The Heart of a Conservative

2/6/2006 | self

[BufordP]

In order to entertain your assertion we must first presuppose the DC Freepers and Protest Warriors are a bunch of activist demonstrators looking for any excuse to take to the streets. Well, I don't know how many times I gotta tell ya, but you're a Bozo looking for a fight. The rest of the lurkers out there can read this thread and search on TPartyType for a clue. As far as you're concerned, a Conservative is however YOU define it.

Here's another Burkian quote for you to ponder.

All that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

There's a whole lot of nothing going on out there...but not where the DC Chapter is concerned.

[Coop]

TPartyType, meet my tagline.

Tagline, TParty.

[RichInOC]

I have the heart of a liberal...

...in a jar of formaldehyde on my desk.

[pollyannaish]

My question is...

Can you generally be a Bush supporter, without agreeing with every policy or every decision, admire him enormously on a personal level...without being written off as a Bush Bot?

I have strong fundamental disagreements with him. But I still strongly support him and have learned a great deal about how to live from his personal example. I also have enormous respect for Ronald Reagan, but remember very similar accusations being thrown his way.

But for some, that isn't enough. I am still a Bush Bot. Intellectually vacuous. A sell out. Frankly, it's silly. And while I generally don't listen to Hannity I have to agree with him, and this writer, that we have a tendency to be our own worst enemy.

[TPartyType]

#23. . . :o)

[BufordP]

Hey, TPT, what do you think of the following quotes?

"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."
--Martin Luther

"The devil...the prowde spirit...cannot endure to be mocked."
--St. Thomas More

Not saying Martin Luther or St. Thomas More were conservatives or anything. Just wondering what you think of the quotes.

[CBart95]

"Yes I do. Words mean things"

So does the old saying: "Picking fly specks out of pepper" mean things.

Have a nice life.

[Majie Purple]

Easier to find ping to self.

[TPartyType]

Hey, Purp!

[caseinpoint]

Yours is an interesting and thought-provoking post. As I distill your essay, it seems you are asking for a consensus on the definition of a conservative and you are positing that conservatism and activism apparently opposites.

Let's take the matter of consensus. Why is it important to define a person as a conservative or not? It seems to me to be as productive as trying to define a beautiful woman. There are beautiful features on a woman but does a woman have to have all the "right" features to be beautiful? By the same token, there are conservative positions on a variety of issues but does one have to hold all the "right" positions in order to be a conservative? In the real world, one-size-fits-all will fit a very few people nicely and be varying degrees of discomfort for everyone else.

I believe the search for the basic definition is divisive and counter-productive. In fact, I believe this is one of the serious challenges for the liberals because they have tried to define who is and is not a liberal based on holding certain positions on abortion, gay rights, capital punishment, and other issues ad infinitum. The attempt to draw the definition alienates people who agree on some issues but not on others. It reminds me of the short verse (sorry, I don't have the author's name): "He drew a circle that shut me out--heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had wit to win, we drew a circle that took him in." Why not approach converatism on an issue-by-issue basis and accept your friends as you find them? I believe in the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

As to whether activism and conservatism mix, I think they do if kept within proper limits. Activism for conservative causes should be designed to reflect the conservative respect for law and the use of legal means to accomplish one's purposes. Deep down, many conservatives are motivated not by traditions as such but by the bedrock values underlying those traditions. When conservatives see those bedrock values not just disregarded by others but actually threatened or undermined, the conservative has an obligation to stand up for the value, within the limits of legal activism.

Protest warriors and such who act within the law are fully living conservative values. (So, for that matter, are liberal activists who stay within the law.) In the academic world, rhetoric and debate carry a lot of weight. In much of the rest of society, they tend to be devalued or ignored. When was the last time the local news people came to film one of your no doubt cogent lectures? In order to attract attention to an issue, protest warriors are more or less forced to take actions which would attract news coverage. I believe there is no shame in this so long as the protests are legal.

Does my definition mean anarchy? I think it means a more flexible approach to issues, taking allies as they present themselves and not demanding certain litmus tests to qualify as "one of us".

In the spirit of full disclosure, I consider myself holding conservative views on most issues, though by no means all (as other so-called "conservatives" define them). I have a juris doctorate degree, practice law, been married for over twenty years and have three children. I take my religion seriously and consider this nation grounded in the Judeo-Christian traditions. Not to worry, though, I have no problem accepting non-religious conservative allies. ;o)

[hosepipe]

Was a conservative for many years. Woke up one day and the conservatives moved so far left I looked around and lo and behold I was wearing RADICAL clothing.. Which I immediately tore losing some buttons and threw dust in the air..

Took awhile but got comfortable with the truth.. the denial wore off.. And am presently waiting for an invitation to be the FREE REPUBLIC Rep. as a token HANGMAN on a gang gallows on the White House lawn..

**Note: Phone number available with the proper credentials..

[TPartyType]

There are beautiful features on a woman but does a woman have to have all the "right" features to be beautiful?

Good analogy. My concern is more akin to a woman who got too many plastic surgeries. Isn't there a point at which she becomes no longer beautiful? In the same manner, a conservative who employs certain radical strategies may end up crossing over from conservative to militant. My concern, precisely, is that conservatives avoid using such tactics without considering the consequences of doing so too often.

I agree that "one-size-fits-all" categories are overly confining. That's why I was attempting to identify a broad "image" or conception of conservatism, so there would be lots of room for agreement. An overly precise, narrow definition would not do . . . absolutely.

I honestly believe we are in agreement regarding the enemy of my enemy is my friend. You won't find one specific issue mentioned in my post, because I was trying to identify some core, general values, around which we can gather (because I think there does have to be something, after all, binding together a movement.) BUT, having said that, and I think I'm pretty explicit about this, later in the post, the application of so general a principle ("the enemy of my enemy . . .") will not do either. I don't care if anyone "subscribes" to a set of beliefs, in any silly, direct sense. It's just that there have to be some things that are considered central to the heart of conservatism (like limited government, respect for law, individualism, personal responsibility, and so on). Don't we identify with these basic propositions? Don't they help define us? If not, can there be any "we" or "us"? I don't think so . . .

"Limited/principled activism"--Amen! I'm with ya, bro.

forced to take actions which would attract news coverage. I believe there is no shame in this so long as the protests are legal.

I agree with you 100%. The only point I've ever tried to make about such activity is that, if a person becomes addicted to grabbing the headlines (and gets increasingly outlandish to accomplish that objective) then they ought to be careful. Conservatives ought not use street militant tactics like 60s radicals. A person's actions eventually effect his or her views and can eventually contribute to a loss of perspective and balance.

In much of the rest of society, they tend to be devalued or ignored.

And why is that, do you suppose? Isn't it because our culture is coming unhinged? That's exactly why I teach my students the way I do. (Not just to debate issues, in an academic, irrelevant sense, but to be at home in the realm of ideas, to be quick-witted and tough-minded, so they can make a difference in the real world.) That is the vision of the conservative professor of rhetoric I learned from Weaver!

I expressly rejected the idea of a litmus test toward the close of my post. I have to say (in the spirit of debate, not criticism) that I find a little ambhiboly in your reply: I'd consider militancy antithetical to conservatism, not activism, and, second, as I said earlier, I never proposed adopting a "basic definition" which would certainly lead to litmus tests, BUT for "an image" or a general conception of conservatism (one that would allow for "variations on the theme" as it were).

Hey, thanks for the spirited, intelligent exchange! And thanks for the "full disclosure." I take my religion very seriously as well. I'm guessing you're into apologetics along the lines taught by John Warwick Montgomery? Have you read The Defense Never Rests by Craig Parton? (I'm taking a van load of college kids to hear him speak at Laramie, Wyoming in April.)

FRegards!

[caseinpoint]

Call me ambhiboly, eh? ;) I've a mind to get amphibole on you, just to get back.

I think we're basically on the same page. I just have some doubt as to whether you can find a set of traits that fit all conservatives. I come from a tradition that accepts and follows Christ and yet many so-called Christians will state I am no Christian. The result is that the division causes them to lose my church as an ally in many, many common causes. That's probably why I am skittish about drawing a line in the sand as far as conservatism is concerned.

I do agree that one can become addicted to militancy as a lifestyle. I have a neighbor who sees the world as us against them and tends to treat every person with an aggression that is totally unwarranted. It is as if she believes if she doesn't hit you first, you are surely going to hit her. So militancy can breed its own justification. I just believe that the values which underlie conservatism are being threatened more and more and it will be harder and harder to maintain our rights to express our values unless we take definitive, sometimes militant, actions to preserve those rights.

Were I to describe a conservative core, I would probably begin with a respect for proven values that have withstood the test of time and circumstances. Add to that respect for authority but contingent on the virtue of that authority. Add to that, tolerance but not tolerance of evil doings. You see how complicated it becomes as soon as we try to define ourselves, the exceptions abound. I frankly am unable to perceive why we need to set up guidelines of who is a conservative and who is not, and isn't that what you are requesting?

I appreciate your discussion and enjoy these topics. I listen occasionally to Christian radio stations when they have discussions on the Bible but I have no idea who John Warwick Montgomery is. I enjoy reading the likes of C.S. Lewis and church history.

I wish you good luck in your travel in Wyoming. You drive carefully now. I grew up in Idaho and know the power of winter there.

[Milhous]

Your home state just came to my attention. Regional differences probably account for most of this thread's acrimony. Westerners like us probably ought to refrain from putting any labels on our DC FRiends, who practically live in a different country with a different culture. In my dreams The United States actually morphs into The United Countries as we rescind most of the amendments added after the Bill of Rights and pare the Executive Branch back to a Department of State, a Department of War, a Department of the Treasury, and a Department of Justice. Period. The end. :)

[tacticalogic]

So what's your take on the federal government attempting to regulate public morality while claiming to be regulating commerce?

[TPartyType]

Really enjoyed your post on the "Eleven Lessons of Rush Limbaugh" thread and hoped you'd find this one interesting and maybe even ping it up a bit!! Thanks in advance.

(BTW, I initially had Reagan's 11th Commandment right under the Madison quote, but decided the post was getting too long and pulled it.)

[TPartyType]

Cross-link to "Eleven Lessons from Rush Limbaugh. Good stuff! Kinda related . . .

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[TPartyType]

Thanks for bumping by!

[Blind Eye Jones]

A good article. But I think that no society ever started out by being conservative: there was bloodshed, unrest, violent founders, etc.; and it is as Weaver says, "The conservative wants to conserve the great structural reality that has been given us and which is on the whole beneficent."

"If by some accident they are compelled physically to listen, it is with indifference or contempt because they really consider the matter a closed question-that is, no longer on the agenda of discussable things."

I think this would apply in academics, especially the humanities, where certain ideas become dated, out of fashion, and it's believed that the progressive way forward should not begin by looking back to the past (unless to show how inferior and morally contemptible it really was -- racists, sexists, etc.). As a result, the university and society in general have become very polarized and politicized. Students don't know the rich traditions that inform conservatives and they're taught to easily dismiss the past without any consideration. To counter the debilitating effects of the present and provide alternatives -- and education should provide alternatives -- the past has to be maintained properly. Otherwise, what good is a college education if students learn about pop culture that they can easily find out by watching TV? They have to be exposed to greatness that they can't get from pop culture. And the university is the great depository for the greatness of the past. (I'm in the Allan Bloom and Roger Kimball camp.)

"The conservative, on the other hand, is tolerant because he has something to tolerate from, because he has in a sense squared himself with the structure of reality. Since his position does not depend upon fiat and wish fulfillness, he does not have to be nervously defensive about it. A new idea or an opposing idea is not going to topple his. He is accordingly a much fairer man and I think a much more humane man than his opposite . . . He doesn't feel that terrible need to exterminate the enemy which seems to inflame so many radicals of both the past and the present."

I think David Horowitz voiced a very similar point of view. The radicals and progressives are on some quasi religious mission where the ends justify the means. It's a Utopian divine madness that demands absolute perfection and, therefore, yes... enemies have to be exterminated. In other words, we will have a workers paradise... because... we shoot all unhappy people. Radicals partake in the moral righteousness of their cause and it elevates them... is part of their wish fulfilment, but it also gives them a carte blanc to commit almost any heinous cold-blooded crime imaginable (Socialism can point to tons of mass graves as its 20th century legacy). Conservatives, on the other hand, believe they can learn from other people and are much more open and tolerant to diversity. With radicals, their idealism appeals to strong emotions which demands agreement -- morality rather than reason. Conservatives are generally more rational and, strangely enough, more creative... despite Liberal hype to the contrary. Lastly conservatives know where to draw the line with human nature which they believe is constant... radicals hanker for political perfection... perfection which like Plato's Republic exists more so in speech than deed (the Republic even suggested killing all the parents in its founding which is quite like the "terrible need to exterminate the enemy").