Mike Church Questions the Modern Elitist Definition of Conservative

What exactly do the elites mean when they call a public figure a “conservative” these days? To listen to the daily lineup of TV & Radio shows that have been anointed as “conservative” yields a snapshot of “conservatism” that the first “conservatives” would find reprehensible.

For example when it comes to weighing in on federal government spending, today’s elite conservatives might say that it is acceptable to confiscate-at the point of the IRS’s gun- 22-24% of GDP. This is a far cry from Barry Goldwater’s 1964 insistence that entire federal agencies and programs need to be eliminated to get federal spending back to its historical average of less than FIVE percent of GDP.

 In the early days of modern conservatism, it was incumbent on “conservatives” to oppose the entire New Deal while today, the New Deal’s crown jewel, Social Security, is regularly defended by “conservatives’. Would Calvin Coolidge approve of this? What about veto king Grover Cleveland. If we peer back a bit further in time, one wonders what John C Calhoun might think of ANY federal program that purports to regulate and subsidize food, yet today “conservatives” like Louisiana’s David Vitter are SHILLS for the FDA’s expansion in this endeavor. This is conservatism? Exactly what are they trying to conserve? Russell Kirk and other 20th century conservatives could be relied on to vehemently oppose all nation building exercises and even support for an ongoing standing army.

Today’s “conservatives” not only DEMAND a standing army, they demand it be used in whatever war a President thinks we should be involved in to help rebels. One can’t help but wonder what “conservatives” would recommend a President do about American rebels who long for their independence from Leviathan and its “conservative” defenders?