CDZ Conservatism and why it's not dead

[Boss]

........True Conservative philosophy takes a slow measured approach to solving our problems and addressing our issues. It carefully weighs all aspects of both "sides" of an argument and reasons a "moderate" resolution. Inessence, it is the "moderate" view as opposed to the extremist view. The advantage to this is self-evident, it tends to keep us from really screwing things up. Radical extremism often results in knee-jerk emotive responses that cause more problems than they fix because the ramifications and consequences are often not considered until after the fact. .........

The Founders were radicals by that definition and the Brit loyalists aka Tories were conservatives.

I can't disagree with that. Indeed, the founders were radicals.

 

[Correll]

........True Conservative philosophy takes a slow measured approach to solving our problems and addressing our issues. It carefully weighs all aspects of both "sides" of an argument and reasons a "moderate" resolution. Inessence, it is the "moderate" view as opposed to the extremist view. The advantage to this is self-evident, it tends to keep us from really screwing things up. Radical extremism often results in knee-jerk emotive responses that cause more problems than they fix because the ramifications and consequences are often not considered until after the fact. .........

The Founders were radicals by that definition and the Brit loyalists aka Tories were conservatives.

I can't disagree with that. Indeed, the founders were radicals.

How long did they try less radical approaches to their grievances before turning to Revolution?

 

[Divine Wind]

I fundamentally disagree. Conservatism is not an ideology. This is explained in the OP. Being pragmatic and holding to time-tested values you know and can depend on is not "left" or "right". You can certainly morph Conservatism into an ideology and apply a bunch of stereotypes but that doesn't mean a thing other than you don't understand what Conservatism is.

I will agree that what has been missing on the national political stage is a voice to articulate Conservatism and defend it from left wing zealots who seek to destroy it. That will change in time, someone will come along again and when they do, people will come back to common sense solutions and pragmatic values because that is inescapable truth.

Ummm, ideology doesn't have to be left or right, but political ideology, such as traditional values and fiscal responsibility are, indeed, an ideology.

IDEOLOGY: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

 

[Divine Wind]

How long did they try less radical approaches to their grievances before turning to Revolution?

Decades. Two examples: The Sugar Tax Act was in 1764. Before that, the Molasses Act in 1733.

The Founders were loyal British citizens and wanted to remain loyal British citizens. However, they also wanted to be treated as full British citizens, not second class ones. That led to conflict because the British government refused this fair request.

 

[Correll]

How long did they try less radical approaches to their grievances before turning to Revolution?

Decades. Two examples: The Sugar Tax Act was in 1764. Before that, the Molasses Act in 1733.

The Founders were loyal British citizens and wanted to remain loyal British citizens. However, they also wanted to be treated as full British citizens, not second class ones. That led to conflict because the British government refused this fair request.

Forty years? That's a lifetime.

 

[Boss]

........True Conservative philosophy takes a slow measured approach to solving our problems and addressing our issues. It carefully weighs all aspects of both "sides" of an argument and reasons a "moderate" resolution. Inessence, it is the "moderate" view as opposed to the extremist view. The advantage to this is self-evident, it tends to keep us from really screwing things up. Radical extremism often results in knee-jerk emotive responses that cause more problems than they fix because the ramifications and consequences are often not considered until after the fact. .........

The Founders were radicals by that definition and the Brit loyalists aka Tories were conservatives.

I can't disagree with that. Indeed, the founders were radicals.

How long did they try less radical approaches to their grievances before turning to Revolution?

For over 100 years they tried Colonialism. Many wanted to keep on doing that. Before we had a revolution we very nearly had a civil war over it. People were sharply divided on the subject.

 

[Boss]

I fundamentally disagree. Conservatism is not an ideology. This is explained in the OP. Being pragmatic and holding to time-tested values you know and can depend on is not "left" or "right". You can certainly morph Conservatism into an ideology and apply a bunch of stereotypes but that doesn't mean a thing other than you don't understand what Conservatism is.

I will agree that what has been missing on the national political stage is a voice to articulate Conservatism and defend it from left wing zealots who seek to destroy it. That will change in time, someone will come along again and when they do, people will come back to common sense solutions and pragmatic values because that is inescapable truth.

Ummm, ideology doesn't have to be left or right, but political ideology, such as traditional values and fiscal responsibility are, indeed, an ideology.

IDEOLOGY: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

But I reject that all Conservatives believe in traditional values or fiscal responsibility. Reagan, the prototypical Conservative by pretty much consensus, often articulated how the national debt wasn't important as long as you had growth. Read the arguments from pretty much every Conservative who is a libertarian and you find a clear departure from traditional values in favor of more individual liberty.

Can you be Conservative and also be an ideologue? Of course! I never said otherwise. That, in of itself, does not make Conservatism an ideology.

 

[Divine Wind]

Forty years? That's a lifetime.

Agreed. It was a long time in coming.

History is fascinating to me, but it 's one thing to read a few paragraphs in a book and another to live it.

I was 20 years old in 1976 during the Bicentennial of the Revolution. In 2012 during the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 I was 56. Those who fought in the American Revolution were old men by the time the War of 1812 came around, but for history students, it's like one came right after the other. They don't feel the same sense of time passing.

 

[Divine Wind]

But I reject that all Conservatives believe in traditional values or fiscal responsibility. Reagan, the prototypical Conservative by pretty much consensus, often articulated how the national debt wasn't important as long as you had growth. Read the arguments from pretty much every Conservative who is a libertarian and you find a clear departure from traditional values in favor of more individual liberty.

Can you be Conservative and also be an ideologue? Of course! I never said otherwise. That, in of itself, does not make Conservatism an ideology.

I lean strongly toward Libertarianism; socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but most of the "Conservatives" on this forum emphasize the "Lib" part when I piss them off. The self-professed "Liberals" label me a "Con" when I do the same to them. Go figure.

Still, even being Libertarian is an ideology. What is your problem with the term ideology?

 

[Votto]

For a brief moment last week I was saddened by the latest news. Once a stalwart Conservative icon, Newt Gingrich had announced the apparent demise of Conservatism. As the trendy new Nationalist-Populist movement takes hold and former voices of Conservatism such as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham fawn over their Chosen One, Donald Trump, it was certainly sad news to hear.

Then I realized, this is simply politics and political rhetoric. Conservatism is not dead, it can't die because Conservatism is truth. It may be on the back burner for the time being. It may have suffered a great setback in the elections of 2016. It may be sorely lacking a strong articulate voice that can carry the message to the people in a way that appeals to them personally.... but it's not dead.

The task that lies ahead for Conservatism is to first, educate people, then appeal. There is a strong and contemptuous misunderstanding that has been promoted by the left as well as elites on the right over what exactly Conservatism is. This has to be addressed and corrected before Conservatism can again step forward in the political realm.

Foremost among the many misconceptions is the understanding of Conservatism as an ideology and not an overarching philosophy. Liberalism, Socialism, Nationalism and Populism are ideologies. They are ideologically-driven sets of ideas. Fundamentally, Conservatism is not an ideologically-driven set of ideas, it is a philosophical adherence to certain general principles and wisdom acquired through experience and history. It includes many ideas and has many various ideological leanings. Social Conservatism, for example, is a sub-group of Conservatives who have a specific ideological social agenda. Libertarians are another sub-group of Conservatives with a totally different ideological social agenda. They both reside under the general philosophy of Conservatism but they have very different ideological social agendas.

Conservatism is the philosophical counter of Radicalism. So it shouldn't be viewed as "Conservative vs. Liberal" but rather, "Conservative vs. Radical". Liberalism is an ideology which falls under the philosophy of Radicalism. This is why you can sometimes find people who are Conservative yet they have socially liberal views but you seldom find socially liberal ideologues who are Conservatives.

True Conservative philosophy takes a slow measured approach to solving our problems and addressing our issues. It carefully weighs all aspects of both "sides" of an argument and reasons a "moderate" resolution. In essence, it is the "moderate" view as opposed to the extremist view. The advantage to this is self-evident, it tends to keep us from really screwing things up. Radical extremism often results in knee-jerk emotive responses that cause more problems than they fix because the ramifications and consequences are often not considered until after the fact.

So how do we define Conservatism? Many of us Conservatives will point to Ronald Reagan as the "prototype" but when you actually evaluate Reagan's record, he was a big spender and ran up the national debt. Granted, he had to work with a Democrat congress but his adherence to true conservative principles were sometimes compromised for the sake of progress. I think the last truly conservative president we had was Calvin Coolidge. I doubt any of us remember him.

Progressives have been so successful because "the people" tend to want an expansive government that "does things for them" instead of being more pragmatic and measured with regard to solutions. But the problem we're now facing as a result of 70-80 years of progressive politics, is a nation in massive debt with no real way out. This is where Conservative philosophy runs into it's biggest obstacle. We know, inherently, this cannot continue but how do you reduce the size and scope of government while the masses scream for more expansive government?

Those of us who've studied history realize what happens when nations overload themselves with massive debt. The Weimar Republic is a classic example. A nation has to be able to handle it's debt obligations for the foreseeable future or we reach a point of no return. This seems to be where we are coming to with our nation. There are people on both left and right who sincerely believe we'll never pay off our national debt, so why worry about it? That's really a dangerous collective mindset to have because we know from history what the results will ultimately be and they're not pretty.

That's all well and good but where is my free Obama phone man?

 

[Votto]

The Constitution is like the Bible. Both speak the truth and both are a warning. When you violate either one of them, bolts of lighting don't come out of the sky. Life seems to continue as if nothing happens. However, the more both are violated the more corrupt society becomes until society is so desperately corrupt and amoral that the only way to restore order is for their freedoms to be stripped away.

Freedom can only be given to a moral people who are capable of governing themselves. If government does it for them, they will run every aspect of your life.

 

[Boss]

I lean strongly toward Libertarianism; socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but most of the "Conservatives" on this forum emphasize the "Lib" part when I piss them off. The self-professed "Liberals" label me a "Con" when I do the same to them. Go figure.

Still, even being Libertarian is an ideology. What is your problem with the term ideology?

I don't have a problem with ideology, I am just pointing out "conservatism" isn't one. It is a philosophy and not an ideology. Many various ideologies, indeed, identify as "conservative" to some degree.

I believe for Conservatism to rise again in prominence on the national political stage it has to first distinguish itself as a philosophy, a way of life. Not an ideology and certainly not tied to any rigid ideology. This is difficult because so many people have come to understand Conservatism as the ideological political opposition of Liberalism.

 

[Mac1958]

For a brief moment last week I was saddened by the latest news. Once a stalwart Conservative icon, Newt Gingrich had announced the apparent demise of Conservatism.

I wish I had kept a link to the post, but a few weeks ago I was talking with a Trump supporter and pointed out how Trump is not a real conservative.

To my absolute shock, he agreed, and even took it one step further, saying that conservatism is simply no longer a viable political ideology. That the battle going forward needs to be establishment vs. anti-establishment, however you may define those terms.

Regardless of the viability of the ideology, I think that on a macro scale, American conservatives will look back and realize that they did a a terrible job of explaining and promoting conservatism. And a big part of that will be conservative media, which essentially made a unappealing caricature of the ideology.

The question now is what happens next. Do they continue down this road and end up an-ever shrinking regional ideology, do they follow Trump away from conservatism and towards nationalist populism, or do they finally realize that they have to change, and do something clear and positive about it?
.

 

[Divine Wind]

.....To my absolute shock, he agreed, and even took it one step further, saying that conservatism is simply no longer a viable political ideology. That the battle going forward needs to be establishment vs. anti-establishment, however you may define those terms.

Regardless of the viability of the ideology, I think that on a macro scale, American conservatives will look back and realize that they did a a terrible job of explaining and promoting conservatism. And a big part of that will be conservative media, which essentially made a unappealing caricature of the ideology.

The question now is what happens next. Do they continue down this road and end up an-ever shrinking regional ideology, do they follow Trump away from conservatism and towards nationalist populism, or do they finally realize that they have to change, and do something clear and positive about it?
.

Those claiming to be "conservatives" these days do not believe in the same ideals as Goldwater or Buckley. Conservatism is an ideology, but that doesn't mean that ideology doesn't pick up a local flavor be it a different state or different nation.

Conservatism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change. Some Conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time.

Classical Conservatism does not reject change per se, but insists that changes be organic, rather than revolutionary, arguing that any attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society purely for the sake of some doctrine or theory runs the risk of running afoul of the law of unintended consequences and/or of moral hazards. As a general ideology, Conservatism is opposed to the ideals of Liberalism and Socialism.

Conservatism generally refers to right-wing politics which advocate the preservation of personal wealth and private ownership (Capitalism) and emphasize self-reliance and Individualism. Conservatives in general are more punitive toward criminals, tend to hold more orthodox religious views, and are often ethnocentric and hostile toward homosexuals and other minority groups.

 

[Boss]

Conservatism is an ideology, but that doesn't mean that ideology doesn't pick up a local flavor be it a different state or different nation.

I disagree. Because of a lack of articulation or defense against left-wing rhetoric, the younger generation has come to think of conservatism as an ideology... Mostly, a Frankenstein ideology which was the creation of liberal democrats. When you actually begin to objectively try and define what conservatives believe in, you will find that it's difficult to pin down to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. That's because it's not an ideology, it's a philosophy. Ideological beliefs within conservative philosophy vary sharply.

 

[Divine Wind]

....When you actually begin to objectively try and define what conservatives believe in, you will find that it's difficult to pin down to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. That's because it's not an ideology, it's a philosophy. Ideological beliefs within conservative philosophy vary sharply.

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

 

[Boss]

....When you actually begin to objectively try and define what conservatives believe in, you will find that it's difficult to pin down to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. That's because it's not an ideology, it's a philosophy. Ideological beliefs within conservative philosophy vary sharply.

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

 

[oldsoul]

.....To my absolute shock, he agreed, and even took it one step further, saying that conservatism is simply no longer a viable political ideology. That the battle going forward needs to be establishment vs. anti-establishment, however you may define those terms.

Regardless of the viability of the ideology, I think that on a macro scale, American conservatives will look back and realize that they did a a terrible job of explaining and promoting conservatism. And a big part of that will be conservative media, which essentially made a unappealing caricature of the ideology.

The question now is what happens next. Do they continue down this road and end up an-ever shrinking regional ideology, do they follow Trump away from conservatism and towards nationalist populism, or do they finally realize that they have to change, and do something clear and positive about it?
.

Those claiming to be "conservatives" these days do not believe in the same ideals as Goldwater or Buckley. Conservatism is an ideology, but that doesn't mean that ideology doesn't pick up a local flavor be it a different state or different nation.

Conservatism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change. Some Conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time.

Classical Conservatism does not reject change per se, but insists that changes be organic, rather than revolutionary, arguing that any attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society purely for the sake of some doctrine or theory runs the risk of running afoul of the law of unintended consequences and/or of moral hazards. As a general ideology, Conservatism is opposed to the ideals of Liberalism and Socialism.

Conservatism generally refers to right-wing politics which advocate the preservation of personal wealth and private ownership (Capitalism) and emphasize self-reliance and Individualism. Conservatives in general are more punitive toward criminals, tend to hold more orthodox religious views, and are often ethnocentric and hostile toward homosexuals and other minority groups.

Your own post, while supporting your argument that Conservatism is an ideology, contradicts you and itself when it says "Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition " So, I must ask, which is it, a philosophy or an ideology?

....When you actually begin to objectively try and define what conservatives believe in, you will find that it's difficult to pin down to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. That's because it's not an ideology, it's a philosophy. Ideological beliefs within conservative philosophy vary sharply.

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

And now, it would seem, you want to shift the topic to Republicanism. What gives? I thought we where debating whether Conservatism is an ideology or a philosophy. What does the Republican party have to do with said debate?

 

[Votto]

....When you actually begin to objectively try and define what conservatives believe in, you will find that it's difficult to pin down to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. That's because it's not an ideology, it's a philosophy. Ideological beliefs within conservative philosophy vary sharply.

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

 

[oldsoul]

....When you actually begin to objectively try and define what conservatives believe in, you will find that it's difficult to pin down to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. That's because it's not an ideology, it's a philosophy. Ideological beliefs within conservative philosophy vary sharply.

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.