Nice article. It looks like you're laying the foundation for something. Even if you're not, it never hurts to clarify terms and principles.

I really liked this, even though your ideas lacked a variety of sources/references.

Now as always, the thing we need to 'conserve' first is individual liberty. If we lose that everything else becomes meaningless.

Dave

Broken - depends on your meaning of it and if the economy and being known at the world's only "superpower" is what's most important.

Dave in #3 sez...
*Now as always, the thing we need to 'conserve' first is individual liberty. If we lose that everything else becomes meaningless.*

Quoted for Truth

now, reconcile that with justifying the administration violating the 4th Amendment by not bothering to get warrants...

just a Thought as to why we have a problem right now with exactly what i quoted

but the Quote IS still Truth

Excelsior?

Gonzo, please don't mistake Bush or his administration as conservative! They've drifted so far away, no true conservative would attempt to justify their actions.

well Jerry, there i would agree with you

but then again, i doubt you can name 5 people currently holding elected office in the GOP who woudl qualify by the standards of William Buckley, Adlai Stevenson or even George Will

hence the dilemma

oh yes, and you must realize there are major differences between sub-sects such as
social conservatives
fiscal conservatives
ideological conservatives

and 32 other flavors at Baskin Robbins...

many times i've Asked where the "real" conservatives are in today's politics

all i ever hear are crickets in response

Excelsior?

now, reconcile that with justifying the administration violating the 4th Amendment by not bothering to get warrants...

As I seem to keep saying over and over and over again with no impact at all, the fact that I can explain and understand the administration's position doesn't necessarily mean that I endorse it, just that I acknowledge that it's one way of looking at the situation.

but then again, i doubt you can name 5 people currently holding elected office in the GOP who woudl qualify by the standards of William Buckley, Adlai Stevenson or even George Will

I can name more than 5 who meet the Buckley standard and probably 10 times that many who meet the George Will standard. As for Stevenson, he was a Democrat not a Republican.

Here are 5 from Capitol Hill who meet the Buckley standard - Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, John Sunnunu, John Kyl and Lisa Murkowski. All folks I'd be proud to have represent me.

Dave

well, ya lost me with Sununu

but he might qualify, technically

Murkowski i don't know of at all...

no matter...none of them are in any position amongst the leadership for the GOP, so like most decent members, are marginalized at best

too bad, both Parties could really use a good enema

Excelsior?

gross.

the conservatives are holding onto something that works decently well, whereas the liberals take chances that something might work better. you get little to no gain if you fail to take risks.

Interesting to note it is the "conservative" Republicans that have been overhauling the status quo in America. Reagan overhauled taxes. Bush overhauled taxes, and all of our national security by creating the Dep. of Homeland Security. And arent conservatives the ones that want to overhaul that infamous court decision legalizing abortion - the status quo for the past few decades? And dont conservatives want to overhaul the SS program that has existed since FDR? And arent conservatives generally the ones that dont mind chopping down all the traditional forests for logging and completely altering the current environment? Liberals are the ones crying about rape of the environment and running around like chickens with their heads cut off yelling about how much the earth's climate is going to change. As far as i can tell liberals are embracing the status quo of the past decade more than conservatives have for the past 6 years.

Conservatism has nothing to do with its root word "conserve." The historical routes of the word conservative from the days of Metternich have long since faded.

Bambenek has an unnatural attraction to strawmen and fantasies about history, which is endemic among neocons. He takes a textbook description of conservatism--a variety that went nearly extinct some forty years ago--and lays claim to it as if the rest of us aren't clever enough to see through the thin facade.

Conservatives love limited government until "big" government suits their narrow purposes, such as when someone utters a "dirty" word on broadcast TV. The best picture of this hypocrisy was drawn by conservative reaction to the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District decision. All of a sudden, an actual conservative federal judge--a Bush appointee no less--was branded an "activist" because he decided the case on the merits of the evidence before him, and not on the basis of wingnut Biblical exegesis. The idea of "judicial activism" suddenly took on new meaning, in disturbingly Orwellian fashion.

Conservatives want to have their political--and social--cake and eat it too, it seems, invoking high-minded principles of conservation, all the while denying history and common sense. Neoconservatism is the politics of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

well, ya lost me with Sununu

but he might qualify, technically

you should take a look at his voting record. It's a
thing of beauty despite having less than a full term
in office so far.

Murkowski i don't know of at all...

She's the least impressive of the lot, but she seems well intentioned.

no matter...none of them are in any position amongst the leadership for the GOP, so like most decent members, are marginalized at best

They're all relatively new to their offices. Kyl has been there the longest and he's only in his second term. But all of them are on at least one major committee like Judiciary, Foreign Relations and Commerce.

too bad, both Parties could really use a good enema

IMO getting rid of Lieberman counts as an enema for the whole system.

Dave

i know Sununu's voting record... some of it is ok, some is shyte

remember, he is in the state next door to me... i've heard the speeches as well

it appears he suffers from degenerative syphillis infection of the brain, and someone has to help him with the drool problem

but i digress

if they can get Lieberman out, it's like 10,000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean...

a good start

but the Task is FAR from over, plenty of Dems need to go... but a HUGE swath of GOP stooges need to be tossed feet first into a wood chipper as well

big difference twixt us...

i'll toss in folks from both sides on Principle

Excelsior?

I agree with comment #1. Also I don't think that there is a conservative party in the US. I think that many romaniticize and manipulate the idea of being conservative or traditional but the Republican party is neither.

Wanting to keep what you like and twisting what you want to appear to be conservative is not really being a conservative. EX: "Intelligent Design" is not a conservative notion. Its a newly manufactured idea. Phone tapping by the government is not a traditional idea, neither is the "one nation under God" statement (1950's origin).

From an anthropological stand point, its always been the practice of the most powerful in society to claim a connection to the past, whether its the ancestors or the mythical characters. If you are connected to the ancestoral ideas, you are in some way cloe to God, is how that works. If you are closer to God than you have more authority.... sort of a scam.
Nothing new.

Liberalism and Conservatism are currently loosely thrown around. The Republicans did a good job of making the word "liberal" a dirty word. Most people don't really know what a liberal is. They just know that it is supposed to be BAD (perhaps a pot smoking tree hugger who wants everyone to be on welfare... something like that). However, that idea is changing with the aging of the boomers and the advant of GW (our great leader). Its somehow becoming more attractive to be a Liberal vs. anything that the Pres is affiliated with.

Is what people did in the past best?

Buying and selling Africans like cows for hundreds of years

Treating women like property and not letting them vote

Killing Native Americans cause they wouldn't give us their land

Marrying 13yr old girls to 40yr old men

Jim Crowe- Lynchings et al

Child labor

Smoking 5 packs a day

Esbestos or lead paint

Gas guzlers......oh wait, I finally get it. The Hummer thing is about being conservative.. in the middle of an oil crises and all... we all pay the price for conservatism. I get it!

Great article. Of course, as some of the comments suggest, many people are capable of missing the point completely...

Zet said:

"Intelligent Design" is not a conservative notion. Its a newly manufactured idea.

Of course I meant "biblical."

Conservatives seek to not start fixing what isn't broken.

as this article shows us, conservatives define change as 'fixing'.

Not everything that is changed is because someone thinks it's broken and needs to be fixed. Sometimes things are just fine, but upgrades, improvements and enhancements are sought all the time.

In a global marketplace, change is paramount, adaptability is key to staying on top. Conserving things 'as they are' is a flawed strategy to staying on top.

This article is flawed in that it attempts to associate conservatism with the dictionary sense of the verb conserve. Political conservatism rarely has anything to do with conservation. The author says:

One of the defining differences between conservatives and others is that when faced with an inadequate institution or policy, conservatives will tend towards cautious reform while others seek to recreate to wheel.

That is flat out wrong. The "conservatives" in America are the ones that want to overhaul/destroy:

1. The existing income tax rates.
2. The social security system.
3. Roe v Wade.
4. Existing methods of defending America. (ie creation of Dep. of Homeland Security). - Accomplished
5. Existing methods of wiretapping (ie dont need a warrant anymore). - Accomplished
6. The environment. - Accomplishing
7. The former government of Iraq and the creation of a new one. - Attempting
8. The UN. (appointment of anti-UN abassador to the UN)
9. Existing system of public education (privatize, not all conservatives)
10. U.S. oil reserves in Alaska. (use much of the last known U.S. oil reserves as a cheap solution to oil prices).

Liberals on the other hand want to:
1. Maintain 90s income tax rates that led to strongest economy in the world.
2. Keep the existing social security system with some fixing.
3. Keep Roe v Wade.
4. Too late.
5. Return to the traditional methods of wiretapping, ie YOU NEED A WARRANT.
6. Strengthen laws to CONSERVE the environment and U.S. resources.
7. Too late.
8. Participate in the TRADITIONAL governing body of international affairs.
9. Fix the existing, TRADITIONAL public education system. (origins in the 1890s)
10. Protect Alaskan ecosystem, preserve U.S. oil in Alaska for when it is more needed, and find other more effective, long term solutions to rising oil prices.

I recognize these are broad generalizations, but they should adequately serve to debunk the author's myth that conservatives favor "cautious reform" and liberals "seek to recreate the wheel."

There are two solutions to clear up who are the conservatives in America. We can

1. Recognize the political meaning of a conservative has nothing to do with the verb "to conserve."

OR

2. Recognize that the "conservatives" in America are not in fact conservatives, that we are a nation of discontents, and that due to my above outlined examples, liberals are in fact more conservative than the Republican Party.

#2 is due to the fact that the past decade was dominated by policies that today's liberals favor. Liberals want to preserve the status quo of the 90s, while conservatives want to preserve the status quo of the 80s (generalization). Since neither of these are the actual status quo, neither conservatives nor liberals want to preserve the status quo. When you are picking which status quo you want to preserve and defining the status quo yourself, it amounts to no more than picking and chosing the things you like, something that requires none of the author's romanticization.

What is is a time-honored conservative practice is the deceit inherent in the revisionism that accompanies attempts to make the Constitution say what they want it to say.

And, of course, liberals never do that.

#23 is an excellent example of how the terms Liberal and Conservative are totally misused in America today.

Dave

Wait are you saying I misuse them or I do a good job pointing out how they are misused? Sorry I was confused...

Jim Wynne:

I understand that the foundations for "Intelligent Design" go as far back as Cicero however the compilation that is now being taught in our school systems as science is a new one.

PETI you misuse them in the customary way, and in doing so in combination with your listing of positions you demonstrate perfectly how badly they are misused.

Conservatism isn't even a political philosophy, and while Liberalism is a political philosophy, what we apply the term to here in America isn't Liberalism. And they certainly aren't opposites.

Here, I'll run through your points and illustrate.

The "conservatives" in America are the ones that want to overhaul/destroy:

You wisely put 'conservatives' in quotes. You should do the same with Liberal.

1. The existing income tax rates.

This is a Liberal position because taxes are by nature illiberal as they are the taking of propertty by the state.

2. The social security system.

Eliminating the social security system is politically liberal, because the system puts government in the role of caring for individuals rather than giving them the autonomy to care for themselves.

3. Roe v Wade.

Eliminating Roe v. Wade could be considered conservative because it's a desire to move back to the way things were in the 1950s. Aside from that it's a moral rather than a political issue, and the liberal position should be to leave that moral decision up to individuals.

4. Existing methods of defending America. (ie creation of Dep. of Homeland Security). - Accomplished

This is just pure statism or bureaucratism. It's certainly not Liberal or Conservative.

5. Existing methods of wiretapping (ie dont need a warrant anymore). - Accomplished

Clearly neither Conservative or Liberal. Again, a statist position.

6. The environment. - Accomplishing

This is too broad a topic. Conservatives want to preserve the environment, or even turn back industrial progress. Liberals traditionally idolize the environment. I suppose opposition to the environment could be a Plutocratic position.

7. The former government of Iraq and the creation of a new one. - Attempting

A misguided Liberal position. Some Liberals believe that part of their responsibility is to spread liberalism throughout the world. Traditionally American liberalism has not believed in this.

8. The UN. (appointment of anti-UN abassador to the UN)

Now that's just fun. It's also a Liberal position, because the UN is an inherently illiberal organization.

9. Existing system of public education (privatize, not all conservatives)

Another Liberal position. Anything which puts control of their kids education in the hands of parents rather than bureaucrats is a Liberal position. The Liberals who started our school system did not have our current state-run system in mind and it would outrage them.

10. U.S. oil reserves in Alaska. (use much of the last known U.S. oil reserves as a cheap solution to oil prices).

The ANWR oil is not our last known reserve, not cheap, and not a solution to our oil crisis. That aside, this is more of a Plutocratic position.

So what you call Conservatives here are actually Liberal Plutocrats.

Liberals on the other hand want to:
1. Maintain 90s income tax rates that led to strongest economy in the world.

And since an income tax runs directly counter to Liberalism - and is in fact one of the main issues on which Liberals have historically defined themselves, this is a Conservative position. Plus they believe taxes should be used to redistribute wealth, so it's a socialist position.

2. Keep the existing social security system with some fixing.

Supporting a socialistic system of wealth redistribution.

3. Keep Roe v Wade.

Debatable as again it's a moral rather than political issue. I guess Roe v. Wade leaves the decision to the individual so this actually is a Liberal Position.

4. Too late.

But again, this is just growing the bureaucracy, and the American Left always supports that.

5. Return to the traditional methods of wiretapping, ie YOU NEED A WARRANT.

A Liberal position up to a point. A true Liberal wouldn't support eavesdropping even with a warrant.

6. Strengthen laws to CONSERVE the environment and U.S. resources.

A liberal position except that the conserving interferes with the freedom of individuals and businesses, so it's not really liberal. I guess I'll give you that this is a conservative position.

7. Too late.

The left DOES have a position on this, which is to abandon the people of Iraq, which is not based on political philosophy but rather political opportunism.

8. Participate in the TRADITIONAL governing body of international affairs.

Calling the UN traditional is a bit much. This isn't a conservative position, it's an internationalist position. The desire to give up state sovereignty to a larger more socialistic state isn't Liberal or Conservative. I'd argue that it's statist/socialist.

9. Fix the existing, TRADITIONAL public education system. (origins in the 1890s)

Actually it originated in the 1830s, and a true traditionalist would want to move back to the community school model of that era, not the state indoctrination model of the 20th century. This position is unarguably statist/socialist.

10. Protect Alaskan ecosystem, preserve U.S. oil in Alaska for when it is more needed, and find other more effective, long term solutions to rising oil prices.

Which is really all being done solely because they oppose business and the oil business in particular. ANWR drilling doesn't threaten the ecosystem in any meaningful way, so that argument's a non-starter. This is basically a socialist/statist position.

So what we have in the American left is Conservative/Statist Socialism, and certainly not Liberalism.

The opposite of Conservative is Progressive.
The opposite of Liberal is Authoritarian (or statist)

There really are three axis which ought to be considered when looking at our political parties.

There's political philosophy (liberal vs. authoritarian), moral philosophy (religious vs. humanist) and principles of governing (conservative or status quo vs. progressive or experimental or maybe even radical).

A lot of your discussion above is muddied by the way that moral issues have gotten mixed into politics and labeled conservative just because they're judeo-christian.

Dave

Dave 28,

WOW! Really good. I learned a lot from that. NO sarcasm, I mean it.

Another good point Dave, learned some too. Another example of why trying to associate todays "conservatives" with conserving is vain.

And thank you for pointing out I should have put liberal in quotes as well, I fully intended to put it in quotes like I put conservative in quotes.

I was quite aware that the group I classified as liberals has little to do with the political philosophy of liberalism associated with the French Revolution and "a celebration of individualism." Obviously any semblance of a SS system or welfare would imply individuals are to incompetent to take care of themselves which is not at all a liberal philosophy.

But for the purpose of a **simplified** discussion to debunk Bambenek's theory about today's conservatives tending to conserve and liberals tending "to recreate the wheel," I stuck to the groups commonly referred to as "conservatives" and "liberals."

It seemed to me he was associating what are commonly referred to as conservatives today with the verb "to conserve."

Either way his characterization of liberals as those who want "to recreate the wheel," is flat out wrong. Today's "liberals" dont want to recreate the wheel any more than today's "conservatives" do, which was my original point. The political philosophy of liberalism also has nothing to do with "recreating the wheel," as you point out.

"One of the defining differences between conservatives and others is that when faced with an inadequate institution or policy, conservatives will tend towards cautious reform while others seek to recreate to wheel."

Not entirely.
Most of what moves conservatsm out of there 'dogmatic slumbers' is a healthy dose of liberalism. Slavery, emancipation, civil rights, depression era economics all were moved not by conservatives being cautious, but by others forcing the issues that get the conservatives to move at all.
The slow cautious moves that conservatives are so known for are usually the regrasping of power that they feel slipping through their hands.
Same as it ever was.

There are many ways to define conservative, I believe the most important however, is "to avoid excess."

We should apply this to Government as an entity, the taxes that it levies, the number of employees and social programs that it puts forth and its dealings with foreign nations.

In all of these areas we should focus on avoiding excess. Excess in government funded social programs leads to excesses in taxes. These first two may lead the government to lead to excesses in dealings with foreign governments.

Stepping back we should focus on this, the key meaning of Conservatism.

Conservative and liberal should be avoided because they've lost all meaning and become nothing but perjorative labels.

There is no Conservative party in the U.S.

What we currently have is a party wich has spun its way into oblivion. The Republicans under Newt's leadership decided to manipulate the American public with soft rhetoric. Understanding that the majority do not read and that we are transported by the strongest media images of the day, they set out to propagandize in a revolutionary way. They developed a network of spin, Rush played along and the Reverends couldn't resist the publicity so they were sucked in. What resulted was a zelous population with strong convictions about NOTHING. It was like taking candy from a baby. The Republicans played bait and switch with ideas and values, used smoking mirrors and code words to envoke fear, hatred and support. The truth is they were talking about NOTHING. The plan backfired. As a result the Republicans have no real ideology any more. They talked themselves out of any real stance. They just want to be in power. They stand for nothing and do nothing meaningful. The politicians are now forced to vote for the stupid ideas that they said that they support. We are in the war right now because they talked tough so they had to back it up. Even the Democrats were scared not to be tough talking, postering, numbheads else they would be called Eastern Ivy League Liberals (meaning smart... god forbid)

Lumpy in 33 sez...
*Conservative and liberal should be avoided because they've lost all meaning and become nothing but perjorative labels.*

Quoted for Truth

Excelsior?

As much as I hate to participate in comments anymore, this thread was just too silly.

Perhaps my intent here is unclear, so let me specify.

I couldn't care less, for the purpose of this feature, what other people who call themselves conservative are doing. Not at all, and it's wholly irrelevant.

I'm trying to build a coherent political philosophy based on what I think conservatives SHOULD stand for. Bring in what Bush is doing is stupid and besides the point... even skipping past the fact that Bush is not a conservative anyway.

You'll find much that the GOP does against what I am advocating, that doesn't disprove anything... well except the attempts to simply disregard me as a Republican shill, which the small minds here will do anyway.

Excelsior?

i don't think anyone called you a shill here, John...

quite the Contrary... good for you for attempting to define your Terms

now, am i supposed to do a drive by Don Rickles here?

nah....

[note to self: Self, send the lawyers after John fer tring to steal the tagline i stole]

Excelsior?

We're a nation of discontents, John, there are *nearly* no true conservatives.

As Margaret Thatcher famously said, sometimes in order to be a conservative you have to be a radical. If there is a sharp break with tradition, the conservative would support a sharp break back again. That constitutes no contradiction.

Intellectual conservatism is sometimes called "the opposite of ideology". It's a reluctance to pursue any radical change. Intellectual conservatism is different from American political conservatism, which is different from the Republican Party.

As an example, take the most radical policy initiative in recent years, the expansion of Medicare. That was neither intellectually conservative nor politically conservative. It was politically expedient, but radical. The true conservative would support the radical step of discontinuing the plan.

If you want the discussion to go from confusing to insane, let's add European conservatism into the mix. That could mean anything from free markets to monarchy to a national religion.

Was this article entitled "Please Define Conservative in Your Own Words" or something? Sheesh.

pleaseexcusetheinteruption12-

Well, if you had actually noticed, this is a series, and yes, that's exactly what it is... it's me defining a political ideology that I label as "21st Century Conservatism".

Baronius-

Because people mean so many different things, that's why I'm defining what *I* mean with this series.

The article is obviously your definition of conservatism. My hypothetical title is meant in reference to the flurry of others offerring their own personal opinions on the definition of conservatism.

I see a big problem with the Conservative aproach as defined.


America is a very young country. We have had a lot of reform within our short lifespan. These reforms have resulted in the current structure of our society... the one that we are so proud of. The problem is, when one harkens back to the past for answers to solve todays challanges, one is bound to run into some problems because the past worked because not everyone in our society was taken into account when making those policies. We had severe race, gender, labor, environmental discounts which made many things possible in our past. The policies of the past worked because so many could say nothing if they didn't like them or even if they were hurt by them.

In the late 80's the conservatives started using the phrase political correctness when people of various groups started screaming fowl when policy and societal behaviors infringed on the rights and ideals of their group. In the past, these groups had no say so there was nothing to complain about. Conservatives took it that the Liberals are getting more and more whinny when the truth was that people who didn't have a voice in the past could now say "OUCH", when it hurts.

Conservatives pine for the good old days when they were not so good for most Americans. Conserving most of the past would make America unAmerican. America would resemble the societies that we preach to about their need to move towards democracy.

Side note: Jesus Christ was one of the most radical figures in history.

Zet, your definition of conservatism is innacurate, self-serving and mostly just an attack on what you think conservatives believe in.

As self-defined in the most positive way, Conservatives in America could most accurately be called governemental minimalists who believe that over the years the government and the body of law have been unnecessarily added to and augmented. They want to strip away the layers of garbage and go back to an idealized time when law and government were simpler, more direct and more representative of the people.

They would counter your argument by saying that in the past all of the people who were not specifically disenfranchised were better and more directly represented. They would preserve the steps taken to broaden the franchise, while getting rid of all of the unnecessary and intrusive government rules and regulations which have come along in the last 50 or 100 years.

As practically applied this means that women and minorities keep the right to vote and other basic equalizing civil rights, they just lose any special favoritism or compensatory priveleges they've gained which set them above other citizens.

Dave

Disdain for unfettered bureaucracy ("big government") is indeed a conservative notion, but one that's certainly not exclusive to "conservatives." Therein lies the confusion. I can, if you like, cite hundreds of ridiculous regulations, statutes and ordinances of the past two centuries, many of which are still on the books, that would meet with the gleeful approval of neocons, but serve no useful modern purpose. Conservatives love to make laws and regulations, and they love activist judges, and they love executive powers that make a mockery of checks and balances. Of course, they love all of that until something or someone threatens to takes something away that they hold dear, even though the taking away is done in the name of the greater good of society. Then, and only then, Big Government is evil.

No one gives a flying fack what Bambenek thinks conservatism should be. Conservatism is the politics of selfishness.

Dave Nalle

I gave no definition of what conservatism is. I was responding to the article and how it defines a conservative.

However, you miss the point. The simplicity of the past existed because there were less voices to be considered. Looking at world politics, in countries that are the most divers, it is impossible to apply a non complex system to govern a complex make up. In a collaboration such as marriage it is easy to see how order and stubility can be skewd because of the divers perspectives that are involved. We are a complicated mix of people. In order for EVERYONE to be engaged in society, complex solutions will HAVE to be applied. EASY is not the most affective method and in the end, it's not the most simple actually. I realise that my comments don't sound folksy (for some reason folksy has been interpreted as wise) but they are lucid.

Currently there is NOTHING in wage comparisons and unemployment numbers which would suggest that that White males are not still experiencing a prefered status in our society. At every measure of social status, White males are at the top. It isn't because they are innately superior. The illusion of preference for minorities and White women is another meaningless and emotion political ploy which has NO real substance. It is a fantasy.

Again, the conservative aproach is established to support what is most beneficial for the privaleged in society. Please see #17 also. Offcourse those who benefited the most would want things to go back to when it was easier to attain and maintain power. Now THAT is simple to understand.

Jim Wynne

Conservatives claim to have disdain for big government. What they really have a distaste for is regulation and accountability. They dislike systems which give everyone equal footing. They support the most punitive measures for groups that they are not affiliated with. Those punitive measures always require beaurocacy. Its been shown that government grows substantially under a "conservative" leadership.

What we conclude is there are no real conservatives or at best, very few conservatives.

Zet-

If you want to bring Jesus Christ into this fine.

Part of the mission Jesus came with was to deshackle the people from the excessive legalism of the Pharisees and Scribes. In that sense, Jesus tried to strip unneccessary regulation and laws.

By your own definitions, Jesus is a conservative.

Now, to get past the banalaties...

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but change isn't impossible, nor is radical change. It should be rare, cautious, and necessary. Hence why I said getting rid of slavery was fine, the revolution was fine and so on. Yes, we are a young nation, but we didn't invent our system of governance out of this air... you can point to many philosophers that we drew from. There influence counts for something, which is exactly the point.

There would be no revolution without the body of knowledge that the Founders stood on from previous generations.

Zet #47:

Your entire post is nothing but sweeping generalizations and personal opinions. You present absolutely no evidence to back up what you allege.

As an argument for debate, your post is worthless. It's nothing but unsubstantiated conservative bashing, and doesn't even accomplish that with authority.

John, sorry about the digression. The point of my post #39 was to address Peti. I applaud your efforts to clarify the word "conservative".

Peti, I don't think that the many definitions offered here are that far apart. You've mentioned conservation a couple of times. There's a sense of preserving the past among family farms. You don't often hear the ideas articulated, but they include:

- care for animals, rather than the cruel conditions of the industrial farm.
- preservation of the land.
- personal independence.

There is a natural connection between conservation and conservatism, even if the leftward edge of the environmental movement doesn't see it.

This is a shortened list of the definitions of conservatism we have seen so far:

Zet - conservative: opposite of left-wing, a favoring of the priveleged.

John Bamenek - conservatism: the tendency to only promote slow, necessary reform w/o radical change

Jim Wynne- conservatism: the politics of selfishness veiled by a disdain for big govt

Dave Nalle- conservative: govt minimalist

Baronius: intellectual conservatism: reluctance to pursue change
political conservatism: go back to the
past

misterrosewater- conservatism: to avoid excess

gonzo marx & lumpy - conservative: no meaning anymore (pejorative labels)

Me: conservatism: the desire to preserve the status quo, most useful in the days of Metternich as a term for describing opposition to industrialization

Since the "conservatives" were keenly unhappy with the 90s status quo under Clinton, I would claim none of them are conservatives.

Because we are largely a nation of discontents, I would argue everyone wants change in one direction or another and that therefor there are no true conservatives.

Im not quite sure how Dave and several others are fitting govt minimalist into the definition of conservative. A 1920s conservative might have been a govt minimalist. I would appreciate if Dave or someone else attempted to explain how historically being a govt minimalist has fit into the definition of a conservative.

Conservatives claim to have disdain for big government. What they really have a distaste for is regulation and accountability. They dislike systems which give everyone equal footing. They support the most punitive measures for groups that they are not affiliated with. Those punitive measures always require beaurocacy. Its been shown that government grows substantially under a "conservative" leadership.


Zet, again you define conservativism as its opponents would define it. What you have here is a smear of conservatism, not a definition of it which anyone who believes in it would recognize.

Dave

Im not quite sure how Dave and several others are fitting govt minimalist into the definition of conservative. A 1920s conservative might have been a govt minimalist. I would appreciate if Dave or someone else attempted to explain how historically being a govt minimalist has fit into the definition of a conservative.

I was only trying to define conservative as American conservatives define it today. They lay claim to government minimalism with a vengeance, even though they seem not to follow through on it. This is a legacy from Liberalism, which really does believe in minimal government, and ground they can stake out because the Democrats - historically the real conservative party as both I and Zet have described it - have been for big government.

Dave

I never said no radical change, I said rarely is it necessary. Generally radical change is an imposition of norms on people by elites. Say, like the USSR, or China.

Many of your definitions are not imcompatible with what I have said in a previous post... this is only one post in a series. Dave would probably be most pleased when I start talking about subsidiary.

John in #54 sez...
*Generally radical change is an imposition of norms on people by elites. Say, like the USSR, or China.*

or the so-called *Moral Majority*

there, fixT

glad ya help

Excelsior?

Fundamentalist Islamic states are simply trying to preserve the traditions that have kept their ruling class in power for a long time.

Is tradition always good? Even if it "works"?

I didn't say it couldn't go "both ways", no did I, Gonzo?

Bryan-

I don't know how many times I need to repeat the answer to this question... sometimes radical change **IS** necessary. However, just because there are extreme cases doesn't mean that the answer to every little petty concern should be revolution.

And just because Fundamentalist Islamic states have some very bad things associated with them, I would not characterize them as 100% wrong and in need of total cleansing. Things fixed, absolutely, dissolved completely, I'm not quite there.

Which is exactly my point. We retain the good from the past and move forward. Radical change or revolutionary change tends to disregard the bad AND the good. Something things require reform instead of razing. A conservative knows the difference.

of course you didn't John... i wasn't in any way "attacking" your position

merely adding my 2 cents to it in order to expand and expound upon a Point, and it appears you Understand it completely...

Excelsior?

Fair enough...

Excelsior?

;)

"Conservativism" as applied to most self-described conservatives in the United States is something of a misnomer. The prevailing ideology of the Republican Party is more accurately described as a combination of 19th century xenophobic know-nothingism with elements of fascism and a sycophantic fellating of the wealthy, topped off with meaningless sops to easily manipulated morons (i.e., fundamentalist Chritians.) To suggest that there is a coherent ideology supporting this convenient alliance of CEOs, Walmart shoppers, and pyschopaths is laughable. But keep trying.

Umm, the exercise is defining Conservatism, not The prevailing ideology of the Republican Party.

Where in the original article did you see the word "Republican"?

5D, you're committing the same error that Zet did. You're attempting to define conservatism and in your case also the GOP with your own perjorative definition rather than from their perspective or at least a neutral one. You're just putting up a littany of what you think is evil about the GOP and saying that that is the modern definition of conservatism, when it certainly isn't.

Dave

Point well taken. There may be three people in whole country who are true conservatives according to any reasoned definition of the term. I was just trying to make that clear. I guess I'm still a little bitter about the bitches who turned liberal into a pejorative term. In my opinion Goldwater was reasoned conservative. He may have been the last real one of consequence. Reagan was not despite the anti-government gloss he put on everything.

5D, by an objective definition of the term Goldwater was a Liberal - certainly by the end of his career he couldn't be classed as anything else.

Dave

Goldwater a liberal? To which liberal views of his are you referring?

Real ones, 5D. Liberalism as it has always been defined, not the twisted use to which the American left has perverted it or the perjorative way the right uses it.

Goldwater supported gays in the military, civil rights, opposed the religious right and was pro choice. He once said "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

Dave

Dave Nalle:

I was commenting on the ACTIONS of conservatives not on conservatism.

I am a proponent of conservatism in many areas. I am not a conservative.

In my persona and personal life in general, I am conservative but I don't attach myself with The Conservatives because I don't buy the fact that they are really conservative. They are oportunists in most cases, who use the cloak of being cautious and conservative as a tool to gain a perception of being more dignified and therefore more responsible. They are not and have not been. They have never wanted us to take responsibility for ANYthing and therefore have not wanted America to be honorable in its engaments with its citizens. They have always been the last to accept the humanity of others. Their caution has always been attached to money, their personal atonomy (regarding the environment and nature in general) and to overseeing other's behavior. I don't see that as conservatism. I see that as spoiled and selfish.

There are very few true conservatives still left. To them I tip my hat.

Dave Nalle and 5D:

Dave you are correct about my comments in that I am speaking to what those who consider themselves to be consertive demonstrate.

The truth about conservatism is that it is nearly impossible to practice in todays climate. It is actually a system which supports balance, moderation with a goal of acheiving accord in society. By its nature however, it doesn't present itself to having objectives.

Many suggest as I do that conservativism can't be a political ideology. It is a frame of mind.

By no means can a Newt, Helms, Regan or Chaney call himself a conservative. These are revolutionaries.

Democracy comes out of abstract thought and not tradition. Democracy speaks to equality and diversity. It is an untested experiment. We have nothing in human history to support the idea that democracy works, yet we are fully engaging in this experiment. By its nature it doesn't permit for conservatism. It suggests flexibility and a constant reform which is forced by the majority.

Conservatism can't be practiced as a political ideology in today's context. Hence the pervers monipulation of the concept.

John Bambenek

Off course all that we are is derived from the past. We evolve and there is no spontaneous generation.

Using your own definition, deshackling or striping any existing system is not conserving the system....

You make my point. It is nearly impossible to be conservative in political ideology. You can not support reform and yet be about conserving the system. Also conservatism would have to be fluid in that whatever system that has been in place for a period of time would be the system to conserve. Therefore can we have such a thing as a conservative ideology?

We can have a conservative mindset but never a conservative ideology.

Lets find another word for those who support the values that we have attributed to conservatives. I think it's rather deceiving to claim conservativeness when you do desire change and revolution. It only sounds as though one is trying to claim high mindedness, and reasonability when claiming to be conservative. The truth is one just wants their way just like everyone else.

I think what your trying to say Zet is yesterday's revolutionaries are today's conservatives, a point I was trying to make also.

In other words, Bush was a revolutionary when he ran in 2000, but now that he has implemented much of his policy he is a conservative.

Come again, PETI? Bush has implemented almost none of the revolutionary things he promised us. This is why he's a failure.

Dave

Dave N

Bush is a failure only if he intended to implement the revolutionary things he promised. Some suggest that this administration came in with an agenda. The campaign with its promises was simply a hurtle to be overcome in order to get to the thrown so that the real goals could be enforced.

I am suprised that you were able to decipher a clear agenda from the ramblings of our then conservative candidate. I have to admit, after one endures the initial shock of the cringe filled moments in the pres' speeches, they become quite entertaining. However, most of the time I cant make it past those iky awkward moments. I end up flushed (in my solitude) and I quickly switch the station to something else just to regain my composure and to get rid of the tingles of embarrasment with seem to take over my entire body.

Well he got his tax cuts, and his wars, and his environmental policy...if there were any other reasonable things he wanted he could have gotten them passed in his first term, when there were large GOP majorities in Congress that would follow him anywhere.

PETI

What I am saying is that conservatism is not a political ideology. It is a frame of mind or an aproach.

I find it interesting that we have actually coined the phrase radical conservatives. Huh? Also used is "conservative extremist" huh? Radical right wing I understand. Right wing extremist I get....

Bambenek: "...I'm trying to build a coherent political philosophy based on what I think conservatives SHOULD stand for."

Funny, your "essay" is little more than a series of simplistic generalities dressed up in a psuedo-intellectual language that sounds like something a high school kid would write for a cheesy contest.

When you finally do get to the 'money-shot', it's an example about Satan Incarnate/Ted Kennedy and HMOs.

==========

And as comment #23 points out, contemporary [Bush/neocon] Conservativism is the most RADICAL, reactionary political philosophy in American history.


PS: re -- the final bit about America being the strongest economy and the only superpower in the world -- I just wanna point out that the flag you're waving is MADE IN CHINA.

Shark sez...
*I just wanna point out that the flag you're waving is MADE IN CHINA.*

Quoted for Truth

and Irony....

good ta *see* ya around Shark...ya were missed
(usually by epileptic gunmen, but that's not important right now)

Excelsior?

I have to point out that the flag I bought at Home Depot prominently displays a 'Made in America' tag.

Dave

Well he got his tax cuts

Bush promised tax REFORM, not just cuts. The cuts were a stopgap, and while he got them, he was unable to get anywhere with reform.

, and his wars,

I'd hardly call the wars part of his campaign promises. If anything the wars have interfered with accomplishing his stated goals.

and his environmental policy

I give him credit for achieving a fair amount in that area, but not drilling in ANWR, sadly.

...if there were any other reasonable things he wanted he could have gotten them passed in his first term, when there were large GOP majorities in Congress that would follow him anywhere.

Except that he tried and failed with Social Security reform and instead they passed the nightmare disaster that is the Medicaire Prescription Drug Benefit.

Dave

the rare exception, Dave...

hell, even some of our military uniform's components come from outside fo the US sources

but that's a whole 'nother bitch of mine

silly me, but i think that as much as possible, the money our government spends should be with American companies and pay American workers...

weird, i know...

but i'm silly like that

Excelsior?

silly me, but i think that as much as possible, the money our government spends should be with American companies and pay American workers...

That used to be THE LAW. When did it change? Who changed it(and how)?

Couldn't agree with you more, gonzo. That sucks.

Clavos, I think that law only applies when there are US suppliers. There are some things for which there are no sources within the US.

Dave

ummm..#82 is partially correct

there are times when the foreign agent has one the bid...

somethings the military used to do itself, but now has contracted out

and due to market dumping and other factos we are all aware of, some capabilities for producing Items have been shut down, or sent offshore... o r just plain beat for price by labor practices/costs in some overseas countries

a simple example: parts for military aircraft
now, you can't tell em that american avionics companies can't provide anything needed.. but there are CRITICAL sub-systems being manufactured and imported from China..

read that last again... crucial military weapons systems/sub-systems/components being made by a strategic Rival (after all China IS a form of communist government, and the State owns at least a piece of every company in it)

this is not only ridiculous fiscal Policy, but fucking disasterous foreign Policy and just plain stupid when it comes to the realm of military Logistics and overall strategy and capability

so.. like the "argument" that ONLY a PMF (private military force) like KBR can provide "some services" is just pure bullshit...

in many cases the goods and/or services provided to the military come as just business, rather than as logistics... and the military was designed to take care of most of this Itself... but it has been steadily "privatized" to it's detriment for years...

add to that that you can't honestly tell me you don't think that with the inflated prices the US government offers, that just about any good or service, from paperclips to nuclear submarines, wouldn't be pumped out by american business if not for the pork barel corruption rampant in the procurement process?

like Safavian...

but i digress...

Excelsior?

Could someone please explain what it is about "conservatives" and th flag. Especially when its not the 4th or a parade of some sort. Why wave the flag in your own country when there is no celebration. Many do it in such a defiant way as if they are in a battle of some sort or as if everyone hates America and they need to make a stand.

Also why do vets say that they fought for the flag?? No they didn't.

I just don't get the flag thing. Everyone has one. Some body made it up, drew the pattern and colored it in. It is not created by some supernatural force.

Please help me understand the hoopla.

Zet, I won't bore you with a rehash of the symbolism of the flag; I'm sure plenty of your teachers and others have said it all to you before.

BUT...

Also why do vets say that they fought for the flag?? No they didn't.

That's not your call. If a vet says he or she fought for the flag, then that's how they view their service, which is a purely personal choice.

Many vets actually feel that that is exactly what they did--are they wrong? No--it's a matter of perception.

This is off-subject, but since we're talking about the flag, maybe we can tie it into the original conversation.

There are military benefits to displaying the flag. The soldier knows who to shoot at; the general can assess his troops' positions. But it serves an additional purpose. The flag improves morale.

Clavos articulates the conservative mindset in post #85. We should be careful in trying to "correct" lessons learned through human experience. If the flag inspires troops, we shouldn't tamper with it (for example, by sending troops into battle wearing UN patches).

In military life, dated thinking will get you killed. It'd be crazy to march in formation across the Iraqi desert, halberds and shields at the ready. So there is no "pure" conservatism. But a healthy respect for history can save a person from making stupid mistakes.

"I have to point out that the flag I bought at Home Depot prominently displays a 'Made in America' tag.

Dave"

Probably made in the Mariannas by low-paid workers. Tom Delay got a special dispensation allowing them to apply the "Made In America" label.

Let's hope, Bliff. Maybe slave labor in Guam.

I certainly want workers in the 48 continental states to have better paying jobs than making flags.

Dave

Dave #79, who gives a shit what he said in his campaign? And I guess you're still laboring under the delusion he didnt have Iraq in mind long before he was elected. And wrt his environmental policy.. his environmental policy is EXACTLY what he wants. What Congress wont approve, he has illegally instructed the EPA to perform (or in most cases, not perform) in direct violation of the standards Congress has approved. And yes, you're right, he didnt get his SS. And so what if he didnt get the tax reforms he wanted, he got the tax cuts he wanted which are much more significant in who pays how much in taxes.

So I think it's fair to say he has implemented *much,* not all, of the policy he wants.

Dave 88:

You got something against Hawaiians and Alaskans? :>)

re: Baronius on the flag in #86 -- "There are military benefits to displaying the flag. The soldier knows who to shoot at; the general can assess his troops' positions. But it serves an additional purpose. The flag improves morale."

Jeesus! Do you people ever read what you fucking write?

Seriously, Baronius, you and Bambineck are in a close race to see who can make the most silly, naive, simplistic statements meant to sound profound.

*I'd be shocked if you could come up with an astute, original thought.



*One main reason I don't spend much time around here anymore: too many young punks who just discovered their brains and decided to take 'em out and play with 'em in fucking public.

Listen, kids:

Stating simplistic generalities,
rewording truisms,
and/or
accessorising a verbal turd-sandwich
with a cheap tuxedo from Roget's Thesaurus
does not automatically make an original, creative thought.It's




PS: Hey Nalle, that Iraq thing is still goin' real swell, eh? Gimme a call when "Mission's Accomplished"!

ahahahahahahaha.

I'm glad I do not define myself as a conservative of any variety (I used to be a conservative Jew).

I might be attracted to seriously involve myself in this thread and attempt an original thought and find myself stating simplistic generalities, rewording truisms, and/or accessorising a verbal turd-sandwich with a cheap tuxedo from Roget's Thesaurus.

By the way, how much does a cheap tuxedo from Roget's Thesauras rent for these days?

Either people are responding to what other people are saying, or they simply didn't read what I had to say.

Conservative does NOT mean no change. It does NOT mean clinging to outmoded ideas.

It DOES mean preserving what works and what is good in social institutions and ideas. It DOES mean developing in areas where there are gaps. It DOES mean rejecting institutions (or more likely portions of them) that are bad.

Ending slavery and the American revolution would not be reviled by conservatives. We simply want to be sure that radical change as opposed to reform is the only path forward.

John defines for us,

"Conservative does NOT mean no change. It does NOT mean clinging to outmoded ideas.

It DOES mean preserving what works and what is good in social institutions and ideas. It DOES mean developing in areas where there are gaps. It DOES mean rejecting institutions (or more likely portions of them) that are bad."

John, we all know that - even socialists like me know that.

So?

If you understood that, you wouldn't be a socialist.

Socialists are just people who are honest about wanting the government to provide for them. Capitalists want the government to provide for them while pretending they did it all for themselves.

If socialism works, he can be a conservative socialist, intent on preserving the institutions that make socialism work so well in his opinion.

Likewise if he found himself in a minimalist govt capitalist state that was functioning brilliantly, he may want to preserve those institutions.

Conservatism has nothing in it inherently opposed to socialism.

Your assertion that it does oppose socialism, is part of my ongoing assertion that you are trying to associate the historic definition of conservatism with modern "conservatives."

If anything all your article does is show how hypocritical the GOP is by making the unfounded assertion they are conservatives. They are by in large right wing christians who would as soon favor fascism as small govt if it suited them.

If anything all your article does is show how hypocritical the GOP is by making the unfounded assertion they are conservatives. They are by in large right wing christians who would as soon favor fascism as small govt if it suited them.

A little hyperbolic (not all Republicans are right wing Christians by a long shot; not even most are), but the GOP IS anything but conservative these days.

Clavos-

You will find no argument here.

Others-

Socialism can be empirically proven to NOT work.

Mr Bambenek: I'd like to see such proof. Got any references to where I might find it?

John..please show your work about "socialism"

neither the USSR nor China are "socialist" by definition of their actual, and not theoretical, forms of governance... same with Cuba...

these are simple oligarchy's set in a dictatorship mode of totalitarianism

closest you have to actual "socialism" are the hybrid governments of scandanavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Fniland, Denmark, Holland)

and looking at their numbers, it seems to work ok for them

does that mean the same would work for the US? i doubt it...

does that exculde the two types learning frmo each other, both good and bad?

i would hope not... learning is good, eh?

just some Thoughts...

Excelsior?

PETI: Please break your screen name up into individual words. It is too long for the site design to contain.

Of course China or the USSR isn't socialist, that's communist which is obviously different, but in the same neighborhood of thought.

We could talk about the incentive problem (i.e. people will not work as hard when the fruit of their labor goes to feed other people's family). I'm wondering why you skip past other socialist-like countries such as France and Germany.

In comparing the two, what means are we using for comparison? I'm not hemming and hawing, but if we are going to have a discussion and not talk past each other, we need to agree on the terms of discussion first. Otherwise it turns out little different than cable news discussion programs where two parties talk past each other beating on each other with talking points. And we all get no where.

So how do you propose we compare the governments?

well, i would think there are a few Objective ways...

for the Gov't itself... look at the balance sheet, just like you would for your household

for the People of said nations, you can begin with
education levels
standard of living

those simple Variables can give you a relatively simple index...

the more complex would be to try and determine much more difficult and subtle indicators that woudl be near impossible to calculate objectively and accurately

i wa smerely citing those countries because i have spent some time in each of them... and that as far as i am Aware, the systems utilized by said nations, appears to be working pretty well for the citizens as well as the nation itself

am i saying it's "the best" Way?

of course not...

merely pointing out that in some cases, it CAN and DOES "work"

which you stated having empirical evidence to the countrary

each of the criteia i listed is easily and readily available, and if you check, you will find it bears out the basics of my statement

these nations have decent balance sheets, a high level of education for it's citizens, and a very high standard of living (especially considering what many woudl think of as relatively low populations, and not a hell of a lot of natural resources native to said countries)

hope that helps

Excelsior?

oh yes,.... and the USSR and China aren't strictly "communist" either.. a long standing euphemism for totalitarian oligarchal distatorships.. but inherently incorrect in the terms of the actual definition of the political Ideology

as far as i'm Aware, there has never been a true "communist" government...

many who have either called themselves (Cuba for instance) such... and more that have been called such... but none in the actual definitive of said Ideology...

just as i can't recall a true socialistic government... always a "mixxed breed" of some sort or another

just a Thought

Excelsior?

Well one thing jumps right out, namely the balance sheet.

Many conservatives would argue against the deficit the US has. However deficits can be due to several things, taxes too low, spending too high, economic slowdown, etc.

And not all debt is bad. Using the household example, taking on debt to buy a house or student loans is a smart move, even though it increases debt load. Now, I'm not going to defend the US deficits, but they do make a good argument that certain economic policies have increased productivity and reduced the deficit because of increased revenue from taxes on that productivity. Personally, I'd rather they pay off the national debt by stopping pork spending on things like a bridge to nowhere, but that's me.

The point is, the deficit seems to be more a measure of the effectiveness of a particular administration, not necessarily a governmental form.

That and the statistics used would have to be over a long period of time to correct for short-term conditions....

"Socialists are just people who are honest about wanting the government to provide for them. Capitalists want the government to provide for them while pretending they did it all for themselves."

Victor, you're not far off the mark. But there is one variety of socialist, the syndicalist socialist, who believes in having people being more or less equal and in having them own their own businesses, competing in the open market; no subsidies, no baloney. You know this concept as the coöperative movement. That is the variety of socialist I am, and this system has worked and does.

"I have to point out that the flag I bought at Home Depot prominently displays a 'Made in America' tag."
- Dave Nalle

Wow. All should bow to an even greater American patriot than Rush Limbaugh.

Did you know that more people were injured in traffic accidents than those who got hurt waving the flag or patting themselves on the back....?

Well I guess the final conclusion to be drawn from the definition John has given us is that we are all conservatives.

I mean who honestly wouldnt want to "preserve what works" or "develope where there are gaps" or "reject bad institutions."

The real question is, what works, where are there gaps, and which institutions are bad?

for John in #106

when ya like, scope the figures per capita for the US and those nations mentioned, as well as the rest of the criteria i laid out... which i am guessing is ok for baseline parameters with you as well...

ya might just be suprised...

more high/low spikes for the US... much steadier growth curve for the others (all this being post WW2, of course)

but it is when you scope some of the other Variables i mentioned when things get really interesting...

glad yer Interested in actually checking on this, i'm interested to see the "empirical proof" you were talking about...

oh yes.. as to why i didn't mention some of the other nations who share a type of hybrid System...

the Germans are still absorbing East Germany... and i don't think they have really worked everything out yet...

and the French just aren't as good at it as the northern european countries in general... being a much more volatile culture, and more skewed to one end of the spectrum than a balanced hybrid economy/system

just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion...

Excelsior?