Claim: Tea Party isn't conservative, it's nationalist

[quiller]

This is in Conservative Daily News (.com) ....

If you are a Tea Partier like me, you probably think of yourself as a conservative, but you're not. Even though you believe in the constitution, the rule of law, private property, and America's foundational English-speaking Western-Christian culture, you are not a conservative. And if you believe in the United States as a singular nation based on these principles, you are not a conservative either. In fact, you are neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

You are an American nationalist who wants fundamental reform from a federal government dominated by parties that reject these ideas in favor of others, mainly progressivism and multiculturalism. You've recognized that the federal government and it's institutions of power—so-called big government—no longer resemble or abide by the constitution, in spirit or practice.

A few simple comparisons expose this basic reality: 100 years ago (1912) government spending comprised 2% of GDP; today it makes up 26%; in 1912, 97% of government spending was controlled and authorized directly by Congress; the number today is 33%. So much for a government shutdown that put at risk barely one third of federal spending—the rest is automatic, uncontrolled, and outside the reigns of constitutional dominion.

Big government fails other critical tests as well. The federal government no longer upholds the rule of law: it tolerates illegal immigration, doesn't protect our borders, bails-out corrupt bankers, fights wars and launches strikes without the approval or consent of the American people. It does not protect private property: it redistributes by taxing the producers and transfers wealth to the corrupt and the underachievers; what little is left over goes to the needy, so we hope.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/10/stop-calling-me-a-conservative/

It's long, thoughtful, and ample food for argument.

[supsalemgr]

I can't disagree with any of it.

[quiller]

Well, so much for argument. (KNOCK. KNOCK.) Is this thing on?

[Prospero]

It's long, thoughtful, and ample food for argument.

It's a false choice.  Conservatives, as properly defined, might very well emphasize nationalist concerns if the conditions of their time so dictate.  That does not render them other than Conservatives.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

[TboneAgain]

I'll stick with "conservative." It applies, no matter what your author thinks. And "nationalist" has a bit too much of a jingoistic flavor to it. Reminds me of Hugo Chavez and Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro.

As the Dems will attest, words matter. Witness how they've morphed from "progressive" to "liberal" and back again in order to escape tarnished brands. (They did the tarnishing themselves.) And all the while, the semantic maneuvers are meant to dodge the fatal smear -- "socialist," which of course defines with precision who and what they are.

[Solar]

I'll stick with "conservative." It applies, no matter what your author thinks. And "nationalist" has a bit too much of a jingoistic flavor to it. Reminds me of Hugo Chavez and Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro.

As the Dems will attest, words matter. Witness how they've morphed from "progressive" to "liberal" and back again in order to escape tarnished brands. (They did the tarnishing themselves.) And all the while, the semantic maneuvers are meant to dodge the fatal smear -- "socialist," which of course defines with precision who and what they are.

I agree.
If anything, "Classic Liberal", ad Harry pointed out.

[kopema]

I'll stick with "conservative." It applies, no matter what your author thinks. And "nationalist" has a bit too much of a jingoistic flavor to it. Reminds me of Hugo Chavez and Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro.

Like every word co-opted into the LiberalSpeak lexicon, the definition of "nationalist" has a bizarre flexibility.

"It doesn't matter that the Nazis were Socialists - because they were 'Nationalists' instead."   What in the Hell is that supposed to mean?  Somehow the Soviets WEREN'T nationalists.... Why?  Because they called their territorial conquests the "Soviet Union," instead of "Greater Russia?"

Now the new push is toward what liberals call "Globalism."  But don't worry though; it has nothing whatsoever to do with that unspeakably evil monster called "nationalism."  All they want to do is create a single organization to control everyone and everything on earth; but they won't do it in the name of any particular country.  And that makes it all perfectly OK.

Liberal Doublespeak is form over substance, taken to its psychotic extreme.