Posted on 06/08/2012 8:29:22 AM PDT by Publius804
Conservatism is poorly understood in the United States. It is not right-wing liberalism or nationalism; nor is it political Protestantism. It has nothing to do with a neurotic longing for an ideal past, and reactionaries, who insist there is nothing left to conserve, show that they don’t know the meaning of the word. Conservatism has always had to make the best of a bad situation—the human situation in general.
But conservatism earned its name in the context of a particular kind of bad situation, that of imperial Europe in the late 18th and 19th centuries. The great conservatives of the time were all stalwarts of empire—think of British conservatives from Edmund Burke to Lord Salisbury and beyond, or of Clemens von Metternich on the continent struggling to uphold the Hapsburg order.
These statesmen saw that Europe faced a choice not only between empire and anarchy—or rather nationalism, which seemed to be the same thing—but also between different varieties of imperium. Would empire abroad be liberal and commercial—and thereby also extractive and conformist—or would it be traditional and tolerant of local custom? In the heart of Europe, would the model of imperial sovereignty be Napoleon or, say, Francis I of Austria?
Empire made acute problems that conservatism was designed to answer. How could harmony be maintained not only between rich and poor, noble and common, merchant and farmer—divisions endemic to political society heretofore—but also between Protestant, Anglican, and Catholic; Irish, Scots, and English; Hindu and Muslim; colonist and native? Neither faith nor blood nor citizenship, still less any national “proposition,” could unite the disparate peoples and sects of Europe’s empires. Unity was rather a fine balance to be sought, and peace required respect, in due measure, for every part of the whole.
(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...
Conservatism in the United States is not understood because of the sloth, greed and willingness of a very significant portion of this country who are willing to live off the fruits of others’ work. A further significant portion of this country are ideologues that just get off on forcing their will on others, primarily those of whom they are jealous or feel they cannot ‘control’.
They are all led by politicians who would sell their grandma, or mother, or brother, or auntie down the river (or under a bus) to further their own Narcissistic ends.
This WILL all end. It will end badly. These sloths may win in urban streets, but they will get their asses cut to ribbons in the countryside.
bump
Conservatism: Individual freedom + personal responsibility + Trust in God..................
Which means they'll control urban "islands", since railroads, interstate highways, and pipelines all pass through the countryside. Inland urban areas under Sloth control would require a continual Berlin-style airlift.
I haven’t finished reading the article yet, but it sounds to me as though the writer is about to define conservatism as, “the Third Way”.
For some reason, Sidney Blumenthal came to mind last night and I decided to look him up and see where he was. Every entry regarding Sidney Blumenthal came back with a definition of the Third Way”, not the definition that we remember, but a definition that sounds so moderate and so sensible that no one could possibly disagree with it. The new definition of the Third Way, is what Clinton termed, triangulation, a disavowal of the socialist tendencies of the far left, as well as a disavowal of the worst tendencies of the far right, a “can’t we all just get along” philosophy, like Tony Blair’s.
Sidney Blumenthal once wrote an article about the Third Way in the Seattle newspaper, several full pages long, claiming that Bill Clinton’s political philosophy was the “Third Way”, and as I remember it, it was anything but moderate.
My point is that I think that the Democrat party is about to experience a coup. I think that the Third Wayers, Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell and others are about to revolt against the far left and where they are taking this country and the Democrat party, and I think that it might happen at the convention.
I also think that Mitt Romney believes in the Third Way, as it is currently being defined. Look up Third Way in Wikipedia and see for yourself, the new more moderate definition.
I think that government agencies control of rural America is imperialistic. The left treats the rural areas like a colonial empire.
While resistance to imperialism is embedded in our republican substance, I have never accepted that it is inherently evil. If certain ideals withstand the tests of time, they are worthy of export — not necessarily at the point of a sword but in the hearts of evangelists and cultural missionaries who present the world with alternatives.
The only question is what values we export in our crusade for cultural hegemony. Do we push the failed policies of socialism on the unsuspecting natives of uncivilized Earth, or do we offer them the same values and institutions that have served us so well? Do we market liberalism or “an empire constrained by tradition?”
The very first sentence is a pile of crap and a lousy pretense, however it the basis for his writing if we choose to accept it.
It is conservatism which is the basis for the business that built the nation. It is the foundation of all today’s business
What happened since then is a different issue in evolution... we are having a large percentage of the population believing in entitlement and welfare.
Consequently the foundation is being eroded.
They won’t work. They’ll try to roam. If you think ‘walking dead’ is SYFY, think again.
My translation of those oh so comfortable fuzzy words in Wikipedia is that the Third Way is better described as a means by which the governing elite get the majority to just settle down and be nice slaves.
Just skip down to last few paragraphs where he talks about the imperialistic NeoConservative empire builders who ran Bush's foreign policy.
Frankly, I cannot follow the logic of this writer. He attempts to define his philosophy by redefining terms and the political philosophy of everyone else.
One thing that I did note is that he referred to George Bush as recycling Wilson, the progressive. He was right there, the compassionate conservatism is basically the third way.
The new third way seems to disavow the One World Government aspect and other Agenda 21 efforts, breaking the agenda down into separate issues, rather than an over arching ideology, with a my way or the highway method of operation. The New Third Way tries to appear as the perpetual compromiser, the mediator, a philosophy which can be all things to all people.
It’s scary because I think that the DC Republicans are adherents of the Third Way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.