Twice in the last month, I’ve read liberals describe conservatism as a political philosophy that seeks to hold on to the past. I have no idea where that comes from, or if it’s a widespread misunderstanding, but I’d like to clear that up right now.
Conservatism is a philosophy grounded in freedom. Every other belief or tenet flows from and to freedom, which is what the United States Constitution attempted to maximize. Perhaps the musing that the “past” comes from the fact that the Constitution was signed in 1778. If that is as strenuous as liberals’ thought gets, then perhaps we should not be shocked that they come up with a lot of unsound ideas.
Conservatives believe that when the government leaves us alone, we are free to spend our money the way we want to, protect ourselves and our home, and engage in fair, free enterprise. When the government becomes involved in any transaction, the transaction becomes more expensive, and we are essentially outsourcing our responsibility and our self-reliance to an entity that has no more empathy or understanding than a robot. This isn’t a criticism of bureaucrats, though bureaucrats surely deserve criticism. It is an observation that in an attempt to be fair, governments establish rigid policies. Those who implement the policy are incapable of using their own judgement to solve the problem the citizen brings to them. Instead of relying on the government to do something, it is easier, more productive and cheaper to do it ourselves.
Conservatives believe the Constitution means what it says. Some amendments are great and some are repugnant (16th Amendment, for instance, is socialist, and the 17th is merely annoying.)
Another thing that I’ve read several times in the last few days, and indeed my whole life, is that the rich “want to preserve their place in the power structure.” This is usually said in a sneering way and seems to refer to wealth. But I don’t understand how someone can “preserve their place” at all. Do these people believe that all citizens are ranked, that nobody moves up or down the success ladder? And how would one preserve one’s space? Having money does not automatically give one a political voice. Millionaires don’t automatically become lobbyists in Washington, D.C. I am starting to suspect that the people who use this kind of talk have no idea what they’re actually talking about either.
Conservatism is the belief that the United States government has one purpose: to protect us from foreign invaders. Everything else is unconstitutional.
President Obama had a great quote from, I think, 1998 or so when he said that the Constitution constrains us, and that it is a document of negative rights – meaning it only says what the government can’t do, not what it must do on the people’s behalf.
Exactamundo, moron. Self-respecting people do not want the government to breastfeed us all our lives. We want to be free to engage in capitalism and manage our daily lives, and let the government keep us safe from, oh, perhaps terrorists flying over from Yemen.
Liberals seem to believe that people are helpless, and can not manage in the world without a daddy figure to guide us and hold our hands. I simply do not understand this mindset. Nor did our founders, who understood that freedom was more important than security.
Conservatism is the belief that the individual is powerful. It is the belief that the state is submissive to the individual. Now think back, and try to remember the last time you felt that the world was working correctly – when the individual was in control, and the state was in the background.
Amen.
For those interested in further examination of the principals of converstatism, I recommend the following link to Ten Conservative Principles
by Russell Kirk:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html
I would also advise checking out http://www.jerrypournelle.com for the views of a very smart, articulate conservate, Dr. Jerry Pournelle (engineer, conservative, science fiction writer). Always worth the read.
Lee
Exactly!
In the vein that Democrats are in reality anti-democracy we should start calling ourselves Federalists. Then they’re all, “But you don’t support a big fed derp derp,” and we’re all, “Yeah, we’re 1788-style Federalists, bitch.”
I’m not sure where that came from exactly but to say that there is a case for a strong fed. And a strongly limited one as well.
Amen Cullen. Federalists, I like it!
Just read this earlier today. Thought it fit in with this discussion. Sure miss Ronnie.
In 1977, Reagan outlined a plan for “The New Republican Party,” stating, “The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and what we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations — found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.”
…a political philosophy that seeks to hold on to the past. I have no idea where that comes from…
It comes from WFB, Jr who famously said: “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop!’ ”
And he was correct, to a certain extent.
When something violates or constricts freedom, we do want that stopped.
But that’s not about being in “the past”, it is about wanting to maximize freedom.
I think the key is to WHAT a MODERN conservative says stop to:
1) Would we stand against the trust busters of the Teddy Roosevelt administration?
2) Would we stand against the early formation of unions?
3) Would we stand against child labor laws?
See, the tough thing is to decide at what point does freedom of an individuals action violate the natural rights of other individuals. By the time WFB came onto the scene, the progressive nature of “liberals” became socialist and even fascist in practice.
What we don’t very well is to “undo” laws that are no longer necessary. The three examples I list above no longer need laws to prevent these potential threats to economic and personal freedom… For example, “barriers to entry” that allowed monopolistic practices in the past are much more difficult to control. Unions are no longer needed because of the flexibility and knowledge of workers to shift to different areas to maximize their worth to any company.
I read something today that solidified my point (sorry I can’t remember where; maybe Rich Lowery??). Liberal democrats believe once a law or regulation is passed is that that now is a settled argument and that’s where the baseline of liberty and freedom begins. There is no such thing as undoing these laws. Ironically, because the opposite of laws and regulations is NO laws and regulations, these decisions can ALWAYS be reconsidered.
That was wonderful, JFH!
Perhaps the musing that the “past” comes from the fact that the Constitution was signed in 1778.
1787, not 1778. I thought that looked a little weird. I’ve been doing that number transposition thing for years tho…
JFH…unions….I don’t think there are many conservatives/libertarians who want to see unions made illegal…rather, I think they/we tend to be opposed to government policies that *force* unionization and to union activities involving violent intimidation. (I also think unions in the public sector are much more problematic than those in the private sector)
“Liberals seem to believe that people are helpless, and can not manage in the world without a daddy figure to guide us and hold our hands.”
Sadly, there are far too many people today who are seemingly incapable of fending for themselves, and spend much time wringing their hands while wailing “somebody should do something!”. And then the liberals step in.
Have an example of that?
That segment of the population who spend most of their lives on welfare, for one. Why help yourself when Uncle Sugar will feed you, house you, and provide you a big screen TV?
I spend my days volunteering helping people with disabilities, mental and physical, who are trying to find employment. I, myself, have CP and was told my old teachers that “rude-word for mentally disabled people” should not be in school or allow work because they will just sit on their asses and do nothing with they lives. One teacher pointed out that I should have been left to die , when my CP was discover, because I just raise her taxes by standing alive. Instead, of listening to her, I graduated from a good suburban high school,( with GPA 3.1 out of 4.0 which was a b avg. so i was kind of bad at reading) then I got a BA in Speech Communication, and now I help disabled people who not as … privilege as am I.
“That segment of the population who spend most of their lives on welfare, for one. Why help yourself when Uncle Sugar will feed you, house you, and provide you a big screen TV ” This could applying to PWD, People with disabilities as well as “That” other group. I have problem with this — not the statement but the fact that many member of “that” group are happy to just get by rather than help their community and the ones who are helping are call upity or want to be white. That pissing me out
So, why am I nobody you would not like because I am a native Democrat who just graduating in DEC ’09. I always thought that government’s job was to report to, not control , the American people. I do believe in local, not so much small government, on the understanding that local government controlled the enforces ADA Laws that most effect our day to day lives. Yet, we (PWDs) would still be institution if it was not for big government and Non-profit organization
Yes, I voted for President Obama, because I thought he would not get elect, but it would interesting to see how of his promises he get done… (not one word in the news about The President’s view on improving the ADA Act of 1990) I personal like President Obama as a man and wish him no ham …
while am staring to side with GOP about the power of the Gov. I’m still a Democrat. I just saying for whose of us in groups at the bottom of sociality ie disabled, underprivilege unwanted who are Ambitious people that want to help others and provide for ourselves. Where do we fit? Should there be law that make it is not legal be disable, because your life will just be one big hand out form “real” american? I am not trying to be an Asshole, i am really looking the opposing view to my beliefs so that I can make informed choices.
That pissing me out = that pissing me off:(
I used a double negative in my post name. My name is support to expass the idea that I don’t share your views but want feedback.
And Buckshinks Rules I did not mean to take over your post