Wednesday, May 21, 2008
|
|
What is "Conservative"?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
3:10 PM
|
In a thought-provoking piece, Austin Bramwell advances the notion that we need to do a better job of defining conservatism. In fact, he has come up with a definition he believes to be superior to "conventional definitions":
Conservatism is the defense of legitimacy wherever it happens to exist. “Legitimacy” here is defined in the empirical, Weberian sense: that is, an institution is legitimate if and only if the opinion has become widespread that it is right (for whatever reason or lack thereof) to obey it. The conservative, in short, cultivates obedience to existing institutions. This definition, I submit, has all the advantages of the conventional definitions, none of their defects, and some important advantages of its own.
Bramell's peice is well worth reading. But I think his definition lacks a few of the vitally-essential ingredients Russell Kirk long ago established:
Kirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:
- A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
- An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
- A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
- A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
- A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
- A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.
|
|
Those of us who have rallied to the cause of conservatism since Reagan are not going to be confused by whatever comes out of this pedantic discussion. It is the desire for an end result envisioned and described by Reagan that energizes us, not an ignorant need to belong to an institution only because there is a consensus among a group of people. Once again, people are confusing Republicans for conservatives. That definition of conservatism provided by Bramwell describes RINOs to a 't'.
Republicans are doing to the word "conservatism" what Democrats did to "liberalism". That is why liberals now call themselves "progressives" They would prefer calling themselves liberals but their party has ruined the brand. Conservatives won't allow themselves to become entrapped because someone redefined the meaning of a word. We know what we want and it is not the label but the end result.
This is another one of those discussions that ends up making statements like "The only good Republican is a Democrat." |
|
Carbon Taxes to control the weather are NOT conservative.
Amnesty for illegal aliens AND their employers are NOT conservative.
McCain and many in the GOP are NOT conservative.
GOP-RIP |
|
Actually, real conservatives would go back to the early 20th century immigration laws, which is if you showed up here on a boat, and declared yourself, you were on the path to citizenship.
That's how my ancestors got here and probably yours, too.
The silliness is putting up legal and phsyical barriers and then not enforcing them. It's like leaving your Hi-Def TV on the porch and hoping no one steals it. |
|
of defining Conservatism. It starts with Edmund Burke, goes through Alexander Hamilton, Barry Goldwater, WFB, and Russell Kirk. I'm leaving out a few, but if you study those folks, you pretty much got conservatism.
Rush is simply following in the footsteps of other great men, and if you study his words carefully you will find him a model student of great conservative thought. But then I doubt you study anything scholarly very carefully.... |
|
|
because under this definition, slavery, for example, would be conservative. I think being conservative has more to do with limited government. |
|
Your various definitions of conservatism are all in direct contradiction with several of the basic tenets of science. Perhaps that's why the term "conservative scientist" is almost an oxymoron (oh, there are people who are called that, but the real meaning is often "old coot who used to be a scientist and is now conservative"). I'd be willing to bet that people who are real scientists and call themselves conservatives have a quite different definition of "conservative" than that given here.
Maybe that's why conservatives rarely do science, don't understand science, and often mistrust science.
Our civilization is based on science. You guys might want to find someplace else to live. |
|
We know exactly what we believe in what we stand for. Call it "banana" if you must but don't tell us we are wrong because you have hijacked a word and changed its meaning. McCain is NOT what we want even if you choose to call him a conservative. Cary Nation was a Progressive too. She put the axe to saloons and was instrumental in bringing about Prohibition. Was she the same kind of progressive that liberals now claim to be? Don't try to confuse people with these silly intellectual debates.
There are EXACTLY 37 angels on the head of a pin. Fight over that instead. At least no one gets hurt. |
|
To which definition of conservatism do you refer? I reject Bramwell as having any authority, and I'm unimpressed with Russello's rendition of Kirk.
But if you are saying that Kirk's definition of conservatism (go read Kirk separately at kirkcenter.org) teaches that slavery is conservative, you are badly incorrect. Kirk rejects slavery on multiple points. (1) enduring moral order - defeats slavery, (2) freedom and property are closely linked - defeats slavery. (3) upholds voluntary community, rejects involuntary collectivism - defeats slavery. Those terms are exact quotes of Kirk. |
|
While reading your comment, it occurred to me that this debate must be how communists argue over words as tools to mislead the proletariat into accepting dictatorship. Throw enough big words at them, impress them with intellectuals and they will be confused enough to accept communism.
Let me remind everyone that our Constitution is a very short and elegant document that was written with the express design of being understandable by all citizens. That is why it has survived for so long. Despite being under constant assault by those who would try to subvert it's meaning, it survives because of its simplicity. Compare our 2-page Constitution to the 600+ page EU Constitution that requires a 6,000 page Codex to be implemented.
Don't get deterred by high-minded arguments over the meanings of words or definitions of what you think you are saying. We aren't fighting for "conservatism", we are fighting for a kind of freedom that was defined in our Constitution that used to be known as liberalism. Words aren't worth fighting for but ideas like American freedom are. |
|
|
We know one when we see one. |
|
Pasadena Phil writes: 'Republicans are doing to the word "conservatism" what Democrats did to "liberalism".'
ME: There has been some survey work done.
=====
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242
'...GOP-oriented groups, when taken together, account for only 29% of the public. By contrast, the three Democratic groups constitute 41% of the public.
The three GOP groups are highly diverse, and this is reflected in their values.
The staunchly conservative ENTERPRISERS have perhaps the most consistent ideological profile of any group in the typology. They are highly patriotic and strongly pro-business, oppose social welfare and overwhelmingly support an assertive foreign policy. This group is largely white, well-educated, affluent and male more than three-quarters are men.
While Enterprisers are a bit less religious than the other GOP groups, they are socially conservative in most respects...
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES agree with Enterprisers on most issues, but they tend to be critical of business and supportive of government regulation to protect the public good and the environment. They also express deep concerns about the growing number of immigrants in America. This largely female group includes many white evangelical Christians, and nearly half of Social Conservatives live in the South.
PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES also are broadly religious and socially conservative, but they deviate from the party line in their backing for government involvement in a wide range of policy areas, such as government regulation and more generous assistance to the poor. This relatively young, predominantly female group is under substantial financial pressure, but most feel it is within their power to get ahead. This group also is highly concentrated in the South, and, of the three core Republican groups, had the lowest turnout in the 2004 election.
Clearly, there is more than one kind of conservative.' |
|
Russell Kirk I think has the better definition. |
|
|
|