'Conservatism' -- Social movement or Political movement?

[Dominic Harr]

If I may, I'd like to ask for an informal 'poll' of FReepers:

There are 2 'Conservative' movements in this country.

• Social Conservatives -- concerned about moral and social issues like gay marriage, teaching of Darwinism, etc.

• Political Conservatives -- 'conservative' meant as in, "Conservative with my money". Careful. Careful with spending, with defense, careful not to jump to conclusions, careful not to put "solutions" in place that will make the problem worse.

All I would like to know is, what % of us are which? Please respond and say which, or both.

[Dominic Harr]

Well,no, I don't know of any Conservative that equates 'Conservative' with 'opposed to change'.

I think if you read back into this thread, you'll see that this is in fact true. For one good example, post 123.

And that is certainly the def that the outside world knows us for. I've seen Cs on TV rationalize it as, "We only want a change *back* to the way things use to be", and that sort of rot. And this is why Cs are seen as wanting to stop progress. It's why Ls have now tried to switch to calling themselves "progressives", as opposed to Cs 'anti-progress' image.

And this is a big problem with kids growing up now, looking for a political identity. We *must* take back the debate. We must explain who we really are.

And it has nothing to do with being against change.

[Protagoras]

Personally conservative in my attitudes and beliefs about how life should be lived,,but opposed to armed people imposing their attitudes and beliefs on people who are not violating other's rights.

On other issues, much the same. I oppose interference with my fundamental right to make my own arrangements with others absent force or fraud.

[P-40]

But it'll take a website, not a print or TV media.

Most likely, it will. Anything else would be too expensive for most people. There are some excellent trade publications out there...but they cost a good sum of money and are highly specialized for the most part.

A lot of things that happen in government that are truly important to everyday people go totally unnoticed by everyday people every day. Some of those minor tax changes can really have an impact on Joe Citizen come tax time but the news of the change will probably just pass him by until it is too late. Even the 'Bush is killing the environment' people most always come across kind of hazy if you press them for details.

[Sweetjustusnow]

Absolutely beautiful. How perfectly articulate. Thumbs up to you!

[x]

At the level of what you most care about there is a split between social and economic conservatives. But that's going pretty deep. Most of the time politicians and people discussing politics don't get that far.

"Fiscal conservatives" are another thing altogether. Some of them aren't especially conservative about either cultural issues or economic freedom. Not that "fiscal conservatism" is a bad thing, or that they're bad people, but they aren't a team on the same playing field as the other traditionalists or libertarians.

One thing that accounts for a lot of the differences: whether one takes automatic knee-jerk positions or whether one tries to think things out for oneself. Ideological divisions are real, but much of the time people are just throwing slogans at one another, rather than trying to think things through.

[SierraWasp]

"American Idle"

Ha Ha Ha!!! I like it... I love it... I want some more of it!!!

[Dominic Harr]

Not that "fiscal conservatism" is a bad thing, or that they're bad people, but they aren't a team on the same playing field as the other traditionalists or libertarians.

Actually, this is the type of thinking that I'm trying to highlight, with this thread.

We better all be on the same team, or we're doomed in Nov. If we can't come to understand that, I don't know what will happen long-term.

'Political' conservatives are folks who believe in being careful with what govt does -- folks who believe in smaller govt, accountability, strong defense, etc. Not all of us are 'culture' conservatives. But they are the ones who were responsible for the '94 R party victory that brought them majority status.

Yet 'cultural' conservatives seem keen all over the place to label political conservatives as not being "real" conservatives. That pushes away the political Cs.

This is critical, I believe, cuz right now, the Rs are scrambling for ways to "pacify the base". But they're talking about things like a Constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage . . . playing to the 'social' conservatives. Which will only further alienate us 'political' conservatives.

Which will only make things worse for the Rs.

[Nowhere Man]

Liberalism is centered on liberty, i.e. individual freedom. In a liberal society, a person is free; he answers to no master but himself. His value to society is defined by his ability to compete in a free market. "Winners" -- those with ambition, talent, skill and luck -- are deemed to be valuable to society, and are rewarded with wealth and power. However, some people lack the ambition, talent, skill, and luck needed to amass wealth. In a liberal, these "losers" are deemed to be of little value, and are equally free -- free to survive as best they can.

The question is: which sort of society do we wish to inhabit? A liberal society, where freedom is the highest value, reason the only authority, where the fittest succeed and the unfit are nothing more than useless eaters? Or a Christian society, where love is the highest value, where God is the highest power, and where even the lazy, untalented, unskilled, and unlucky are deemed deserving of basic human dignity?

I was just listening to Michael Savage a few minutes ago and he touched upon this idea. I made a point I always do where if there are no controls, rules, or whatever, there will be men out there that will take advantage for the sake of power and he made the point where in this case, there is no difference between the uber-capitalist and the power hungry communist, both will use the lack of controls to gain power over their fellow man.

I know myself, given the two choices you pointed out, I'd rather choose the society based on Judeo-Christian rules where everyone is deserving of basic dignity and respect. I think without some sort of controls and rules to where society can generally agree on, society will degrade to the point to where someone will gain power over all or most.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have lost their meaning in our revolutionary world. It is time we restored those meanings. In brief: the idea that man is his own master, that freedom is the ultimate good, and that each man has no duty save to himself is the creed of the liberal. A true conservative holds to the ancient truths: that love is the ultimate good, that God is the supreme Authority, and that each man has a duty to love and care for his fellowman.

The question is not Democrat vs. Republican. It is not political. It is not even philosophical. The question is spiritual.

Liberty or love? Reason or obedience? Rights or duties? We all must decide which things we hold most dear. I know where I stand.

I like to look at things and view them and ask the question, "is it right or wrong" instead of "is it donkey/elephant, left/right, liberal/conservative?" I know we seem to have lost the meanings of liveral and conservative but it seems like words change over times. The person who voted for JFK or FDR in the 1960's or 1930's, might have been considered middle of the road or liberal in their times but generally if you brought that person to today's world, most likely, they will have a lot of conservative views. I have a book on politics somewhere, written in the 1980's and I'm sure it can still be updated a bit but the basic definitions still apply where the liberal of today is a member of the "New Left" to where they are very liberal on many social issues. Basically, he was the hippie of the 1960's and part of the bloc that started with the George McGovern type mentality that pervades the Democratic Party from 1972 or so to this very day. Conservatives are made up with a gaggle of business interests, religious conservatives and many disgruntled New Dealers and their children who feels the Democrat party has left them.

I remember Glenn Beck made the point that a libertarian society will not work in today's world and we are not ready for it. I don't think we will ever be, I don't know but you do need to address responsibilities that go along with rights. Even Thomas Jefferson, a hero to many libertarians, made a point to where "if men were angels, there would be no need for government."

[Nowhere Man]

I completely agree. Analyzing people's opinions as best I can, that's what I'm trying to arrive at here.

I'm working from a hypothesis of there being 'social' and 'political' beliefs.

I wish you all the luck, it is a very interesting study of politics and social viewpoints. Much like liberalism, there is no true monolithic conservatism either.

Also, good luck on trying to unite the conservatives, it is a long road to hoe indeed although I'm sure the liberals have much the same problem because they have their own gaggles to deal with ranging from homosexual rights, feminists, and so on, many such groups which might not all see eye-to-eye either.

[Pelayo]

I'm looking for a definition of C that actually describes what Cs are.

"Intellectually Bankrupt." That's what "conservative" means if it means someone who claims to be conservative.

We don't need to tailer the word to fit what modern conservatives are, or even claim to be. The word either describes them or it doesn't. Anything else is something other than a conservative approach to the problem.

[Dominic Harr]

The word either describes them or it doesn't.

Well, whether we like it or not, that's the word applied to our grouping of beliefs/philosophies/voting patterns.

So I think it would be useful to come up with an accurate definition of "who we are".

Like I said, the media uses one definition. That def does not describe us. So I disagree with you -- pushing *our* definition of who we are and what we stand for is absolutely a 'conservative' approach.

[Dominic Harr]

Also, good luck on trying to unite the conservatives, it is a long road to hoe indeed although I'm sure the liberals have much the same problem because they have their own gaggles to deal with ranging from homosexual rights, feminists, and so on, many such groups which might not all see eye-to-eye either.

Unfortunately, the Ls are united thru their hate of all things Bush-related.

And in the past 2 elections, a disjointed C movement has beaten a unified L movement. If we can find some way to focus on that which unites us, while still hashing out the things that divide us, we *can* turn this country.

[Pelayo]

So I disagree with you -- pushing *our* definition of who we are and what we stand for is absolutely a 'conservative' approach.

I want to push *My* definition of "red" to include other possibilities like... "green." After all, "modern red" has so much more going on under the hood these days.

Words mean things, if you changes them to convenience a political convention they lose their original meaning. You can change conservative to mean the attitudes or philosophy of the modern political movement, but you will not be able to converse with those using the older meaning. You will be speaking a new speak.

[Dominic Harr]

I want to push *My* definition of "red" to include other possibilities like... "green." After all, "modern red" has so much more going on under the hood these days.

'Red' can also mean a communist, tho.

Much like in this case -- a political movement exists. A large group of Americans, actually a majority, believe in 'smaller govt, strong defense, etc'. We call this 'Conservative'.

The current 'definition' that the world uses to describe us, is 'C = opposed to change'.

They have taken control of the debate by defining us.

Well I say it's time we define ourselves . . .

[Leatherneck_MT]

Social Conservative here with elements of the second.

I don't mind rocking the boat however.

[Pelayo]

Much like in this case -- a political movement exists. A large group of Americans, actually a majority, believe in 'smaller govt...

Do they?

[Dominic Harr]

I don't mind rocking the boat however.

:-D

[Pelayo]

The current 'definition' that the world uses to describe us, is 'C = opposed to change'.

Whats wrong with that?

Well I say it's time we define ourselves . . .

You use words to describe something based upon what the word means, you do not change the word's meaning to fit what you are trying to describe.

[Dominic Harr]

Do they?

This much I am certain of -- the majority of voters are politicallly conservative.

It's the 'social' issues that chase many people away from voting R.

Many socially liberal people vote D cuz they don't like the social Cs angle. But like with Reagan and with the contract with America, when a person comes along who promises not to push the 'social engineering' policies but instead focuses on the 'political C' ideas of govt accountability, etc . . . then we find out that the vast majority of Americans are politically conservative.

The problem is by far most people, on social issues, are "live and let live". And the social Cs agendas against Gays and such scare many, many voters away from the R party.

[Dominic Harr]

You use words to describe something based upon what the word means, you do not change the word's meaning to fit what you are trying to describe.

Words change their meanings with time.

Just like 'Liberal' doesn't mean what it use to mean. Now it means collectivist, basically. And in this case, I'm not inventing anything -- one definition of 'Conservative' is 'careful'. As in 'conservative with money'.

I'm not changing the meaning of the word at all, therefore. I am using a 'different' word, or in fact a different description of the same word, to describe who and what we are.

I completely disagree with your premise, I'm afraid. Maybe it would be more helpful if I asked you . . . what solution would you propose? What words would best describe people who are 'politically' in favor of smaller govt and strong defense?