[ReformationFan]

Very good article about why we hold to the philosophy of conservatism.

[txhurl]

bttt

[the_Watchman]

The irony is that conservatives believe in a flawed man who should be left to fend on his own; i.e., given individual liberty; while the liberal purports to believe in a perfectible man who requires lots of governmental meddling since he apparently shouldn’t be trusted to make his own decisions.

[Lake Living]

It breaks down nicely into those that believe God’s Word (The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?) and those that don’t. True conservatives believe the Scriptures and what they have to say about human nature. So did the Founding Fathers. The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.

[grobdriver]

one in which “people are conceived of as being corrupt.”

Not all people.
Only Democrats.

[GraceG]

says conservatives “take a basically pessimistic view of human nature”

We take a REALISTIC view of humanity, where the liberals all clamor over each other to believe the lie that is the “Noble Savage” myth.

[Politicalkiddo]

“...take a basically pessimistic view of human nature”

Isn’t that the view that eugenists, environmentalists, and animal right’s activists take? The view that the world would be better off without people?

[x]

Conservative student group Turning Point USA caused a stir last week by posting pages online from a textbook used at the University of South Carolina. The book calls Ronald Reagan “sexist” and says conservatives “take a basically pessimistic view of human nature” — one in which “people are conceived of as being corrupt.” Several avowed conservatives balked not just at the negative portrayal of Reagan but also at the idea that the conservative persuasion contains a measure of pessimism. On this point, the textbook is right and they are wrong. Russell Kirk was the man credited by William F. Buckley for the very existence of an American conservatism. To Kirk, human fallenness was an essential pillar of conservative thought. He called Original Sin the one empirically verifiable dogma. “Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults,” Kirk wrote. “To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things.”

Fine sentiments, but some self-professed original sin conservatives thought Reagan was far too cheery, optimistic, and Emersonian.

The article does go on to make the point that pessimism about human nature and optimism about reality aren't opposites, but it's an open question.

[Ben Mugged]

“He was a man, take him for all in all,
I shall not look upon his like again.”
William Shakespeare, Hamlet

[tophat9000]

actually I’ve view the concept of man is flawed as a subset of Socrates concept that the only wisdom is knowing you know nothing in other words grace is gain in understanding your inherent lack of perfection...

[fifedom]

It is interesting that the article, which comes from an apparently libertarian website, quotes Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke and other conservatives.

Kirk was strongly opposed to libertarianism. See this article that he wrote:
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/a-dispassionate-assessment-of-libertarians
“The term “libertarianism”is distasteful to people who think seriously about politics.”

Conservatives believe that we need societal institutions and constraints to function as a civil society. That is why libertarians and conservatives disagree strongly about fundamental issues like abortion and re-defining marriage.

In politics, the Rats routinely sponsor and finance libertarians to split right-leaning voters to enable them to win close elections like the recent Virginia governor’s race, the Montana Senate races, and many others.

All in all, any conservative who votes for a libertarian even in races where a Republican or Rat will clearly win is making a big mistake.