I voted conservative, but I am no social or religious conservative or even a neo conservative which probably most conservatives fall into those categories today. I am more a Goldwater conservative or perhaps even a traditional conservative. There are many factions of conservatism.
My brand of conservatism certainly does believe in small government. A belief that government should stay out of a citizens private business and lives. Keeping government out of a citizens lives means letting the woman choose when it comes to abortion, letting gays marry if they so wish. This is one area where traditional and religious or social conservatives cross paths.
A traditional conservatives believes in fiscal responsibility. Having spending match revenue. A balanced budget. Spending no more than what one takes in. To get this balance, if that means cutting spending, do it. If it means raising taxes, do it. But a combination of both is usually preferable. Unlike those who call themselves fiscal conservatives whom only believe in low taxes, we believe in fiscal responsibility which is a huge difference.
A traditional conservative also believes the United States ought to keep their nose out of other countries business and only go to war when this nation's security is directly threaten. Then you win that war as quickly as possible using any and all means available. Whatever it takes. If one isn't prepared to do that, then don't go to war.
---I am betting that I would find a lot of common ground with you, and I identify as a liberal!
But then again, Barry once wrote to Bob Dole, saying, "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"
But a combination of both is usually preferable.
That sounds distinctly bipartisan to me, I like it.
A traditional conservative also believes the United States ought to keep their nose out of other countries business and only go to war when this nation's security is directly threaten. Then you win that war as quickly as possible using any and all means available. Whatever it takes. If one isn't prepared to do that, then don't go to war.
I take a lot of flak from my fellow liberals in this area because while I am generally anti-war, if we're attacked, then God bless our military and let's do what needs to be done, provided it is done by a Congressional declaration of war, minus all the "workarounds" and minus all the ideological footballing. We either have the stomach to fight or we don't, and if we do, it's not a business proposition, it's a fight. Used to be weapons were manufactured to fight wars. Now, wars are manufactured to sell weapons.
I do not have the stomach for that because I do not view war as a business.
It's a practical matter, which is also why I refuse to participate in the general liberal outrage over drone warfare.
Sure, drone warfare can be screwed up, lord knows we've bombed far too many wedding parties and hospitals and killed far too many innocents via drones and the blowback is significant.
But you don't blame the concept of drone warfare for that, you levy responsibility on those running the damn thing.
And if they're doing a crap job, get rid of them and get people in there who know what they're doing.
I don't remember who said it but:
"Drone warfare is the very worst form of warfare, except for all the other kinds."
I hear all the bickering from the islamist side about how drones are just stiffening their resolve but I only buy about 10 percent of it.
I am convinced that what we're really seeing and hearing is
their unwillingness to acknowledge that our drone warfare program is the perfect asymmetrical response to THEIR asymmetrical campaigns, like IED's, suicide bombers, localized terrorism actions, ISIS inspired mass shootings, etc.
Our armies are poorly equipped to combat asymmetrical actions. Their armies are ill equipped to respond to drones.
Drones save us an enormous amount of money, blood and bodies. They are giant flying cans of RAID™ and they "kill bugs dead".