What I don’t think you understand is that conservatives generally think that we have an excellent society already. Do you see how your introduced topic speaks at cross purposes with those you are trying to to start a conversation? Most conservatives believe that the governmental “system” set up by the Founders is already good enough – in fact – it’s the best around.
Conservatives, as a rule, in working toward a better society and a better world, want to more closely adhere to the Constitution while leftists and socislists want to increase the size and scope of government. They are two diametrically opposed world views. You, rogerv, based on your writings here – line up with the leftists and socialists. Perhaps you are not telling yourself the truth about that.
Conservatives, as a rule, believe in human nature, in mankind, in *individuals*. We don’t think that we need to persuade people to care about others or rise to a higher level of caring or anything like that. We believe that people will naturally “care” about others when they have met their own needs. And the proof that that is true is in the generosity of the American people. We give more than any other people on the planet. Leftists and socialists, as a rule, believe in government, in “engineering”, in creating a society that “takes care” of individuals. Conservatives believe that when you have the kind of governmental system that encourages and expects “individuals” to be all that they can be – you will have a great society. Conservatives are more willing to “allow” society to evolve and grow organically. Leftists and socialists want to “engineer” it – to “control” it.
There were so many good posts written to you on this thread. I do hope you will go back and re-read them – several times. Billybudd, marron, mr.maine-iac, TKDietz, Peter Finn, KC for freedom, Jonestown etc – all of them are worth studying – if you want to learn from conservatives.
I think it is hard to understand, when one takes an honest look at the world we live in – how you can not realize that America is a fabulous society. And I think it is hard to understand why you don’t seem to realize that the reason that third world “individuals” are not doing well is because they are not free to do well. They do not have good governmental systems. Democracy in the Middle East is going to revolutionalize the lives of individuals there. And once individuals begin to have hope and to dream their own dreams and go after them, living in a country with a good governmental system and then begin to grow and change as individuals, with personal character and responsibility – their societies will radically improve.
There is evidence to support what conservatives believe. When you look at the history of the world – people in free countries with good governmental systems – do much, much better than those in dictatorships or other oppressive systems. Socialists and leftists have failed over and over – and they are failing again in Europe and Canada. There is no “rational” reason to waste time on leftist and socialist attempts to “engineer” society – whether in toto or piece-meal. Voters let politicians know if they like or don’t like the way that society is going. We already have a way to make policy and evaluate policy.
As I said before – freedom is messy. But the results are far superior to “engineered” societies. This kind of gets at the heart of where leftists like you are coming from:
He makes a strong case that liberals are seeking illegitmately to discredit and disqualify policy arguments that rest in whole or in part on religious beliefs. For example, Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, has argued that it is wrong for religious conservatives to base their views and arguments about public policy on theological premises because, in doing so, they appeal to reasons that are not "accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all."
Ponnuru has more time for this argument than I do, but he does state the essential point -- when liberals make this plea for "open debate," they are really trying to rule things out of the debate, to shut down the discussion. Once again, it's about attempting to marginalize Christianity for political gain. And the attempt is made under the false pretense that religiously based arguments are insufficently accessible.
secularism and its discontents
[[[I did come across a good explanation in David Horowitz's new book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. Horowitz's theory is "the utopian future that embodies the idea of 'social justice'" connects radical Islam and its sympathizers with yesterday's Marxists: "It is this utopian vision that provides radicals with the standard of judgment that condemns the actually existing world, no matter how decent it may be." So therefore America and its friends, like Iraq the Model, are automatically suspect. – National Review]]]