Conservative Democrat: "Occupy Wall Street!"

It is often a delicate matter when I tell people that I am a Democrat.  I always have to preface the declaration and it usually takes the form of, “I have a confession to make,” as if I should be ashamed or embarrassed.  But I am not.  I am a Democrat.  This usually lumps me in with a cast of unsavory and assorted characters, many of which have done some very left-wing, zany things that I am not in-favor or on-board with.  I cannot help who else calls themselves a Democrat, nor can I be to blame for their half-baked actions and theories.  I am also a Catholic.  But simply because I discover a sinner on-board (or a whole deck of sinners who have done some pretty heinous things) does not justify my not being a Catholic.  Contrary to the old wives tale, one apple doesn’t spoil the batch, necessarily; but it does make things difficult, admittedly. 

I am a Democrat and I am a conservative.  This seems a paradox to some folks who believe very simply that liberals ought be Democrats and conservatives ought be Republicans.  While I concede Republicans are conservative, I would argue that Democrats are, too.  The question becomes one much more important than the liberal/conservative question; but rather, and investigation to the question of conserving ***what*** ?

You see liberals just want change because they premise their philosophy on dialectic madness, that change is always progressive, and progress is always good.  So, for a liberal, we must always change for the sake of change.  The problem with most conservatives who call themselves Republicans is that they react to reactionary liberals and say conservation of the status quo is what is good and progressive, and so change is always bad.  So for Republicans it is often preservation of the status quo or a necessary rollback of an advancing liberal agenda without little question as to whether “what” we are preserving or rolling-back to is actually worthy or noble.  I am not the type of conservative galvanized to preserve the status quo.

Rather, I am conservative because I want to preserve the dignity of the common man—the vulgar man.  This, too, is why I am a Democrat.  I am much more comfortable in the unrefined mob where simple ways and simple language tend to prevail.  These folks and their vulgar ways are whose fate I hope mine to be intertwined with.  They are whom I affiliate and associate.  I don’t want to change them nor do I want them to change—hence, no-thank-you to the Liberal.  I also don’t want to choke them and starve them out by the crazy, spiritually corrupt, big business world that conservative Republicans hope to maintain and expand. 

I am not friendly to industry, because industry is not friendly to the vulgar man. The unbelievable scandal about common people is not that they are common, but that they want to be common.  I believe they ought be.   And if that means changing the world to fit the vulgar man, then the world must change to conform to the man, and not the other way around.  The source of the scandal is that the ambitious man who seeks to gain the whole world hasn’t.  In the meantime he refuses to believe anyone could be happy while he is so unhappy.  And we all know how misery loves company…so, he either seeks to change them into unhappy beasts like himself (liberals) or seeks to use them to try and obtain his own happiness (the modern political conservative).

It was Gilbert Keith who said, “the mob can never rebel unless it is conservative.”  They must have something real to rally behind—something they seek to conserve.  Liberals are not revolutionaries, but mere destroyers, because they rally behind an abstraction—you can’t conserve change.  The modern day political conservative is totally opposed to rebellion because he is afraid he’ll be called a liberal since he wants to change.

But if the object of our conservation is in jeopardy, you change your position to challenge the threat.  In this situation, change is not necessarily bad, but absolutely good.  It is a baffling experience to be in the presence of so many Christians and Catholics who promote the idea of conversion as a favorable and sanctifying characteristic for persons, but then refuse to believe it healthy for society.  The personal path to holiness is to change often—not for the sake of change, but for the sake of good.  We all admit we have a long way to go toward perfection and willingly admit we are called to continual conversion.  But we act like the society we have built is founded on perfect foundations already, and we are unwilling to entertain changing or converting them.  We have double-standards.  If your soul is filthy, you need to wash it clean—right back to square one.  The same is true for our society.  Jubilees are not just personal, internal experiences, but ought be societal, external experiences, as well.  It was St. John who wrote, “If we say we have no sin in us, we are deceiving ourselves and refusing to admit the truth.”  We accept that and recognize that to say otherwise is unabashedly prideful and leads to the grave.  Yet how resistant are we to the idea of saying it of our community, our society, our policies?!  “To say that we have never sinned is to call God a liar and to show that his word is not in us.”

We must be conservative, but we must seek to conserve the right things—the dignity of the human person.  We are not conserving that dignity currently.  We might be better than the Iranians or the Stalinists or the Chinese; but when did those become acceptable standards by which to measure ourselves?!  Why not measure ourselves against a higher standard?  I think the Kingdom of God would be a fine standard.  If that is the case, can anyone say that our “great society” has achieved that status?  Well, then, that leaves only one answer—repent and convert.  Conserve the essential and purge the sinful—“but if we acknowledge our sins, then God who is faithful and just will forgive our sins and purify us from everything that is wrong.” 

A fine place to start the revolution is to go ahead and admit there are some elephants in the room.  We should further admit that the elephants are the least of our concern.  Rather, it is the scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns and a harlot on its back.   There is no sense in conserving this destructive showpiece.  Good riddance, let’s change!  Occupy Wall Street!  And once she is gone, then we can deal with the elephants.  But, please, don’t tell me that we ought not kick out the beast only to spare ourselves from being trampled by elephants.  That’s absurd.  Because while we are protected from the beast’s terrors others are falling prey to her.  We will not save ourselves by throwing others to their demise.  We must not.  We are better than that.  We must be better than that.  Kill the Beast!  Kill the elephants!  Down with all the giants!  Thy Kingdom Come!  Only then will I favor conserving the status quo.