Where have all the conservatives gone?
posted by SheaNC at 1:12 AM
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Video Start Your Day
News Snipet Blog
Stuff That's Going On
American Scene
Michael Bérubé
Center for Citizen Media: Blog
CJR Daily
David Corn
Donkey Rising
Gadflyer Flytrap
In Media Res
Media Nation
New Donkey
Orcinus
The Plank
Political Animal
Real Clear Politics
Romanesko
Street Prophets
Andrew Sullivan
Talking Points Memo
Talking Politics
TPMCafe
Tapped
Matthew Yglesias
Previous Posts
- Just For Fun
- Dick Cheney
- Yipee a Muslim state
- QRIO
- Bush is a hypocrite
- PATRIOT, NSA and the GOP
- Republican Spend-a-holics
- My turn to wish you all a Merry Christmas
- Why Do Christians Hate Capitalism?
- Not a "lucky country" for some
Blogroll
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jack may disagree, but I don't. Bush has managed to gut conservatism as we knew it via Karl Rove's triangulation strategy. After picking up a few moderate and liberal constitutencies, it's as if they woke up one morning from a dream and said, "this isn't so bad" but then never went back to bed.
True conservatives will wake them up with a cold pale of water in 2008 (and perhaps 2006).
No, can't say I disagree, although this article is nuts for suggesting that there are any Democrats out there who are "conservative". I think what most journalists/bloggers need to do is study Barry Goldwater--
I think overall the problem is that people have no clue what theya are talking about when using the words "liberal" and "conservative". I think Shea and I have discussed that we need more accurate terms.
-Jack
What's your definition of conservative, Jack?
Shea, you ask a wonderful question. I hope I can dignify it with an appropriate response. I first have to lay a little groundwork. I'll deal strictly with the political conservative though for sake of brevity (something I am having difficulty with of late and feel I will fail miserably in)
To begin, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are relative. That means that they shift as ideologies do. To understand conservative you also need to know what liberal is too.
In a purest sense, Webster gives a good definition of conservative as: disposition in politics to preserve what is established, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
It defines liberal as: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Given these definitions I would often say that I fit the definition of liberal as often as I do conservative, but I don't think that these definitions get anywhere close to defining contemporary American liberalism and conservatism.
If you do take into consideration the above definition liberalism denotes movement, while conservative suggests a static state. One can live in a pure democracy and being conservative think that it should stay a pure democracy. Likewise, one can be under pure tyranny and fascism and being a conservative would think that it should remain so. Liberalism advocates "progress" or movement and it is based on whatever criteria of "progress" is and the individuals who define "progress". Following the above logic, a liberal can be in a pure democracy, and in the name of progress want to move away from it--going from individualism to egalitarianism (or when empowering government in its forceful form-totalitarianism). A liberal can be under fascism and want to "progress" away from it towards democracy. Since liberals are in a constant state of movement in the name of progress, it is hard to place a finger on them in terms of definitive political view--liberals today may not be the liberals of tomorrow. We could say that the founding fathers were liberals for wanting a better form of government, one based on freedom and liberty!
Now my definition of what a true American conservative should be, is an individual intent on maintaining the United States as it was intended by our founding fathers. Never before in the history of the world had a nation of this size been built on a foundation as close to a pure democracy as this one. (I realize we are a representative democracy, but England's national constitution, the closest cousin to ours, of the time granted more power to the government (House of Lords and Commons--keep in mind that many of those who came here to escape England were commoners--represented by the house of commons, largely Puritans at the time) and the monarchy than it did to the people). It was a nation founded largely on individualism--where success was based upon individual hard work and initiative, an environment that was conducive to such, with the primary tool of freedom to determine one's outcome or lack thereof. It embodied life's lessons that are often hard taught, but rewarding. Personal responsibility coupled with personal initiative, and each one accountable to all.
A true American conservative wants to preserve those ideals that brought out the greatness in people and a nation. It wants to conserve the Constitution with the understanding that it was those very tenets that gave we the people the power and withheld it from government.
Examples of ways that this affects my thoughts as a conservative:
I refuse to enable someone to fail. Social programs like welfare despoil an individual of initiative, and prevent them from succeeding. I would rather teach a man to feed himself than have him dependent upon others to do that. I would rather empower someone to self-respect through short termed tough love than to keep him dependent upon others.
Rights are earned. I don't have the right to own a million dollar mansion. I have to earn that right. True--there will always be those of privilege who have everything given to them, but they suffer from the deficiencies that causes. I don't have the right to eat unless I earn the money to pay for it. I do not have the right to medical service or any other service that someone else has to pay for. I should have the right and freedom to pursue those ends, but not be guaranteed the outcome at the expense of others.
( I do not begrudge safety nets to catch those in society who are truly helpless, but those are few and far between. Productivity breeds prosperity, nothing else, which benefits all in society. I laud the morality of those times when family's and friends responsibly supported those who could not do for themselves.)
I believe in a government that governs least governs best. We have been brought away from that by changing our Constitution, by "progressing" away from the ideals of freedom and individualism--all in the name of egalitarianism. In an effort to bring about moral socialism we empower the government to assume more and more power over our lives. By pushing social programs (which account for the largest part of our expenditures) we enslave ourselves to it. Last year, tax free day was into June, which meant that over half of what we earn in the United States goes to a hulking government who spends it on anything from artwork, to mahogany furniture, politician vacations to unneeded medical procedures and medications. Empowering a government one way gives it the inch it needs, with the eventual outcome of placing ourselves once again as vassals under a system the type of which we left. Progressing away from democracy leads ultimately to fascism, an unavoidable cycle. Liberals push the ball up the hill and over the peak, then sit back horrified at the resultant plunge. (This is why liberals often become conservatives later in life--or in the middle of a political cycle).
Consideration and deliberation. I believe in reviewing every initiative of government carefully regardless of how noble the venture sounds to determine its long-term outcome. Hair does not grow faster by being pulled and the fast fix which may seem like a good idea eventually leads to undoing. Social Security was needed at the time of its inception, but FDR and our government at the time did not have the foresight to change it or let it see its sunset. In so doing, it has created a burden to society, a dependency upon government, and an impoverished retirement community. (A simple study would be to just consider the amount of individual contributions to Social Security annuitized over a person's work history, and most people would retire millionaires--instead we have seniors having to depend on a pittance and Meals on Wheels.)
I think that if you look at our nation over the span of years you can see what I mean. A simple question to ask is, "are we more liberal today as a society than we were 50 years ago?" The answer is obviously yes, so one has to look at where it has led us. That is the reason I am a conservative, Shea, because I value our freedom and the opportunities it affords us. Why change a good thing?
In closing, I'll give one of my favorite Barry Goldwater quotes (BTW, although venerated at this time, he was demonized and vilified by liberals while alive and in government):
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Sorry so long, but hope that I have been clear.
P.S. If you will notice, there are not many real conservatives left out there...especially in government. Shea, the dissonance we have discussed in the past that you are experiencing with our government and the Democrat Party is that you are beginning to see that both it and them are "progressively" taking us away from what we value most--our freedoms. We have sacrificed our sons and daughters, fathers, mothers, for these freedoms and it goes against our grains as Americans to see them so flippantly destroyed. Regrettably the ball started rolling with progressive thinkers who thought they could improve on a consummate and well-crafted model. I have no doubt that most liberals have been well-meaning in almost everything they advocate, but they have failed to consider the final outcome of their actions. Not saying that every liberal initiative is a bad one, just that many of them have moved our government further from democracy without realizing that there is only one way to go, then being naive enough to think that they will halt the lumbering beast before it has gone too far. (Shea, ever think that you may be more of a conservative than a liberal? :)
Jack, I haven't read the whole response yet (I will), but in answer to the question at the end, I am one of that multitude who generally defines themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal"*. On some issues, I am considered conservative, because I adhere to values that self-proclaimed conservatives claim as their own. On the other hand, on other issues, I am considered a liberal. So, depending on the issue, I am defined by others as liberal or conservative at different times.
*Here's how I really define myself (I have used this definition for years): I call myself a pluralist because I pick and choose what I think are the best ideas from all ideologies. I think it is too limiting to just pigeonhole one's self in one ideological niche.
Post a Comment
<< Home