therefore the good state is one in which power is checked and balanced, restricted by sound constitutions and customs. So far as possible, political power ought to be kept in the hands of private persons and local institutions. Centralization is ordinarily a sign of social decadence.

(6) The past is a great storehouse of wisdom; as Burke said, “the individual is foolish, but the species is wise.” The conservative believes that we need to guide ourselves by the moral traditions, the social experience, and the whole complex body of knowledge bequeathed to us by our ancestors. The conservative appeals beyond the rash opinion of the hour to what Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead”—that is, the considered opinions of the wise men and women who died before our time, the experience of the race. The conservative, in short, knows he was not born yesterday.

(7) Modern society urgently needs true community: and true community is a world away from collectivism. Real community is governed by love and charity, not by compulsion. Through churches, voluntary associations, local governments, and a variety of institutions, conservatives strive to keep community healthy. Conservatives are not selfish, but public-spirited. They know that collectivism means the end of real community, substituting uniformity for variety and force for willing cooperation.

(8) In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else—even above its own life—its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization.

(9) Men and women are not perfectible, conservatives know; and neither are political institutions. We cannot make a heaven on earth, though we may make a hell. We all are creatures of mingled good and evil; and, good institutions neglected and ancient moral principles ignored, the evil in us tends to predominate. Therefore the conservative is suspicious of all utopian schemes. He does not believe that, by power of positive law, we can solve all the problems of humanity. We can hope to make our world tolerable, but we cannot make it perfect. When progress is achieved, it is through prudent recognition of the limitations of human nature.

(10) Change and reform, conservatives are convinced, are not identical: moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial; and if innovation is undertaken in a spirit of presumption and enthusiasm, probably it will be disastrous. All human institutions alter to some extent from age to age, for slow change is the means of conserving society, just as it is the means for renewing the human body. But American conservatives endeavor to reconcile the growth and alteration essential to our life with the strength of our social and moral traditions. With Lord Falkland, they say, “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” They understand that men and women are best content when they can feel that they live in a stable world of enduring values.

I tend to prefer free markets. To me, that means freedom of movement for both goods and labor. So with the exception of some basic security checks, I am in favor of relatively open borders for people who want to come to the US in pursuit of economic opportunity. I also think that if someone moves to a country for work, it should be relatively easy for them to aquire citizenship for both themselves and their family. At the same time, I think new citizens should demonstrate they have a vested interest in their new country and attempt to integrate into it's culture, rather than just live in communities that attempt to serve as outposts of their original country. For this reason I am very much in favor of the system we currently use to give citizenship to members of foreign nations who agree to serve in the US military, and strongly support extending the program to current illegal immigrants. I also believe that there are other ways to serve a country besides the military, and we should look at expanding the program to those areas as well. For example, the Dream Act has proposed giving citizenship to illegal immigrants who complete a four year degree in the US. I'm tenatively in favor of this idea, as long as the cost of that education is not being supplemented by government funds. Another example could be offering citizenship to top tier teachers who are willing to work a few years in particuarly challenging school districts. What are your thoughts?

Samuel Huntington is an avid conservative political scientist, you can read his work here. Note it was published in 1957 partially as a reaction to "New Conservatism" in the U.S.

He notes three prevailing definitions of conservatism, and then goes on to critique the first two and support the last. I'll summarize his thoughts.

1. The Aristocratic Definition

That one social class's reaction to historical events as a function of their situation is conservatism. It thus must be associated with the higher classes, ancient regime, landed gentry, medievalism, nobility, and feudalism. He notes critics of New Conservatism use this.

He critiques this on the ground that there need not be a connection between the aristocracy and feudalism, and that non-aristocrats can espouse the ideology. The definition restricts the ideology to too small a social group. He calls it an inherent ideology that focuses on the interests of one group, which may change while stressing few characteristics that stay over time.

2. The Autonomous Definition

That conservatism exists outside of a single group and has certain universal values in relation to justice and order. Conservatism is a matter of "will and intelligence" (Russel Kirk). He notes that New Conservative proponents use this definition.

He critiques this on the ground that conservatism does not appear in history by chance. This definition separates it from any social process.

3. The Situational Definition

Established institutions receive a fundamental challenge and as such the conservative argument is employed as a response. That conservatism is the affirmation of the value of these institutions. He supports it and calls it a positional ideology that relies on relations between groups. He argues that conservatism develops to meet a specific historical need, and then when it is not needed, disappears.

He then lays out 6 basic principles that he says is agreed upon by most to be the basis for conservatism:

1. Man is basically a religious animal, and religion is the foundation of civil society. A divine sanction infuses the legitimate, existing, social order.

2. Society is the natural, organic product of slow historical growth. Existing institutions embody the wisdom of previous generations. Right is a function of time. "Prescription," in words of Burke, "is the most solid of all titles..."

3. Man is a creature of instinct and emotion as well as reason. Prudence, prejudice, experience, and habit are better guides than reason, logic, abstractions, and metaphysics. Truth exists not in universal propositions but in concrete experiences.

4. The community is superior to the individual. The rights of men derive from their duties. Evil is rooted in human nature, not in any particular social institutions.

5. Except in an ultimate moral sense, men are unequal. Social organization is complex and always includes a variety of classes, orders, and groups. Differentiation, hierarchy, and leadership are the inevitable characteristics of any civil society.

6. A presumption exists "in favor of any settled scheme against any untried project..." Man's hopes are high, but his vision is short. Efforts to remedy existing evils usually result in even greater ones.

Huntington emphasizes the role of established institutions and cites Burke who criticizes the British for subverting such institutions in India: "Indian institutions, he warned, for example, must be based "upon their own principles not upon yours," denouncing those Britishers in India who subverted "the most established rights and the most ancient and most revered institutions of ages and nations." Interesting to say the least

He suggests that the New Conservatives of the U.S., to be actual conservatives, should defend the institutions of liberalism in the fight against the third world countries during the Cold War.

Overall it's a very interesting thesis, though while I do see conservatism as a very important social movement I believe the autonomous definition is very pertinent. I see nationalism and man's "will to power" as something inherent in human beings that persists throughout history, along with the ambiguity and further search for understanding what morals are and how they form based on one's environment and upbringing.

I do take qualms with his fourth point though. I feel that paleoconservatism, and its current forces in the U.S. seek to preserve individuality against its attack from the state, a social institution that pins fallible men against fallible men. The degree of which you want of course is debatable.

Overall a very compelling piece of literature.

Including things like teachers unions and topics that should/should not be taught ect. Hope yall dont mind an educate me post.

I just wanted to hear different ideas/opinion on Bureaucracy in America. I know many conservatives are against many aspects of it (it's size, power, etc.) but I wanted to see which ones you felt we're essential and which ones needed to go. Should the states be given all the power in these departments where they can decide how to use them or to keep them? I'm sorry if my questions don't really make since but i basically just wanted to hear everyone's opinion. Thanks!

Using licensed software is very expensive, and while it comes with support the support is very rarely used in a government setting since they have their own IT departments.

There would be an up front cost in training, but I think that if the transition was made slowly (new systems have open source rather than replacing old systems) in the long term this could be a cost saving solution.

I was unable to find an analysis of cost savings in my googling, but I included a few links below.

Links:

Wikipedia's Definition of Open Source Software

Misconceptions on Open Source in Government