Whither the Conservative Movement? pg. 18

This leads directly to the third possibility. The objectivist ideology of taxation as theft has problems with defending any sort of taxation because to do so would be defending theft and put the person in a moral bind. Theft is indefensible on moral grounds. Even if a man is better off after he is robbed, he has still been robbed. Thus, a defense of any level of taxation is impossible on moral grounds. Because blatantly stating “taxation is theft” would create a moral impetus to disband the entire government, the real reason for cutting taxes cannot be stated. What can be done, however, is use any available political cover as an excuse for enacting this ideology in an incremental fashion.

Whether or not President Bush adheres to objectivist philosophy is not known. The question has never been posed directly, at least on the public record. It is possible, however, to adhere to an ideological belief without possessing full membership in a society of believers, just as it is possible to take ideological actions without full knowledge or understanding of the ideology itself. Rhetorical inconsistencies could, therefore, merely provide evidence that the ideology has not been thoroughly thought through and solidified. However, given the amount of intellectual thought providing the basis of conservatism, even such a weak excuse comes up somewhat lame.

Conclusion

The early conservatives – Goldwater and Reagan – embraced the intellectual ideology of conservatism and used every opportunity to tie specific policy actions to the larger picture. Neither took for granted that their credentials as conservatives alleviated them of the responsibility to connect to a coherent ideology. As such, they became

Go on to Page 19