For generations, American Indians have been stereotyped as liberals and Democrats. This is a false stereotype. Many American Indians and tribes are conservative and Republican. Most Indians might consider themselves "common sense conservatives," which I have read described as "liberal in thinking but conservative in values."
In politics, conservatism assumes that human beings are fallible, tradition is the most effective means of conveying wisdom through the generations, and maintaining the established order with moderate reform is preferable to utopian idealism.
Not the Religious Right
From Rush Limbaugh to the Religious Right, many claim or imply that they hold the franchise on conservatism. But none do. In The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot
, Russell Kirk outlined several flavors of conservatism.
Most if not all of flavors of conservatism are political. What connects them all is a foundation of core beliefs, or principles, which Kirk identified as the following:
- First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
- Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
- Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
- Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
- Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
- Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
- Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
- Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
- Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
- Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
gate io
When I first read these, I was astonished as they are a fair description of both what I have observed to be the dominant attitude toward life among American Indians, and my own take on things.
Not Anti-Progress
The progressive movement has a lot of people bamboozled into thinking that progressivism is all about progress. Nothing could be further from the truth. Liberals and Conservatives are far more open to real progress. "Progressivism" is nothing more than a phase in the cycle of revolution and liberty, prosperity and growth, debt and oligarchy, despotism and depression (which includes the progressivism phase), revolution, liberty and prosperity described by Michael Hudson in his article, gate.io, at CounterPunch.
Personally, I'd like to skip past the decline (where we are at, right now), despotism and revolution stages and cut straight to the liberty, prosperity and growth stages, which is why I support Ron Paul. Plus, his right-of center libertarian republicanism reflects the values, virtues and principles upon which the nation is founded. Many of which drew largely ignored inspiration directly from American Indian sources. (See, for example, The Native American Source for the Declaration and the Constitution, by Ira Krakow, and Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois [Kindle Edition]
.)
The ironic "conservative" opposition to Ron Paul
By now it is fairly well known that many mainstream "conservative" pundits, along with Fox News and other networks, ignore Ron Paul. Including one of my favorites, Sean Hannity, seen in this 2004 picture I snapped of him during the National Republican Convention at Madison Square Gardens in New York City.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011, I was listening to Sean while driving home. He was visiting with Ann Coulter. "Anybody but Obama," he said, and then named off the GOP candidates. Every single one of them, but Ron Paul. The snub was so blatant that I felt embarrassed...for Sean Hannity! Talk show hosts are just entertainers, and many are crass. But a few rise above the rest and generally show more class than that. It just struck me as being beneath him.
And who among the Republican candidates is more conservative than Ron Paul?
On a few issues
Empire: There is nothing conservative in maintaining the American Empire. The very word "empire" in connection with the nation violates the spirit and every word of the Declaration Of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights And Constitutional Amendments
. And everybody knows that!
Yet here we are, with the largest military in history engaged in an ever growing number of wars creating an ever escalating number of enemies. From the first time I heard about Ron Paul, back when we were both members of the Libertarian Party - the Party of Principle in 1988, Ron Paul has opposed the existence of the empire: Strong Defense, Yes! Empire, No! That is the American way.
Foreign Aid: Everybody knows the federal government spreads trillions of dollars arond the world to secure our economic interests. Just one problem, they are not our interests. "American" multinational corporations are not the American people. They are not even real people! Just as we should not send our military to trample on the rights of people in other countries, we should not squander the wealth of the American people on other countries. Leave charity to individual citizens.
"Free to Die"? Much has been made about Ron Paul's position on whether taxpayers should be required to support people who do not have health insurance. First, it is a fact that as a doctor Ron Paul treated many people who lacked insurance and the ability to pay. So he has first hand experience with this issue. Second, the "freedom to die" is also the "freedom to live," both of which are inherent in being Free To Choose
.
The future
Want to know the future of America under any administration other than Ron Paul? Look to Japan. If Ron Paul has his way, the government will get out of the way and let the depression burn itself out. No bailouts, no "crony capitalism" (which is another word for mercantilism
), no more "too big to fail."
It would be hard, it would be painful, and it would be over in less than 3 years, after which the economy would virtually explode with activity. Prosperity would follow.
The alternative is between 10 and 30 more years of what we've got right now. And there would be no prosperity...not for the middle class, anyway, which will virtually cease to exist. Unless, that is, we elect Ron Paul.
Freedom and Liberty
Freedom and liberty, words that used to be synonymous with the United States of America. Now, the House and Senate has passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), which will allow the military to arrest American citizens--in America, not abroad--and detain them indefinitely. President Obama is expected to sign it.
The NDAA is by far the most blatant step toward turning America into a dictatorship that I have ever seen. If the president signs it, I would not be surprised to see Ron Paul's support evaporate as his supporters are arrested and shipped off to military prisons.
Unlikely, but possible. And we need more than a president who probably won't round up his opposition.
We need our president to say no to empire, no to foreign aid, no to the war on drugs, no to endless economic bubbles, no to monetary inflation, no to the war on real healthcare, no to corporate welfare, no to being the world's policeman, yes to strong defense of our borders, yes to free enterprise, yes to sound money, and yes to the freedom and liberty for which American once stood.
The man who will do that, that president, is Ron Paul.
