Posted on 03/28/2023 6:27:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
If you Google "what is conservatism?" this is the definition you will receive:
"Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation."
This is but one more illustration of the lack of objectivity wherever the Left is in control.
The idea that conservatism means, by definition , "opposition to change or innovation" is nothing more than how liberals and leftists see conservatism. Why? Because the farther left you go, the greater the commitment to change and innovation. "Change" and "Innovation" are left-wing gods. That is why, for example, the mantra of the Barack Obama campaign and presidency was "hope and change."
Because the Left is so committed to change (for its own sake), people on the Left assume that anyone who opposes leftism opposes all "change and innovation."
Unfortunately, the Left's misapprehension of conservatism is almost equaled by conservatives' inability to define the term. For that reason, just as I recently defined another widely used term -- "Judeo-Christian values" -- I think it important to do the same for conservatism.
Conservatives conserve.
If you want a good definition of conservatism, don't Google "conservatism." Google "conserve." You will then find this definition: "To protect from loss or harm; preserve."
The first and most important characteristic of conservatism is that it conserves what is best from the past.
Conservatives have no issue with change or innovation -- when warranted or harmless. The American Revolution, which conservatives seek to preserve, ushered in a radically innovative blueprint for liberty and self-government. Our problem is with jettisoning past greatness and replacing it with mediocrity -- which is precisely what has been done for at least a century.
What could be more noble, uplifting, beneficial or altruistic than giving every generation the best that humans have ever created? A generation that deprives the next generation of Beethoven, Shakespeare and Da Vinci is committing a combination of child neglect and civilizational suicide.
Why, then, isn't everyone -- at least as regards conserving the best of the past -- a conservative?
Here is why:
Since so few people in any generation can equal, let alone excel, the greatest of the past, conserving the past does not allow almost anyone living at the present time to shine.
Therefore, if I can't compose great tonal music, I won't even bother trying. I might shine, however, if I write "atonal" music.
If I can't paint like a great classical artist, I will jettison all rules of art. I'll throw paint onto a canvas or place a crucifix in a jar of my urine and call such things "art" -- and demand that you, too, jettison all standards.
If I can't hope to match Shakespeare, I will dismiss Shakespeare as just another Dead White Male and replace him with living nonwhite females who possess exponentially less talent.
The same holds true for teachers. Many of them are bored at the thought of teaching Shakespeare every year. So, they, too, opt for "change" and "innovation" over excellence -- but thereby deprive their students of the best.
Likewise in the moral sphere. Why would I teach the moral roots of our society -- the Bible, the Ten Commandments, Aristotle, the American Constitution, the Founders? That would mean I have nothing particularly important to say regarding morality and society. Again, I won't shine. So, I will ignore or even reject those moral codes and devise a new moral system.
That's what Karl Marx did, quite consciously -- which is why he hated Christianity and Judaism. Only if he could overthrow Bible- and God-based morality could his new morality be taken seriously. So, he replaced God with man, and he replaced good and evil with rich and poor, oppressor and oppressed. Today we are witnessing another rejection of God- and Bible-based morality, replacing the moral categories of good and evil with racial categories -- white and black.
And talk about innovation. What could be more innovative than "men give birth"? While conservatives are boringly conserving the fact that men are men, women are women, and one cannot become the other, the believers in change and innovation insist that sex/gender is completely subjective.
A couple of weeks ago, Time Magazine inadvertently gave the game away.
In the introduction to its hundredth anniversary edition, the CEO and editor of Time described the purpose of the magazine.
You probably think they would write something like, "to report the news as truthfully as possible." But you would be completely wrong.
Here is what the CEO and editor wrote: "As we begin our second century, that spirit of innovation and disruption inspires us every day."
"Innovation and disruption." There you have it.
Reporting news as truthfully as possible is not just boring. It is worse than that. It is conservative.
I used to say we were striving to conserve Freedom, Liberty, Western Civilization the Constitution, and the American Way of Life.
But I’ve lowered my sights and today I’d be happy if we could just conserve plain old sanity.
The constitution
I sympathize with you, don’t worry.
The left uses the European definition of conservatism, because both conservatives and liberals in Europe are socialists.
Yes, “conservative” is a relative term.
In this country, it means we wish to conserve the greatness of our past, which was the genius of true freedom.
to me conserve is the opposite of waste ...
“Conservative” is a relative term. Thus, commie liberals (this country) can obfuscate meaning and use the term when referring to nasty peoples in third-world countries to conflate with ours so that people will associate us with really old-fashioned tyrants.
Conservative came out of a conservative, literal interpretation of the constitution. Liberal came from a loose, “any twisted logic you can wring from the document”, interpretation.
It has nothing do with “conserving” except they share the same root word.
Conservatives conserve the earlier victories of liberalism.
Today what passes for a conservative is a 1960s Rockefeller Republican. Or a Cold Warrior liberal Democrat.
Dennis Prager, the author of this article, used to admonish his listeners that he was a Robert Kennedy, Gene McCarthy liberal. He was. He still is. Liberals rebranding themselves as neoconservatives essentially rendered the term “conservative” meaningless.
did Prager ever apologize to Bob Grant before he died? Didn’t think so ...
There is a European context and an American one.
The European context is preserving European customs and traditions. However, because every European is a socialist, with only minor differentiations between the European liberal and the European conservative, there is no talk about keeping government. They both are in agreement that big daddy government is a necessity for society.
In America, the conservatives want America as it was founded. That is what they are trying to preserve, the right to be individually free. The American liberal thinks progress means having a big daddy government to give the things you want.
“did Prager ever apologize to Bob Grant before he died? Didn’t think so ...”
I didn’t know about a Prager v. Grant controversy but I definitely would like to.
We didn’t get to hear Grant on SoCal radio but I know of him.
If you support ANY non-western immigration, you are not conserving western civilization. Fact.
RE: If you support ANY non-western immigration, you are not conserving western civilization.
What if a non-western immigrant REALLY wants to adopt western ideas and wants to really adhere to our constitution?
As I said, the word is a relative term. It must be understood in the context of the culture referred to.
To the left, the only context is the European one. To them American conservatism simply doesn’t exist and I don’t limit myself to European contexts.
Last I saw Prager on TV he seemed dejected
No, they don’t. That’s what they know most but they don’t hesitate to mention “Saudi conservatives” or “Indian conservatives” who can make the American word seem bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.