Posted on 06/05/2017 8:03:29 AM PDT by John Conlin
With the Republican nomination and subsequent election of Donald Trump there has been a great deal of hand wringing regarding what it means to be conservative. Does it mean this or that and who gets to determine which?
Many “conservative” publications have spent more than a few pixels on this topic; and yes, most of the editors believe they get to define it. They are wrong.
In fact the framing of the entire argument is wrong. And for all you self-identified conservatives out there please don’t get your panties in a bundle since the same can be said of liberalism. For both, it is time to move on to something else.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
One must never forget that conservatism and Republicanism are far from synonymous and are becoming less so on a daily basis.
Conservatives recognize America;
and do not push GLOBALISM as does the author.
Conservatives are clear about what they want,
e.g. repeal of ObamaCARE, unlike the author.
Conservative Orthodoxy is dead.
Man is inherently tribal. Both Conservative AND Liberal Orthodoxy seek to deny this fact.
Nationalism is the natural state of man.
It’s hard to discuss ‘conservatism’ or ‘liberalism’ apart from an altogether biased MSM in America.
The MSM (since it’s totally and gratuitously Liberal) has queered the whole equation and poisoned whatever rationale may have been applied in the ‘Conservatism/Liberalism’ debate.
Did you notice the poster is the author?
Wishful thinking. But do not give up, one of these days we may be forced to do such or die.
Wholly incoherent first graf. Good grief.
I’m being sucked in UNTIL.....
“The first and most fundamental truth is we, humans, evolved on this planet.”
His FIRST “truth” is a LIE. Humans didn’t “evolve”. Humans are “created” beings.
They never evolved, they aren’t evolving now.
No matter where you stand spiritually, evolution is NOT a scientifically PROVEN fact, It’ a THEORY.
“The MSM (since it’s totally and gratuitously Liberal) has queered the whole equation and poisoned whatever rationale may have been applied in the ‘Conservatism/Liberalism’ debate.”
As did the #neverTrump FReaks, although I think they were/are a mixture of Hussein Head plants and easily persuaded morons who somehow convinced themselves that ONLY Rafael Cruz could save America, and everyone else, especially Trump — more so than BJ’s wife — is the enemy.
Trump is a Truman democrat in all ways but (maybe) one, that Truman was for single-payer health care.
Truman-democrat-ism is where America’s center is, and has been for the last generation at least. Bill Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama all got elected by convincing enough of the American public that they were Truman democrats. Trump, unlike the above triumvirate, is actually one.
Americans don’t want conservatives, and they don’t want liberals. They want their schools and hospitals to run, their roads to be paved and the bridges standing, their streets and homes safe, their borders secure, their stores stocked with necessary goods at reasonable prices, jobs to be available for those who can work, and welfare for those who can’t but not for those who won’t, and to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit when it doesn’t get in the way of anyone else. Democrats who convince enough voters that they can do all of the above get elected; Republicans who convince enough voters that they can do all of the above get elected. That the Democrats have to lie and the Republicans dissemble to do this, that only deepens the cynicism Americans have towards their government.
The progressives have the loudest voice, and the Republicrats the wringingest hands, but Trump not only says what the Americans want to hear, he is working to do it, and Americans are beginning to realize this in spite of the progressives’ voice and the Republicrats’ hand-wringing.
The truth is there is strength in unity and weakness in diversity.
For me, there are too many stripes of Conservatism to declare any set path for them all. I’m a Limited Government Conservative (I want government doing as little as possible), many here are Social Conservatives (they want government to enforce their ideas and ideals), many are Fiscal Conservatives (tight control of budgets for optimal national growth, etc). Personally, I’m hoping my stripe continues to grow and succeed... as I’m sure all of the others do as well, LOL.
does someone actually pay this writer for his thoughts ?
I like the article and agree. I’ve thought for a while, “conservatism” isn’t dead, it’s just been redefined and as meaningful as “racism”.
Lindey, MaCain, and other so-caller conservative leaders have seen “liberalism” go of the progressive cliff to the left and decided they can redefine “conservatism” as what used to be left-of center “liberalism”. They are still “to the right” of “liberals” - neither term means what it used to.
My political beliefs (which used to be called “conservative”) are based on a few questions for any issue
1) What is the proper role of government for any issue?
2) What is the proper action of government on this issue WITHIN that role?
3) What are of trade-offs/costs/benefits of that action? With a focus on the long-term results and precedents rather than what happens this year.
For “proper role”, I still consider “minimum government” and “maximum personal freedom” as the defining characteristics. Many “conservative leaders” have started including “individual safety/security” as a significant factor in “proper role” - whether it’s against ISIS, or job loss, or health problems or any number of other real or imagined problems individuals may face. And more than a few have abandoned “minimum government” because that minimizes their personal power to “do the right thing” (or get elected, or make money).
Almost NO “conservative leaders” seem to consider the long-term (5, 10, 50 year) consequences of their actions. To me, one of the most significant aspects of a “conservative” policy is that it doesn’t have long-term negative consequences. Compounding negative consequences is what will destroy any government/society. “conservativism” should conserve our freedom by not allowing freedom to erode gradually for benefit today because the compounding lose of freedoms becomes HUGE over decades even if each individual step is small and “worth it”.
The author apparently does not know the history of political thought leading to what the founders gave us and how it makes up the background of Conservatism.
He makes a number of straw arguments and then proceeds to pontificate what he thinks is the only important truth, or most important truth - individual liberty.
Yet, that truth is at the heart of Conservatism and simultaneously is a increasing and rapidly vanishing attribute of any Liberalism left today. The only place individual Liberal is attempted in Liberalism today is in any number of hypocritical ways - for me and not the.
In sum, the author does not understand Conservatism or Liberalism in any practical sense found today.
It’s a BASIC precept of tribal survival.
For several million years our social structures and instincts created a surviving DNA strand which persists today. Those who did not have it did not survive to reproduce.
Same = good.
Different = bad.
Only the foolish think they can rewire the brain and DNA of man in a few short decades.
Conservatism is misbranded. It’s a stupid term that implies a reactionary cadre. I prefer radical liberal.
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.