In response to a post below, Dave Budge asks what a "real conservative" is. It's a fair question, one I used to think I knew the answer to. Here's my traditional definition. A conservative is someone who:
1. Thinks government should be as large as necessary and as small as practicable.
2. Believes that government is a creation of the people, designed to serve their interests, not the other way around.
3. Has strong traditional beliefs but realizes that other people aren't obliged to agree with or respect those beliefs.
4. Favors the individual over the collective, right over wrong and ethics over profit.
5. Believes in balanced budgets.
6. Thinks the Constitution means what it says.
7. Embraces change slowly or not at all rather than calling for anything radical.
I may be forgetting a point or two, but that's roughly it. But as I say, I'm not so sure what it means anymore. If George Bush is a conservative, it seems to me, then my understanding of the word has lost all meaning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
You overlook a key element - respect for the wisdom of the past.
In 1960, GWB's policies would have made him a liberal.
I would essentially agree with your definition in that it shows that I am one and Tony isn't. GWB spends like a liberal and that bothers me. The alternative would have been worse though. Imagine Kerry and how much he would have spent. Imagine the aweful liberal judges he would have nominated.
Another thing - the small government idea - today's 'conservatives' say they favor small government, but have built the military up at the expense of every other program, increasing the side of government. Military = government.
The idea that Bush is in any way liberal amazes me - amazin'! Yes, he spends like crazy, but his idea there is to bloat the military and squeeze out social programs. There is method to his madness, and right wing objectives to a seemingly liberal spending spree.
OK David, I'll buy that as a good beginning for a "traditional" conservative (although it looks much more like the definition of a libertarian to me.) Then, however, as the chatting class is wont to do, is the combining of the word "conservative" to include social conservatives and neoconservatives thereby making the term irrelevant or obsolete. I would suggest that the our current government has been taken over by social conservatives and neocons - neither of which have a problem with large government.
I made the point in the comments below because of your use of the noun modifier "real." It seems reasonable to me that one could be either a "real" social conservative or neoconservative.
Yes, a traditional conservative would have a hard time with a national ID card, but that is not so for the other subsets that make up the "conservative coalition."
I left the GOP precisely because it no longer is traditionally conservative. If, on the other hand, they somehow have an epiphany that returns them to such, I may rejoin them. For now, however, they threaten our liberties as much as do the Democrats.
And Mark, Bush et al have increased non-military spending at a rate not seen since LBJ in ALL discretionary accounts. We "conservatives" call his policies "preemptive surrender" to which the Democrats seem not able to take yes for an answer.
Dave Budge - don't tell me, tell Grover Norquist. You'll interrupt his champaign toast to Bush.
Just caught Eric Coobs statement that in 1960 Bush would have been considered a liberal. Given that the invasion of Cuba, and then Vietnam went down without a hiccup not too long after that (along with blase' press acceptance of government lies about Pigs and Tonkin), and that it was liberals who ran that whole show, I have to say he is dead on right.
Dave,
I think I agree with everything you say here. One reason why the two-party system persists is that coalitions of unlike factions are required to build a majority, but those coalitions collapse over time. So Republicans are now stuck with an unlikely alliance of neocons, social conservatives and libertarians who can't find anywhere else to go.
A similar thing happened to Democrats in the '60s. Southern social conservatives were, of course, nearly all Democrats in those days, along with union workers and real liberals -- three groups with very little in common. Republicans in those days (at least in my home state of Texas) were perceived as wealthy urban business people who just wanted government to do their bidding. But the Democratic coalition couldn't withstand the strain of Vietnam.
Republicans have done a great job over the last couple of decades of conflating "liberal" with "leftist," although those are very different animals. In the '60s, the last time leftists really amounted to anything, leftists despised traditional liberals nearly as much as they did conservatives. Now people like Hannity and Limbaugh use "liberal" and "left wing" interchangeably.
Republicans are likely to suffer a similar fate. Traditional conservatives do have a lot in common with libertarians. But the neocons and social conservatives are a different brew, and the GOP won't be able to hold those groups together forever. Something, perhaps the War on Terror, will split it apart.
So many who call them selves conservative or republican are actually RINOs. This is true on a state and local level as well as the national level. bonnie
By your definition David, I'd put Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy in the 'leftist' category, along with George Soros & Michael Moore. Would you agree with me?
Gee Tony-
I don't think I tried to identify you in any way except that you are not a Republican or a conservative. Do you want to argue over that point? I don't quite know how you should be classified, or even if you are classifiable. I was just pretty sure that "conservative" wasn't one that defined you. No offense meant. You can feel free to send me another picture of yourself in a threatening posture if it'll make you feel better. If such an obviously true statement gets under your skin- too bad.
John Bohlinger would be considered a real conservative by this definition. Rehberg and Burns wouldnt.
Tony's a liberal. And just like most of the other liberals hates being labeled as such!
Eric, I'd classify Kennedy as a classic liberal of a type that was once common but has now almost disappeared. Kerry probably fits that category, too, but barely.
Clinton I don't have much of a feel for. I'm not sure she has any meaningful ideology. Probably to the left of her husband, but that doesn't count for much.
Gore strikes me as moderate to the core, with a few liberal tendencies. He's become far more interesting and unpredictable since losing his shot at the presidency.
Soros, I think, is unclassifiable, but I don't know much about him. He's certainly radical, and anti-Bush, but I'm not sure what underlying philosophy governs that.
Moore gets labeled as a leftist, but I've never heard him express any coherent political ideology. Probably more populist than anything. But I haven't read any of his books, so what do I know?
I call Kennedy liberalism by its traditional name, colonial imperialism. It's hardly disappeared - today it calls itself globalization, nation-building, democratization - many pretty sounding names, now as then.
Conservatism: "The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order; a political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order."
Take but one example, Social Security. "Conservatives" wanted to throw out the entire existing order, trashing the wisdom that put it in place, trusting the vagaries of a volatile and unpredictable market to somehow solve a problem created in their own imaginations. It was complete recklessness and disregard. That's not conservatism - that is the work of radical reactionaries.
Thanks Tony. Coming from you- that's a real compliment. So you get all huffy if someone points out that you aren't a conservative now? I really thought you would be in agreement on that. It really wasn't an attempt to piss you off. If I try to anger you on purpose, it'll be obvious. I think you just like to puff out your chest and try to look tough. Guys that move to physically threaten someone right off like that are usually all bluster. You just might be stupid enough to try it though. Come and find me Mr. tough guy. I'd love to have you arrested for assault and battery. You might even have what it takes to kick my butt. I don't know. You certainly wouldn't go away unscathed. In total, I think it shows a lot about you that you feel a need to threaten someone to attempt to win an arguement. Grow up.
Why do threads have to turn into testosterone contests? For God's sake, grow up fellas.
Steve T-
Note who threatened who. Go visit Tony's blog and note that he threatened again there. He apparently now knows where I live, so I should shut up and watch my back. Ridiculous!
Post a Comment