I hear the term conservative thrown around here quite a lot and a lot of people claim that they are conservative because they simply vote republican, but is the republican party conservative?

Here are the key concepts to conservatism:

1) The rejection of Rationalism

Conservatives often use the metaphor of a ship at sea to explain their objections to what they call 'rationalism' (it should be noted that rationalism is a pejorative term and those identified as rationalists by conservatives would not use this label to describe themselves). You are at sea, and your ship develops a fault, which if not dealt with will result in the ship sinking. The 'ship' is the state, or the set of political institutions that make up the  state, while the 'sea' is sociiy or culture in the widest sense. The 'fault' is a metaphone intended to illustrate the stresses and strains that political institutions frequently face. Rationalism would entain 'analysing' - or breaking down - the ship into its components in the hope of understanding the source of the fault and so rectifying it, The conservatives' poiit is not hard to disceen: we cannot deconstruct the ship while at sea, but we must do something about the fault or we drown. Basically saying that rationalism is impractical.

Rationalists are generally identified as Liberals (not the socilists but those in the centre of the political spectrum).

2) The importance of experience

Continuing with the metaphor of the ship, our response to the fault must be based on past experiences and, if necessary, a cautious process of trial and error. the 'conservatism' of conservatives rests not on an irrationnal veneration of  he past but on a recognition of the limited nature of human reason, and for this reason conservatives can be progressive, and embrace change. What they fear are radical experiments: human beings cannot adequatell predict the full consequnces of their actions, and hile some experiments may make the world a better placce we cannot be sure they will. This is were the rejection of radical change comes in because we cannot fully understand the consequences.

3) The mistrust of Human Nature

While there are some marked differences within conservative thought concerning human behaviour, capabilities and motivation, there is broad agreement that human beings are limited in their capacity to comprehend the society in which they live. This does not mean that humans are stupid, but tather no individual mind can understand the complexity of social relations, and there is no 'super mind' which is capab of doing so. Here the conservative critique of socialism is most apparant: socialist planning presupposes a mind capable of making complex eeconomic decision. Socialism is doomed to failure because, first, it is inefficient , and, second (and perhaps more worryingly), it requires a concentration of power in the hands of the state. Conservatives tend to  support the free market on the grounds that the distribution of goods depends on the decisions made by millions of individuals without the necessity for central control. This brings them close to the the Libertarian stream of liberalism but, importantly, conservative support for markets is not based on the individualist premise of moral rights to private property, but on a claim about limits of human capabilities.

4) Rejection of 'visionary politics'

Conservative thinker Edmund Burke famously observed that 'at the end of every vista', you see nothing but the gallows' (Burke, 1975: 344) . He had in mind the visionary politic of the French Revolution (1789). Vsionaries do not recognise the pluralism of everyday life - the fact that individuals have conflicting needs, desires and values. A cision implies a common project for society which overrides that pluralism. A later thinker Micahel Oakeshott, makes a distinction between society as a 'civic association' and an 'enterprise association': an enterprise impies a common purpose, wheras a civic association rests on certain rules of conduct that allow individuals to live together.

5) Respect for insitiutions

An institution is a rule-governed activity. Conservatives maintain that institutions evolve, rather than being created at a dterminate point in history. This may seem to misdescribe the history of many national institutions; for example, the US and modern France had 'founding moments', and the process of decolonisation in the period after 1945 resulted in instability of many newly created states is evidence of the importance of evolution (of institutions), and second, where institutions appear to be successful it is because thay have adapted over time. the US political system is a good example - founding fathers. THe fact that many Americas do not recognise this fact, and hold that their institutions are continous, actually reinforces the conervatives' argument: a belief in continuity, alongside adaption, is a necessary fiction'. INsitutions suppress the asocial tendenices of Human Nature, and they provide foucs for allegiances.

6) Suspicion of Authority

This feature of conservatism may seem to contadict the last one; however,  to say that conservatives are suspicious of authority does not entail its refection. What Conservatives are wary of is the accumulation of state power, which for reasons discussed above is incompatible with a recognition of the limits of individuals to grasp complex social relations. Although politicians calling themselves 'conservatives' are not shy about using state power to suppress movements they consider to be a threat to social order, more reflective conservatives will argue that institutions are not abstract entities, but have to be run by human beings, who are always in danger either of abusing their position or, even if well meaning, of putting into practice policies which have unintended bad consequences. From this position conservatives can make some interesting alliances - while rejecting statements of universal human rights detatched froma social or legal ststem, they nonetheless stress 'our ancient liberties' and will join forces with civil liberties groups against, for example, measures intended to omcbat terrorism (mor in the UK rather than the US)

So how conservative are you?

(sorry for any typos and if bits of don't make sense because im thinking qucker than i'm typing :p)

Edit: I just want to point out that conservatism doesn not reject socialism. Th essence of conservatism is preserving what works and what's good, if socialist policies seem to be working then they will be kept.

Why be conservative when you can be a classical liberal?

Originally posted by murdera2k6

I hear the term conservative thrown around here quite a lot and a lot of people claim that they are conservative because they simply vote republican, but is the republican party conservative?

Here are the key concepts to conservatism:

1) The rejection of Rationalism

Conservatives often use the metaphor of a ship at sea to explain their objections to what they call 'rationalism' (it should be noted that rationalism is a pejorative term and those identified as rationalists by conservatives would not use this label to describe themselves). You are at sea, and your ship develops a fault, which if not dealt with will result in the ship sinking. The 'ship' is the state, or the set of political institutions that make up the  state, while the 'sea' is sociiy or culture in the widest sense. The 'fault' is a metaphone intended to illustrate the stresses and strains that political institutions frequently face. Rationalism would entain 'analysing' - or breaking down - the ship into its components in the hope of understanding the source of the fault and so rectifying it, The conservatives' poiit is not hard to disceen: we cannot deconstruct the ship while at sea, but we must do something about the fault or we drown. Basically saying that rationalism is impractical.

Rationalists are generally identified as Liberals (not the socilists but those in the centre of the political spectrum).

2) The importance of experience

Continuing with the metaphor of the ship, our response to the fault must be based on past experiences and, if necessary, a cautious process of trial and error. the 'conservatism' of conservatives rests not on an irrationnal veneration of  he past but on a recognition of the limited nature of human reason, and for this reason conservatives can be progressive, and embrace change. What they fear are radical experiments: human beings cannot adequatell predict the full consequnces of their actions, and hile some experiments may make the world a better placce we cannot be sure they will. This is were the rejection of radical change comes in because we cannot fully understand the consequences.

3) The mistrust of Human Nature

While there are some marked differences within conservative thought concerning human behaviour, capabilities and motivation, there is broad agreement that human beings are limited in their capacity to comprehend the society in which they live. This does not mean that humans are stupid, but tather no individual mind can understand the complexity of social relations, and there is no 'super mind' which is capab of doing so. Here the conservative critique of socialism is most apparant: socialist planning presupposes a mind capable of making complex eeconomic decision. Socialism is doomed to failure because, first, it is inefficient , and, second (and perhaps more worryingly), it requires a concentration of power in the hands of the state. Conservatives tend to  support the free market on the grounds that the distribution of goods depends on the decisions made by millions of individuals without the necessity for central control. This brings them close to the the Libertarian stream of liberalism but, importantly, conservative support for markets is not based on the individualist premise of moral rights to private property, but on a claim about limits of human capabilities.

4) Rejection of 'visionary politics'

Conservative thinker Edmund Burke famously observed that 'at the end of every vista', you see nothing but the gallows' (Burke, 1975: 344) . He had in mind the visionary politic of the French Revolution (1789). Vsionaries do not recognise the pluralism of everyday life - the fact that individuals have conflicting needs, desires and values. A cision implies a common project for society which overrides that pluralism. A later thinker Micahel Oakeshott, makes a distinction between society as a 'civic association' and an 'enterprise association': an enterprise impies a common purpose, wheras a civic association rests on certain rules of conduct that allow individuals to live together.

5) Respect for insitiutions

An institution is a rule-governed activity. Conservatives maintain that institutions evolve, rather than being created at a dterminate point in history. This may seem to misdescribe the history of many national institutions; for example, the US and modern France had 'founding moments', and the process of decolonisation in the period after 1945 resulted in instability of many newly created states is evidence of the importance of evolution (of institutions), and second, where institutions appear to be successful it is because thay have adapted over time. the US political system is a good example - founding fathers. THe fact that many Americas do not recognise this fact, and hold that their institutions are continous, actually reinforces the conervatives' argument: a belief in continuity, alongside adaption, is a necessary fiction'. INsitutions suppress the asocial tendenices of Human Nature, and they provide foucs for allegiances.

6) Suspicion of Authority

This feature of conservatism may seem to contadict the last one; however,  to say that conservatives are suspicious of authority does not entail its refection. What Conservatives are wary of is the accumulation of state power, which for reasons discussed above is incompatible with a recognition of the limits of individuals to grasp complex social relations. Although politicians calling themselves 'conservatives' are not shy about using state power to suppress movements they consider to be a threat to social order, more reflective conservatives will argue that institutions are not abstract entities, but have to be run by human beings, who are always in danger either of abusing their position or, even if well meaning, of putting into practice policies which have unintended bad consequences. From this position conservatives can make some interesting alliances - while rejecting statements of universal human rights detatched froma social or legal ststem, they nonetheless stress 'our ancient liberties' and will join forces with civil liberties groups against, for example, measures intended to omcbat terrorism (mor in the UK rather than the US)

So how conservative are you?

(sorry for any typos and if bits of don't make sense because im thinking qucker than i'm typing :p)

Edit: I just want to point out that conservatism doesn not reject socialism. Th essence of conservatism is preserving what works and what's good, if socialist policies seem to be working then they will be kept.

I consider myself a conservative now... after developing quite an interest in ancient antiquity and medieval times, I can see how history is basically a cause and effect timeline, and that all of our societies are descendents of those form those times who have inhereited aspects of their culture and traditions that we should preserve and conserve. The societies of the past were tight, unified, and in order... it shows that despite what everybody thinks, things work when they are structured and have barriers. The hippie mindset of "everybody should do whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of who they are, be whatever they want to be, and do whatever they want to do (and we should all be friends)" is a flawed mindset as it ignores structure and barriers and replaces them with staunch individualism... the "progressive" efforts to give absolute freedom to the individual is just the shadow of anarchy... it'd be quite ridiculous not to tie the two together.

Our boat has so many faults it's quite insane.

Hey bro, where did you get that quote?

I'm not a conservative, but rather a classical liberal/libertarian.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Hey bro, where did you get that quote?

I'm not a conservative, but rather a classical liberal/libertarian.

Hey, it's partly from my work as a student and partly from a book on Political Philosophy, it's called and Introduction to Political Theory Second Edition  by John Hoffman and Paul Graham.

I'm not a conservative either but I'd like to see what people who calim that they are conservative think after reading about the key concepts of it.

p.s. did you recieve my message? 

I consider myself a conservative so I'll respond to each of your number points:

1) I don't reject rationality and I don't think rationality is a sign of one's party affiliation.  Rationality is also extremely subjective by its nature so what seems rational to me may not to you, and vise versa.

2) I think I agree with this.  I think most people don't think about the consequences of their actions and when making complex decisions don't consider all of the ramifications and end up hurting themselves because of it.

3)  I guess according to this paragraph it would make me a Libertarian.  I think people are most strongly influenced by self interest, but I take this as a merit to our species and not a negative like many others.  Based on this I can rightfully expect people to charge me the highest amounts possible for their services, and I will spend the least amount possible.  We will come to an agreement and a voluntary exchange will take place which will benefit both of us.  They will have my money which they can use to do what they please, and I will have whatever they sold me which I had wanted.  We both profit.

4) I dunno about this, Conservatism seems pretty "visionary" to me in today's politics :)  But I agree with your paragraph's overreaching individualism.

5) I disagree with this.  Although, on second thought I suppose Nationalism falls under this category.  So I'll be neutral leaning disagree.

6) I absolutely distrust authority :)

You're definately working off a different definition of conservativism than I do but you make a good case for yours.  Interesting thread, thank you.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

I consider myself a conservative so I'll respond to each of your number points:

1) I don't reject rationality and I don't think rationality is a sign of one's party affiliation.  Rationality is also extremely subjective by its nature so what seems rational to me may not to you, and vise versa.

2) I think I agree with this.  I think most people don't think about the consequences of their actions and when making complex decisions don't consider all of the ramifications and end up hurting themselves because of it.

3)  I guess according to this paragraph it would make me a Libertarian.  I think people are most strongly influenced by self interest, but I take this as a merit to our species and not a negative like many others.  Based on this I can rightfully expect people to charge me the highest amounts possible for their services, and I will spend the least amount possible.  We will come to an agreement and a voluntary exchange will take place which will benefit both of us.  They will have my money which they can use to do what they please, and I will have whatever they sold me which I had wanted.  We both profit.

4) I dunno about this, Conservatism seems pretty "visionary" to me in today's politics :)  But I agree with your paragraph's overreaching individualism.

5) I disagree with this.  Although, on second thought I suppose Nationalism falls under this category.  So I'll be neutral leaning disagree.

6) I absolutely distrust authority :)

You're definately working off a different definition of conservativism than I do but you make a good case for yours.  Interesting thread, thank you.

Sorry i should have referenced aproperly but it just takes far too long.

Basically this isn't my interpreation of conservatism, this is from the works of David Hume, Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott - the three main Conservative philosophers. Hume and Burke were writing in the 118th century and Oakeshott is the only major contemporary conservative philosopher. I am not conservative myself however i do agree with some aspects of it.

The problem with conservatism for me is the rejection of radical change, things like the suffragette movement and the Civil Rights movement would be rejected according to conservative thought.

NOTE: Many parties claim to be conservative like the Republican party but rarely do they follow the political ideology of conservatism, usually they are quite liberal in there thinking.

I think too many people are blindly following the 2 parties, but people really are a mix of everything.  I'm fiscally conservative, I'm into family values & high moral standards, but I'm not religious, and I'm all for scientific/technology advancement.  There's not really a word that describes who I am, and I don't affiliate with any parties.  However I do think most people are a mix of both, just too many people blindly follow the R & D, and it seems that's all they know.

Originally posted by Mardy

I think too many people are blindly following the 2 parties, but people really are a mix of everything.  I'm fiscally conservative, I'm into family values & high moral standards, but I'm not religious, and I'm all for scientific/technology advancement.  There's not really a word that describes who I am, and I don't affiliate with any parties.  However I do think most people are a mix of both, just too many people blindly follow the R & D, and it seems that's all they know.

But the Republican Party isn't really Consevative, they are Liberal in the sense of Libertarian. My question is, those who call themselves conservatives, are you actually conservative? Read the key concepts of conservatism and think, voting republican doesn't make you conservative.

I mean I think it's quite obvious by now that the current GOP is a mix of many different types of thought. It's just a shame some of the more well-informed members get less voice than the populist ones.

Alot of what you define as conservative doesn't quite work.

I hate to say this, but one of THE most common attempts of the left is to try and get to define WHAT conservatism is.

I have to say I reject those tennants listed....partially at least..and in some cases outright.

In 11th grade i had a world history teacher define conservatism as "sticking to what works" also....  that may have been true at some time but it's FAR from true now.  he defined liberalism as "willing to be experimental and try new ways to govern"....equally not as valid since most liberals want old socialism that's been tried all too many times and failed.

THIS conservative wants the government to protect my freedoms, not intrude upon them.  Keep my land free from threat and let me pursue my own happiness. Let ME Provide for my family, innovate, invent, work hard....let ME make a place I can call MINE. 

The constitution was designed to create and foster an environment where people could indeed make their dreams come true, it's too bad the left can't see it...they are too worried about the guy that made more money than them and think they ought to be punished for it.   it's a shame.

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

Alot of what you define as conservative doesn't quite work.

I hate to say this, but one of THE most common attempts of the left is to try and get to define WHAT conservatism is.

I have to say I reject those tennants listed....partially at least..and in some cases outright.

 

In 11th grade i had a world history teacher define conservatism as "sticking to what works" also....  that may have been true at some time but it's FAR from true now.  he defined liberalism as "willing to be experimental and try new ways to govern"....equally not as valid since most liberals want old socialism that's been tried all too many times and failed.

THIS conservative wants the government to protect my freedoms, not intrude upon them.  Keep my land free from threat and let me pursue my own happiness. Let ME Provide for my family, innovate, invent, work hard....let ME make a place I can call MINE. 

The constitution was designed to create and foster an environment where people could indeed make their dreams come true, it's too bad the left can't see it...they are too worried about the guy that made more money than them and think they ought to be punished for it.   it's a shame.

This is not my definition of consveratism, it's the definiton  by Conservative Philosophers, so yeah it is consveratism. Look up Edmund Burke, David Hume and Michael Oakeshott, they are all conservative philosophers. David Hume is regarded as the forefather of Coservative Philosophy, Edmund Burke expanded on Hume's work and Oakeshott is the main contemporary conservative philosopher. His most popular work is probably his essay 'Rationalism and Politics' in 1947. So what I posted IS CONSERVATISM, it is the ideological base of conservatism set down by Conservatives.

American Interpreation makes me laugh because they often associate it with Repbulicans but the Republican party is hardly Conservative. Please look up the philosophers, it'll help you understand what true conservatism really is.

Hume isn't a "conservative" philosopher. (He is a Utilitarian).

I think one element, and perhaps the core element in conservatism, that you may have missed is the will to build for the future. To conserve. To keep what you have working, working and save it for the future. Conservation.

I prefer not to call myself anything, since my thoughts don't conform to a single ideology.

I shift perspectives often enough that my mind never solidifies around a single subject.

When you are contented and complacent in what you believe, you stop learning and your mind solidifies - you reject new possibilities and prefer your established dogma.

I establish meaning and stability to proven facts and tried methods that work.

When you change perspectives and accept too much of what you are told, you will be torn asunder by the contradictions alone. Your mind turns to mush and you could become insane if you are too open to new possibilities.

So I keep what works to remain operational in the minimal sense, but leave my mind open to new possibilities for the prospect of reinforcing the foundation. If the foundation is flawed, it is time for a controlled revolution and reconstruction. As an artist draws, he may make a mistake. It is often better to destroy it and start anew than to continue with the already failed project.

1) Nobody has the intention of sinking the ship they're on at sea. If the ship is flawed, make a new one that is more attractive and transfer everyone safely aboard. IE: Dock the ship, write up the blueprints, and have a better one made.

The preconceived notion that another newer and better metaphorical "ship" cannot be made while the older ship is still seaworthy is a limitation imposed by irrational thought.

2) Experience is important, however the quality and context of experience determines much. A venerable old man may know much and have a unique perspective, but it is not the one truth of the world and is skewed by previous emotional experiences. A child's perspective is fresh and new, however inexperienced, and is vital for insight into the obvious. The old man is our established reason, the child is our natural curiosity. Ignore one or the other at your own detriment.

The perspectives of an innocent child and a wisened elder are extremes, and when taken into consideration, they make more sense combined than separated.

A controlled experiment and a radical experiment are no different when viewed objectively. They are experiments - every experiment has a risk and the reward of knowledge. A conservative experiment may actually have a greater risk than a radical one, as even the simplest of experiments can have unforeseen consequences - either by result of witless action or inaction through ignorance.

3) Human nature can always be trusted when there is survival and status at stake, as it is not human nature we mistrust, it is other humans. So long as we fight for resources, we cannot trust one another.

Until we can establish ourselves and work together in harmony (stable anarchy), governance will be required to prevent instability.

4) Naturally, rejection of visionary politics comes with the rejection of radical ideas. Willingness to remain skeptical, rather than hostile, is important in politics. Where there is friction, only more resistance will occur. Approaching an idea and discussing it to reach a compromise that benefits the collective goal is more important than cutting down ideas that may have been designed with the intention of offering assistance.

This is a huge part of game design, actually - consider all ideas equally and take only the most beneficial features of them. This requires collaboration, as no single person is a limitless idea reservoir.

5) Respect for institutions is the same as mistrust of human nature. They are the cause and result of each other.

6) Suspicion of authority is also part of the mistrust of human nature. Governing bodies are required, however there are humans involved in its operation. Those who run the governing body are also governed by human nature, and so we mistrust even our governing bodies.

It's a wonder how long we have lived in this contradiction without finding a solution.

I am neither conservative nor a liberal. I find both parties distasteful in their extremism and quantifying myself to fit their categorical platforms is demeaning to my nature. I am not a thing to be organized, bought or sold through politics. I am a thinking person, and my thoughts are not the same as anyone's, nor are anyone's the same as another's.

Originally posted by baff

Hume isn't a "conservative" philosopher. (He is a Utilitarian).

 

I think one element, and perhaps the core element in conservatism, that you may have missed is the will to build for the future. To conserve. To keep what you have working, working and save it for the future. Conservation.

 

 

Hume's works can be categorised into Liberalism and Conservatism but generally he comes under Conservatism, I just looked him up in some of my old Political Ideology textbooks and he comes under Conservatism in 90% of them the 10% doesn't mention him.

Yeah that didn't come up in the book i was reading but i did breifly mention Conservation.

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

Alot of what you define as conservative doesn't quite work.

I hate to say this, but one of THE most common attempts of the left is to try and get to define WHAT conservatism is.

I have to say I reject those tennants listed....partially at least..and in some cases outright.

 

In 11th grade i had a world history teacher define conservatism as "sticking to what works" also....  that may have been true at some time but it's FAR from true now.  he defined liberalism as "willing to be experimental and try new ways to govern"....equally not as valid since most liberals want old socialism that's been tried all too many times and failed.

THIS conservative wants the government to protect my freedoms, not intrude upon them.  Keep my land free from threat and let me pursue my own happiness. Let ME Provide for my family, innovate, invent, work hard....let ME make a place I can call MINE. 

The constitution was designed to create and foster an environment where people could indeed make their dreams come true, it's too bad the left can't see it...they are too worried about the guy that made more money than them and think they ought to be punished for it.   it's a shame.

 yep...

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by baff

Hume isn't a "conservative" philosopher. (He is a Utilitarian).

 

I think one element, and perhaps the core element in conservatism, that you may have missed is the will to build for the future. To conserve. To keep what you have working, working and save it for the future. Conservation.

 

 

 

Hume's works can be categorised into Liberalism and Conservatism but generally he comes under Conservatism, I just looked him up in some of my old Political Ideology textbooks and he comes under Conservatism in 90% of them the 10% doesn't mention him.

Yeah that didn't come up in the book i was reading but i did breifly mention Conservation.

I was taught that his works are classified under "utilitarianism". It's a school of philosophy.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by baff

Hume isn't a "conservative" philosopher. (He is a Utilitarian).

 

I think one element, and perhaps the core element in conservatism, that you may have missed is the will to build for the future. To conserve. To keep what you have working, working and save it for the future. Conservation.

 

 

 

Hume's works can be categorised into Liberalism and Conservatism but generally he comes under Conservatism, I just looked him up in some of my old Political Ideology textbooks and he comes under Conservatism in 90% of them the 10% doesn't mention him.

Yeah that didn't come up in the book i was reading but i did breifly mention Conservation.

 

I was taught that his works are classified under "utilitarianism". It's a school of philosophy.

Yeah, utilitarianism comes under Liberalism, Hume is considered the forefather of Conservative philosophy but some of the things he said cdo come under Liberalism but his main beliefs were conservative, his works were built upon by Edmund Burke, to get a full understanding of Conservatism it's useful yo look him up too.

Originally posted by frodus

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

Alot of what you define as conservative doesn't quite work.

I hate to say this, but one of THE most common attempts of the left is to try and get to define WHAT conservatism is.

I have to say I reject those tennants listed....partially at least..and in some cases outright.

 

In 11th grade i had a world history teacher define conservatism as "sticking to what works" also....  that may have been true at some time but it's FAR from true now.  he defined liberalism as "willing to be experimental and try new ways to govern"....equally not as valid since most liberals want old socialism that's been tried all too many times and failed.

THIS conservative wants the government to protect my freedoms, not intrude upon them.  Keep my land free from threat and let me pursue my own happiness. Let ME Provide for my family, innovate, invent, work hard....let ME make a place I can call MINE. 

The constitution was designed to create and foster an environment where people could indeed make their dreams come true, it's too bad the left can't see it...they are too worried about the guy that made more money than them and think they ought to be punished for it.   it's a shame.

 

 yep...

Please take the timie to read the thread before you post.

Thanks.

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by frodus

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

Alot of what you define as conservative doesn't quite work.

I hate to say this, but one of THE most common attempts of the left is to try and get to define WHAT conservatism is.

I have to say I reject those tennants listed....partially at least..and in some cases outright.

 

In 11th grade i had a world history teacher define conservatism as "sticking to what works" also....  that may have been true at some time but it's FAR from true now.  he defined liberalism as "willing to be experimental and try new ways to govern"....equally not as valid since most liberals want old socialism that's been tried all too many times and failed.

THIS conservative wants the government to protect my freedoms, not intrude upon them.  Keep my land free from threat and let me pursue my own happiness. Let ME Provide for my family, innovate, invent, work hard....let ME make a place I can call MINE. 

The constitution was designed to create and foster an environment where people could indeed make their dreams come true, it's too bad the left can't see it...they are too worried about the guy that made more money than them and think they ought to be punished for it.   it's a shame.

 

 yep...

 

Please take the timie to read the thread before you post.

Thanks.

Yep i did and faxxer and baff nailed it.I'm a Conservative the most Conservative on the boards.

Quote Baff...Hume isn't a "conservative" philosopher. (He is a Utilitarian).

I think one element, and perhaps the core element in conservatism, that you may have missed is the will to build for the future. To conserve. To keep what you have working, working and save it for the future. Conservation.

Actually Baff just surprised the shit out of me..