Replies

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”.