My beliefs as a conservative

I'm curious, ehBeth: Is the "religious = right wing" equation a problem in Canada too? I used to think that was a US-American specialty. (Here in Germany, at least most protestant organizations are quite consistently left-wing. Organized Catholicism here is usually arch-conservative about marriage, contraception, abortion, and the role of women in the Catholic church. But it, too, tends to be moderate to mildly left-wing on everything else .)


Being a "Liberal" under the classic, laissez-faire, 19th century definition myself, I would have said it is the modern definition of the word that isn't useful. After all, modern-definition liberals defend only a narrow, hand-picked subset of human liberty, filling up the rest with watered-down socialism. The classical definition fits the label much better, and if I could have it back, I would trade in the clumsy word "Libertarian" for it any time.

Thomas, I think the balance of my original post gives you most of your answer.

There are some religious/right-wing groups here, but that connection is much less common here than in the U.S. Other than the Baptists, the religious communities here are more likely to fit a classic definition of liberal.

I see, ehBeth -- I had read the quote you just cited as a statement about yourself and your immediate surroundings, not as a statement about Canada in general. Thanks for the clarification.

i absolutely agree, mcg. do you agree that, conversely, democrat does not equal liberal, nor does liberal equal democrat ?

recently nimh posted something that i thought was so simple that we had made it hard; i can't do a direct quote, but something to the effect that over the last several decades the political parties had abandoned their original charters of "running the country's mechanics" to instead "legislate the morality of american citizens" (my words). in other words the parties have focused only on social issues, and usually wedge issues at that.

by george, i think she's got it!!! fantastic foxy! this was what i was getting at with our "non-partisan solution" thread. sadly, i soon saw that it devolved into the usual drive-bys and detours.

it's human nature to want to continue on in a position that is beneficial to you. and not just politicians;

in the mid '80s, i was hanging around a studio with an engineer friend who was doing the final mixes for a new single by an artist that was quite popular at the time. it sounded nearly identical to the previous 2 hit songs the artist had out. my buddy mentioned that the singer didn't really like the tune very much, but had been "convinced" by the producer to "forget all of that artist stuff, we're here to sell records".

the producer came by to check the progress of the mix. he gave it a quick listen and pronounced; "it's crap. but we'll sell a lot of it". wow!

when the producer had gone, i just looked at my friend with a "huh??" kind of expression.

he stated matter of factly, "harald just got a new bmw and he wants to keep it".

so, as you can see, "the business of music" and "the business of politics" have a lot in common.

yesterday, during all of the "rather immolating", i caught a very interesting remark by an old time news hound. essentially he was pointing out that where as we all believed it back in the day when murrow or cronkite reported and then signed off with something like "and that's the way it is", now there are more than 3 outlets; cable, radio, blogs etc.

so simply saying "this is the truth" and having it be gospel don't really work for the media anymore. who popped the "memogate" story? the bloggers of course. so the old "faith in truthful media" has shrunk.

i feel the same new reality, if you wish, is very applicable to the government in general and the whitehouse in particular. i mean, can you really think of a more powerful media outlet than the whitehouse press room ??

and one last thing that i thought the guy hit the mark with. he stated that the way people listen to news has changed. rather (hah!) than listening for reporting of events, people now listen to the network or radio that will agree with or champion their own beliefs/agenda.

show biz, again...

1) - "give the people what they want"

2) - "there's a sucker born every minute"

so i guess "hollywood" and "washington" are the same, no?

Well thanks DTOM, but please don't misunderstand me. While I am to the point of saying a pox on both their houses, I will still vote Republican as long as the GOP has most of what few rational thinkers there are in Washingon and as long as the Democrats have the corner on the lunatic fringe. I am dismayed that the GOP isn't doing better with its majority advantage; I am disgusted with the Democrats who seem to be willing to sink to any new low to get their licks in. The Senate debates this week have been unbelievable--if I had not seen them with my own eyes and had instead read about them later, I would have believed somebody slipped a total spoof onto the hard news page.

But yes, it seems impossible to have a serious bipartisan discussion about much of anything here on A2K. All attempts will sooner or later be derailed and converted to just another bashing thread. I had hoped very much your thread would make it.

They call it democracy.

I believe that true conservatives (who are quite nice folks) are being done a dissservice by reactionaries who are using the label "conservative" to make them appear nicer than they really are.

Conservatives should wrest the term from the reactionaries and tell the latter to admit their true nature and stop giving conservatives a bad name.

Does anyone here NOT consider the neocoms a "lunatic fringe" with power? The irony here is that fringes usually have no power; they are, by definition, marginal.
A representive of the government came to talk to an organization I belong to. He insisted that we are justified in using all means to combat the Islamicst because they are FUNDAMENTALISTS, people who see no greys, who feel absolutely justified by their dogmatic beliefs and sacred values to do as they will to those who oppose their perspective. Someone in the audience agreed with him wholeheartedly but requested that he also apply this characterization to the Bush administration, its neocoms theorists, and the evangelical fundamentalists who support them. I agree that both forms of fundamentalism are lunatic and the greatest threats to social progress and peace,

Thomas writes


I couldn't agree with you more Thomas. Eveh the modern "libertarian' brings its own baggage these days and too often no longer means what it means when I use the term. I too am a classic liberal and would dearly love to have the word back in its classic definition.

Classic liberal? Is this something new from the Karl Rove?



Mmmm....



Oh, well, so much for hoping...

Why am I surprised that Dookie never heard of "classical liberal"?

mmmm......



Nice...

Libertarianism vs. "classical liberalism"

The modern tradition of libertarianism claims the ideological inheritance of "classical liberalism". However, many object to this blending of what they see as two separate, opposing philosophies.

Those who emphasize the distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism point out that even Adam Smith believed a free market could not satisfy all the demands of a society. Furthermore, some (Haworth, 1994, pp. 27) argue that libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally incompatible because the checks and balances provided by liberal institutions conflict with libertarian support of complete economic deregulation.

Libertarians argue that the term "classical liberalism" was actually coined by Friedrich Hayek, who was deeply critical of modern liberalism. Libertarians also support the philosopher Frederic Bastiat, who advocated the absolute free market unreservedly. Several smaller libertarian parties around the world who identify themselves with the Austrian school of economics call themselves "liberals" without further qualification. Generally, this happens in countries where no larger "liberal party" exists, and thus there is no risk of confusion.

So, yes, I've heard of classic liberalism. Just not the way you insist on using the term.

That's why hearing it coming from you has such a Karl Rove tonality to it...

Are you going to source the stuff you just posted?

Here's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition
Note the date of origin:

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a : often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d : capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

Hayek was a Twentieth Century thinker and is held in esteem by many of my favorite Twentieth Center thinkers. Bastiat was 19th Century but later than the root origin in the definition. Both Hayek and Bastiat were indeed classical liberals howeer.

I can see that I am going to have to explain these beliefs.I thought they were self explanatory,I guess I was wrong.....

I am politically conservative. I believe this places me in the minority.

When I say this,I do not mean that I am a "conservative" in the vein of todays politicians.
I do believe in old fashioned values that have served this country well.
However,I am always willing to entertain new ideas,and possibly incorporate them into my beliefs.


I believe the government that governs least governs best, which is the foundation of
conservative adherents.

This means that govt should be as small as possible,and as unobtrusive as is possible.Govt should do what the constitution allows it to do,and nothing more.

I believe the words in the constitution mean what they say. I can read.

This one should be simple to understand.
The constitution says what govt can and cannot do.Anything beyond that is unconstitutional and should not be allowed.


I believe individual liberty must be respected in order for this experiment in
self-government to continue.


I believe the toll of freedom is responsibility. Those who fail to act responsibly are not
deserving of freedom.

Simple,If you violate the law,or violate someone elses rights,then you lose your freedom.
Now,I know that is going to cause controversy,and I will try to explain as I go along.

I believe you ought to pay your own way. Charity begins at home, not in Washington DC.

While I do think that the govt has a role to play in helping other people,we should NOT run to the govt everytime we need help.
I have no problem helping those that TRULY need it,but I do oppose giving charity to those that don't.
Those people need to turn to their families,not my wallet.

I believe a country without borders will soon cease to be a country.

We need to close our borders,deport ALL illegal aliens,and only allow those people in that do it legally.

I believe you have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?
whatever that may be.

This means you can do what you want,as long as you don't hurt anyone else or violate anyone elses rights.

I believe you should be able to have all the fun you want, just not at someone else's
expense.

If you wanna go out and drive a race car,or skydive,or do anything you consider fun,thats ok.
But,don't make someone else the butt of your jokes.

I believe in times of peace we should prepare for war.

Simple,I believe in a strong military.We should be able to scare the pants off of our potential enemies just by showing up.

I believe in equality for all, but not set-asides for some.

This means I do NOT believe in affirmative action,for anyone,for any reason.

I believe we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I believe in individual privacy.

Again,as long as you don't hurt anyone,do what you want.Read what you want,sleep with whomever you want,etc.

I believe we should be very cautious when discussing or considering banning things.

I believe it is my job, duty and responsibility to raise my children to be responsible and
accountable human beings.

Its not up to the state to tell me how to raise my kids.
I don't believe "it takes a village".
Its my job to teach my kids how to live in society,not anyone elses.

I believe in leaving this country in better condition when I leave it than when I arrived.


I believe it is my civic duty to stand up for what I believe.

I believe that rewarding people for negative or irresponsible behavior only breeds more
negative and irresponsible behavior.

I believe you are the Captain of your own vessel. It is no one else's fault if you run
aground.

Don't blame anyone else for your bad decisions.
If you decide to drive drunk,and have an accident,its YOUR FAULT.
Not the bartenders,not the auto makers,not anyone elses fault,its YOURS.
If you decide to commit a crime,and get caught,its YOUR FAULT.
It iisn'tsocieties fault,we ddidn'tmake you do it.
You did it of your own free will.

I believe capitalism is a positive force on the planet, not a repressive, ugly one.


I believe in working hard to implement what I believe.

I believe success should be rewarded, not punished.

If someone is successful,we should applaud them,not penalize them.We don't need to take what they earn on the grounds of "its not fair that they have that much".
As long as they pay their taxes and obtain their success LEGALLY,then we should get out of their way and let them be even more successful.

I believe there are people who disagree with my beliefs. I don't believe they are wrong. I
know they are.

I can understand you, to a point. I have never voted Democrat, in my entire adult life. I understand why you call yourself 'Conservative'. So should I, by the way I vote.

My opinion is, we don't differ all that. We all want the same things, but don't agree about how to get it. Well, that's far from the latest of party separation. I call it people being petty.

So, you are a coservative. Well, so am I. At first, I was going to make a protest vote, until the debates. I voted for Bush, even though I don't agree with him, either. I just agreed with him more than Kerry. That guy came off as a Clinton impersonator to me.

At least Bush has the guts to be what he is. He went as far as occupying two countries, so far. I don't agree with his ignorance of science, being against stem cell research. Does he want to keep us in the stone ages? The list goes on.

I don't agree with either party, exlusively. Why do you?

I don't believe MM said he agreed with any party exclusively, Wildflower. I would almost guess that a good conservative (using the modern definition) would have some problems with some policies, proposals, etc. of the Bush administration. I certainly do.

It all comes down to picking the side that you believe gets it the most right most of the tiime. It's knowing who you are and having the strength of your convictions. MM does. I almost certainly would disagree with him on some issues, and/or he would disagree with me, but that's okay since we are all imperfect with feet of clay. And people who are really for something can explain why they are and they live it by being consistent, with their lives, with their words, with their votes.

But people who can't articulate the convictions they hold or why they hold them but think it is enough to ridicule or demean or bash the opposition get neither my respect nor my vote. Conservatives are almost always for something; not just against something.

Those who can articulate their convictions and why they hold them may or may not get my agreement, but they will always get my respect and, if they are sufficiently convincing to win my trust, could very likely get my vote as well. And that's why Bush did.

Well said (or written, I need to do something about my tendency to pedantry). Even though I think that Bush is the worst President the US has produced in living memory I admire your reasoning.

Wildflower,
There are many things Bush has done that I disagree with.
I do not consider myself a republican or a democrat,because I both agree and disagree with some of both parties positions.
I vote for the person,not the party.


BTW Wildflower,what part of KY?
I live about 20 miles west of Henderson.