Fred-headedness 1 - paging RedState scholars - can we actually define baseline conservatism?
By E Pluribus Unum Posted in Archived — Comments (119) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So and so says "I'm the conservative". Other guy says, "No you're not! You believe so-and-so is good policy. No, I'm the REAL conservative". Third guy says,"actually NEITHER of you is. I am, because of such-and-such".
[bulletin -- if you are a neophyte on the subject, I have links at the bottom to some outstanding sources -- read them. Read them all. It will change you.]
Even here on RedState, there are lately oceans of heated debate, argument, acrimony, and accusations. Probably every candidate not named Fred has been accused of being some form of traitor, liberal, closet liberal, and so forth. Done some of that myself, in fact. And will again.
So what exactly is baseline conservative? I have found answering this to be a more daunting task than I thought it would be. It turns out to be alot like porn - a bit hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
It appears to be a somewhat fluid term. There are factions:
-- classical conservatism
-- neoconservatism
-- new conservatism
-- paleoconservatism
Certainly these overlap, there may be a couple that are synonymous, and it may be that certain forms are no longer considered legitimately conservative. Partly this is why I am calling on you, the scholars of RedState, to throw us your thoughts on the matter.
Conservatism can also be sliced another way. The three pillars, if you will:
-- social conservatism
-- fiscal/economic conservatism
-- national security conservative
In fact, we commonly call ourselves and others by the subsets - Socons, Fiscons, and Milcons/Defcons. It is quite possible to be any two or all three -- there is no significant inherent conflict that I see. [aside by EPU - to be contrasted with the left side, a coalition of competing factions with conflicting views and goals -- for example, most union laborers and most black Democrats are at least nominally Christian and oppose abortion on demand, and oppose gay marriage -- yet reside in one party and apply terms like liberal or progressive to describe all of them]. Anyway, enough of the other team. Back to conservatism.
But is it not true, or should it not be true, that there is a core set of values or principles, from which all conservative principles emanate? I know that most of us think so and most of us WANT it to be true. But is it in fact true? And if it's true for one faction or slice of conservatism, is the set of core values the same for another?
Can conservatism actually be defined this way? I don't know, but one thing I know. Because the definition is slippery does not mean the word does not mean something - just like porn.
--There are things that are definitely conservative (or porn).
--There are gray areas that might be conservative (or porn).
--And there are things that are definitely not conservative (or porn).
But this moment I do not want to talk about whether a certain issue (border fence, terrorism, Roe v Wade, same-sex 'marriage', 'affirmative action', deficit spending, supply-side economics, 'social security', and so on) has a position that is definitively conservative. I want to go there LATER -- very definitely, very emphatically, but not yet. First I want to establish (for myself) a basic template that I can point to and say 'THAT is what it means to be conservative'.
Fortunately for me, great minds have considered the same question. I steal shamelessly from them. Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Papers), John Adams, and more recently Russell Kirk, William F Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and now Fred Thompson.
The truth is, in 5 days one cannot consume and hope to digest all that. And I'm gonna give you the short version. I am going with Russell Kirk as the arbiter of what is conservative. He drew heavily from Burke and Adams anyway. In 1957 he wrote an essay called "The Essence of Conservatism", and updated it in 1993, that set out what he calls "the chief principles which have characterized American conservative thought", which are, in summary:
1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
In both essays, especially the 1993 one, he discusses them at length. By the way, that whole Kirk Center site is amazing, you should study it. For an evening. I'm going to follow Kirk with the text of Fred Thompson's 'PRinciples' page. That text is a bit more pragmatic and less theoretical - but not by all that much. It is in human-ese, which is to say, digestible by folks who are not necessarily Constitutional scholars. You will see he's a Kirkian.
Anyone who has heard me speak knows my firm commitment to what I call 'First Principles.' These grow out of the documents of our Nation’s founding and the wisdom of the ages. They are core beliefs that guide my approach to the issues that are crucial to our Nation’s future. I believe in--
Individual Liberty . As Jefferson spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, our basic rights come from God, not from government, and that among these inalienable rights is the right to liberty. We must allow individuals to lead their lives with minimal government interference.
Personal Responsibility . The corollary to liberty is responsibility. No society can succeed and thrive for any duration unless free people act in a responsible way. All of us must take responsibility for our actions and strive to improve our own lives and to contribute to building a better society.
Free Markets . Free people are best equipped to order their own affairs, and the common interest benefits from and is improved by the aggregate success of all. We must reform our tax system, encourage investment, support entrepreneurial spirit, open markets abroad to American goods, and minimize burdensome government regulations to continue to expand the economy and bring increased wealth to all Americans.
Limited Government . Government must be strong enough to protect us, competent enough to provide basic government services, but limited by the delineated powers in the Constitution.
Federalism . Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom. (More on Federalism)
Protecting our Country . The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect the nation and the American people. There is no more important task. We must have a strong and effective military, capable intelligence services, and a vigorous law enforcement and homeland security capacity.
Traditional American Values . A healthy society is predicated on belief in God; respect for all life; strong families centered on the institution of marriage—the union of a man and a woman; and self-respect and tolerance of others. While we are all free to live our lives in the pursuit of our own happiness, the government has a responsibility to respect the right of parents to raise their children and to promote the values that produce the strongest society.
The Rule of Law . We protect our liberty, secure our rights, and promote a just and stable society through the rule of law. We owe to ourselves and our fellow citizens our own adherence to the rules, but tough law enforcement and punishment for those who do not. A free and independent judiciary that interprets the law by adhering strictly to legal text and respects its limited role in our system of government is essential to our security and freedom, and we need judges who understand that role if we are to preserve our republic and freedom.
Conserving Our Nation’s Resources . Each of us is put on Earth for a limited period of time. We must always strive to ensure that the resources we use to lead our lives are here for future generations to enjoy and use as well.
We live in the greatest country on earth. We have been truly blessed. This blessing carries with it an obligation: to keep it that way and to leave this country at least as strong, prosperous, and united as when we entered it.
So in sum, I say that conservatism is 'what Kirk says. That's the root of it. Fred Thompson's First Principles are a heck of a first-generation derivative of them.
This is the template I will be using to judge not only our 4 remaining Presidential candidates, but Republican nominees for every office down the line. As Neil Stevens has stated forcefully in Well, that was a kick in the teeth, the battle for conservativism in the government starts at the grassroots and goes all the way up. We need to fight that battle on every level.
We can also help candidates for office at the state and local level. The more conservatives we elect at the bottom, the more will move up to higher office, and the bigger the conservative bench will be when the time comes to pick candidates for Governor, Senator, and even President.
That was inspiring to me, as were recent essays from TheSophist on conservatism and the
Constitution. You should read his blogs -- all of them.
So, I have defined conservatism as Russell Kirk's 'Ten Conservative Principles', and most fundamentally quantified as by Fred Thompson's 'First Principles'.
[UPDATE -- forgot to mention, hat tip to R.E. Finch for pointing me to the Kirk website]
What say ye, scholars, rogues, and others?
and cite short excerpts from it if it seems germane.
I'm inviting discussion, not (merely) pimping shamelessly for recommends.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
http://independentthinking.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/what-i-want-in-a-par...
(sorry... I sort of know how to link properly, but I'm really very lazy)
In short, I agree, as I said above, with the principles Fred stated (which you kindly posted here). The link above gets a little into the practicality of how I would define conservatism, and fleshes out some of these principles a little.
I would have added quotes, but I tend to ramble, so finding a usable quote is rather challenging.
Fred Thompson, 2008
while it's not a synopsis, this quote is representative of your excellent thinking:
First, I want a party that understands liberty is not ‘granted’ by government. Freedom cannot be given; it can only be limited, regulated or taken. Liberty is granted by God. It is the natural state. Laws, in a democracy – or Democratic Republic, as more accurately describes the US — are intended to govern human decency; to establish a means of living with one another and forming a society. Such laws are enacted with the limited purpose of providing a means of restitution for doing harm to another’s life, liberty or property.
Well said, rstreu.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
the average person on the street, even though they call themselves conservative, has absolutely no idea what conservative means - but it does sound good to be called one. And I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night.
--roxer
Not if you live in Maryland it doesn't. The reaction from the average person if you say you're a conservative isn't all that different from the reaction if you said you were a Communist. Becuase if you're a liberal, Communists are just people who took liberalism too far, while conservatives are people who took free markets and tradition too far... and are probably horrible people.
If you doubt that liberals see Communists as people who just took liberalism too far, try to recall how many times you've heard someone say the asinine statement, "Communism is great in theory." First of all, a theory that doesn't work in the real world is a failed theory and is worthless, much like the theory of a flat world. But if you are judging Communism based on it's own declarations that it will lead to Utopia, then every theory is great in theory. Furthemore, a system where you have a dictatorship take over which is followed by a system where you aren't compensated for your work isn't even good if you accept the ridiculously optimistic assumptions that Marxists make!
I stayed in a Rodeway Inn last night. Doh!
Yes, quite right, the name is an often cheaply-used label, and that's why I'm hoping to help steer our RedState community into some dialog about what it REALLY means.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Imagine a rocking chair. When someone shows you a rocking chair, you are able to identify that as a chair.
Imagine a beanbag chair. You are able to identify that as a chair.
Here's the difference between you and computer. I can tell you that a beanbag chair is less of a chair than a rocking chair, but more of a chair than, say, an overturned milk crate, and you understand that.
Categorization and identification by the human mind is a fuzzy process. We are able to identify the extent to which something is a member of a group. This is essential to complex thinking.
"I know it when I see it" is an outgrowth of this ability.
Conservativism has fuzzy borders. The problem with the "he is but he isn't" crowd is they don't recognize the fuzzy borders.
Think of the ACU ratings. If those were the sole criteria, we could easily determine that someone is more of a conservative than someone else, without ever having to define who was a member of the group "conservatives". Or we could identify the cutoff score.
Of course, that is not the sole criteria.
I wonder if trying to define it down to a science is even a useful exercise. In the ratings example, what if the cutoff was 70. We throw away the guy at 69 as useless?
I think you've got a good idea of defining some conservative principles. But putting sharp edges to the group or label I'm not so sure about.
Also, Fred Thompson has pRinciples, not pinciples. Just sayin'.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
I kinda thought I was leaving rather fuzzy edges. I mean those Ten Conservative PRinciples were rather conceptual in nature, somewhat in resistent to cutoffs and single-issue trump cards, no?
Then, my whole discussion on porn - that was for you and NightTwister, by the way. If I knew how to send a memo to Nauti Nurse, that would be for her too. Thought I mentioned gray areas (because to mention 'fuzzy areas' in association with porn, well, I'm trying not to get us too far off the subject).
Well, I'll try better.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
that your discussion of porn was directed at me...
Just wanted to get that our there. :-)
I do know what you mean though. Defining conservatism is like trying to grab a hold of that trout on your fishing line. It's going to squirm around a lot before you really get a hold of him.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2012
==== 13 ====
Yes your position did lend itself to fuzzy. That's why I pointed out the commentary about "you know it if you see it". That's as effective an explanation of how fuzzy logic works as anything.
What I was referring to was your remark to the effect that we could define conservativism by its planks. I think your premise, in other words, is at odds with your conclusion.
It is safe to say we can define some things about conservativism. Something you can't sit on is barely a chair at all, after all.
I like where you are going. I wasn't definitive in my reply based on the fact that you called it part 1. I just assumed that more was to come.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
In what way did I intimate that we could in effect define conservatism by its planks? The Fred Thompson 'First PRinciples? I was not hoping to say that those 'define' conservatism, I was shooting for something like 'Kirk is the foundation of Fred'.
I mean, at some point the foundational precepts have to YIELD some tangibles, planks if you will. But I agree with you totally, that we don't DEFINE conservatism by the planks. They are often good shorthand ('secure the borders', 'punch the hippies', and so on). But not a substitute for the core principles.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
And thanks for the links to Kirk's stuff. I haven't read any of that yet. Looking forward to some good reading tonight.
.jpg)
for President in 2008
...Russell Kirk. No matter who you are, if you are going to be fully informed and intellectually honest, then you must acknowledge we would not be where we are today without Kirk. Yes, there were were others without whom our basis would be different or non-existent. But seriously, it was Kirk's The Conservative Mind that connected all the dots back to Burke (Plato?) and created a structure upon which conservatism could be built for the modern era.
Today, if you describe yourself by attaching the word traditional, classical, neo, compassionate, paleo, social or fiscal to the word conservative, then you do owe Kirk some debt of gratitude.
The most important thing, I think, to take from reading Kirk is that conservatism is not an ideology. It is a basis, a filter or a set of prerequisites that one assumes before entering into intellectual discussions of any sort, but especially those related to political endeavors. Once you start prefixing conservatism, you have taken it from base form to idealogical form. I think that is where most of our disagreement over "what is a conservative" lies.
I immediately recognized that Fred's principles as you provided above are direct manifestations of Kirk's thought processes. His was the only campaign that attempted to put on the a whole suit made from Kirk's fine cloth. All the other candidates are missing some part of their apparel.
If you've been reading my posts of late, I'm sure you can figure out which GOP contender I believe forgot to put on his pants. ;)
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
He had available to him the results of the French Revolution and the American Revolution, and the contrast was rich, and I think really sharpened his thoughts(in sum - FR, gunpowder meets match; AR, a revolution driven by scholarly men for lofty purposes who succeeded in controlling the agenda after the fighting was over).
Kirk is so extraordinary that I don't have really proper words to sum him up. I never knew his name till about 1998 or so. But it is easy to see that Goldwater, Reagan, and now Thompson were students.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Yes, I do have a simple test for you. What's this test? Easy, if you are right-handed, then obviously you're a conservative. But on the other hand, if you're left-handed and you still claim to be conservative, but in reality you're really just LINO (Liberal In Name Only)! This way, everybody gets to be a conservative AND a liberal, even Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama! Isn't that great? Can we have a group hug?! ;)
Just kidding, I have to say, your blog is a well written one. I have nothing else to add.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
principles and thought. However I think the umbrella Kirk builds in his essay is somewhat broader than Fred's principles. Still I agree with you that Fred's principles clearly fit within Kirk's overall framework.
The followup diary to this and where the process gets difficult is in demonstrating how candidates and/or specific ideas proposals etc. fit into this framework. Kirk nominally address this in his last point regarding the balance between permanance and change/progression. It is at this point where choices must be made and disagreements begin to enter the conversation.
To use Fred's principles as an example. The real difficulty arises when two of the principles interact and perhaps even find themselves contradicting one another.
The beauty of living in linear time is that I haven't had to do the next step yet! ;-)
What I am hoping, and what would flatter conservative principle, is that on close examination the conflicts between Principle A and Principle B are reconcilable, yielding a perfectly defendable and correct solution. As they say, good luck with that....
And yet the next step is absolutely what I intend to tackle. The whole point of an exercise like this is to end up with rubber hitting the road. Pretty sure acrimony will ensue!
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Even I have a hard time defining the single most important basis of conservatism. But for me, it usually starts with two elements: individualism and private property. If an indivdual is allowed to express his opinions freely and do any kind of business, then owning private property is usually considered one of sacred civil rights. But to what degree is it permitted?
I honestly don't think the question of what American conservatism stands for will ever be settled, the debate will go on until either Packers win a Super Bowl or the earth explodes. Until then, all I can say is, "42!" ;)
I know, I know, it's supposed to be a serious comment, but hey, you know...
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
"8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism."
For liberals, government exists to bully individuals into serving a greater good. For conservatives, government exists to protect individual freedoms.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
"9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions."
prudent restraints means laws telling people they can't do whatever they want. I suppose it is the "prident" part that makes a conservative law different from a liberal law, but nevertheless, they're laws, they curtail freedom, and they're a principle of conservatism.
I don't think it can be condensed into a single principle. I gave up when I saw that Kirk gave up on it too.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
That conservatives believe Man to be inherently evil, and thus constrained on how much he controls over his peers. But liberals believe Man to be inherently good, and thus ought be able to develop a means of promoting Man's goodness collectively.
I know, maybe that's grammatically incorrect and its syntax doesn't make a whole lot sense. But what do you think?
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
Conservatives believe Man is good enough to be left pretty much on his own, while Liberals believe Man is so evil that he (even his thoughts) must be controlled and cared for by those of superior intellect and moral authority.
The single basis of conservatism is humility in the face of the overwhelming evidence that human beings are basically stupid.
From this flows respect for the accumulated wisdom of those who went before, and a reluctance to pitch that wisdom (embodied in our traditions, social institution, taboos, etc.) over the side in favor of our own new and improved Good Ideas™.
Liberals see things like "Marriage is between one man and one woman" as some arbitrary arrangement devised by long-gone overlords who were out to oppress somebody. Unlike those primitives, we're smart now, so we can toss that obsolete idea and redefine "marriage" to be anything we want.
Conservatives see the same thing as the result of a thousand generations of trial-and-error in which people kept those things that worked and pitched the things that didn't. Conservatives don't believe that humans are smart enough to design social institutions that work. Such things are too complicated for our puny human minds. So if, after 5,000 years of trying things and keeping what works, we find ourselves in possession of an institution that has left us as one of the half-dozen civilizations still here after all that time... we shouldn't mess with it.
Take Global Warming. Liberals apparently believe that humans are smart enough to take control of, and manage, the climate system of a Class M planet. Conservatives suspect, with good reason, that humans who tinker with such things could get us all killed, because there is no frigging way the liberals have the slightest idea what unintended consequences they'll bring us this time. Conservatives remember well the unintended consequences of liberals' really smart efforts to eradicate poverty: today, half the black males in our inner cities are dead or in jail by the time they're 25... something that was absolutely not true before liberals started providing animal husbandry services to human beings in order to make things better.
On almost every issue, the difference amounts to liberals believing they can engineer and tinker with incredibly complex chaotic (in the mathematical sense) systems to make things better, and conservatives shuddering every time the liberals get their hands on the wheel because every time the liberals try to improve things, they make things worse because they don't — and cannot — know what they are doing.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
I've read so much in the last week that it starts blurring together, but I believe it was Burke that first brought up the topic of humility, and the term 'conservative' was in part originally brought into it in the context of 'respect for tried-and-true institutions'.
Very, very well said.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
it's like the same coin as humility, but it gets at the "time" aspect better. Conservatives respect - respect means look back and value the reality we see. It doesn't just mean "liking something". Even bad things that we don't like are respected, just for their having happened, just for being something that we see when we look back.
Expect is to look forward. What we expect is what becomes reality (though what we expect changes as we respect more, our expectations are based on what we respect.
Liberals don't respect, they want to expect ("hope"?) things that are disconnected from the past. Conservatives respect the past and expect things that are based on the past.
And on that theme
Respect of private property
respect of the individual's freedom
respect for the rule of law
respect for sovereign borders
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
...this reply needs to be in it.
Perhaps it would be best revised and reposted on its own. I'm humbled to read such thoughts...it proves that there are others here who really get it.
Thanks so much for this. It elevates an already stellar thread to a must-read event.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Batman 2008
Fred Thompson 2012
Reply To This — User Info — #36
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
That humility, not so incidentally, is the basis of virtue, while that pride (dare we say, hubris) liberals have is the basis of sin.
Which goes back to Kirk's point in The Conservative Mind that all political problems are, at heart, theological problems.
And the stories that I could tell that would demonstrate the truth of this statement would be disruptive in and of themselves, but you're right, they honestly believe these things, and of course their answer is to continue to try to beat the fact that they can't know what they're doing.
And shouldn't try.
"Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
You just drop by and give us a small fix, and then drift away again. :(
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
... because I like freedom and progress for all. In the overwhelming majority of "traditional" human societies the status of women ranged from chattel to second class citizens. The Church once seriously debated if women were properly human (did they have souls was the question I think). A conservative as you appear to be defining them would embrace these time tested attitudes.
It is clear from the historical record that those who lead the campaign for universal sufferage regardless of race or sex were not conservatives - they were radicals in every sense of the word. I submit that they were also correct.
In short, I say tradition be damned, let us never cease to question authority, be it the authority of past communities or the authority of government.
I think conservative vs. liberal is a false, and worse, a useless argument if it means no change vs. change for change's sake.
Better to examine our attitudes toward statism / government, private property vs. "public" good, ethics vs. morals, etc. If you want to use conservative as a shorthand for for a particular set of beliefs by all means do so, but you will loose many, many potential adherants if you worship tradition for the sake of tradition.
"Liberals see things like "Marriage is between one man and one woman" as some arbitrary arrangement devised by long-gone overlords who were out to oppress somebody. Unlike those primitives, we're smart now, so we can toss that obsolete idea and redefine "marriage" to be anything we want.
Conservatives see the same thing as the result of a thousand generations of trial-and-error in which people kept those things that worked and pitched the things that didn't. Conservatives don't believe that humans are smart enough to design social institutions that work. Such things are too complicated for our puny human minds. So if, after 5,000 years of trying things and keeping what works, we find ourselves in possession of an institution that has left us as one of the half-dozen civilizations still here after all that time... we shouldn't mess with it."
I think conservative vs. liberal is a false, and worse, a useless argument if it means no change vs. change for change's sake.
As Russell Kirk once said:
The conservative is a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time.
Conservatives do not no change. We do seek to change only that which needs to be changed.
for President in 2008
The examples I gave were not seen by the conservatives of the day as things that needed to change. We recognize them today, but they were radical ideas at the time.
It is easy to look back and say "That change was good and neccessary", not so easy to do so at the time.
The founding fathers of the USA were radicals - the tories were the conservatives.
"The founding fathers of the USA were radicals - the tories were the conservatives."
No, the patriots in general (with Paine and a few others exempted) were conservatives in the sense that they were defending their long established "rights as Englishmen" against the tyranny of the crown.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
It's scary how many Americans today can't discern the key difference between the American and French Revolutions.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
is a bit of an oxmoron, no?
The "Patriots" were rebelling against the established order and forswearing their loyalt to their king. Pretty radical.
From my readings the "patriots" did not want representation in Parliament - they wanted to be free from the authority of Parliament, and subject to no taxes levied by the representative body of the British Empire - the Parliament. Was it not the case that representatives were sent to England with explicit instructions to not accept any accord that would grant them representation in Parliament, presumably becasue their fvotes wold be swamped?
I hold the then radical notion that men can govern themselves without recourse to a King or established Aristocracy in great regard, and praise the wise men who established our constitutional order. They were not anything that anyone at the time would have called conservative.
Revolutionary conservative is a bit of an oxmoron, no?"
Only if you assume that certain leftist notions about the words revolution, and conservative are true.
"The "Patriots" were rebelling against the established order and forswearing their loyalty to their king. Pretty radical."
Not really, it is a continuation of at least several centuries of English tradition (I have also heard people extend the tradition back to Roman times). The English tradition held that there were certain rights (Locke will call, but not invent these as the natural rights of life, liberty, and estate) that government (the king's, Parliament's, or other) could not infringe upon. Under the English tradition the governed always retained the right to forcibly defend its natural rights from encroachment by the government. Historically, the English defended their rights from their government on multiple occasions (see the events connected to signing of the Magna Carta, the English Civil Wars of the 1640's, the Glorious Revolution, etc.).
"From my readings the "patriots" did not want representation in Parliament - they wanted to be free from the authority of Parliament, and subject to no taxes levied by the representative body of the British Empire - the Parliament. Was it not the case that representatives were sent to England with explicit instructions to not accept any accord that would grant them representation in Parliament, presumably because their votes world be swamped?"
The rights of Englishmen are a great deal more than representation in Parliament. (btw: On the eve of the Revolution there were several natives of the American Colonies, who had moved to England in the Parliament). These rights of Englishmen can be for simplicity's sake looked at as the rights to life, liberty, and property. Now following the end of the Seven Years War in 1763 the English Government (King, and/or Parliament) began to create, and enforce numerous laws that deprived the colonists of the long established rights of Englishmen. For example, the Proclamation of 1763 deprived land speculators like George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, from thousands of acres of their property. The Quartering Act deprived many common colonists of their right to property. There is a whole litany of acts that deprive the colonists of one, or more rights. It is in defense of these rights the colonists acted, first through petition, and protest, and then later through armed resistance (in accordance with English tradition) after it became clear that protest and petition would not work.
"I hold the then radical notion that men can govern themselves without recourse to a King or established Aristocracy in great regard, and praise the wise men who established our constitutional order. They were not anything that anyone at the time would have called conservative."
Conservatism is not instinctive, and absolute opposition to change. Conservatism is about preserving important things like rights, or principles, now, and into the future. The patriots were faced with a situation where in their long established rights as Englishmen were being consistently violated by the king. They repeatedly tried and failed to peaceably defend their rights, and only moved on to revolution when no other methods of preserving their rights remained.
Moreover, the king, and the established aristocracy were almost completely absent from the colonies for most of their histories. The practice of salutatory neglect left the colonists to govern, and fend for themselves for most of their history. At a de facto level the colonies were independent from the king for most of their history. The established English Aristocracy was also nearly absent from the colonies. Very, very few English aristocrats ever migrated to, or even visited the colonies, in consequence a separate established colonial aristocracy developed in the colonies (this is most notable in Virginia). In consequence, the loss of English Aristocracy, and their replacement by the colonial aristocracy would not be strange to a colonists it would be a return to the pre-1763 status quo.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
And especially if you read his explanation in his essays - conservatism specifically does NOT remain a stick in the mud when obvious inequities need to be addressed. He argues specifically against "no change for the sake of no change".
In that regard, the teaching (in EPU paraphrase) is to not frivolously abandon tradition, do not be quick to toss aside the wisdom of the ages for the latest fad.
The PERFECT example would be all those crackpot notions like communism - based on some philosophies that sound grand, but failed to account for (among many other things) the fact that if a person is rewarded or punished the same whether he works hard or strives for excellence or not, most men will not.
And you err -- GREATLY -- on this point. Slavery was not ended by radicals, it was in fact ended by conservatives. The 1960's civil rights push to end continued racial inequities, was accomplished with the help of conservatives - while those lofty-minded liberals held to their racism.
And also Kirk teaches that conservatism is not a dualistic parallel with "liberalism". Conservatism is in fact not an ideology at all, but a core set of principles.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I don't know how you come to the statement below. The abolitionists of the 19th century were widely viewed as radicals. In the republican party they were the "Radical Republicans". True, it took a war to give them the means, but the idea was there and radical.
What lofty minded liberals held to their racism? Do you mean the very conservative southern democrats?
"Slavery was not ended by radicals, it was in fact ended by conservatives. The 1960's civil rights push to end continued racial inequities, was accomplished with the help of conservatives - while those lofty-minded liberals held to their racism."
any more than spreading and encouraging democracy around the world. Those are about going back to the original principles and applying them contrary to perversions of our original principles (like saying states rights trump basic human rights). You seem to characterize them as radical because they want change from the current situation, and you characterize the pro-slavery types as conservative since they want to maintain the status quo. That is not what it means to be conservative. Conservatives want change whenever conservative principles are not being followed.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I don't suppose you realize what a transparent exercise in framing you've written there, but trust me, if you're not a college student swallowing framing-bilge from a collection of liberal professors, then you are a liberal professor trying to sell us the same box of frames you peddle to students.
Liberals are for change! Conservatives are trying to hold the world constant! Liberals are responsible for everything that ever happened that is good! I mean, come on, if that doesn't sound to you like Billy Mays trying to sell you a Hercules Hook, you haven't been around enough blocks. Whoever sold you that crap is trying to mess with your head, not trying to teach you anything.
Here's the deal: I don't care what nonsense the professors are pumping into your head, and I have no interest in discussing it with you. That's because I know this: if you are a real liberal, nothing I say will sway you from the collection of frames you have embraced. If you are not really a liberal, then one day a light bulb will go on over your head and you'll realize that you were had. I can't do anything to accelerate that process, and the professors can do nothing to hinder it if it's coming.
- I say tradition be damned, let us never cease to question authority, be it the authority of past communities or the authority of government.
Food will be free after the revolution.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
On almost every issue, the difference amounts to liberals believing they can engineer and tinker with incredibly complex chaotic (in the mathematical sense) systems to make things better, and conservatives shuddering every time the liberals get their hands on the wheel because every time the liberals try to improve things, they make things worse because they don't — and cannot — know what they are doing.
that applies quite well to germline genetic modification, it is certainly usually liberals who think genetic modification is "cool" and we should go ahead and fix everyone's genomes to wipe out diseases and improve everyone's health and intelligence.
But then, there are lots of liberals who are wary of it, seeing how it will become just another industry which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. And then there are many conservatives are so free market and business oriented, and who don't mind making the rich richer, that they are in favor of genetic enhancement.
This brings up an issue I had with the original post, which surmised that there are no contradictions between social and economic conservatism. There certainly are, if economic conservatism includes laissez-faire capitalism and free markets and puts individual rights above the common good, then the social conservative is placed under a withering, merciless attack. The economy prefers single individuals over marriages, dual-income families, sex and violence, etc.
I meant to express it as my HOPE, not my assumption, that the 3 pillars of conservatism could exist in harmony. And I still think so. And if not, I think the tensions are relatively benign in comparison to the outright conflicts in the leftist coalition that makes up the Democrat Party.
But we shall discuss those. I'm not sure what you are calling 'social conservative', and I would not sum up economic conservatism the way you do. Free markets, yes. Laissez-faire, yes, in large part but not 100%. 'Individual rights above the common good' -- no. The reason for law and order is that there IS an interest of the common good. Do individual rights to property and liberty stand first? Yes, but not with NO consideration to the common good. Red lights at intersections are a GOOD thing. Certain minimal regulation by the government is required for a civil society. Gotta have cops. Gotta have courts and prisons. Gotta have prohibitions against certain egregious things being perpetrated (selling poison advertised as aspirin). And yes, there is a moral order (see Kirk, principle #1) that must prevail too. Fiscal conservatism does not mean child prostitution, and I don't care what someone says. Not true.
The economy prefers single individuals over marriages, dual-income families, sex and violence, etc. This statement I do not understand at all.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
There is quite a bit of tension between the two ideals: liberty vs. enduring moral order.
Liberty assumes that each individual has the freedom to decide his or her own moral order, as long as that does not impinge upon the liberty or safety of others.
Enduring moral order assumes that there is some Universal Truth that is 'correct'. Even if we posit that the existence of such a Universal Truth does not necessarily lead to compulsion, we have to recognize that inherent in claiming a Universal Truth is the urge to implement it.
If we're only going to speak about philosophical concepts, this conflict is inevitable, and appears insurmountable.
I'm leaning towards NOT treating this as merely philosophy, but referencing the 'wisdom of the ancients' as Hahn mentioned above. The tension between freedom or order has been with us since the dawn of human species. Maybe the existing social order, the history of how they came to be, and the lessons learned over the centuries are all valuable in determining what that balance ought to be?
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
I don't know the author: "My freedom of expression ends where my fist ends and the other person's nose begins".
Not to be taken to the nth degree though. Yes, I agree there are tensions between liberty and moral order. I believe that tankertodd addressed something along these lines in a comment on another diary.
I call it the societal contract. Individuals deserve and should expect liberty in every sense except as it relates to other people. When you agree to live in a civilization, then certain things have to be accepted -- and this is the moral order. You do not have liberty to harm others with no reason.
There are many nuances and all, but I think that is the sum of it. You sacrifice some liberty as the price for civil society. I believe the conservative says OK, but let's strive to make that price not rise beyond the minimum. Extend that everywhere - no search and seizure, free speech, religion, association, no attempts by the government for equalized outcomes, etc.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I think the contractarian approach as you've outlined is seductive, but ultimately not fruitful, because it fails to take into account the historical/cultural context of the human being -- what Heidegger might call 'thrownness'.
In other words, it's fine to say since we agree to live in a civilization, some things have to be accepted. But that contractarian notion doesn't work when it comes to an issue like same-sex marriage.
The opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on a contractarian theory; it's based on some form of a natural law theory (in this case, divine revelation) or some form of historical argument (it's always been thus, so don't change it).
The SoCon argument that allowing same-sex marriage harms the institution of marriage; the SoLib argument in converse would be that not allowing it harms those homosexuals in a committed relationship. Suddenly, the whole contractarian edifice is endangered, because both sides can claim the 'rights' of the other side is doing them harm.
They both can't be 'objectively right'. One or the other is wrong if there is such a thing as Enduring Moral Order or Universal Truth -- however one locates and understand such a thing.
Now what?
I don't have the answer, obviously, but am thinking this is one of the tensions that any effort to baseline conservatism will need to resolve satisfactorily.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
You raise some excellent points about some inherent tensions. What I was attempting to explain, was that Fiscon tenets could not be free of the moral absolutes and still be actually conservative. Hence the statement that personal freedom had to be tempered by what I called the civilization contract, if you will. What I was trying to say there is that to take cards in the civilization game, you had to live within a framework that I would content is grounded in the moral absolutes we are talking about.
So it follows, for me, that I am proposing that the moral order thing is of a higher priority than some of the others -- in the case of the same-sex 'marriage' question, the 'pro' position receives no benefit from contractarianism. It is trumped by the moral order.
Am I making sense or rambling? It's Friday afternoon, and it's hard for me to hear my brain.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
The greatest divide in American Conservatism has always been the conflict between liberty ands virtue. While American Conservatives have long prized both liberty and virtue the origins of each is disputed. In many ways the liberty vs. virtue cleavage has a certain "chicken and egg" quality to it. One faction of American Conservatives holds that without liberty there can be no virtue. This faction (which makes the most sense to me) often points out the historical failings of European style forced virtue, and the successes of American style voluntary virtue (think Alexis de Tocqueville). The other faction argues that only a virtuous people can have liberty (think of classical small r republicanism).
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
individualism AND property. It can be boiled down to property if the individual is seen as his own property able to live by his own lights and restrained only by the property rights of others. Now where and whether to place those restraints is rather a sticky thing though.
In Vino Veritas
Calvin Coolidge
Ronald Reagan
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
been on the ball with helping us to define just what it was about Fred that made all of his supporters stand up and cheer when he finally entered the arena. And I think that by defining it, you also put your finger on the reason that his campaign was a kind of outlaw effort, so to speak.
Those who are the "leaders" of the GOP really don't want a true conservative in the White House. It would mess up their "business as usual" way of "leading." I'm talking to you, Lamar Alexander and company. These kinds of politicians have no governing principles, other than to find out what it will take to get them re-elected time after time.
Time for a change--way past time. Keep it up, guys!
E PLuribs, great topic, but I think your efforts are more prescriptive than descriptive. That is, you want (I think rightly so) to own that valuable word "conservative."
In truth, the word remains very valuable because it is fairly flexible, and is broad enough to encompass folks who opposed many of the 20th century liberal causes--whether it be socialism, centralization, judicial activitism, anti-anti-Americanism, sexual revoluation. It composes folks who went along happily with some of these revolutions, but really hated others (I'm thinking of my mom who votes Republican, is strongly pro-life, but who thinks Roosevelt was just great, that amnesty is fine, and that socialized medicine might be the way to go. She would be very surprised to be called a "liberal.").
I propose a somewhat different plan from yours. I think that we should define conservativsm less with relation to Kirk (whom I admire, but whose ideas are excessively shaped by COntintental, anti-French-Revolution conservativism), and find our common touchstone in the thought of the Founders. This would be the basis for defining conservativism, but in a way that would be popular--and thus contribute to a self-identyfying "conservative" majority in our country.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
what i was attempting to do with the "Fidelity to the Constitution" as the basis for conservatism.
But EPU has great insights as well -- because of the 'who watches the watchers?' problem inherent in basing principles on a man-created, and man-editable document.
Nonetheless, there's quite a bit in what Robert A. Hahn wrote upthread as well that is really insightful.
Perhaps the formulation goes something like this?
"Conservatives believe first and foremost in fidelity to the Constitution, as it represents the best way to organize society. It is the result of experimentation, wrong steps, and wisdom of thousands of years of human history, and we depart from it at our own peril."
Still doesn't address the social elements of conservatism very strongly, however. Nor the National Security components, in this era of 4th Gen warfare.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Then you can obtain much of the spirit of the so-called social conservatives. Certainly you arguably get the pro-life message from the Declaration. As to the importance of the family and religion, there is a ton out there by the Founders.
In fact, just relying on the Constitution may not provide sufficient basis for arguing for property rights, nor for winning wars.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Since 1878, the USCode defines the Organic Laws of the United States to include:
1) The Declaration of Independence
2) The Articles of Confederation
3) The Constitution
4) The Northwest Ordinance
That is, these four documents provide the fundamental basis on which the entire rest of the US governing system is founded. The Northwest Ordinance includes this little gem:
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
(But of course, that sentence naturally must not and can not mean what it plainly says, according to the Freedom From Religion people)
Just won't hack it for me. While the basic document (plus BOR) represent the Kirk principles, I take principled exception to several of the Amendments (XII, XVI, XVII, XXIV, XXVI ---and sometimes XIX ;-) ) as straying from Federalist and balance of power concepts of the Founders in favor of pure democracy. While I don't want judges to abridge or ignore those Amendments, I would join a "conservative" movement to repeal any or all of them.
I think the thought expressed, which I agree with, is that the Constitution and BOR produced by the Founding Fathers represents a near-perfect expression of conservatism.
That thought stands alone, and I think we can agree with it. It's also a very utilitarian thought -- it has feet.
I agree with you that SINCE THEN the added Amendments have been spotty in their adherence to the principles driving the FF.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
That's kind of where I was going next. I don't have those thoughts fully gathered together, but the "conservatism as defender of the Constitution" idea was the general idea. Today's writings by you, by TS, and by Bob Hahn up above are exactly what I was hoping - stimulating thought, looking forward to where conservative principle meets conservative application.
Oh, and AT, EPU *does* own the word, baby! Tattooed on my right cheek, right next to the 'I [heart] strippers' tattoo.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
on 'Fred-headedness 2 - conservatism as defender of the Constitution' (working title, may change), I plan to blatantly steal ideas and applications from your recent blogs - but I promise in doing so to laud you copiously.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Excellent post. Well written and reasoned.
As stated, Conservatism is about good process and principles. It is consistency in using them that marks the great leaders. Outcomes can and will differ among conservatives of good conscience, but they are validated because they remain true to first principles.
Again. Outstanding work on this post!
Common Sense
Thoughts on Government (by John Adams)
The Politics (by Aristotle)
The big works of Mills and Locke
Those help figure out what conservative means in America
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
"When We Are Free."
It's a collection of essays, and well worth the read. I believe it's only available through Northwood University (who published it), but if you can find it, it's definitely worth it.
Fred Thompson, 2008
He uses it at the beginning of The Conservative Mind and I find it interesting to think about.
Hopefully in the coming years we can try to sell more Republicans on it.
...written here. I strongly recommend you get a copy and read it. I own a copy and it is worth having if you actually believe conservatism matters. Then of course I strongly recommend this book as a companion book, since it is what conservatism is based upon.
Not only do these books explain what conservatism is, they also explain to you how those beliefs came into being.
If you are a conservative, or if you are espousing beliefs that people tell you are not conservative, but you think they are, these books are for you. I strongly recommend them!
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Our conservative movement, in my view, traces its roots back at least to Edmund Burke, and so predates the Constitution.
..The Constitution of the United States with narratives.
You can rightfully argue that the source ideas from our constitution go back to Edmund Burke, but I think that when the Supreme Court decides cases, they usually reference the Constitution. That was the point I was trying to make, though your point is more accurate. Of course, there are those who are now citing foreign case law, but that is not very conservative in my opinion.
I stand corrected for not being more clear on my point.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
James Madison
Yup that's why it was a no brainer for me to support Fred. Fred knew why he was a conservative and what one was. Great great great blog.
Nothing more, nothing less. Perfect recipe
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Fred-headedness 2. Stay tuned, probably next Tu-Wed. And your input on that is welcome.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
...excellent and very well done.
Any person who identifies as a conservative should give this a read, especially and including the supporters of candidates not called Fred.
All though this did catch my eye:
"It turns out to be alot like porn - a bit hard to define, but you know it when you see it."
Might want to share that little gem with the liberals --- the comparison alone will at least trap a few unwitting hippies and might even convert a few. :P
FredHeads: Fred is done, give Mitt another look - yes, he changed his standards, but arguably for the better.
Kudos to Bob Hahn above - VERY nice.
The next step, EPU is the unthinkable. Getting our children educated to understanding our past.
There were only a couple of weeks when Fred really made the news headlines and it was when he talked candidly about the NEA and our education system. It stuck pure, ice-cold fear in the hearts of Journalists and Educators.
We have some tough ideas to sell like salmon running up the Columbia River - Personal Responsibility? Community Service? The Founding Fathers and the idea they might have been right! God? Pure Science and Math? Respect?
We are lost in the short term - the conservatism stock market has taken a hit and our version of the Dow Jones is dipping below 5000. Our only hope is an investment in the future. We need to take our children and the schools back. We need to get Liberal professors out of our universities (we are alumni aren't we?), we need to tell the local high schools we're not accepting weird science and liberal teachings as de facto any more. We need to stop grammar school teachers from trying to equalize the whole class to the lowest common denominator - there are smart kids and dumb kids and some will be rewarded in life and some will suffer.
As to the rest of your "definition" of conservatism I am afraid that you will have to take each ugly item and find a scale and set a middle where conservatives move right and liberals move left.
conservatism would actually argue against the existence of publicly funded schools to begin with. And what you note is part of the reason why.
But we can only play the hand we're dealt, and for now we have public schools, and they seem to exist for the sole purpose of indoctrinating young Democrats.
So yes, on the grassroots level, conservatives need to wrest the schools from the hands of the idiots and get some real history (AND math, AND science) being taught.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
American Conservatism was the architecture for building the greatest, strongest, most generous nation the world has ever seen. The US, both as a nation and as its predecessor British colonies, has a unique American culture that caused this nation to rise from all the other colonies and nations of the Americas to stand alone, far above the others in liberty, responsibility, and prosperity.
That conservatism is a platform that has been at its core, the same since the 1600s. It was improved from the early years and made concrete by the Founders, and changed around the edges ever since as people from other cultures assimilated into the American culture, but it has remained essentially the same. The original blog, and some of the responding posts, have done well to describe the currently constructed platform of American conservatism.
But there is a single source. The concepts that others have written about, the concepts that our Founders drew upon to build a concrete architecture for a republic, are found in Scripture. Not in a religion or sect, but in the commonly held authority of Scripture that underlies common law.
For example, the Founders knew that government could be oppressive, so they created 3 branches of government to have a competitive balance of power. But how did they know that? Because they knew from Scripture, and seeing it affirmed in experience and reason, that government is run by people, and all people are sinful and bent towards what is evil (like desiring power). They would be dismayed that the Federal government is so far-reaching that they can take your income by force, and even tell you how your toilet must be designed.
As another example, the Founders saw the horrors in Europe of the church and state in co-governance (Anglicans and the British monarchy, Catholicism and numerous other country's royalty). They believed that an individual's faith in the God of Scripture should affect one's civil decisions, but that the church organization should not be directly involved in governance. The individual is responsible to God and God alone for his decisions. Thus, they prohibited the State from creating and choosing a single "official" denomination, and prohibited the State from inhibiting the free expression of ones religious faith.
As another example, the Founders knew that America must not have a king. How did they know that, aside from the despots of Europe? From Scripture. When Israel asked for a king, God (through Samuel) told them that 1) God alone is their King, and 2) that a human king would oppress them, lead them into evil, and take their individual wealth. Seeing how that has been affirmed by history for not only Israel, but all nations, they decided the US would have no mortal king, and as is later reflected in the last stanza of "My Country 'Tis of Thee", "Great God (is) our King".
Conservatism says there is a moral order, but from what do we (and our Founders) derive that morality? Scripture.
Conservatism adheres to custom, convention, and continuity - in a word, immutability on the core values. Where did the Founders get their idea of immutability? From Scripture and Scripture's Author who is Himself immutable and therefore the application of His precepts are immutable.
Conservatism balances the immutable with that which is not immutable and can change beneficially. The Founders understood that what the Scriptures specifically address is not subject to change, but all else is. That is why we have an amendable Constitution.
Those who have read broadly those extent documents from our country's founding and formative years know the depth to which professing and practicing (and fallible) Christians and even pastors were involved in governance. Their shared, common Christian faith informed their individual civil decisions without there being a theocracy or Church-run State. The perfect design for a mortal world.
If the platform of conservatism one chooses is not built upon the Rock of Ages, then it is built on shifting, unstable sands, and will eventually fall down with all those who rest upon it.
As for me and my house, we choose the platform of conservatism built upon the solid Rock that no storm can destroy and cannot rot or fail.
-----
Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
There are very good thoughts in there, and I think it aptly describes the state-of-mind of the Founding Fathers at the time of the Constitution being drawn up.
But you claim that the single source is Scripture. Then, you reel off a number of examples of how the FF reacted to things at the time, the horrors in Europe, the tyranny, the church-state confluence, and so on.
I disagree. I agree that the FF were powerfully influenced by Scripture, and I'll say the Constitution was 'informed' by Scripture. Let's nor forget, Kirk made this his First of the Ten.
But let's keep some perspective. The Scriptures mention nothing that suggests a bicameral legislature, and only scant mention of anything that might suggest a government of separated branches. At no point does the Bible condemn the monarchical government system (except the Samuel-Saul thing, where God allows it but says they'll regret it -- but this is to replace the preferred 'judges' system, which is not a democracy or representative republic either).
The Bible is not the sole source of the Constitution That's going too far with an otherwise good train of thought. I DO believe, on the other hand, that *conservatism* is VERY much rooted in Scripture, and most if not all of the tenets are Bible-influenced if not outright derived from it.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
"For example, the Founders knew that government could be oppressive, so they created 3 branches of government to have a competitive balance of power. But how did they know that?"
They read Montesquieu, and implement some of his notions (such as the separation of powers). Check the founders' libraries (it is a hobby of mine). Nearly all of the founders had read Montesquieu, as well as the other major philosophes of the Enlightenment.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
in America since 1945-- A great book that will help many. Nash points out that there is "no compact definition of conservatism." Instead it arose after 1945 as an intellectual movement with three components: (1) the clasical liberals or libertarians, (2) traditionalists who rejected relativism, etc. represented by Kirk and others, and (3) anti-communists, including Wittiker Chambers. These theoretical camps shared their distain for liberalism. But note, there are obvious tensions between the first two groups. Nash traces the intellectual history of these wings of conservatism and their "fusion" into a movement. Today, the third wing (anti- communism) has faded or disappeared and it was a force for unifying "conservatism." We are watching many of the theoris/issues identified by Nash play out today. A 447 page book, it will help explain a lot about today.
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can some day, let's get to work."
Barry Goldwater at the 1960 Republican convention
IN the form of the Milcon wing - the national security, strong defense wing of conservative.
I agree, there are tensions between the 3 'pillars'. I don't think they are outside reconciliation. Only if a person adheres fiercely to one pillar at the expense of the other two do we run into unsolvable issues.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
the effect is not the same as when we faced the challenge of the Soviet Union.
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can some day, let's get to work."
Barry Goldwater at the 1960 Republican convention
Our own personal conservatism is something each of us needs to define & recognize. We're not going to get a "cookie cutter - one size fits all" definition of conservatism, however we can get some general guidlines as defined in the porn comparison post...
Whatever floats your boat.
To each his own.
Living Constitution.
Baloney. Conservatism is not relative.
Thanks EPU. I would have to say that the following people deserve special plaudits for their insight on this subject:
EPU
TheSophist
tadams1138
Herodotus
kowalski
absentee
Robert A Hahn
R.E. Finch
You are clearly people that I will be looking forward to hearing your opinion and insight as much as I can.
- Jack Bauer
Oh good, you actually did some work on this. OK, I'll forward mine to yours.
http://www.jackbauer08.com
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Since Fred dropped out and Chuck Norris is supporting a candidate, that leaves Jack Bauer and the Man's Candidate.
Go Jack!
And thanks simpson, you put me in some pretty elite company. I am, if anything, the guy putting out the checkered cloth, and shouting, "Hey, SMART GUYS! Come over here and sit for awhile. I got some apple pie and coffee, so sit and talk all ya want."
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
That's a really good list to be in.
I would have commented more already but I just got back from a business trip. Thankfully I voted absentee before I left Florida. I got a lot of reading to catch up before I start opining again.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Let's try not to turn this into a comedy bit by going back and forth with the "No, thank you" thing though.
1) Leave me alone
2) leave my property alone
3) leave my neighbor alone
4) give me basic government services
5) do it efficiently
6) use common sense
7) kick out anyone who shouldn't be here
8) stop giving away stuff
9) leave me alone
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
and I think it's kind of important
(10) I gotta leave other people alone also
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
if you believe in liberty then, you have to be willing to extend it to your neighbor.
Neighbor likes to burn meat and drink beer in his backyard? leave him alone
Neighbor like to go to a nudie bar?
leave him alone
Neighbor likes to hold scientology classes?
leave him alone
Neighbor smokes in his own home or his own place of business?
leave him alone.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
What distinguishes that from a conservative philosophy?
I'm extremely sympathetic to those ideas -- but conservatism is, after all, a philosophy of government and requires something a bit more than "less is more".
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Traditionally libertarianism is just a strains of conservatism. Libertarianism is the strain of American Conservatism that claims that all virtue originate from liberty. The traditionalist strain of American Conservatism argues that only through virtue can liberty exist.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Traditionally liberals and conservatives were at odds with each other. Consider Hamilton v. Jefferson.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
That is an interesting point Neil. Presumably you are framing Jefferson as a proto-liberal, and Hamilton as a proto-conservative (if so you are using an old thesis that I have not thought about in several years) . I am not certain how I want to respond to it right now. Obviously I could make the Modern vs. Classical American Conservatives argument. I suspect that I could also find fertile ground in the classic Jeffersonian contradiction (he wrote as the anti-Hamilton, but when he governed he was more Hamiltonian the Hamilton).
I going to think about this some more before I try to respond in detail.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Basically I would draw a tree. Hamiltion represents a kind of proto-conservative, and Jefferson the classical liberal represents *both* the proto-libertarian and the proto-leftist.
I love talking history, heh.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
"I love talking history, heh."
Yeah I can understand that. After all I did kind of make a career out of talking history. :)
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
First of all, I want to say I have not been able to give this the time that it deserves. I'm back in school, and between that, work responsibilities, and chasing teenagers I'm not able to read the backup material for this.
I think it's great that you've undertaken this project. I know I and others will benefit from your hard work, and we can't let Fred-headedness die. Thank you for what you've done so far.
I just wanted to address a few of the 10 points of the Essence of Conservatism with my thoughts, short as they will be.
2. It's unfortunate that so little effort is spent learning from those that went before us. I've always believed that we can't know where we're going if we don't know where we've been. Even I haven't really given it the time it deserves.
4. This requires thinking of others before self. This isn't done nearly often enough.
6. Robert Hahn addressed this upthread better than I could ever hope to.
7. Those who think militant environmentalists (yes, even the AGW types) aren't something to worry about need to seriously consider this.
8. This one should hit home for many of us. I think as a nation we continue to lose the concept of community. We continue to isolate ourselves and demand individualism to the exclusion of community.
9. I do believe that man is basically depraved and must be restrained. I often wonder at those that can look at the world and think man is basically good.
I do wish I have more time to devote for this right now.
For me, Fred represented these principles better than any of the candidates. None of the others really come close. It saddens me that we lost an opportunity to see these fleshed out in our lives. Who knows how successful he would've been in convincing others to follow where he was going.
Ultimately, Fred was the only politician that I've seen come along for a long time that I really felt I could trust. I know that our nation will endure and thrive. Conservatism isn't dead, and never will be. We'll see different versions of it over the next few years, but the foundation will always be there, and there will be those of us that will not let our representatives forget it.
Thanks again for your work here. I look forward to reading much more from you as you develop this.
blog addressing this very topic from my perspective a few days ago. Don't want to spam or threadjack, however, so I will ask your permission to post a link.
To Fred's principles, however: yes, yes and yes again. These are the principles that drew me into the Republican party -- and it is the gradual moving away from these principles that make me concerned about its future.
Fred Thompson, 2008