AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Res politicas et historias cognivi.

You're comfortable with the collective wisdom of politicians.

We are suppose to be living in a Democratic Constitutional Republic, as opposed to a Monarchial Constitutional Republic, or Facist Constitutional Government. We very nearly did have a Monarchial Constitutional Republic if Washington had been made a king.

Perhaps our politicans can take the time to read The Federalist Papers and heal the bleeding gash in the Constitution. Freddy does some serious damage when he's flailing his arms.

A conservative's belief:

Yes, this is part of the bedrock foundations of how conservatives view the Constitution. Another conservative principle as assessed by Sowell was the decision to invade Iraq. Right or wrong, wise or ill advised, the decision was made on conservative principles and conservatives recognize that. Liberals, however, see that decision as a lie, dishonest, unethical, criminal, blood for oil, etc. and seem to be incapable of seeing anything else.

Sowell also listed the various actions sanctioned by President Bush that were ill advised and not based on conservative principles, and Sowell, a self-described conservative, is critical of those actions as are all the rest of us who describe ourselves as conservative.

But he correctly, as a conservative will do, separated competence vs incompetence, wisdom vs error, etc. as not being the same thing as bad or dishonorable.

Sowell didn't say any of those things were conservative. Glad you can make stuff up Fox but it doesn't make it a conservative belief that Sowell talked about.

parados,you are so liberal to the core that you must have things spelled out in Dick and Jane and Spot terms before they are understandable to you? Must I explain each time in specific words that a sofa is designed to be sat upon and is furniture for you to know what I mean when I refer to the word 'sofa'?

I have long tried to believe that liberals were at least as intelligent as conservatives if perhaps not as wise or practical. I think you can really get the point if you try really really hard.

Thinking of Dick and Jane simpliciity:

Will Rogers, a life long Democrat:

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat"

He'd have to say Republican today.

Rogers was pretty apolitical actually, but he was no dummy and I think he would not approve of and possibly would not belong to either major political party today. Neither is anything like what it was in his day.

Neither did Mark Twain:

The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.

P. J. O'Rourke

Interesting concept, but I don't think quite nails the phenomenon. The modern American conservative is in fact pretty much what the classical liberal of the Rennaissance was. S/he preserves what works, throws off the mantle of what is tired and worn out or doesn't work, and changes what needs to be changed. I think both Rogers and Clements/Twain held that philosophy. Conservatives put faith in the individual and in policies that encourage and allow freedom for the individual to accomplish his/her best potential as the best way to achieve lasting peace, prosperity, freedom, and justice.

By contrast, in my opinion, the true modern liberal in the extreme is mostly an anti-establishment and anti-tradition type who approves of change that sounds good whether or not it has any substance or probability of success, and who values good intentions more than actual results. Liberals put faith in government as the means of ordering the lives of people and sometime want traditional values dumped in favor of requiring acceptance of the way liberals think things should be.

Are you referring to e.g. Hobbes', Spinoza's, Erasmus' and/or Machiavelli's writings here? I had had the opinion that most Americans tend to lay the foundation of "classical liberalism" in the period of the Age of Enlightenment.


Another question: are you using the term "liberal" in your second paragraph like you Americans use it or in the worldwide meaning?

Never try to confuse a conservative -- it makes them very nervous when they are trying to label everything like a row of products on a store shelf. Jefferson was the antithesis of the American political liberal. Today, political grunts like to play word games but they only succeed in making something that was simple so complicated that everything looses its meaning. The true liberal does go back to the Age of Enlightenment. Voltaire was the antithesis of a true liberal.

The point is you claimed conservatives don't have to make up any meanings. They only use the words on the page.

No parados, that is not what I said. I said that most people don't have to have it all spelled out in first grade textbook style in order to be able to understand what is being said.

I accept that I may have to explain to you what a highway or interstate highway is before you will understand what I mean when I say I took the freeway to somewhere. But please accept that most people do not have to have a highway explained every time it is mentioned. Okay?

To LW, this thread it to discuss modern American Conservatism. I will accept that you see it differently--certainly those of us who describe ourselves as mostly conservative aren't agreeing on every point--and you do not understand that it is necessary to define a concept if it is to be discussed, but stick around. Maybe the concept will catch on. Who knows?

I try to follow this thread, Foxfyre, even with your home-made definitions.

But now and then it's quite difficult, because you use terms, which are sometimes - even in the US-terminology, which I always look up at first - not so clear as "highway".

(And I admit that I'm totally lost, when you switch between the meanings of 'liberal'.)


Of course, this might be reasoned in the fact that I'm not a native English speaker and our universities teach different to those you attended.

My 'homemade' definitions as you call them are mostly my own, but based on the words and writings and discussion with others, I know my definitions are shared by at least some others. I have invited all other members who have visited the thread to provide their own definitions if they don't like mine.

You and I have already agreed that politically and socially 'conservative' and 'liberal' mean very different things here in the United States than they mean in Germany or probably in most or all of Europe. It has been discussed previously in this thread that the modern American conservative and the classical liberal (as that is usually defined) have a great deal in common.

My interest is in exploring and discussing the mindset, motives, intent, goals, hopes, aspirations, and philosophy of the modern American conservative, and I am not interested in this thread in discussing how others define the term except to note that others do define the term differently.

Since I knew this, since this is a thread about conservatism in the USA, I really try to follow your, US, terminology, Foxfyre.

But your post above, you 'liberal' seems to be used in "our" way.
(Besides, that I couldn't find any serious [US] author dating back 'classical liberalism' to the Renaissance.)

But I'm here to learn ...

Example:

One definition of modern American conservatism is a belief or conviction that the federal government should limit itself to its Constitutionally mandated or authorized duties and responsibilities.

There are many subtitles you could put under that general definition including what those Constitutionally mandated or authorized duties and responsibilities are which requires some interpretaton of the specific wording in the Constitution. Most or at least many Conservatives try to look through the eyes of those who wrote the Constitution to discern their intent in the wording.

In contrast, one defintiion of modern liberalism is a belief or conviction that the federal government should be an agent of change and accomplishment and that the Constitution is a living document that can be interpreted in fluid and accommodating terms.

You can agree or disagree with my definitions but provide your own before you tell me that mine are all wet.