Core Conservative principle: SELF-RELIANCE.
As in, "Do you own F(*kin' research."
Posted on 04/17/2005 1:13:01 PM PDT by Piedra79
I sorry to take up space on here. I am working on a paper on media bias and people on here were helpful enough to help me find a book on it. In my introduction I am trying to come up with a succint definition of conservatism. Any ideas?
Core Conservative principle: SELF-RELIANCE.
As in, "Do you own F(*kin' research."
LOL.....Don't worry I am writing my own paper. Just looking for a small suggestion.
In contemporary politics, conservatism is the opposite of liberalism. However, when compared to Feudalism or Totalitarianism, contemporary conservatives are actually classical liberals. Liberal and conservative are like the Einstein's observations regarding the speed of light. It depends upon the relative position of the observer.
You are correct. It is closest to the classical liberalism of more than one hundred years ago.
It's essentially a respect for the literal interperatation of The Constitution and the principles endowed in it by our Founding Fathers.
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Rots of ruck. You will have to decide for yourself what the definition is. I will however make some suggestions:The Theme Is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition by M. Stanton Evans.That's a must-read for conservatives, IMHO - but you don't necessarily have time to read the whole thing in the midst of the time pressure of a deadline for a paper. That's why you count on me to summarize. The "theme" to which the book's title refers is the theme of American conservatism. As Evans notes, conservatism relates to the particular polity and society you are considering: if you were talking about German conservatism or Russian conservatism or Chinese conservatism you would not say that the theme of conservatism in those places is freedom.OK, that's Evans on American conservatism. What about American Beliefs by John McElroy?
McElroy notes that there were four main colonial powers in America, and each of them found different things and wanted to do different things:
The conclusion is that Americans respect any honest work. If you reflect on English costume drama, you will realize that we didn't get that attitude from England - where the emphasis was on who you were rather than what you did - but in the American melieu where people who were respected because they were useful, and were respected for the caluses on their hands.
- Spain found bronze-age civilization, and conquered them in a conventional manner as they would have liked to have done in Europe, especially England. Since they found a going concern their only interest was in dominating and exploiting it, rather than creating it. So the only people they sent to their colonies were soldiers and gentlemen to be in charge. No Spanish peons need apply.
- France found in Canada not a going bronze-age civilization but a stone age one. But like Spain, France's primary motivation was control - of navigation of the St. Lawrence River - and trade with the natives. So there was need of traders, but mostly of gentlemen and soldiers to control. Very few peons, even French ones and certainly none other, were neededD
- Portugal found stone age peoples in Brazil. In order to exploit Brazil they sent over workers - in the form of African slaves. Plus of course, gentlemen to control the operation.
- England (it wasn't Great Britain until later) found in the portion of North America which it was able to claim nothing but stone-age people and forests. The land was rich and had tremendous agricultural potential but wasn't farmland until it had been laboriously cleared of trees and vines. The English colonists found that gentlemen were pretty useless; what the situation cried out for was farmers. So England sent over poor people - some, including some of my ancestors, came from Lutheran Germany - and so the American polity was dominated by practical people (even if they often had religious motivations for wanting to come, still they learned that the situation required diligent work).
Now consider the Constitution of the United States of America. That obviously defines American conservatism. And what defines the Constitution (which, BTW, is considered to crowning achievement of the Enlightenment) is its preamble. There we find an echo of "the theme is freedom" in the mission statement "to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"."
In the reference to "posterity" - which variously can mean "descendants" or, more generally, "those who live after us" - defines conservatism as preserving something for the future. That seems to make sense for a definition of conservatism except if you consider the object being preserved. Liberty, after all, is the possibility of doing things differently than your parents did them. Working in different occupations, inventing new ways of doing things. "Liberty" is about the strangest possible form of "conservatism."
In fact, American conservatives weren't always called "conservatives." Historically we were "liberals." Why then is "liberalism" a dreaded label to shun when you are running for political office? For the simple reason that the word was misappropriated and run into the ground by people who had the ability to manipulate the language - journalists and intellectuals - and who had an agenda other than "liberty." Their agenda was the overthrow of liberty, and they hit on a way of subverting it. They took the word for the public - the word "society" - and appropriated it into the coined word "socialism."
I put it to you that the word "social" has nothing inherently to do with leftism; there's nothing "social" about a business call from a policeman. If you are an American Conservative you probably have learned to check your wallet whenever you hear someone use the term "social" or "society," and you are right to do so. Because leftists adopted the form of usage of the term which inverts its natural meaning. When a leftist says "society" s/he means nothing other than "government."
That is the con. Because "liberty" is only what remains when you subtract "government" from "society." If there be no difference between "society" and "government," then "liberty" is logically excluded. And that is the leftist project.
Well, where was I? I was saying that "liberalism" is a word which once related to "liberty" and applied to the people who are now in America called "conservatives." The transformation of the meaning of "liberalism" occurred in America before it happened anywhere else. Indeed it still hasn't happened everywhere. If you hear or read a foreigner refering to "liberalism" you have to do a context check to determine whether they refer to leftism or to American "conservatism." The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek is a 1944 clasic which was reprinted many times, as recently as 1994. In a foreword to one of the printings, Hayek bewailed not only the fact that his use of the word "liberalism" was so easily misunderstood in America but the fact that that essentially "indispensible word" had been destroyed as far as Americans were concerned. IMHO that destruction had already been accomplished in America by the time of the advent of the FDR Administration. Because FDR used the deformed American version of "liberalism" entirely unselfconsciously.
I put it to you that the reason that America's leftists, and not the leftists of other nations, misappropriated the label "liberalism" lies in the fact that the term "socialism" - which I have noted is deceitful in its etymology - was a smashing success outside the US but a flop inside America. We already had a country which was governed by society; you couldn't promise us one in name which was actually "governmentism" (tyranny) in practice and con us into thinking you were offering nirvana. ("Socialism" in leftist speak actually means "governmentism" in plain talk, since as I noted earlier leftists always mean "government" when they say "social" or "society" - or, for that matter, "public").
I realize that you asked for a "succinct" definition of "conservatism." But I did warn you that it wouldn't be simple to be "succinct" and still be at all accurate. And your problem is compounded by the fact that your professor is almost certainly far too leftist to give much of anything I have said here a respectful hearing.
If you're interested in analysis of the leftist tendency of journalism, I refer you to
Why Broadcast Journalism is(which is a long-running thread which I created to analyze the issue).
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
I knew I'd sent p79 in the right direction. ;^)
To: conservatism_IS_compassionThis is a long read, but illuminating on the topic of "What is a conservative?"Here's a link to the article, Why I am not a Conservative, whose title Michelle borrowed for her essay, the subject of this thread. I couldn't say what her opinion is of Hayek's original, but even though it was written 45 years ago, it is amazingly insightful and appropos for the current discussions here on FR. I recommend it.
217 posted on 05/04/2005 11:56:28 AM EDT by Sam Cree
Michelle Malkin: I'm No South Park Conservative
The National Ledger ^ | May 4, 2005 | Michelle Malkin
Hayek basically says that his political philosophy - and that of many Americans who count themselves as being "conservatives" - is essentially that of the early Whigs. He counts Jefferson as radical, and Hamilton as conservative - and (father of the US Constitution) Madison as an "old Whig" (later on the Whigs lost their way). Hayek counts "conservatives" as being too nationalistic on the one hand, and as being merely reactionary (i.e., having no political philosophy other than whatever is familiar) on the other.
So I guess most of us are "paleowhigs." The link really is worth a read, even if it is long.
I define "conservative" according to Theodore Roosevelt's dictum:"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - Theodore RooseveltIf you agree with that and live by it, you're a conservative. If you are a journalist, as a practical matter you define "objectivity" as being the exact opposite of that. You do nothing, but you promote yourself and your craft above those who actually get things done. And you do it by criticizing and second guessing businessmen and the police and the military - anyone who works to a bottom line.And if you are a journalist, you describe as "liberal" the exact same political attitude which in a fellow journalist you would style "objective."
IOW "liberalism" is whatever is in the self interest of journalism. Journalism defines itself as being the public interest.
Are you really a Liberal?
SmallGovTimes.com | March 8th, 2007 | Selwyn Duke
Um, I HOPE she got that paper turned in by now.
Free enterprise, yada yada yada, enormous wealth.
I certainly assume so. I'm surprised that anyone picked up on my posting so quickly, frankly - but theoretically others could have the same question and could somehow google up this thread.I simply did it for completeness, and so I could bookmark this thread and refer to it as future utility might arise.
All of the above is, IMHO, hidden in my definition of conservatism. After all, "liberalism" is mismangement - the systematic seperation of responsibility from authority. "Liberals" lust after authority but shun responsibility, and use propaganda (PR) power to obfuscate the fact that that is exactly what they are doing.IMHO conservatism is simply refusing to bite when the propagandists try to heap unlimited blame on people who are trying to do useful things in moral ways, but who are not precient and who therefore are vulnerable to the second guess.
True.
Then there's Thomas Sowell, who actually does display brilliant logic and understanding of a wide variety of things in life, but would be the first person to admit he doesn't know everything. I'd be tempted to disagree with him, though, because I sometimes wonder if there's anything the man doesn't know or isn't right about.Surgeons succeed because they stick to surgery. But if we were to put surgeons in control of commodity speculation, criminal justice and rocket science, they would probably fail as disastrously as central planners.
There is an ironic comment to the effect that "if a man talks about his honor and a woman talks about her virtue, shun the former and cultivate the latter." I can't seem to google it up, but . . .We consider Sowell to be sagacious. The irony is that we would not have the same attitude if in fact he went around claiming to be wise:
sophist1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.philosopherIn fact I would almost go so far as to say that Americans who call themselves "conservative" are actually "philosophers" in the etymological sense given above - and that journalists and those whom journalists call "liberal" are sophists. Certainly, "liberals" are recognizable as Theodore Roosevelt's "critics":O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage.""Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.Theodore Roosevelt's 1911 speech at the SorbonneIt is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
Obviously people who have been "brainwashed” cannot be convinced by a short article. FA Hayek wrote his classic refutation of socialism/communism during WWII, and it was a sensation in America (Hayek wrote in Britain) when The Road to Serfdom
(Link to the Readers' Digest Condensed Version in PDF!) was published while Hayek was sailing to America for what had been expected to be a routine author’s tour promoting his book - but which played to overflow audiences everywhere.Serfdom is filled with topical references to people who were famous at the time but are now little remembered - but you could focus on the chapter entitled (IIRC) “Why the Worst Get on Top.” It treats a fundamental fallacy of Communism - the bland assumption that a dictatorial government will naturally be run by well-meaning people. The Black Book of Communism - Crimes, Terror, Repression is a validation of Hayek’s thesis on this point.The Wikipedia link above also mentions the similarity of Communism and Naziism; Serfdom hammers the similarities, and discusses the nuances of difference, heavily. Writing before the death camps were public knowledge, Hayek predicted, on the basis of the public knowledge of the Gulag (as Solzenitsen later styled it), that revolting systematic crimes by the Nazis would be come to light.
Of course propaganda is central to communism and other forms of socialism, including our own “democracy” in which shocking portions of the public at large can be systematically diverted from significant facts about the government, and can be convinced of fantastic improbabilities like the idea that Mitt Romney is a criminal. My own theory on the “brainwashed” problem is that our journalism is propagandistic because it can be, no other explanation is necessary. Why wouldn’t it be, if it had opportunity? And my theory on the reason journalism has the opportunity is because journalism is unified. Journalism it is unified becausePeople of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book I, Ch 10And of all people, journalists “meet together,” at least virtually, more than anyone. The Associated Press newswire is nothing but a continuous, 24/7 virtual meeting which determines what is, and what is not, news.IMHO propaganda always has to begin with sophistry. The term “sophistry” comes from the Greek word “Sophist” denoting a party which claimed superior wisdom. Such a claim leads to very short, very unsatisfying arguments: I am wise, you are not. Therefore I am right, and you are wrong.” Claiming wisdom came into very bad odor on that account. The school which rose up in competition with the Sophists was the Philosophers. Philosophers eschewed a claim of wisdom, but claimed only to love wisdom - thus, to be open to arguments based on facts and logic. AP members claim “objectivity” for all AP members - and IMHO “objectivity,” as they use the term, is merely code for the Sophists’ claim of “wisdom.” Another way of saying that is to assert that it is inherently impossible to know that you are objective, and that anyone who claims actual objectivity - instead of having the humility to limit oneself to claiming to try to be objective - is guilty of arrogance. And a claim of trying to be objective must be backed up by explicit admission of the known reasons why you might not be objective. Sincere admission of the possibility of failure in the quest for objectivity, of course, is logically incompatible with membership in an organization - Associated Press, exhibit A - which you know will claim that you actually are objective.
Why is journalism’s propaganda leftist? My theory is that the internal logic of any institution which does nothing except criticize, condemn, and complain is and can only be socialism. Socialism is simply the theory that the complainers should be in charge. Whereas capitalism takes for granted that people should have authority only to the extent that they get things done of, by, and for the people.
The word “progress” appears once in the Constitution - as a good to be promoted, and in the context of creativity of the people, not politicians. One of the ironies of “progressives” is that they oppose progress. Drill for oil? It is “progressives” who will oppose it, and “conservatives” who will support it. Which only tells you that our political labels are Newspeak. As does the fact that the meaning of the term “liberal” was (according to Safire’s New Political Dictionary) inverted in the 1920s - but only in America. Note that Serfdom was written in Britain, by someone who learned English in America before the 1920s. He uses the term “liberal” heavily in the book, and in its non-inverted sense. It is a confusion factor which he acknowledges with sorrow in a later edition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.