Cross posted at: The Stafford Voice and Rebuild the Party
In a work titled "Prejudice and Abstract Political Theory in Edmund Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution", Nick Russo observes:
'He explains that English philosophers, or, "men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them," essentially serving as a confirming and stabilizing force on political thought. This model for healthy political thought can be understood through an evolutionary scenario. Biological systems, such as ecosystems and individuals, remain the same, in a state of equilibrium, until something goes wrong, causing the system to evolve or adapt to ensure its survival. Similarly, Burke finds nothing wrong with the status quo political system if it is providing a better environment than its lack could provide.'
It seems that, for some reason, many people have a prejudicial idea on what conservative is. In our own "state of equilibrium," everything, as we see it, seems calm and unprovoked. Now that our "something [has] gone wrong," many are left learning to swim, in an infested pool, without ever having a true understanding, not only of where we have been, but where we are headed.
So, that brings us to know, as your own understanding, what is Conservative?
Conservative intellect; what is your thought
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Conservative has two meanings.
1. It is a political ideology that refuses to change even while new doctrines pull it forward.
2. It is the support of objective, and hence universal right/values/ethics.
Most liberals are the actual intellectuals of the world, many graduate from Ivy League schools and considered by all to be the smartest/best/intelligent.
Conservatives are not.
The major problem, is that these intellectuals believe they are smarter than most and attempt to centralize. They believe that they can do it better/smarter/more efficient. Sadly they cannot.
Conservatives end up being the more intelligent ones as they continually point out "hey, central control does not WORK! STOP IT!".
1. It is a political ideology that refuses to change even while new doctrines pull it forward.
2. It is the support of objective, and hence universal right/values/ethics.
Your ignorance of true Conservatism is truly astounding.
It seems that the "conservative" response to adversity is to insult. Am I right, CT?
Yes, but conservatives, for example paleoconseratives, have always been for central control. Kings, the Church, God, etc.. It is only the classical liberal wing of the "Republican party" that is for a "rational" amount of decentralization..
Oh Boris the hypocritical in you arises again. How many times have you insulted people here? I mean if you wan to play these childish games of finger pointing and whining when you are attacked we can continue.
Boris, I suggest you do some reading, and not Wikipeida either. True Conservatives have their roots in classical liberalism. Followers of Du Tocqueville, Kirk, Hayek, Nisbet, Acton, and Burke fall into that category. God is an important part but so is speration of Church and State.
Paleos, as you so worngfully pointed out, are not for centralized control, they are directly opposite. It is a recent phenom, they are akin to Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan types. Very limited gov. (Which I agree with) and staunch isolationists (Which I agree with to a point), and believe strongly in the family.
You really don't have a concept of what a Conservative is, do you? Other than your stereotypical reads on the New Socialist Daily, eh? I have often wondered why you try and enrage people here with your childish tactics.
You approach your arguments here like archetypal Far Left winger on a GOP site, trying to get attention.But, your ignorance finally answers my question.
You want to want to know what I stand for? Read "Reflections on the French Revolution" and then get back to me.
"Oh Boris the hypocritical in you arises again. How many times have you insulted people here? I mean if you wan to play these childish games of finger pointing and whining when you are attacked we can continue."
Just wanted to confirm that you don't live your morals. ;)
"Boris, I suggest you do some reading, and not Wikipeida either. True Conservatives have their roots in classical liberalism. Followers of Du Tocqueville, Kirk, Hayek, Nisbet, Acton, and Burke fall into that category. God is an important part but so is speration of Church and State."
I have no idea what a "true conservative" is.
Classical liberalism has defining characteristics that separate it from King following, Pope following paleoconservatism.
"Paleos, as you so worngfully pointed out, are not for centralized control, they are directly opposite. It is a recent phenom, they are akin to Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan types. Very limited gov. (Which I agree with) and staunch isolationists (Which I agree with to a point), and believe strongly in the family."
It does seem that I was wrong. Paleoconservatives are nothing more than classical liberals. As for what I meant by "paleoconservative": I meant that there are still those who stress central authority, be it in the form of Church, patriarchism, or allegiance to the King. In Canada, for example, true "paleoconservatives" or loyalists still exist, because Canada never had a bourgeosie revolution.
"You really don't have a concept of what a Conservative is, do you? Other than your stereotypical reads on the New Socialist Daily, eh? I have often wondered why you try and enrage people here with your childish tactics."
I think my initial definition is still right:
1. It is a political ideology that refuses to change even while new doctrines pull it forward. (check)
2. It is the support of objective, and hence universal right/values/ethics. (I would say that many conservatives suppor their world view for this very reason, be it neo or paleo)
"You approach your arguments here like archetypal Far Left winger on a GOP site, trying to get attention.But, your ignorance finally answers my question."
That's probably because I am an archtypal far leftwinger.
And you, sir, are a typical right wing, American loud mouth who grossly exaggerates your minor victories for dramatic effect.
In other words, you are a drama queen.
"You want to want to know what I stand for? Read "Reflections on the French Revolution" and then get back to me."
No thanks. I don't respect central authority. Apparently you do, because you have just passed the buck to a central authority instead of explaining the central authority's argument yourself.
Lol. You are at best, amusing. You personal opinion of me is about a inconsequential as you are. As far as Conservatism, I have provided you the resource to read. I see your understanding of political thought is about as deep as your knowledge of the history of the Roman empire. So, again, you have proven my point about your stupidity. Oh and what about this?
"No thanks. I don't respect central authority. Apparently you do, because you have just passed the buck to a central authority instead of explaining the central authority's argument yourself."
That's quite a turnabout. Have you found anarchism as your new cult and given up on socialist doctrine? Need I remind you central authority is the epitome of the socialist movement. But as you will so predictably remind me of how sm-ur-t you are and relish in your contradictory statement. As always keep entertaining with you foolishness.
And yes I do respect central authority, not an overbearing one, as much as I respect individual rights.
I almsot forgot, Classical Liberalism versus Paleo. I have tried to dumb it down for you.
Classic Liberals are concerned with individual rights on a universal or worldly scale, they look more economic freedom to attain this goal, they do want small government like the Paleo's. In short they are closer to Libertarians than anything.
Paleo's rely on tradition, family values, Western heritage, some federalism, also they are some what free marketers. They are closer to my form of Conservatism which is classical Conservatism. Minus the fact that they are extremely rigid against change, and they look to much to the old ideas of monarchist Europe, and there is very little separation of church and state.
"Lol. You are at best, amusing. You personal opinion of me is about a inconsequential as you are. As far as Conservatism, I have provided you the resource to read. I see your understanding of political thought is about as deep as your knowledge of the history of the Roman empire. So, again, you have proven my point about your stupidity. Oh and what about this?"
Felt the need to reply twice, eh? And you always seem to feel the need to insult me at the start of your rejoinders. Is there a reason for this?
Again, as soon as that Roman legion entered Rome, Rome was finished. Standing armies allow those in power to fight each other viciously. The framers of the constitution knew this... have you forgotten?
"That's quite a turnabout. Have you found anarchism as your new cult and given up on socialist doctrine? Need I remind you central authority is the epitome of the socialist movement. But as you will so predictably remind me of how sm-ur-t you are and relish in your contradictory statement. As always keep entertaining with you foolishness."
Anarchism? Heavens no. Just pointing out that those who are too lazy to argue their own arguments for themselves, and instead defer to the central authority of academia, are probably not American. They're probably Socratic Christians who believe in the wise central authority - in the golden spirit.
"And yes I do respect central authority, not an overbearing one, as much as I respect individual rights."
In terms of this discussion, it merely makes you look hypocritical and anti-American. There is no justification for you to have deferred to a central authority other than your laziness.
"I almsot forgot, Classical Liberalism versus Paleo. I have tried to dumb it down for you."
Please cut aping the elistist, welfare-state liberal crap. I don't really care about your intelligence or knowledge. I'm more interested in the actual act of arguing.
"Classic Liberals are concerned with individual rights on a universal or worldly scale, they look more economic freedom to attain this goal, they do want small government like the Paleo's. In short they are closer to Libertarians than anything."
Indeed.
Paleo's rely on tradition [central authority of ancestors], family values [central authority of patriarch], Western heritage [see above], some federalism, also they are some what free marketers [some and somewhat. Makes me feel really confident of your previous counter]. They are closer to my form of Conservatism which is classical Conservatism. Minus the fact that they are extremely rigid against change [this paleoconservativism is sounding more and more like "Yes, but conservatives, for example paleoconseratives, have always been for central control. Kings, the Church, God, etc.."], and they look to much to the old ideas of monarchist Europe, and there is very little separation of church and state [very, very close. So, they are conservatives minus the King, eh? Or maybe they are conservatives plus the King, but also plus Federalism? BUT WAIT! Britain existed for hundreds of years with the King and parliament!].
"Please cut aping the elistist, welfare-state liberal crap. I don't really care about your intelligence or knowledge. I'm more interested in the actual act of arguing."
Well , I see you are finally catching on. After all the insults you've thrown around here when people were trying to debate you reasonably, I find that little statement quite hypocritical. An please spare the leftist wounded duck/vicitm routine by invoking "righteous indignation," like you are somehow above it all. So it leaves with you two choices; don't return to this site or try a more reasonable approach that isn't mired stupidity. And I am not talking about your political stances either.
"Just pointing out that those who are too lazy to argue their own arguments for themselves, and instead defer to the central authority of academia, are probably not American. They're probably Socratic Christians who believe in the wise central authority - in the golden spirit."
Actually agreed to a point. Many on the RIght and the Left fall victim to this. For the far right it is the Church for the far left it is intellectualism. Both systems are flawed and have their problems.
However, in a true conservative stance God does enter the picture. God, by Burkean Conservatism, it is the root of mankind's liberty. Therefore no natural right of a human being should be hampered. And if you have the capacity or ability you are duty bound to protect the rights of others as well as your own. Regardless of race, creed, color, or background. Nevertheless, there is also the old adage your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.
"And yes I do respect central authority, not an overbearing one, as much as I respect individual rights."
In terms of this discussion, it merely makes you look hypocritical and anti-American. There is no justification for you to have deferred to a central authority other than your laziness."
How does this make me look hypocritical? Your response is based in ignorance. If I was a Libertarian then you would have a point. I have a belief in the need for law and the need for governmental intervention sometimes, such as the case in natural disasters like Katrina. Your attitude seems rooted in your stereotypical idea of Right Wingers.
"Well , I see you are finally catching on. After all the insults you've thrown around here when people were trying to debate you reasonably, I find that little statement quite hypocritical. An please spare the leftist wounded duck/vicitm routine by invoking "righteous indignation," like you are somehow above it all. So it leaves with you two choices; don't return to this site or try a more reasonable approach that isn't mired stupidity. And I am not talking about your political stances either."
LOL, you guys need to ride the waves of free speech. Sometimes people insult not to insult.
Leftist wounded duck? Funny image. Insults from the start are not typical of leftists. Leftists usually start insulting their opponents when they have argued with them ad nasaeum without positive results, and maybe not even then... My insults were more a libertarian experiment, CT...
"However, in a true conservative stance God does enter the picture. God, by Burkean Conservatism, it is the root of mankind's liberty. Therefore no natural right of a human being should be hampered. And if you have the capacity or ability you are duty bound to protect the rights of others as well as your own. Regardless of race, creed, color, or background. Nevertheless, there is also the old adage your rights end where mine begin and vice versa."
That "duty bound" part is a bit different than the libertarians, who think that rights exist in and are exercised by the individual. You don't have a duty to exercise your rights; you are the carrier of them.
"How does this make me look hypocritical? Your response is based in ignorance. If I was a Libertarian then you would have a point. I have a belief in the need for law and the need for governmental intervention sometimes, such as the case in natural disasters like Katrina. Your attitude seems rooted in your stereotypical idea of Right Wingers."
Not to over simplify, of course, no one argument or proposition can express a doctrine fully, I'm suggesting that there are elements of non-libertarian conservatism that are anti-American. For example, "the tip of the American spear" suggest that America is a tribe, a nation, which goes against the basic spirit of the constitution. Such fascist statements are anti-American.
"That "duty bound" part is a bit different than the libertarians, who think that rights exist in and are exercised by the individual."
First off I am not a Libertarian so that is non sequetor . Secondly I was referring to duty bound to protect individual rights, not exercise them.
"Not to over simplify, of course, no one argument or proposition can express a doctrine fully, I'm suggesting that there are elements of non-libertarian conservatism that are anti-American."
Again I am not a Libertarian. I appreciate their philosophies. However like most Far Left ideologues, they are far to rigid and unwavering in their applications of governance. Of course there are elements of non-libertarian conservatives, just like their are non-progressive liberals. Individual factions will always arise, it is inevitable.
I am suggesting that there are parts of your non-libertarian conservativism that are anti-American. And, no, libertarianism is not left. It is center.
I was not insinuating they were Far Left, I was comparing their commonalities as far as being stubborn and unwavering. They in no way are Center, they are actually Far Right.