The Proservative Movement
From The Paulunteer Mailbox:
Hello everyone,
Initial interest group forming for the Proservative movement. Our platform is
based ENTIRELY on that of Ron Paul, and will continue to support him and all of
our grassroot efforts whether he runs Republican or not.Future actions include coordinating with various grassroots groups/websites,
pooling resources such as contact/voter registration lists, a one-stop shop for
tools needed to organize and mobilze grassroots efforts, including a text
message notification system and the ability to make phone calls for Ron Paul
FROM YOUR HOUSE (think call drive parties).Again, this is an effort to solidify our Ron Paul Revolution into a collective
movement, not just yet a third party. If and when that option presents itself,
“We’ll cross that bridge when we get there”.Patience is indeed a virtue, and our time has finally come.
Website:
http://www.proservative.usOpen Letter to Ron Paul Outlining our Proservative position:
http://www.proservative.us/dearronpaul.htm Please pass this on to friends, family of the Revolution.
Keep on keepin’ on,
–
Anthony Cinelli
American Patriot
The Proservative Movement
“The Ron Paul Revolution Marches On”
http://www.Proservative.usWebsite: http://www.proservative.us
Loading ...
I’m not completely on board with this. One of the stated principles of the Proservative movement is that it is pro-life. I lean towards being pro-choice, but I agree with Paul that the matter ought to be determined by people at the state level and not by federal judges. I wonder if other people share a similar viewpoint.
I also think the name proservative sounds kind of goofy. Its a meshing of words that ends up sounding like “preservative”. Isn’t there an actual word that can be used to encapsulate the message, such as “liberty” or “conservative” or “foundation” or something?
Yes Nathan,
I agree about the name. I still think the “Liberty” Party or the “Constitutional” Party get right to the point. Besides, people view being conservative in various ways - some think it is anti-progressive and will lead us backwards with old ideas. This is where I believe people are having a problem with concepts like the Gold standard and even the Constitution in general. It doesn’t appear to represent the future but rather a clinging to the past. In an age of technology, people want to feel they are making progress (progressive) as opposed to a “return” to something.
I know that conservatives DO feel that they want to hold on to the past in a sense. I think they are really trying to hold on to ideals that have either run their course or have been taken from us by the wealthy class through it’s influence on government. But the world is NOT 1776 and we need to show that it isn’t a return to the past it’s a return to ethics and wise stewardship that represents the people. How about the People’s party?
I agree that both parties are corrupt and do not follow ethical principles. We do need to distinguish Ron Paul’s platform as the ethical platform. If that appeals to conservatives - great. I do NOT think we need to start pandering to conservatives because they are NOT they only demographic in this country. To appeal to the people, you can’t tell them what they must do without or how you are superior to their belief system. It must be shown that this is about rational governance vs. corruption and abuse of powers.
IF we, the people, present this movement as a “Ron Paul” movement - prepare to be marginalized and mocked. Prepare to lose. We need MANY significant leaders to join us in supporting Ron Paul for President. We are way behind in this game as far as the media and the public are concerned. Turning this around is a major public relations endeavor. Just consider how involved it is to start a new party in less than three months and get it taken seriously. Every independent presidential candidate has lost or run out of money trying.
Still, the idea of a “third” party has come. But no more Greens or Libs, - they are old news and they have never accomplished anything truly significant that the public can recall. How about the New Conservative Party? Too close to Neo Conservative for me - but we need to stop thinking about SIDES - conservative vs. progressive - because you still leave out half the public. If this is primarily about ethics, sound money and a non-intervention foreign policy, then getting stuck on abortion issues, gay rights and such just muddy the water and keep others away. We have got to get focused on issues that affect us all rather than trying to satisfy one third of the nation.
Otherwise, most of what Mr. Cinelli proposes sounds rational (except the name). He also needs a better website.
I think we should put up a big tent to catch alot of cross-roads in. The notion of states’ rights seems very inclusive to me. Even if a person believes in higher taxes to fund many social programs, they are free to work towards that -at the STATE level. In fact, decentralized government seems like more of a container to pour ideologies into rather than an ideology itself. We have the resource of fifty laboratories in our country.
I think the main tenets of Dr. Paul’s philosophy are (a)adherence to the Constitution, (b)state level governance/small federal government, (c)foreign non-intervention, and (d) sound money. Of course, these principles tend to be interconnected and pretty much fall under the first one. I think the reason Paul’s message is so powerful on an intuitive level, and the reason that it attracts people from such diverse sub-cultural camps, is that it is based on a consistant and all cohesive foundation, and not simply a list of agenda points. Hopefully any organizing of Paul’s message will take that into account.
Thanks for the post, comments guys. Proservative is a very simple on “Conservative”, very easy for people to understand, identify. Many names for movements, parties end up being very “in-your-face” and end up losing support from people who don’t know what it’s all about, sounding somewhat militant to the uninformed.
The website is strictly a place holder, interest sign up right now…stay tuned.
I only understand the name because it was explained to me. Otherwise I’d think you were talking about jelly.
Its sort of an abstract “newspeak” kind of word, in my opinion. If what your trying to say is “Progressive Conservative”, then why not call it “Progressive Conservative”? If the American attention-span can’t handle two words, then I quit.
It sounds like a contradiction in terms: progressive / conservative???? I thought these were the opposite of each other. Since when have conservatives been progressive about anything? When are progressives conservative?
I still think we are missing the point by looking at polarities. Perhaps that is what you are attempting - to merge these two opposites? It’s unlikely to happen. They hate each other. How can we be free if we are required to subsidize anyone else? How can we take care of the segment of our population that needs help (sick, elderly, poverty…) if no one puts any money into these issues? We are at an impasse - and it works for the people at the top either way. As George Carlin has put it: It’s a big club - AND YOUR NOT IN IT.