Printable View
The meaning of the word Conservative is not just a simple term. It is meant to indicate an established viewpoint which is that we should 'conserve' traditions and social norms. That we should not progress in a direction in which we do not know the outcomes. We should be hesitant of change and put the pragmatic above the idealistic. Free markets have not been fully realized in the United States, so how can we 'conserve' that which has never happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
The philosophy of it, however, is nothing new. It is the movement that they are trying to conserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Ok, the philosophy of Conservatism dates back to the French Revolution in which the Right ' the Conservatives' were the landed aristocracy which believe in monarchical absolutism, privilege above rights, a through unmoveable caste system, paternalism, mercantilist trade, imperialist expansionism under the guise of global populism, sat on the right side of the assembly and were trying to 'conserve' the French monarchical system. There is nothing free-market about Conservatism. It is a philosophy that determines what caste you are and therefore what you can or cannot do. What we had during the 19 century was a upheaval of sorts in how we define what ideology believes in what. Nearly the end of the 19th century, lassiez-faire liberalism was failing and a new ideology named 'Socialism' was on the rise which stated that what lassiez-faire liberalism wants [ peace/prosperity/liberty ] can be achieved by the same means that reactionary Conservatism wishes to utilize [ governmental empower and implicit strong oligarchical leaders ] because before then the Conservatives were actually anti-industrial revolution because it displaced them as landed gentry who had power over lower castes. That is why socialism is a middle of the road movement. It is what lassiez-faire liberals wish to have [ peace / prosperity / liberty ] but is brought about by conservative means [ statism ]. That is why socialism was so powerful during that time. It was the ultimate compromise between the two fighting parties and it was deemed the moral superior of lassiez-faire capitalism [ again something Conservatives were against because it empowered all classes ]Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
There is a wonderful article about this by Roderick Long who is a professor at Auburn University and a faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Perhaps you may have heard of him and also I hope you have heard of a man named Murray Rothbard.
Left and Right: Forty Years Later
I am talking about in the United States. The founders were libertarians. Their philosophy of limited government is what true conservatives want to conserve in terms of economic policies. However, the modern meaning of the word "liberal" has to do with changing things away from what we had and in other cases have had for so long. They want an end to the war on drugs, the allowance of gay marriage, etc. There seems to be inconsistency or at least major confusion in that, but those are the modern meanings of those words.
No I am saying it doesn't matter if they are the majority or the minority. If you are suffering under an oppressive government you have the full right to do something about it, regardless of what everyone else says.
The 'founders' were a reflection of what European political theory was. They didn't invent some new ideology by coming here. In fact what they were saying is exactly what liberals were saying in Europe. I also don't think we should lump these theorist together under one category. They were in fact very different in their viewpoints.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I don't claim they invented it. I am just explaining why the modern definitions of those words are what they are. Support for pure or close to pure capitalism is considered conservative, and support for a high degree of social freedom is considered liberal. Rush Limbaugh is a big time capitalist. Is he a liberal? John Lennon was a big supporter of social freedoms. Was he a conservative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Well you said 'American Conservatism as if it was somehow invented here. The 'founders' weren't all libertarians. Alexander Hamilton certainly wasn't, George Washington, James Madison. There was a separation of classical liberal ideals and Federalist pseudo-monarchism. Is Rush Limbaugh a capitalist? I would say no. He supports the existence of a state that at times can interfere with the market in terms of regulation and subsidization. So yes, to a degree he is a progressive liberal. John Lennon was a supposed supporter of social freedom but he went about it through state aggrandizement saying that the state should own the means of production and ration out goods on the basis of need, so again yes John Lennon to a degree is considered a Conservative because he is centralizing power into a single institute and into the hands of a select group of individuals who now take up the mantle of pseudo-nobility. This is the problem with the modern political spectrum. It puts Progressive liberals on the left and Conservatives on the right when in fact the polar opposite of Conservatism is anarchism, the decentralization of power into the hands of the masses. Progressive liberalism should be in the middle because it tries to achieve what anarchism wants but through conservative means. That is why you see progressive liberals want to MAKE legislation that is supposed to empower minorities that they feel are oppressed. They are trying to achieve prosperity [ an anarchist goal ] through bills in congress and federal laws [ conservative means ]Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Again, I point you to that article I linked which examples exactly what I am saying to greater detail.
Progressivism all the way.
Do you know the history of Progressivism? I say that because many people think it is some dandy system that supposedly busts 'trusts' and is a great period in American history.Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Fonz
Considering I agree with the Wikipedia definition of:
"A political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice)"
Then I think the history of it is irrelevant. But, yes I learned about Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive period a few years back. He kind of put his own hokey spin on it to get votes it seems. That's not what I'm promoting haha. :]
Well what do you define as progressivism?Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Fonz
Progress, moving forward, reform, improvement I guess.
Well that is ambiguous. What is classified as improvement?Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Fonz
To me it's constantly making things better until its impossible to change it positively...never settling for what works in the moment.
But do you have an ideas to guide you as to what is and isn't better?Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Fonz