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!
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.