Posted on 05/18/2006 1:30:53 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
I would like to float an idea, and get some feedback.
To me, 'Conservative' means 'Careful'.
In other words, to me, 'Conservative' is about means, methods, specifics. It's about implementation, not goals.
We can argue about goals all day, and I think that's proper. Should we have nationalized health care. Should we have open borders. Etc, etc, etc. But you can still be a C.
Where we *agree* is on implementation. Once we decide on a goal, any plan/bill to be implemented in the name of this goal must be *carefully* laid out. Realistic. Careful with our money. We must be careful in what we endorse in the name of that 'goal'.
This way, putting aside the different types of Cs (Social, Fiscal, etc), I suggest a simple, single type -- 'Political Conservative'. That way, conservatives can disagree on 'Goals', and still all be Cs.
When I think it really means, 'careful about change'.
I was talking with some good Indy and Lib friends at a gathering last night, and floated this idea. To my shock and surprise, they all loved this definition, and in fact said they could get behind a party with those principles.
Which makes me wonder -- would this idea have power?
As always, if this seems like the ramblings of a fevered mind . . . then you must know me already!
You'll still have to work it out regarding the environment because it is environmentalists and liberals who have "carefuled" us right into a straightjacket with their absurd policies and junk science fueled scare-mongering.
Good post.
Each to his own definitions I guess. Like Ayn rand says, "to define is to confine".
To me, conservatives are those who wanna preserve abstract things (values etc) that're worth preserving. They battle negative change and any foreman will tell you that a machine sans maintainence succumbs to the same 'negative change'.
Of course, part of conservatisnm aims at positive change as well and thereby we encompass both design and maintainence of society, during the time given us.
Actually, that was one that we talked about last night --
To be 'careful' with the environment I believe would mean to be careful not to go for a 'solution' that sounds good but wouldn't be effective. To be careful not to jump at an emotional answer that makes us feel better but doesn't change anything.
For example:
This idea feels to me like it has legs.
Well, I'm a system's analyst by trade.
And you can't solve a problem without first defining it correctly.
I think Conservatism is the dominant philosophy in this country, in my experience. But we have different types of Cs, with no actual definition of what ties them together. Without defining what a C really is, we can't possibly put together a cogent, persuasive message.
So what is it that Fiscal, Social, etc, have in common?
I'd argue that we all believe in being 'careful' with what solutions we enact.
To me, conservatives are those who wanna preserve abstract things (values etc) that're worth preserving. They battle negative change and any foreman will tell you that a machine sans maintainence succumbs to the same 'negative change'.
The problem with this is, Ls would say the same things about themselves.
They would just claim that Cs don't want to preserve the right values (diversity, 'open' sexuality, etc).
I'm looking for a workable, functioning definition that only applies to Cs. but applies to all types of Cs.
I'll try.
A conservative is someone who believes that there's generally a good reason that things are being done the way they are, and wants a thoughtful examination before changing things. Things may be bad, but change and progress are different, and a change is not always an improvement.
A liberal is someone who believes that the current problems are so terrible, that change must occur immediately before more more harm is done. Any change is better than no change.
Yes! I concur completely.
That seems to spell it out in detail nicely. So, if I may oversimplify this into a one-word phrase that even the most clueles of voters can understand, Cs are careful about changing things, while Ls are not.
Am I misreading you, or does that jive with what you're saying?
bump for a few more thoughts . . .
I think that you and I agree exactly.
Now if we can just get Dan Rather to see it our way . . .
:-D
The 'Contract with America' that the Rs used to take control of the house was was *not* about 'social engineering' conservative values.
The Contract that won overwhelming support of the voters was about fiscally, politically conservative values.
I suggest that most voters by far are politically 'conservative'. But the 'social engineering conservatives' who want govt to control social issues like vices scare most voters away from the idea of 'conservative'.
Oh, man, am I about to get flamed . . .
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.