[tjwmason]

I can't recall which of you said that "American conservatism is very different than British conservatism," but could you please expand on that?

Thank you for the question, I find it an interesting subject. I can't remember off-hand whether I posted that comment, but I have certainly made a number of remarks in that direction on a number of occasions.

My point is that conservatism does not live in a vacuum, but rather it develops and lives within the context of the society in which it is found. Thus American conservatism builds itself on the foundation of the revolution, and adds to that the history of America. British conservatism has its roots far far back, and again builds upon the history of Britain incorporating elements from each new development.

This contrasts with other ideologies which seek to impose a standard solution. For example, socialism (and its family of marxism and communism) will always seek public control of industrial resources, and will attempt to remove selfish motives in human action (that is its fundamental flaw). Conservatism seeks to incorporate all knowledge around it and then to apply that to its core values (e.g., country, family &c.) to produce policies.

British conservatism and American conservatism are generally similar because we are very similar countries. Others have given instances of variation, for example the possession of fire-arms is viewed as fundamental to American conservatives because of the position of the Constitution, British conservatives do not tend to understand that position, though I dare say that many of us would like fewer silly restrictions on fire-arms possession. British conservatives are (pretty much to a man, and in some senses by definition) supporters of the Monarchy, yet American conservatives look positively bemused at this - the monarchy being central to British society and yet alien to modern American.

I notice that different British FReepers have suggested that we are both more libertarian and more authoritarian. I think that we are more open to some things and less to others. The I.D. Card issue is a bad one, it has split through the Tory Party with many abstaining, and certainly many of us out in the country despise the idea; on the contrary I believe that most Americans would carry their driving licences around with them (which forms a government issued I.D.). Yet on the issue of homosexuality, I know of no British Tory who would seek to ban gay sex itself (and this includes many who find the act itself highly immoral); on the other hand there has been great complaints from Americans over the SCOTUS action stiking down the Texan sodomy law.

On basic issues, we both favour lower taxation, we both favour private enterprise, we both favour lower regulation &c.&c.&c.

[sauropod]

The I.D. Card issue is a bad one, it has split through the Tory Party with many abstaining, and certainly many of us out in the country despise the idea; on the contrary I believe that most Americans would carry their driving licences around with them (which forms a government issued I.D.).

You're right, and it bothers me. It bothers me when I now have to show ID at the airport several times before I get to the gate. I am not in favor of using a social security number as an identifier either, yet that is precisely how it is used.