It’s too long and too pedantic for a “definition”.
Here’s something more concise and in less academic, more approachable language, that captures the same spirit.
The essence of conservatism is a rather strong desire to stick with what’s worked in the past - what has been learned through millenia of schools of hard knocks - experience. what we call “traditions”.
The enlightened conservative also understand that things can be improved, thus he’s open to new ideas. But he does so skeptically. Before adopting those “new-fangled” ideas, he wants them thoroughly analyzed and tested on a limited scale (even isolated) to see how they work in real life. The genius of the founders is that they understood this well, and it’s why they created multiple states as opposed to one monolithic country. They saw them as “laboratory in governance” where each state could try what they thought were “improvements” and they all could learn from those “tests” and decide accordingly.
This contrasts with radicalists who are convinced they have the perfect (untested) system and can’t wait to blow up the status quo.
What do you think?
Yep, I agree.
It’s too long and too pedantic for a “definition”.
It has to be a philosophy, something pondered on so much that it becomes a part of thinking and doing.
It has to become a part of us.
What do you think?
And that is ok, recognizing these issues we disagree on, but those conversations need to lead back to what we do agree on, thus the principles of the authors.
But that means a conversation, not drive by postings and memes and cartoons, but they have a role also.
What is a philosophy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Philosophy (φιλοσοφία, ‘love of wisdom’, in Ancient Greek) is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its own methods and assumptions.
Note the word systematic.
Liberals look at one or two datapoints (or just c02 in global climate) of complex systems and think they understand it.
But looking at systems will give you a headache and lead to answers like God.
The essence of conservatism is a rather strong desire to stick with what’s worked in the past - what has been learned through millenia of schools of hard knocks - experience. what we call “traditions”.
The enlightened conservative also understand that things can be improved, thus he’s open to new ideas. But he does so skeptically. Before adopting those “new-fangled” ideas, he wants them thoroughly analyzed and tested on a limited scale (even isolated) to see how they work in real life. The genius of the founders is that they understood this well, and it’s why they created multiple states as opposed to one monolithic country. They saw them as “laboratory in governance” where each state could try what they thought were “improvements” and they all could learn from those “tests” and decide accordingly.
This contrasts with radicalists who are convinced they have the perfect (untested) system and can’t wait to blow up the status quo.