When speaking in reference to other countries, an American is well advised to be cautious about the meaning of the term, “conservative.” this reply on an old thread is one of my favorites, on the topic of American conservatism and its relation to conservatism in other countries.Because of this significant sections of the mass media does its best to try and make him look a fool - as they typically try to do with most conservatives.
My take on American conservatism (which may be relevant to Britain) is that Theodore Roosevelt nailed it in his famous speech to the Sarbone in Paris in 1910:It surprises me to some extent to see people on Freerepublic falling for such tactics, because they seem all too aware of them when they are applied to American figures - and the British press is, if anything, for the most part even more left wing than the US press.There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement.Clearly, “the press” is guilty of functioning as “the critic” in TR’s posited scenario. It is only natural that they should tend to do so; they don’t do anything which makes them accountable for, you know, actual results - but they can criticize like nobody’s business. And - crucial point - journalists behave precisely as Adam Smith predicted:A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Since all major journalists work for members of wire services, and since wire services function as virtual meetings of “people of the same trade (of journalism),” nothing else can be expected but that journalists will go along and get along with each other - to the detriment of the public. Especially do they do so by claiming that all journalists are objective, which in effect is a claim by each journalist that he himself is objective. Say what you will of the virtue of diligently trying to be objective, arguing from the assumption that you actually are objective serves the same function, and is no more justifiable, than claiming superior wisdom. Either amounts to mere arrogance in service to an attempt at censorship.
Considering how “our” journalists strain at gnats (in Chris Christie’s “Bridgegate”( and swallow camels (in reference to all things Benghazi, and ObamaCare, and Fast and Furious, and . . .) that is quite a strong claim you make about the British press.But then, I can match your friend Charles’ “Global Warming” credulousnes with that of a friend who is legitimately a scientist but who claimed to me that “the science” (of global warming) “is good.” So why should we wonder that conservatives are sometimes gulled by press reports?
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
You're right, there is a difference, but even in US terms, the Prince is a conservative.
Except on environmental issues, and to some extent on the issue of Islam (although his position on that is far more nuanced than I think a lot of people here would realise - and he utterly despises Islamic extremism and terrorism with a ferocity that I think would stun a lot of people - when you and your entire family are a potential assassination target for terrorists trying to make a point, I think it gives you an interesting and unusual insight into it), he'd fit in extremely well here on Freerepublic - if he was allowed to.
I have to be very careful, because constitutionally his exact views need to stay private, and I don't want to betray confidence, otherwise I'd give a long list of positions where I know he would agree with the American conservative line. So I'll just point out that one of his favourite recreational activities is hunting, and allow you to draw your own conclusions about what he thinks of laws that limit the rights of people to own firearms, and that he has two sons who have recently served their nation in uniform, as he did himself, and that he attends Church almost every Sunday in a nation where it has become highly unfashionable to do so - this is all publically available information, so I think I can say it. There's a lot more I can't.