Posted on 05/31/2006 1:32:23 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
I respect your point, but I don't feel the need to parse words so closely.
For me, 'careful' says it all. Not that I'm pathologically careful, or afraid of change. But just cautious.
In fact, Conservatism has nothing to do with either morals or money. It is best defined by Russell Kirk, who said that in essence, conservatives are those who favor liberty over equality.
Conservatism is an integrated whole. You can't claim conservatism without being politically, economically, socially, whaterverly conservative.
Re political conservativism; the GOP does not define conservatism.
For instance, without economic liberalism (taxes) social liberalism - tolerance of anti-Darwin behavior - can't exist. HIV kills, faggotry is a genetic deadend.
I can't understand why, I'm sorry.
Both would be called, "movements", I thought.
Is there a better term I can use, that I'm not thinking of?
That definition would leave out quite a few 'social conservatives' here, tho.
People who want sodomy to stay illegal, for example. Or folks who want victimless vice to be 'crimes'.
We're all in this together.
We have to start talking, and listening, to each other, come to a consensus on the things we *do* agree on, then push for those.
If we want to save this thing before it's too late.
Precisely!!
I'm not sure I really agree there, but for our purposes here I'm attempting to define what seperates us and what unites us, so that we can come together to form a consensus on what we decide we all do agree on. Maybe I'm on the wrong track, I'm not sure. It just seemed like something that might be worth trying.
So please forgive me if I venture away a little bit from the beaten path. :-)
That attitude would kick out at least 40% (by my early first counting) of the folks on this thread.
It is time that both sides admit that there are 'branches' (so to speak' of Conservatism. We can't keep saying, "Only WE are the true conservatives".
If we don't unite, the R party will lose in Nov, I think.
As a social libertarian/fiscal conservative, I felt I had little choice but to leave the Republican party after the 2004 election.
Yet I plan to keep voting (R) because no no viable third party has emerged.
Yes, something other than “Conservative.” The word “reactionary” probably has too many negative connotations, but it's the only one I can think of right now.
Unless one favors 1.cultural and 2.fiscal/economic and 3.foreign policy Conservatism, one has to hyphenate the term a bit: "neo-", "libertarian-"...
Within philosophical Conservatism historically there have been two main currents of thought since Burke : Whig and Tory. 'Whig' is what we used to call 'Manchester Liberalism' emphasizing 'free trade' and the benefits of semi-laissezfair markets, etc. 'Tories' emphasized 'social fabric', mutual social allegiance, and the organic nature of the 'good society', not to be violated capriciously by radical schemes of whatever ideology, economic or otherwise. So, that's the main 'modern'(post-1780)currents of thought.
Contemporary American Conservatism (aprox. post WWII) is philosophically composed of three main currents of thought, any of which might be the 'guiding' current on a given issue at a given time. They are, roughly,: Conservatism ("Tory" or "Paleo-"), Neo-Conservatism , and Libertarianism. 'Conservatives'are pro-tradition and family on cultural issues + pro-Constitution/limited government, and unilateralist but reserved on foreign intervention -- prepared to defend an official ally against attack, sometimes willing to defend any innocent party if prudent. 'Neo-Conservatives' are often reformed leftists who were honest enough to examine the empirical data on leftist domestic program results and repent mostly. They're often still interventionist on foreign policy - 'wilsonian' (often citing a high purpose)and they're often less concerned than others in the conservative realm by deficit spending for the high purposes they cite; Culturally 'Neo-Cons'are fairly Conservative through empirical experience. 'Libertarians' start with the ethical question of 'by what right?' regarding any coercion, governmental or otherwise, and so, tend to favor very limited government by which they hope to derive an active and healthy society of consentual association, help, and virtue. Basically, Government limited to essential public functions, not 'crowding-out' the other key (non-coersive) institutions of society. Very limited on foriegn intervention. And Culturally then, tending to favor 'to each his own', without much influence of the 'normative value' of law.
Personally, I'm of the traditional Conservative ("tory","paleo-") camp, and we do pride ourselves on being able to give a fair description of all relevant currents of thought. So, does this seem a fair description?
| Both: 18 |
|
Political C/Social L: |
This is the point I'm trying to make.
The 'Contract With America' was a winner because it was about 'political/fiscal' issues. Corruption. Spending.
It was NOT about abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc.
The current power of the R party came from sticking to the 'Political/Fiscal' reform. Now the R party has abandoned that.
If we don't unite on this platform again, nothing can save the R party's majority.
I'm sorry -- I thought you were disagreeing with the use of the word, "movement".
Here, I disagree.
Conservative is perfect.
Libs have run from the word L, instead of making it their own. I would prefer to staunchly define 'C' instead of running from it.
So I'm analyzing what "C" means to various people.
Bookmark/Placemark/Bump
[If I get time later, I will comment.]
I also *respect* your obviously Libertarian view of these issues, but as you know... slavery was treated as a "live and let live" thang for a long, long time!!!
The choices you are giving us in this thread are far too limiting and limited... And I think you know it. No offense intended and none taken!
The Conservative movement has done more to advance my core values than any other.
Unless one favors 1.cultural and 2.fiscal/economic and 3.foreign policy Conservatism, one has to hyphenate the term a bit: "neo-", "libertarian-"...
Within philosophical Conservatism historically there have been two main currents of thought since Burke : Whig and Tory. 'Whig' is what we used to call 'Manchester Liberalism' emphasizing 'free trade' and the benefits of semi-laissezfair markets, etc. 'Tories' emphasized 'social fabric', mutual social allegiance, and the organic nature of the 'good society', not to be violated capriciously by radical schemes of whatever ideology, economic or otherwise. So, that's the main 'modern'(post-1780)currents of thought.
Contemporary American Conservatism (aprox. post WWII) is philosophically composed of three main currents of thought, any of which might be the 'guiding' current on a given issue at a given time. They are, roughly,: Conservatism ("Tory" or "Paleo-"), Neo-Conservatism , and Libertarianism. 'Conservatives'are pro-tradition and family on cultural issues + pro-Constitution/limited government, and unilateralist but reserved on foreign intervention -- prepared to defend an official ally against attack, sometimes willing to defend any innocent party if prudent; traditional Conservatives also tend to favor 'fair trade' over 'free-trade', being cheerfully willing to combat 'predatory trade' nations with measures like a tariff/import tax, which is the traditional trade policy of the GOP from 1856 until aprox 1978.
'Neo-Conservatives' are often reformed leftists who were honest enough to examine the empirical data on leftist domestic program results and repent mostly. They're often still interventionist on foreign policy - 'wilsonian' (often citing a high purpose)and they're often less concerned than others in the conservative realm by deficit spending for the high purposes they cite; Culturally 'Neo-Cons'are fairly Conservative through empirical experience; and Neo-Conservatives tend to favor "free trade" policies like FTAA and NAFTA that traditional Conservatives generally oppose.
'Libertarians' start with the ethical question of 'by what right?' regarding any coercion, governmental or otherwise, and so, tend to favor very limited government by which they hope to derive an active and healthy society of consentual association, help, and virtue. Basically, Government limited to essential public functions, not 'crowding-out' the other key (non-coersive) institutions of society. Very limited on foriegn intervention. 'Free trade' on trade policy. And Culturally then, tending to favor 'to each his own', without much influence of the 'normative value' of law.
Personally, I'm of the traditional Conservative ("tory","paleo-") camp, and we do pride ourselves on being able to give a fair description of all relevant currents of thought. So, does this seem a fair description?
'Slavery' has a victim. That is the imposition of force on an unwilling person.
I will simply point out that 'Social' views and 'political' views are two different things. 'Social' views are your opinions on social aspects of society. 'Political' views are your views on the laws, govt, etc, of society.
I'm trying to do a basic "component analysis" here, breaking the ideas down into their core components. By which I hope to understand what common threads unite us, and focus on those.
So to do some off-the-cuff analysis on the spot, I think most folks are for less govt, lower taxes, etc. (I say most, cuz I know on FR we have folks who want strong laws against victimless crimes, and such, even if they aren't here yet).
And we are *divided* on social issues.
So, like the Contract with America, I think an early theory might be we should focus on the govt issues, and avoid raising the social issues when running for offices this fall.
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.