Conservative?

Perhaps we need a new label. Conservative has become a confusing term that leads some political strategists down a black hole. Many now append the 'economic' and 'social' prefixes, but that suggests that someone who is both a true conservative. I strongly disagree. Anyone who argues for an activist government of any kind is anything but conservative. The role of the federal government is clearly laid out in the Constitution. We have strayed from those original tenets and it is time to get a candidate into the White House who will accept the limitations of the office as defined by our founding contract.

One reason we have moved so far off the original vision was the decision in 1911 that altered the relationship between citizens and their government. We have seen our individual influence with our federal government slowly dissolve and get replaced by those with the financial resources to buy advantageous outcomes. In the book "Miracle at Philadelphia," Catherine Drinker Bowen recounts the debate over the ratio of representation that would ensure citizen voice, encourage participation in the electoral process, and ensure legitimacy for the new government they were creating. George Washington weighed in on the side of a smaller ratio to increase the likelihood that the a member of the House would have face-to-face contact with a greater proportion of his constituents.

If the House had not voted itself a perpetuity of growing power and income by abandoning the ratio of representation stipulated in Article 1, Section 2, Part 3 of the Constitution, our federal government would remain focused on those things all Americans could agree with rather than the myriad of special interest programs anyone with enough money to buy a TV ad campaign can now get introduced and passed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section2
...third paragraph, third sentence vs. 300,000,000/435