Is Gabriel Green "Conservative?"

By Gabriel Green

Not gonna lie, this one is pretty long. I promise that we'll have some shorter pieces out too, and we're working on getting some video/audio content together for you folks that don't like to read (lookin' at you, little brother).

Table of Contents:

• Disclaimer about “Tough Questions” & The Purpose of this Piece

• Is Gabriel Green conservative?

• Values & Speaking Peoples’ Language

• What is Conservative?

• Back to Burke

  • Burke on Revolutions

  • Burke on Slavery

  • Burke on Oppressing India

  • Burke’s Conservatism

• Can Democrats be Conservative?

• Democrats & Hard Work

  • FDR & Political Hard Work

  • Wyoming Example

• Democrats & Fiscal Responsibility

  • Andrew Jackson’s Legacy

  • Slick Willy & Divided Government

  • Digression: Erasing History is Wrong

• Democrats & Personal Freedom

  • Let’s talk about Southern Secession…

  • Personal Freedom for Everyone

  • Theology Digression: Sin & Freedom

• What exactly is Gabriel Green?

  • Refer to Values, not Labels

  • If you really like labels…

As an introduction to this category of blog posts (Reasonable Criticisms), please be warned that they'll be a little less...eloquent and/or focused than other pieces. These are a lot more raw, and are designed to ask "myself" hard questions about behaviors that seem out-of-line with my personal beliefs. Ol' Honest Gabe never hides from tough feedback, even from himself, so I want to share these sorts of thoughts directly. Just don't be surprised if my rhetoric is a little more extreme or unpolished, because it typically reflects internal discord.

This was written in response to the surprise some folks have shared at how I "sounded conservative" on a recent podcast, and is meant to respond to the reasonable criticism that I am misrepresenting myself (or talking out of both sides of my mouth depending on my audience).

In a recent interview with Cowboy State Politics, I reportedly gave off the impression that I was a “conservative.” Or at least a “libertarian.”

Many of my supporters are conservative, and likely didn't find this surprising. I would like to clarify some things for them and my supporters who don’t consider themselves conservative.

I’ve written elsewhere that I am not an “anything” besides an American.

So, how could I claim to be “conservative?”

Well…I’m not. At least not exclusively.

I wasn't claiming to be, but apologize because it makes sense to think I was.

Values & Speaking Peoples’ Language

Like the Apostle Paul, I believe in speaking to people with the language and topics they care about. He didn’t write to all Christians at once.

He wrote to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, etc.

I have plenty of “conservative” values, and obviously plenty of “libertarian” values too. I also have plenty of “liberal” values, and even my one big “statist” value of believing deeply in the National Park system.

Since I was on a show with a self-proclaimed conservative — whose audience likely ranges from full-MAGA to traditional-Republican to disillusioned-libertarian — I focused on the values we have in common. And I used that language while being firm on my principles.

See, my goal is to unite as much as possible. There will be some people that I simply can’t persuade; whether from entrenched partisan loyalties to the red team or because of genuinely incommensurable values. But, I can’t start by alienating folks.

I have to start by focusing on what we have in common.

And, as I’ve written about elsewhere, the propaganda industry is great at teaching folks to tune out and even fear other folks who use the “wrong words.”

If I came on David’s show and talked about a bunch of liberal values that I know he and his listeners don’t have, or about the few times where it makes sense to have a “strong government,” I would have lost them before I had a chance to reach them.

Granted, most of his listeners are likely to form firm opinions against me pretty quickly. I am a ~Democrat~ after all. But, I also get the feeling David will at least acknowledge that I’m “not your typical Democrat,” because there is simply no escaping the reality that I’m a DINO through and through.

If I can reach even one person who is currently confined to Red-Team-Only propaganda, I will consider that podcast appearance a success.

I don’t even need them to vote for DINOs. Just to be open to the possibility that someone who isn’t “Red” might have some ideas worth hearing.

Don’t even get me started on what reaching TWO people would mean…and on and on.

What is Conservative?

On David’s show, I was asked up front what Conservatism means. It’s honestly a tough question because “Conservative” is such a bandied label these days.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a turd ain’t smellin’ better no matter what you call it.

It’s also made more difficult by the shifts we’ve seen in American political language in the last decade-plus. As I said on the show, these days it seems to be “whatever Trump says.”

And that changes so much that it’s hard to pretend it’s “conserving” anything.

Anyone paying even the slightest attention can see President Trump’s lack of awareness about our institutions, and his seeming lack of respect for the traditions that formed them.

Is this “conservatism?”

That said, even if it isn’t…are you not entertained?

Back to Burke

To answer David, I relied on one of my all-time favorite political thinkers, Edmund Burke.

Burke is often regarded as the father of modern conservatism, so I figured someone like David would appreciate this approach. But, I also genuinely admire Burke’s insight, bravery, and willingness to “conserve” the good, while “changing” the bad.

Burke was not afraid of progress. Just guarded about tradition.

I’ll offer three highlights of his career that illustrate this best.

Burke on Revolution

Burke was a member of British Parliament during the American Revolution, when my ancestors were kicking his nation’s…butt.

He was the ONLY thinker of his time to praise our revolution (bold for a British parliamentarian) and then condemn the French Revolution. Practically everyone else the world over either praised both revolutions or condemned both. He was the only one to spot the difference.

Long before it had fallen into disorder, he predicted that the French Revolution would turn into a bloody mess. He was right; just ask Robespierre.

And long before we’d succeeded, he predicted that the American Revolution would result in a nation with a greater respect for the English tradition of legal rights than even England had ever shown. He was right; just look at how insistent Americans are in entrenching rights in law instead of reality.

In reading Burke’s thoughts on our Revolution, and how they developed over the course of the conflict, I can honestly say that he understood us better than most Americans ever will.

Burke on Slavery

Burke was also in power during the period of Atlantic-Triangle slavery. He worked tirelessly to dismantle it.

But, rather than a simple “abolitionist” path, he was clever. He knew that the elites who were vested in defending the abysmal practice — and their lackies like my later ancestors who fought to defend the practice — wouldn’t give up without a fight.

So, he proposed REGULATING slavery to death.

I know, I know. Not the firm moral stand that we all demand in this day and age.

But, consider how his regulations were designed.

He took the entire logic of the human-enslaving aristocracy and flipped it on its head. Without once appealing to values they didn’t have, he authored a legal structure for slavery that was impossible to fulfill. It was a Trojan Horse strategy for abolition, which likely would have ended slavery in the 1780s instead of the 1860s…And, it would have done so in a way that empowered freed folks rather than leaving them to their own devices.

His whole proposal was designed to make the slave holders do ALL the work of emancipating, educating, and equipping the people they’d formerly oppressed. And, while he didn’t get his way globally, he had a great impact on English abolition.

His system wasn’t perfect, but it was a pretty smart way of removing a moral evil from the world, and helping the world to heal afterwards too.

Now, of course, when we in the “land of the free” finally abolished slavery, it was super painless, bloodless, and immediately effective at restoring folks to their natural status as fully autonomous human beings…Oh…that’s right…We barely got rid of slavery before sharecropping and Jim Crow came along…and that’s to say nothing of the necessary work of the civil rights movement and the ongoing efforts today to heal our persisting divides.

Don’t get me started on the open-air slave markets still operating in parts of the world.

Maybe Burke was onto something?

Burke on India

Perhaps Burke’s greatest claim to fame is not his deep insights into the revolutions of the enlightenment, or his role in removing the stain of slavery from our planet.

Rather, his battle with the all-powerful Dutch East India Trading Company, over their vile exploitation of the Indian people, might be his coolest achievement.

See, at the time, the Company controlled most of British politics. They were the primary funders of the crown, the primary suppliers of troops, and above all, the only folks giving the people that sweet, sweet spice mélange. #DunePolitics

Seriously…think about how bad British food is now and then imagine it with NO SPICES.

Challenging the Company was: 1) Unpopular with the masses who liked their spices, 2) “Bad Policy” according to the elites who liked their taxes, and 3) literally dangerous because the Company wasn’t above assassinating an enemy.

He didn’t just challenge them. He confronted them. At every opportunity.

And he did it, not for political gain — it literally contributed to his removal from Parliament — but rather because it was the right thing to do.

He saw how the Company was oppressing the Indian peoples and demanded its end. And, in the end, he won out over the East India Company, even if the final victory for the Indian people came long after, and struggles for improvement continue today.

Dear Americans, if you think we had it bad, please look up some of the history of India.

By the time Burke was done, much groundwork was laid for future leaders like Ghandi.

Burke’s Conservatism

Now, I don’t want to pretend Burke was perfect. I’m sure he had some repugnant views that someone will tweet at me to prove that I’m secretly a racist.

In fact, ol’ Edmund would probably be the first to point out his flaws, as he did throughout his political career when correcting previously held opinions he realized were wrong.

But, the thing I do want to highlight is that the “Father of Conservatism” was in fact on the “right side of history” several times, despite holding to a “conservative” value system.

This was because he didn’t try to blindly defend everything as it was.

Rather, he tried to examine the history that informed the TRADITIONS making up society. And he tried to ensure that any change appreciated them.

He didn’t demand that Britain free India; he demanded that Britain respect the English traditions of freedom that the Indians had just as good a claim to as anyone in the Isles.

He didn’t demand that slave-owners immediately free their enslaved peoples; he demanded that Britain use its history of regulating commerce to ensure it was done “right,” in a way that would compel the slave owners to change their entire economic model away from enslavement and towards paid employment.

If you beef with capitalism, I see how that’d stay a problem to you.

I think you’re being silly, and will get to you later, but probably not in this piece.

He recognized the difference between our revolution and the French because while everyone else was looking at where the revolutions said they were going, he looked at where they came from. He saw that ours was based on a claim to history and tradition, while the French was based on a rejection of history and tradition.

And this the crux of Burke’s conservatism.

He recognized that society is a house of cards. It’s very fragile. And when you change something, it might be a good thing. But you need to know how it affects everything else.

In recognizing that our revolution was good, he saw that it was based on principles of freedom and self-governance that stretched back to the dawn of humanity. In recognizing that the French revolution was bad, he saw that it was based on a rejection of every single thread of society that kept people from butchering each other over a loaf of bread.

Burke’s conservatism was based on understanding history, appreciating traditions, and knowing when contemporary society has strayed from the traditions that matter most.

Above all, the tradition of free people governing themselves drives Burke’s conservatism.

If I am a “conservative,” it is in the mold of Edmund Burke.

Can a Democrat be Conservative?

David then asked me how being a “conservative” squares with being “Democrat.”

Well, if “conservative” is blindly supporting President Trump, then clearly it doesn’t.

If “conservative” is respecting traditions and institutions, there’s a better claim to be made…

The history of the Democrat Party fascinate me. I think at best the National Democrats have only ever grasped at their greatest traditions and best claims to good govenance.

Even if they need a few caveats to massage it for contemporary audiences.

Let’s review the DINO principles to demonstrate this a bit, and show how a respect for tradition squares well with being a Democrat; especially for a DINO.

Democrats & Hard Work

First up is Hard work.

Say what you will about FDR — and I’ll have plenty to say elsewhere about things like his racism, his bad policies, and his failure of leadership in running for four straight terms instead of passing the baton — but that’s a president that put America to work!

Entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and others are why we have so many of the things we all take for granted. Whether you like those policies or not, they got a lot done.

Enjoy those trails all over Yellowstone? Thank both of the Roosevelts.

FDR & Political Hard Work

More than that though, FDR did some incredibly hard work when it came to navigating the politics of his day. Everywhere else on earth was either a poor country getting conquered and abused, or an empire falling prey to the choice between communism and fascism.

Leaders and countries all over the world were choosing to go “far left” or “far right.”  

Not ol’ Ironsides. Not America.

Nah, regardless of what you say about his policies, FDR helped our country to navigate a global depression and the growing allure of communism vs fascism, without ever once letting our country become swayed by either one. And he kicked some Nazi a**.

It was hard work to avoid the allure of extremism, but FDR wasn’t afraid of doing it.

Wyoming Example of Hard Work

As a neat tidbit, I’d like to next point to the legacy of Wyoming Governor Lester Hunt.

Keeping it short, he used a little hard work to fix a problem his predecessor and government bureaucrats refused to solve. There were a bunch of pigeons all over the capitol when he was elected Governor. They pooped everywhere.

Everyone hated them, nobody did a thing about it. Some folks even claimed they “couldn’t” do anything about them. So, Lester went out on the roof himself and laid out poison for the pigeons. Within days all the pigeons were dead.

All it took was a little hard work, and the problem was solved.

Democrats & Fiscal Responsibility

The Democrats also have a great claim to fiscal responsibility, going back to their founder Andrew Jackson.

As a small sidenote going back to hard work, the origins of the Democrat logo are kind of funny. The reason they’re a “donkey” is because folks would call him, “Jackass Jackson.”

Like any good politician, he leaned into this name, and said, “heck yeah, I’m a jackass! The hardest working animal around, and that’s what I’ll be for the people.”

Andrew Jackson’s Legacy

Frankly, “jackass” might have been a bit too respectful. Andy’s got a twisted legacy.

While he’s probably responsible for some of our coolest innovations for empowering the people, he’s also to blame for some of the worst changes to our political system in terms of factionalizing. More than that, he’s by far our most genocidal president in history, and all records indicate he was truly horrific to the human beings he owned, bought, and sold.

Andrew Jackson was a bad person. Plain and simple.

He was also the only president, in the ENTIRE history of these United States, to pay off the national debt. Including from our revolution, the Louisiana Purchase, and the War of 1812.

If it’s at all possible to throw out his stanky-bathwater without tossing the baby, that sort of accomplishment is what I’d most like to save.

Slick Willy & Divided Government

Beyond Andrew Jackson’s legacy of having been the founder of the ONLY party to ever pay off the national debt, the Democrats also have the best claim to contemporary fiscal responsibility.

See, the last time ANY president oversaw a reduction in the debt was under President Bill Clinton. Even the current "efficiency" touting regime is still using deficit spending.

And, to make this more impressive and perhaps relevant to the anti-compromise nature of today’s partisans, Slick Willy did this with a Republican congress led by Newt Gingrich.

Maybe, just maybe, compromise in government is a good thing?

Digression: Erasing History is Wrong

Take Note: It’s possible to acknowledge the bad parts of history and still learn from them.

Erasing history, whether by deleting pages from government websites or by tearing down statues, is never a good solution. Even statues put up by lost causers can be countered with some good ol’ fashioned information.

As a black woman from Atlanta explained to me, [paraphrased] “if someone is getting inspiration and light from even a racist statue, they shouldn’t lose that light. But every light casts a shadow, and that’s where some of us have been living. So, instead of taking away someone else’s light, we’d just like the places where those statues are to acknowledge the shadow they cast, and maybe for there to be a few more statues put up that cast their own light for other kinds of folks to bask in and find inspiration too.”

When it comes to the legacy of problematic figures of the past, such as Jackson, Clinton, and Ironside Roosevelt, we would do well to take this into consideration.

Democrats & Personal Freedom

When it comes to personal freedom…I hate to break it to you, Reds, but your party is banning books, censuring party members for stepping out of line, and literally going through history to erase things it doesn’t like.

Why’d they have to do Jackie Robinson like that? And the Harlem Hellfighters? And the Tuskeegee Airmen? Etc. Etc.

I’m not trying to say that the National Democrats are good for much. But at least they’re currently too weak to police the country’s thoughts like your party’s doing.

I'm sure you have plenty of "what abouts" like during COVID. I ain't trying to defend the Democrats on all your "what abouts," besides saying that someone else's wrong doesn't make yours any more right. Insofar as I'm a recently registered DINO, feel free to levy criticisms at the incompetence of the typical democrats.

I’d argue that neither party is all that great at protecting personal freedom right now. But I’d also argue that one party is currently way worse for personal freedom, and that’s the Reds.

But, if you’re not convinced by what you see around you, I doubt I’ll help with that.

So instead, again looking at history, I’d like to offer something that might appeal to deeply conservative folks; it’ll almost certainly alienate me from some liberals.

Let’s talk about Southern Secession…

Oh yeah, we’re going there. Buckle up.

Disclaimer Time – Lost Cause Mythology

I am NOT a lost causer — though I’m related to plenty — and I am not defending the practice of slavery that 100% underlaid every reason the south fought.

To the folks immediately objecting, I get all the nuance, and how it “wasn’t really about slavery but rather about X, Y, and Z.”

But, here’s the thing, all of those ~actual causes~ were still about supporting a nation built on the institution of slavery, which was literally at its worst in the American form.

Insofar as my ancestors were conned into fighting on behalf of a bunch of plantation owners who didn’t give two s*its about them — or their massive families that were the poor persons’ alternative to enslaving other humans — I feel like I’m allowed to acknowledge this fact. The war was about slavery.

My ancestors might have been fighting “for their home,” but their home was run by slave owners, who were enlisting my ancestors to protect their right to own human beings.

Just like the individual American soldiers fighting in Vietnam were NOT the bad guys, but we the United States absolutely were (hope I’m not the first to tell you), the soldiers fighting in the confederacy weren’t all “bad guys,” but the Confederacy absolutely was.

The Union had problems too, but we cannot ignore the pure evil that was American Slavery.

Other societies might have had slavery, like Rome. Nobody else was as cruel as us. For instance, in Rome, slaves were considered “rented” from the Roman state, so harming one was literally a criminal offense. Here we treated HUMANS like private property.

And anyone who’s ever seen a worker throw a tool out of frustration knows that the idea that “you don’t mistreat a good tool,” is a f*cking stupid argument. Also it’s dehumanizing.

Side rant: If you fly a confederate flag and can’t tell me your ancestor’s regiment, you’re not proclaiming your heritage, you’re advertising your ignorance. My ancestors served in the Enfield Blues; don’t you dare dishonor their memory by flying their flag without having a good understanding of its real history! Especially since the KKK appropriated it long ago.

Disclaimer Over – Back to Your Program

So, why would I bring up this OBVIOUSLY controversial example of secession, when I could instead point to something way cooler like the Free State of Franklin? (Google it, so cool)

Well, because I want you to think just a smidge deeper about an important topic; one I know many of y’all care about. I grew up in Wyoming hearing about the South a lot…

And I want to once again see if there’s something to be gleaned from evil.

As it turns out, the willingness of an ENTIRE political party to secede from the union is kind of neat. Don’t come at me with the northern Democrats, who just couldn’t rally the votes.

It says something that folks would look at this Union of states and decide they could simply opt out if they so desired. To them, the Union was a voluntary membership, and if they weren’t getting their way, they could leave. Even if "their way" was abhorrent.

To this day, there’s a bunch of folks who think that what we proved in the civil war was that states can’t secede. I suppose that’s true. Probably…

At the very least, they better be ready for a good scrap if they do secede. We like territory.

I’m looking at you, Texas.

But doesn’t it say something that an entire political party was once willing to try?

And it weren’t the Grand Ol’ Party; it was the Democrats.

Personal Freedom for Everyone

Now, I know some of what I’ve run through above might be hard to digest. And, in case it needs to be said, I LOVE our union, and I’m glad my ancestors lost the civil war.

I am just trying to demonstrate that, even back in the day, the Democrats seemed willing to take the idea of “personal freedom” pretty far.

And, these days — even if it doesn’t always vibe with many Christians’ and Conservatives’ view of the Good Life — it’s clear that the Democrat party is more open to the varieties of expression that personal freedom can take (with some blind spots on traditional lifestyles).

Maybe you don’t like this, and that’s allowed.

Personal Freedom also entitles you to an opinion. But, it doesn’t entitle you to suppress someone else’s, or even their expression of that opinion.

It’s that beautiful paradox, of having your cake and eating it too, that makes American freedom so special.

It’s also that paradox that makes me believe that we need to do more to protect churches and religious spaces from state imposition of secular values; it works both directions, Blues.

Theology Digression: Sin & Freedom

As a final note on the topic, I will offer some of my own religious perspective, though I’m thinking this is a topic for a full theology post at some point so stay tuned.

I believe that sin exists, and I believe it’s important to combat it.

I have a sometimes-different view of certain things being sins, but that’s why judgement is the Lords, not ours (Romans 12:19).

But, when it comes to combatting sin with “law,” I’m resistant. I believe deeply that attempts to regulate sin through law don’t work. That’s literally why we needed Christ.

And I believe that removing the choice to sin doesn’t actually have the same impact as people being able to freely choose Christ instead of sin.

Maybe we should help them dodge obstacles, and as Christians we definitely shouldn’t be putting obstacles in folks’ path by personally owning things like gambling parlors. But, by making it simply illegal and putting earthly enforcement over sin — instead of trusting in God — I think we miss the point of the new covenant.

I also think we do a disservice to our brothers and sisters in Christ, by making them reliant on the crutch of the law, rather than helping them to build the spiritual muscles to resist sin.

We don’t need the law. We need the full armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18).

What Exactly Is Gabriel Green?

With the history lesson over, let’s get back to the core question. “Is Gabriel conservative?”

One of my favorite movies is Gladiator. I can practically quote the whole thing.

Perhaps my favorite line is when Maximus says, “I will win the crowd. I will give them something they have never seen before.”

Without sounding overly hubristic, and while acknowledging that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9), that is what I’m trying to do.

I’m trying to give my fellow Americans, and especially my fellow Wyomingites, something they’ve never seen before. At least, not something that’s been seen in my lifetime.

The partisans want me to be a good little Red, or since I’m a DINO now a good little Blue.

And my whole life I’ve just been Green. Gabriel Green, that is.

Refer to Values, not Labels

Pithy phrasing aside, I have tried to use this website in many ways to let you yourself come to know me according to my principles, my policies, and my personal beliefs.

Beyond that, I want to share some about my personal highest Value, which is Mercy.

This one’s a lesson from my mother, who gets full credit here.

I believe that Mercy is when you choose to use your power for good. You cannot be merciful without power or privilege; it literally takes the opportunity to do harm to choose to be merciful. Instead of doing harm, you choose to use your power to help.

Mercy is always kind. But it isn’t always nice.

Like a parent with a misbehaving child, sometimes you need to offer correction. Or, like when your friend is being stupid, sometimes you need to offer tough feedback. But, always, you do so with an end goal of helping someone who you could otherwise harm or ignore.

I am not always perfect at embodying this. Sometimes I am unkind, or tactless. One gal I used to date would say that “honesty without tact is cruelty,” and I still struggle with that.

But, I pray constantly to be stronger at upholding this value. And I believe we’d be a lot better off if our politicians in this country were always aspiring to Mercy.

We would not be weak. The ability to be merciful demands strength.

We would just use our strength to help those who are currently struggling the most.

Through a politics of Mercy, I believe that we could elevate the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the pure of heart, the peacemakers, and the persecuted.

With great power comes great responsibility, and it’s time we live up to ours.

If you really like labels…

Having said that, I know that some folks are still looking for a label. I don’t think the standard “conservative,” “liberal,” etc. labels work for me.

So, if you really want to describe me with labels, here’s a few stabs I took at the problem:

I am a Realist that believes deeply in the Christian Mission to Love One Another.

I am an Anti-Partisan American. I am a Square Hippie. I am a Free-Spirited Traditionalist.

I have lofty ambitions for what our nation could be, but a realistic understanding of what it is.

I aspire to leave the world a better place than I left it, but I darn sure won’t leave it worse.

I am a Nerd, who loves philosophy and political theory (less employable philosophy).

My earthly inspirations range all over: from Machiavelli to Rousseau; from Willmore Kendall to Shulamith Firestone; from Betty Friedan to W.E.B. Dubois; from Fred Hampton to Frederic Nietzsche. Seriously, I take it all in, and I take everyone seriously. Then I see how their insights square with the reality I observe and experience every day.

Does that answer your question?