However, for some reason, the above idea that every serious person accepts is called into question in the very narrow case of political philosophy. The word "tradition" used in the political context stirs feelings of oppression and victimhood.
The fact is that our governmental form and social institutions have developed over centuries and withstood the test of time. As with all human endeavors there are errors and gaps that need to be dealt with, and in some very rare cases, institutions need to be dissolved (like slavery). As much as some like to say entire institutions need to be razed and modernized, those same people will keep a good deal of political philosophy conserved. For instance, not many people talk about repealing the constitution and starting over.
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. The later often falls victim to the law of unintended consequences.
An example of this is health care. In response to concerns about the quality and availability of health care during the '70s, Senator Edward Kennedy [D-MA] created legislation that led to the creation of Health Maintenance Organizations. HMOs are generally considered a large part of the problem with our health care system today; so much so, that the man who created this legislation, Sen. Kennedy, now speaks out against the organizations he helped to bring into existence.
When faced with new problems, conservatives look to conserve what has been created and is worth keeping. Very rarely is it necessary to raze where simple reform is sufficient. New problems can be dealt with by tweak existing organizations and policies, with a particular emphasis on solving problems on the lowest level possible.
It is no mistake that the United States has the strongest economy in the world and is regarded as the world's only superpower. Conservatives seek to not start fixing what isn't broken.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
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.
2 - Jonathan Scanlan
I really liked this, even though your ideas lacked a variety of sources/references.
3 - Dave Nalle
Now as always, the thing we need to 'conserve' first is individual liberty. If we lose that everything else becomes meaningless.
Dave
4 - dee
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.
5 - gonzo marx
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?
6 - Jerry
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.
7 - gonzo marx
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?
8 - Dave Nalle
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
9 - gonzo marx
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?
10 - nugget
gross.
11 - Dennis Bland
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.
12 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
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.
13 - Jim Wynne
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:
14 - Dave Nalle
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
15 - gonzo marx
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?
16 - Zet
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).
17 - Zet
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.
18 - Zet
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!
19 - RJ Elliott
Great article. Of course, as some of the comments suggest, many people are capable of missing the point completely...
20 - Jim Wynne
Zet said:
You might be half right. Intelligent Design is anything but "newly manufactured"; William Paley wrote about it in the early 19th century, and of course, the basic idea is much older than that. The only thing "new" about it is the effort by the religious right to take bibical creationism and dress it up in an ill-fitting lab coat in an ill-fated attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
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.
21 - Jim Wynne
Of course I meant "biblical."
22 - SteveS
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.
23 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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.
24 - Clavos
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.
25 - Dave Nalle
#23 is an excellent example of how the terms Liberal and Conservative are totally misused in America today.
Dave