Accueil
"Some of these major principles include:
The federal government is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law. It exists to preserve life, liberty and property — a mission that includes not only protecting the sanctity of life but defending freedom of speech, religion, the press and assembly, and the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
The federal government’s powers should be limited to only those named in the U.S. Constitution and exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens.
Government functions best when it is closest and most accountable to the people and where power is shared between the federal government and the states.
Individuals and families make the best decisions for themselves and their children about health, education, jobs and welfare.
America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system built on free enterprise, economic freedom, private property rights and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies that promote general economic freedom and eliminate governmental preferences for special interests, including free trade, deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort free markets and impair innovation.
Tax policies should raise the minimum revenue necessary to fund only constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
Regulations should be limited to those that produce a net benefit to the American people as a whole, weighing both financial and liberty costs.
Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ own personal and political predispositions.
America must be a welcoming nation — one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane and enforced to protect its citizens.
America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security and interests, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad."
-Kay Coles James, "Defining the Principles of Conservatism", Aug 14th, 2019: https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/defining-the-principles-conservatism
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2015/06/01/five-principles-of-american-conservatism/
"Since American conservatism is flexible enough to incorporate multiple viewpoints within its organizing principles, we need to define the organizing principles of American political conservatism. Conservatives must commit to five basic principles that, though occasionally at odds with one another, provide a general framework for political understanding. The five principles:
Protect & Maximize Individual Rights
Ensure a Limited Government
Uphold the Rule of Law
Commitment to Federalism and the Separation of Powers
Maintain Free & Open Markets (Economic & Social)
These principles, often expressed in constitutions around the world, must be defended in fact and not just theory. Each protects the rights and freedoms of individuals, reinforcing the fact that rights are inherent, not given by constructed governments. Frankly, each principle deserves (and has received) volumes of study, but here are a few comments on how American conservatives should approach these principles.
Individual Rights
First and foremost, society has a duty to protecting the fundamental individual rights of its members. In American politics, this means permitting individuals to pursue their interests and enjoy freedoms that do not infringe on the rights of others. Speech is a famous example: Americans can make whatever political speech they want as long as it does not incite “imminent lawless action.” In other words, you can’t “shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Thomas Jefferson notes in the Declaration of Independence that Americans have fundamental right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Many of these fundamental rights are recognized in the first eight amendments to the Constitution, and the Ninth Amendment importantly recognizes that other inherent rights not listed. Newer Constitutional amendments and legislative efforts have further listed fundamental rights.
Conservatives must dedicate themselves to defending these rights from government infringement. Political speech, gun ownership, private property, due process, and many other rights ought to protected as much as the Constitution permits. This attitude ought not to change by the issue. Conservatives rightly defending gun ownership should not flip-flop on “social issues.” The right of individuals to act–go to church, work, marry, smoke, and the like–should not be treaded on lightly. Individual responsibility is paramount, as individuals must be able to make decisions for themselves in life. The government may have to infringe individual rights to protect the rights of others (for instance, drinking and driving), but it should refrain trying to “moralize” law, whether it is gambling, marriage, or guns. Conservatives must be the defenders of individual rights.
Limited Government
In the same spirit as individual rights, conservatives must commit to a limited government. In the American context specifically, this means a commitment to constitutionally-assigned government responsibilities. The scope of government must be narrow for two reasons. First, a narrower scope maximizes individual rights and prevents government from dominating its own people. Second, a government with an overly expansive scope will become too unwieldy and inefficient (as the final principle will demonstrate). The purpose of central government is not to control every aspect of its citizens’ lives; rather, it is to establish justice and maximize individual potential, in the words of the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Conservatives can truly defend the principle of limited government by keeping government’s focus and size narrow. A focus on education, infrastructure, justice, defense, and the overall economy is preferable to a government that concerns itself with what soda one drinks or what media one consumes. Government should avoid concerning itself with personal choices that do not harm others. Government should generally spend within its means, so massive debt does not have generational effects and people are able to use the money that they earned for their own purposes. In short, government ought to be as minimally invasive as possible by focusing on constitutionally mandated issues that have far-reaching effects on society.
The Rule of Law
One particularly concise definition of the rule of law is the following: “That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.”
Conservatives should ensure that all members of society are held accountable under the law. It is paramount that laws are clear and just, that persons and property are protected, that the judicial process is fair, and that competent individuals administer justice. The rule of law protects the individual rights necessary for human development and to maintain a free society. Law must be created and enforced justly, not arbitrarily. Additionally, order must be maintained, so society can continue to function properly. People who cause personal injury or death, property destruction, and other harmful actions not taken in self-defense must be stopped, no matter their supposed justification. Conservatives should support the maintenance of the rule of law through a strong justice system, competent police forces, and an external military to protect America from foreign threats.
Federalism & the Separation of Powers
Conservatives–at all levels–must show a commitment to constitutional federalism. The Constitution specifies the sole responsibilities of the central government, shared powers, and delegates remaining power to the states and to the people. Conservatives should actively defend the role of each level of government, while remembering the principles of limited government. In matters that state and central government share power, the principle of subsidiarity should apply. Maintaining the federal balance is essential to preventing the central government from growing too large and unwieldy as well as states from going rogue and violating fundamental rights.
A commitment to the separation of powers means that conservatives must preserve the integrity and independence on the three branches of government. Executives should not be judges, judges should not legislate, and legislators ought not to execute the laws they create. For conservatives, protecting the separation of powers is vital to upholding the principle of limited government.
Maintaining Free & Open Markets
Preserving free and open markets, economic or otherwise, is a key conservative principle derived from individual rights. Free markets allow the freedoms of association and participation in society. People should be allowed to associate with one another, whether for business, political, religious, or other reasons. The free flow of ideas is essential to constant societal improvement and innovation in all fields. Further, freely associating with others is a natural extension of individual rights, as John Stuart Mill explains in his famous work On Liberty. For conservatives, I hardly need to explain how the “invisible hand” of the free market can allocate resources efficiently, and how free markets have created enormous wealth for our nation (see here and here for some free market background).
While it may be impossible to keep markets completely free, conservatives should commit to keeping them as free as possible to allow the mutually beneficial cooperation and exchanges. Conservatives should seek to make entry into economic markets easy, and only regulate those things necessary for the health and safety of market participants, for controlling coercive or unfair behavior, and for addressing externalities that affect those outside a particular contract. As I acknowledged earlier, the free market cannot be fully defended in one paragraph. However, conservatives must be friends of the free market.
Room for Debate, Not Tyranny
Obviously, these are broad guidelines that both leave plenty of room for debate and include room for many schools of thought. They serve to aim the conservative focus to issues that government should actually be dealing with. The existence of a rule of law principle suggests government ought to be concerned with illegal immigration problems, instead of the sizes of sodas or the morals of literature. By emphasizing these principles, conservatives will hopefully focus themselves on those issues that impact society most deeply instead of those passing and insignificant topics that can all to easily consume politics.
American conservatives have all too frequently been drawn into the trap of making every single belief relevant to government affairs. That’s both politically unwise and fundamentally in error. One should not use government as a tool to enforce some moral order; instead, one should use an open society to make judgments about particular behavior. By emphasizing these five principles, conservatives will be able to position themselves as the future statesmen and leaders that America needs in the coming years."
-Matthew Dragonette, "Five principles of American conservatives", Jun 1, 2015: http://thecollegeconservative.com/2015/06/01/five-principles-of-american-conservatism/
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-what-conservatism-ought-to-be
"What do I mean by conservatism? As alluded to above, it is in part dispositional, a general bias in favour of the accumulated wisdom of tradition over the fads of the moment, society over state, small over large, voluntarism over coercion.
Much of what it wishes to conserve in this vein is the inheritance of the Enlightenment, and the intellectual and political traditions — reason, pluralism, liberalism — associated with it. Conservatism, at least as it has evolved on this continent, is thus really a species of liberalism, in the sense we mean when we talk of “Western liberalism.”
Recognizing that the reforming zeal of liberalism is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, it seeks to save liberalism from the liberals — to preserve what is best in it, adapting it where it must but guarding it from the sorts of reckless or ill-considered changes that would weaken it at its roots.
At its core is the principle of limited government — not small, or large, but limited: government that remains confined to predictable boundaries, obeys certain rules, in all remains, as Winston Churchill said, our servant and not our master. Power is never to be left unchecked, for those who wield it are, like other mortals, prone to error and abuse. Rather, it is at all times to be contained: by the law, by Parliament, by a free press, but mostly by the burden of proof.
It is not that the state may never assert its power to control and regulate, but the onus is always on it to make the case that it must: in the political realm, by obtaining Parliament’s assent for any laws; in the legal, by establishing guilt to a level sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence; in the economic, by demonstrating, not only that the market has failed to provide a particular good or service, but that “government failure” would not be worse.
It is in this last respect that conservatives have perhaps had a unique role to play: as sticklers for proof of the necessity of any government intervention, in effect acting as representatives of the field of economics, which has much to say on such questions, to the world of politics. They have been imperfect ambassadors, to be sure, for politics is, as I have written, in many ways the opposite of economics: where economics is based on the idea that everything is scarce, politics is based on the idea that nothing is.
Nevertheless, it has been up to conservatives to take this on: to point out that resources are finite, that more of one thing means less of another, that the subsidy government gives to one firm comes at the cost of every other, that the money it “injects” into the economy via deficit spending must somehow be extracted from it, that there is indeed, in the end, no free lunch. The left simply aren’t as likely to concern themselves with these points.
But if conservatives have been quicker to object to government interventions in the absence of demonstrable market failure, they have also been slower to propose interventions in its presence. There is a difference between free markets and laissez-faire: conservatism cannot serve as an excuse for inaction, where action is warranted. The trick, rather, is to design such interventions on conservative lines, with due regard to such traditional conservative concerns as individual initiative and consumer choice; not to replace the market with the state, but to harness each to the task for which it is best suited.
This idea of the “social market” offers one possible route to a conservative intellectual revival. In general, the idea is to redistribute rather than to regulate: to provide a minimum income in place of fixing a minimum wage; shelter allowances, in place of rent controls; social benefits in cash, rather than as services. More broadly it encompasses such notions as “internal markets” within the publicly funded health-care system; independent or charter schools within the publicly funded education system; and so on.
This idea of the 'social market' offers one possible route to a conservative intellectual revival
The great missed opportunity in this regard, of course, was carbon pricing. What better proof that markets are social institutions in their own right — representing not the abandonment of social responsibilities, but another way of fulfilling them. Conservatives could have used the success of carbon pricing to make the case for market approaches more generally. Instead they succumbed to the moronic dogma of “a tax is a tax,” and marginalized themselves yet again.
One has to think that the left’s earlier embrace of carbon pricing had something to do with this. But conservatives could have offered their own distinct version of it — one that used carbon pricing as a replacement for existing programs, not a supplement, at the same time using any revenues raised to cut income tax rates. Perhaps if they had they might not appear quite so alien to educated and younger voters as they do today.
There’s a lesson in this experience. People are inclined to sign up for ideology as a package deal; you believe everything it believes, and reject everything the others do. But each of the traditions — conservatism, liberalism socialism, libertarianism — has something to teach us. To wish for a coherent, humane conservativism is not necessarily to desire it should replace the others, but that it should also be available, as an alternative, a counterweight, or at least an influence on the others, as they are on it. The question is: do conservatives themselves want that ?"
-Andrew Coyne, "Right Now: What conservatism ought to be", November 1, 2019: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-what-conservatism-ought-to-be
The federal government is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law. It exists to preserve life, liberty and property — a mission that includes not only protecting the sanctity of life but defending freedom of speech, religion, the press and assembly, and the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
The federal government’s powers should be limited to only those named in the U.S. Constitution and exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens.
Government functions best when it is closest and most accountable to the people and where power is shared between the federal government and the states.
Individuals and families make the best decisions for themselves and their children about health, education, jobs and welfare.
America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system built on free enterprise, economic freedom, private property rights and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies that promote general economic freedom and eliminate governmental preferences for special interests, including free trade, deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort free markets and impair innovation.
Tax policies should raise the minimum revenue necessary to fund only constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
Regulations should be limited to those that produce a net benefit to the American people as a whole, weighing both financial and liberty costs.
Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ own personal and political predispositions.
America must be a welcoming nation — one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane and enforced to protect its citizens.
America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security and interests, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad."
-Kay Coles James, "Defining the Principles of Conservatism", Aug 14th, 2019: https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/defining-the-principles-conservatism
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2015/06/01/five-principles-of-american-conservatism/
"Since American conservatism is flexible enough to incorporate multiple viewpoints within its organizing principles, we need to define the organizing principles of American political conservatism. Conservatives must commit to five basic principles that, though occasionally at odds with one another, provide a general framework for political understanding. The five principles:
Protect & Maximize Individual Rights
Ensure a Limited Government
Uphold the Rule of Law
Commitment to Federalism and the Separation of Powers
Maintain Free & Open Markets (Economic & Social)
These principles, often expressed in constitutions around the world, must be defended in fact and not just theory. Each protects the rights and freedoms of individuals, reinforcing the fact that rights are inherent, not given by constructed governments. Frankly, each principle deserves (and has received) volumes of study, but here are a few comments on how American conservatives should approach these principles.
Individual Rights
First and foremost, society has a duty to protecting the fundamental individual rights of its members. In American politics, this means permitting individuals to pursue their interests and enjoy freedoms that do not infringe on the rights of others. Speech is a famous example: Americans can make whatever political speech they want as long as it does not incite “imminent lawless action.” In other words, you can’t “shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Thomas Jefferson notes in the Declaration of Independence that Americans have fundamental right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Many of these fundamental rights are recognized in the first eight amendments to the Constitution, and the Ninth Amendment importantly recognizes that other inherent rights not listed. Newer Constitutional amendments and legislative efforts have further listed fundamental rights.
Conservatives must dedicate themselves to defending these rights from government infringement. Political speech, gun ownership, private property, due process, and many other rights ought to protected as much as the Constitution permits. This attitude ought not to change by the issue. Conservatives rightly defending gun ownership should not flip-flop on “social issues.” The right of individuals to act–go to church, work, marry, smoke, and the like–should not be treaded on lightly. Individual responsibility is paramount, as individuals must be able to make decisions for themselves in life. The government may have to infringe individual rights to protect the rights of others (for instance, drinking and driving), but it should refrain trying to “moralize” law, whether it is gambling, marriage, or guns. Conservatives must be the defenders of individual rights.
Limited Government
In the same spirit as individual rights, conservatives must commit to a limited government. In the American context specifically, this means a commitment to constitutionally-assigned government responsibilities. The scope of government must be narrow for two reasons. First, a narrower scope maximizes individual rights and prevents government from dominating its own people. Second, a government with an overly expansive scope will become too unwieldy and inefficient (as the final principle will demonstrate). The purpose of central government is not to control every aspect of its citizens’ lives; rather, it is to establish justice and maximize individual potential, in the words of the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Conservatives can truly defend the principle of limited government by keeping government’s focus and size narrow. A focus on education, infrastructure, justice, defense, and the overall economy is preferable to a government that concerns itself with what soda one drinks or what media one consumes. Government should avoid concerning itself with personal choices that do not harm others. Government should generally spend within its means, so massive debt does not have generational effects and people are able to use the money that they earned for their own purposes. In short, government ought to be as minimally invasive as possible by focusing on constitutionally mandated issues that have far-reaching effects on society.
The Rule of Law
One particularly concise definition of the rule of law is the following: “That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.”
Conservatives should ensure that all members of society are held accountable under the law. It is paramount that laws are clear and just, that persons and property are protected, that the judicial process is fair, and that competent individuals administer justice. The rule of law protects the individual rights necessary for human development and to maintain a free society. Law must be created and enforced justly, not arbitrarily. Additionally, order must be maintained, so society can continue to function properly. People who cause personal injury or death, property destruction, and other harmful actions not taken in self-defense must be stopped, no matter their supposed justification. Conservatives should support the maintenance of the rule of law through a strong justice system, competent police forces, and an external military to protect America from foreign threats.
Federalism & the Separation of Powers
Conservatives–at all levels–must show a commitment to constitutional federalism. The Constitution specifies the sole responsibilities of the central government, shared powers, and delegates remaining power to the states and to the people. Conservatives should actively defend the role of each level of government, while remembering the principles of limited government. In matters that state and central government share power, the principle of subsidiarity should apply. Maintaining the federal balance is essential to preventing the central government from growing too large and unwieldy as well as states from going rogue and violating fundamental rights.
A commitment to the separation of powers means that conservatives must preserve the integrity and independence on the three branches of government. Executives should not be judges, judges should not legislate, and legislators ought not to execute the laws they create. For conservatives, protecting the separation of powers is vital to upholding the principle of limited government.
Maintaining Free & Open Markets
Preserving free and open markets, economic or otherwise, is a key conservative principle derived from individual rights. Free markets allow the freedoms of association and participation in society. People should be allowed to associate with one another, whether for business, political, religious, or other reasons. The free flow of ideas is essential to constant societal improvement and innovation in all fields. Further, freely associating with others is a natural extension of individual rights, as John Stuart Mill explains in his famous work On Liberty. For conservatives, I hardly need to explain how the “invisible hand” of the free market can allocate resources efficiently, and how free markets have created enormous wealth for our nation (see here and here for some free market background).
While it may be impossible to keep markets completely free, conservatives should commit to keeping them as free as possible to allow the mutually beneficial cooperation and exchanges. Conservatives should seek to make entry into economic markets easy, and only regulate those things necessary for the health and safety of market participants, for controlling coercive or unfair behavior, and for addressing externalities that affect those outside a particular contract. As I acknowledged earlier, the free market cannot be fully defended in one paragraph. However, conservatives must be friends of the free market.
Room for Debate, Not Tyranny
Obviously, these are broad guidelines that both leave plenty of room for debate and include room for many schools of thought. They serve to aim the conservative focus to issues that government should actually be dealing with. The existence of a rule of law principle suggests government ought to be concerned with illegal immigration problems, instead of the sizes of sodas or the morals of literature. By emphasizing these principles, conservatives will hopefully focus themselves on those issues that impact society most deeply instead of those passing and insignificant topics that can all to easily consume politics.
American conservatives have all too frequently been drawn into the trap of making every single belief relevant to government affairs. That’s both politically unwise and fundamentally in error. One should not use government as a tool to enforce some moral order; instead, one should use an open society to make judgments about particular behavior. By emphasizing these five principles, conservatives will be able to position themselves as the future statesmen and leaders that America needs in the coming years."
-Matthew Dragonette, "Five principles of American conservatives", Jun 1, 2015: http://thecollegeconservative.com/2015/06/01/five-principles-of-american-conservatism/
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-what-conservatism-ought-to-be
"What do I mean by conservatism? As alluded to above, it is in part dispositional, a general bias in favour of the accumulated wisdom of tradition over the fads of the moment, society over state, small over large, voluntarism over coercion.
Much of what it wishes to conserve in this vein is the inheritance of the Enlightenment, and the intellectual and political traditions — reason, pluralism, liberalism — associated with it. Conservatism, at least as it has evolved on this continent, is thus really a species of liberalism, in the sense we mean when we talk of “Western liberalism.”
Recognizing that the reforming zeal of liberalism is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, it seeks to save liberalism from the liberals — to preserve what is best in it, adapting it where it must but guarding it from the sorts of reckless or ill-considered changes that would weaken it at its roots.
At its core is the principle of limited government — not small, or large, but limited: government that remains confined to predictable boundaries, obeys certain rules, in all remains, as Winston Churchill said, our servant and not our master. Power is never to be left unchecked, for those who wield it are, like other mortals, prone to error and abuse. Rather, it is at all times to be contained: by the law, by Parliament, by a free press, but mostly by the burden of proof.
It is not that the state may never assert its power to control and regulate, but the onus is always on it to make the case that it must: in the political realm, by obtaining Parliament’s assent for any laws; in the legal, by establishing guilt to a level sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence; in the economic, by demonstrating, not only that the market has failed to provide a particular good or service, but that “government failure” would not be worse.
It is in this last respect that conservatives have perhaps had a unique role to play: as sticklers for proof of the necessity of any government intervention, in effect acting as representatives of the field of economics, which has much to say on such questions, to the world of politics. They have been imperfect ambassadors, to be sure, for politics is, as I have written, in many ways the opposite of economics: where economics is based on the idea that everything is scarce, politics is based on the idea that nothing is.
Nevertheless, it has been up to conservatives to take this on: to point out that resources are finite, that more of one thing means less of another, that the subsidy government gives to one firm comes at the cost of every other, that the money it “injects” into the economy via deficit spending must somehow be extracted from it, that there is indeed, in the end, no free lunch. The left simply aren’t as likely to concern themselves with these points.
But if conservatives have been quicker to object to government interventions in the absence of demonstrable market failure, they have also been slower to propose interventions in its presence. There is a difference between free markets and laissez-faire: conservatism cannot serve as an excuse for inaction, where action is warranted. The trick, rather, is to design such interventions on conservative lines, with due regard to such traditional conservative concerns as individual initiative and consumer choice; not to replace the market with the state, but to harness each to the task for which it is best suited.
This idea of the “social market” offers one possible route to a conservative intellectual revival. In general, the idea is to redistribute rather than to regulate: to provide a minimum income in place of fixing a minimum wage; shelter allowances, in place of rent controls; social benefits in cash, rather than as services. More broadly it encompasses such notions as “internal markets” within the publicly funded health-care system; independent or charter schools within the publicly funded education system; and so on.
This idea of the 'social market' offers one possible route to a conservative intellectual revival
The great missed opportunity in this regard, of course, was carbon pricing. What better proof that markets are social institutions in their own right — representing not the abandonment of social responsibilities, but another way of fulfilling them. Conservatives could have used the success of carbon pricing to make the case for market approaches more generally. Instead they succumbed to the moronic dogma of “a tax is a tax,” and marginalized themselves yet again.
One has to think that the left’s earlier embrace of carbon pricing had something to do with this. But conservatives could have offered their own distinct version of it — one that used carbon pricing as a replacement for existing programs, not a supplement, at the same time using any revenues raised to cut income tax rates. Perhaps if they had they might not appear quite so alien to educated and younger voters as they do today.
There’s a lesson in this experience. People are inclined to sign up for ideology as a package deal; you believe everything it believes, and reject everything the others do. But each of the traditions — conservatism, liberalism socialism, libertarianism — has something to teach us. To wish for a coherent, humane conservativism is not necessarily to desire it should replace the others, but that it should also be available, as an alternative, a counterweight, or at least an influence on the others, as they are on it. The question is: do conservatives themselves want that ?"
-Andrew Coyne, "Right Now: What conservatism ought to be", November 1, 2019: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-what-conservatism-ought-to-be
Dernière édition par Johnathan R. Razorback le Mer 27 Nov - 11:59, édité 1 fois
