Conservatism seem to revolve around three central ideas. One of the ideas is economic conservatism, the idea that we deserve what we earn unless it was taken by force, theft, or fraud. The second is national security conservatism, the idea of taking threats to our country seriously and being pro-active in dealing with them, as Reagan was during the Cold War and as Bush was when we launched a War on Terror that sent us into Iraq. This, I suspect, doesn't mix terribly well with economic conservatism, since war is expensive, and the money for guns and tanks probably can't be got from bake sales. And then there is social conservatism, the use of the government attempting to uphold traditional values, leading to anti-abortion/gay marriage positions. The last two increase the involvement of government. If government is out there trying to stop abortions fighting enemies, this has to be paid for.
It would be fair enough to ask if liberalism goes together as well. I suppose we could say liberals accept
1) The proactive role of government to alleviate poverty and its consequences.
2) Restraint in fighting against supposed threats to our country (not going into Vietnam or Iraq).
3) Upholding a strong doctrine of the separation of church and state, not attempting to bring the state into controversial question of value.
16 comments:
Well, in a sense, conservatism doesn't go together well, but rather is a bunch of cobbled together groups and intuitions. After all, conservatives are influenced by libertarianism, socially conservative Christianity, isolationist paleoconservatism, idealistic neoconservatism, pragmatic realism, pro-business conservatism, etc. And these groups don't all agree, but rather push in different directions.
I'd say that if you wanted a core understanding of a conservative worldview, here's what I'd focus upon:
1) Individuals have personal responsibility
2) Governments are supposed to enforce a moral/group-moral framework
I think this combination explains the focus upon a business-based system without as much regard for social equality, and it explains a willingness to intervene socially and internationally such to combat evil along with the patriotism, while maintaining a stable law because laws are intimately connected to morality and cannot be fiddled around with.
The issue though is that justice and individuality conflict. Totalitarianism would be a necessary result of an attempt to address all injustices and promote the ideal moral/group-moral view. Individual responsibility requires freedom to dissent from the group-morality and a tolerance of injustice though.
I dunno, I am just guessing for all of this, political science isn't my field of expertise.
VR: "Conservatism seem to revolve around three central ideas. One of the ideas is economic conservatism, ... The second is national security conservatism, ... And then there is social conservatism, the use of the government attempting to uphold traditional values, leading to anti-abortion/gay marriage positions."
If you want three key ideas of conservativism, they are more likely to be:
1) Government ... all government .. is coercive, by the very nature of government
2) Human beings ... all human beings ... are perverse, by their very natures
3) From which two observations it follows that government is a necessary evil
All truly conservative ideas/positions take account of those observations and especially of that conclusion. For instance: "That government which governs best is that which governs least."
VR: "The second is national security conservatism, the idea of taking threats to our country seriously and being pro-active in dealing with them, as Reagan was during the Cold War and as Bush was when we launched a War on Terror that sent us into Iraq. This, I suspect, doesn't mix terribly well with economic conservatism, since war is expensive, and the money for guns and tanks probably can't be got from bake sales."
If "liberals" really were as nuanced in their thinking as they like to imagine they are, this would not be such a stumper to them.
The primary duty of government -- and, gven that it is inherently an evil, THE ONLY THING about (human) government which justifies its existence -- is that those who would govern are sworn to defend those whom they would govern; or, failing defending them, they must avenge them. A government which will not do these two things forfeits any claim to legitimacy ... and, in the nature of things, must eventually train its guns upon its subjects if it will not train them upon the enemies, both foreign and domestic, of its subjects.
Indeed, war is expensive (*). But, just as there are things worse than death, so too are there things worse than war.
(*) Pace what doubtless we both were taught in school (and I saw through it at once even as a teen), war destroys wealth; war can never generate wealth. One might as well expect that a hurricane which wipes out a city will make all its people more wealthy. A hurricane destroys wealth and lives; war destroys lives and wealth.
VR: "The last two increase the involvement of government. If government is out there trying to stop abortions fighting enemies, this has to be paid for."
2) Human beings ... all human beings ... are perverse, by their very natures
Yes, stopping abortions before they are performed, or punishing those involved if the abortion could not be stopped would have to be paid for. By then, the same is true of stopping and/or punishing other form of murder.
You really do need to do better than this -- your "liberalism" does not equate to an incoherency in conservatism.
VR: "And then there is social conservatism, the use of the government attempting to uphold traditional values, leading to anti-abortion/gay marriage positions. The last two increase the involvement of government."
Again, you really do need to do better than this.
The best -- meaning, the least coercive -- government will not be at war with the society it seeks to rule. As Reagan pointed out: "We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people."
With us, it is the nation, not the government, which is important and which properly sets the tone.
VR: "It would be fair enough to ask if liberalism goes together as well. I suppose we could say liberals accept
1) The proactive role of government to alleviate poverty and its consequences."
The *only* proactive way to alleviate poverty is to generate wealth. "Liberal" "solutions" to poverty destroy wealth, both by restroying already existing wealth and by putting a damper on the creation of new wealth. But, "liberals" seem constitutionally unable to grasp the concept on baking new pies -- all they seem to grasp is slicing an ever-diminishing pie into smaller and smaller pieces.
Besides which, *where* does the US Constitution give even a hint that it is within the competence of the general government to "alleviate poverty and its consequences?"
VR: "2) Restraint in fighting against supposed threats to our country (not going into Vietnam or Iraq)."
That's right! It was conservatives who got us into Vietnam, despite that conservativism had been moribund since the time of that would-be fascist FDR.
You know, the problem with Vietnam, as with Korea, is not that we were there, but that we were not there to win it and to win it as quickly and humanely as possible.
VR: "3) Upholding a strong doctrine of the separation of church and state, not attempting to bring the state into controversial question of value."
"Liberals" do so like to fool themselves, don't they? Seriously, who in his right mind can say with a straight face that "liberals" are not all about "attempting to bring the state into controversial question of value." Hell, "liberals" can't convince the people to their schemes, that's why they so love the coercive apparatus of the state.
The fact is, to govern just is to rule on questions of value and morality.
Ilíon: "With us, it is the nation, not the government, which is important and which properly sets the tone."
Indeed.
And as evidenced by the 69,492,37 votes for Obama, to McCaine's 59,946,37, our nation wants to pursue a more liberal agenda than the one they got under Bush.
Time for conservatives to get over it, show some patriotism, and work *within* this new "tone", a tone set by the people, instead of pouting about it.
What an utterly "liberal" response, Shackleman. I really have to wonder about you, sometimes.
Likewise, friend. {grin}
Perhaps so. But *I* don't misread you so badly that I turn what you say to me into its direct opposite. {grimace}
Perhaps, but *I* at least *try* to see the forest through the trees, rather than get bogged down in petty semantic details.
Is the US president a king, or the dictator? Is it really the case that any president issues us our marching orders?
Does the US president indeed represent anyone, much less "the people?" In mean, internally; externally, he does indeed represent "the people."
Isn't it odd that that the very people who supposedly voted for the "more liberal agenda" also voted to restrict the ability of judges to overturn, on their own say-so, millenia of understanding of the meaning of 'marriage.'
Isn't it odd how "liberals" are suddenly all for something they're calling "patriotism" -- which seems to me to be indistinguishabe from one of their favorite calumnies against conservatives.
"Petty semantic details" -- a favoréd trope of those who decline to see clearly either the forest or the trees.
Why don't we just do away will all these "petty semantic details" that have always bedeviled us. Let's make life so much simpler: let's replace all words with "ugg."
To what are you referring when you ask about marching orders?
"Does the US president indeed represent anyone, much less "the people?" In mean, internally; externally, he does indeed represent "the people."
It wasn't just Obama getting elected which indicates that the country is seeking a more liberal agenda. It was also whom the people elected as their Congressional representatives. Again Ilion, the forest through the trees...
The country, through the power of the votes of the people, are evidently seeking to pursue a more liberal agenda than the one their government had in recent years.
"Isn't it odd that that the very people who supposedly voted for the "more liberal agenda" also voted to restrict the ability of judges to overturn, on their own say-so, millenia of understanding of the meaning of 'marriage.'"
I chuckled at this. I think you're trying to make a point, but you're coming off a bit frazzled and you're being uncharacteristically unclear. Please explain what you mean exactly.
"Isn't it odd how "liberals" are suddenly all for something they're calling "patriotism" -- which seems to me to be indistinguishabe from one of their favorite calumnies against conservatives."
I can't speak for all liberals. I've always been a patriot. And I think that it is the conservatives, not the liberals, who wield the word "patriot" like a sword or bludgeon. If a conservative is a bit stung by my use of the word now, then perhaps it's because s/he knows it's unpatriotic to do things such as associate an American President with Fascism.
To argue for one's supported policies is patriotic. To make veiled references to Nazi Germany because one disagree with *policy* is deplorable and disgusting.
"Why don't we just do away will all these "petty semantic details" that have always bedeviled us. Let's make life so much simpler: let's replace all words with "ugg."
Language, especially written, is an art not a science. It's impresise. The speaker has an obligation to be *as clear as possible*. The audience has an obligation to make every effort to infer the speaker's true intent and meaning.
It's a dance. And you have a really bad habit of belittling those who make a misstep, let alone accidentally step on your toes.
Shackleman "To what are you referring when you ask about marching orders?"
Why, obviously, to a "petty semantic detail."
Shackleman "Time for conservatives to get over it, show some patriotism, and work *within* this new "tone", a tone set by the people, instead of pouting about it."
Shackleman "It wasn't just Obama getting elected which indicates that the country is seeking a more liberal agenda. It was also whom the people elected as their Congressional representatives. Again Ilion, the forest through the trees...
The country, through the power of the votes of the people, are evidently seeking to pursue a more liberal agenda than the one their government had in recent years. "
US Constitution, Shackleman -- forest and trees.
Shackleman "... To argue for one's supported policies is patriotic. To make veiled references to Nazi Germany because one disagree with *policy* is deplorable and disgusting."
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Shackleman "It's a dance. And you have a really bad habit of belittling those who make a misstep, let alone accidentally step on your toes."
Shackleman "Perhaps, but *I* at least *try* to see the forest through the trees, rather than get bogged down in petty semantic details."
I have made the wonderful (though tiring) choice of belittling the refusal to do one's part in the dance.
I, in my response to Mr Reppert, am trying to get at first principles ... it's a "conservative" thing, after all ... and you, being "liberal," are doing your best to throw sand in the effort. In this regard, you are behaving much as the typical 'atheist' does when Christians are trying to get at first principles.
And I, being no partisan, and giving no quarter to irrational "argument" even from those whom I like, simply must mock your behavior.
"And as evidenced by the 69,492,37 votes for Obama, to McCaine's 59,946,37, our nation wants to pursue a more liberal agenda than the one they got under Bush."
Or it could mean that a majority of people were hoodwinked by a stealth-socialist candidate and his willing accomplices in the national media.
"Time for conservatives to get over it, show some patriotism, and work *within* this new "tone", a tone set by the people, instead of pouting about it."
Not this independent conservative. I pledge to fight tooth-and-nail against the Dear Leader's plan to turn the US into France.
"And I, being no partisan, and giving no quarter to irrational "argument" even from those whom I like, simply must mock your behavior."
What else is new.
Making a single point on a flippin' BLOG as I've done, does not rise to the level of making an argument, quoted or unquoted. I'm not pretending it is. You are. But this is typical for you. You attack my posts as though they are doctoral dissertations. I've made a simple, quick quippy note on a message board. Nothing more, nothing less. So if you want to build it up as something more, and then claim I'm being irrational, then all I can do is congratulate you on burning down the straw man you've built.
Forest and trees. Reread my original post and tell me, honestly, if you're doing your part in this dance.
Post a Comment