Why Call Myself a Moderate Conservative?

First, I must tell you, in short, what I believe. I believe that the local community is best capable of implementing the laws that reflect the morality and desires of its citizens. When enough communities agree on specific laws then the state government should enact a broader statewide law, which reflects what is now identified as the general will of the citizens of that state. When enough states enact laws similar in intent and implementation then the federal government would enact it as a national standard. All of this must be done within the limits placed upon each of these governments by its constitution. I oppose activist government that chooses to impose its will upon an entire nation.

I called myself a Conservative for quite some time. But then groups of people who want to have the federal government impose their will, in place of the will of the liberal Democrats, upon an entire nation began to call themselves conservatives.

So, I called myself a Moderate for a while. But then liberal Republicans, who appear to be watered down liberal Democrats, started calling themselves Moderates.

You see, my views haven't changed but the political landscape upon which I stand has. I oppose government that attempts to perform those functions beyond the scope of the constitution - Period. I believe that many of the activities the Federal Government engages in are unconstitutional, poorly implemented, repressive, and demoralizing to the citizens of this great nation.

Taking money from the people of Georgia to spend in Massachusetts, or vice versa, except when the "common welfare" is threatened is nothing more or less than theft. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to redistribute wealth from one group to another. Besides being beyond the scope of the duties of a federal government it also has social and economic consequences upon both parties of the redistribution. The victims of the taxes taken to fund such programs suffer a loss of personal wealth and well being. The recipients of the benefits become the victims of the law of unintended consequences - outcomes that were never intended but usually destructive to their lives.

I disagree with an activist Supreme Court that creates new rights, not existent in the constitution, out of a broad interpretation of existing rights within the Constitution. Yep, I'm talking about Row vs. Wade. The fact that a non-legislative branch of the federal government would impose upon an entire nation its own morality on an issue which was not relegated to the federal government by the Constitution is an atrocity. Of course, I'd rather not have the opposite view imposed by an activist government either.

But all of this goes beyond the two major issues I mentioned above. It's about the broader question of what a federal government should do. In my opinion, it should do very little.