Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Conservatism' -- Social movement or Political movement?

Posted on 05/31/2006 1:32:23 PM PDT by Dominic Harr

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

There are 2 'Conservative' movements in this country.

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


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: liberaltarianism; lookhowsmartiam; socialconsbad
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-198 next last
To: ThinkDifferent
I don't know if I'd go with "careful"; for example I strongly reject the precautionary principle as it's commonly applied to stifle technological and economic growth.

I respect your point, but I don't feel the need to parse words so closely.

For me, 'careful' says it all. Not that I'm pathologically careful, or afraid of change. But just cautious.

81 posted on 05/31/2006 3:00:29 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I shun the attempt to differentiate the two schools. Either you are a conservative or you're not. You can't be "socially liberal but fiscally conservative," like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani and Bloomberg and some of the other RINOs claim to be.

In fact, Conservatism has nothing to do with either morals or money. It is best defined by Russell Kirk, who said that in essence, conservatives are those who favor liberty over equality.

82 posted on 05/31/2006 3:01:28 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Which is my point -- there is 'socially' conservative, where say you are against homosexuality as a sin.

And then there is 'politically' conservative, where you say I believe it's a sin but I don't believe the govt has any right to impose this belief on others.


That's not how the term "socially conservative" is used in practice.
83 posted on 05/31/2006 3:01:45 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Conservatism is an integrated whole. You can't claim conservatism without being politically, economically, socially, whaterverly conservative.

Re political conservativism; the GOP does not define conservatism.

For instance, without economic liberalism (taxes) social liberalism - tolerance of anti-Darwin behavior - can't exist. HIV kills, faggotry is a genetic deadend.


84 posted on 05/31/2006 3:04:44 PM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
Neither of these movements is conservative. By definition you can't have a conservative Movement. What's called the “modern conservative movement” is more cultural reactionism than anything.

I can't understand why, I'm sorry.

Both would be called, "movements", I thought.

Is there a better term I can use, that I'm not thinking of?

85 posted on 05/31/2006 3:05:01 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
It is best defined by Russell Kirk, who said that in essence, conservatives are those who favor liberty over equality.

That definition would leave out quite a few 'social conservatives' here, tho.

People who want sodomy to stay illegal, for example. Or folks who want victimless vice to be 'crimes'.

We're all in this together.

We have to start talking, and listening, to each other, come to a consensus on the things we *do* agree on, then push for those.

If we want to save this thing before it's too late.

86 posted on 05/31/2006 3:08:26 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
...keeping the damned government out of peoples' wallets and homes and businesses and schools and any other place except where it is absolutely necessary.

Precisely!!

87 posted on 05/31/2006 3:11:36 PM PDT by badgerlandjim (Hillary Clinton is to politics as Helen Thomas is to beauty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
That's not how the term "socially conservative" is used in practice.

I'm not sure I really agree there, but for our purposes here I'm attempting to define what seperates us and what unites us, so that we can come together to form a consensus on what we decide we all do agree on. Maybe I'm on the wrong track, I'm not sure. It just seemed like something that might be worth trying.

So please forgive me if I venture away a little bit from the beaten path. :-)

88 posted on 05/31/2006 3:12:17 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
You can't claim conservatism without being politically, economically, socially, whaterverly conservative.

That attitude would kick out at least 40% (by my early first counting) of the folks on this thread.

It is time that both sides admit that there are 'branches' (so to speak' of Conservatism. We can't keep saying, "Only WE are the true conservatives".

If we don't unite, the R party will lose in Nov, I think.

89 posted on 05/31/2006 3:14:26 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
That attitude would kick out at least 40% (by my early first counting) of the folks on this thread.

As a social libertarian/fiscal conservative, I felt I had little choice but to leave the Republican party after the 2004 election.

Yet I plan to keep voting (R) because no no viable third party has emerged.

90 posted on 05/31/2006 3:20:05 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Yes, something other than “Conservative.” The word “reactionary” probably has too many negative connotations, but it's the only one I can think of right now.


91 posted on 05/31/2006 3:21:26 PM PDT by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: conservativewasp; Dominic Harr; thoughtomator; jdm; capt. norm; P-40
'Conservativewasp' seems to have it about right so far as I can tell.

Unless one favors 1.cultural and 2.fiscal/economic and 3.foreign policy Conservatism, one has to hyphenate the term a bit: "neo-", "libertarian-"...

Within philosophical Conservatism historically there have been two main currents of thought since Burke : Whig and Tory. 'Whig' is what we used to call 'Manchester Liberalism' emphasizing 'free trade' and the benefits of semi-laissezfair markets, etc. 'Tories' emphasized 'social fabric', mutual social allegiance, and the organic nature of the 'good society', not to be violated capriciously by radical schemes of whatever ideology, economic or otherwise. So, that's the main 'modern'(post-1780)currents of thought.

Contemporary American Conservatism (aprox. post WWII) is philosophically composed of three main currents of thought, any of which might be the 'guiding' current on a given issue at a given time. They are, roughly,: Conservatism ("Tory" or "Paleo-"), Neo-Conservatism , and Libertarianism. 'Conservatives'are pro-tradition and family on cultural issues + pro-Constitution/limited government, and unilateralist but reserved on foreign intervention -- prepared to defend an official ally against attack, sometimes willing to defend any innocent party if prudent. 'Neo-Conservatives' are often reformed leftists who were honest enough to examine the empirical data on leftist domestic program results and repent mostly. They're often still interventionist on foreign policy - 'wilsonian' (often citing a high purpose)and they're often less concerned than others in the conservative realm by deficit spending for the high purposes they cite; Culturally 'Neo-Cons'are fairly Conservative through empirical experience. 'Libertarians' start with the ethical question of 'by what right?' regarding any coercion, governmental or otherwise, and so, tend to favor very limited government by which they hope to derive an active and healthy society of consentual association, help, and virtue. Basically, Government limited to essential public functions, not 'crowding-out' the other key (non-coersive) institutions of society. Very limited on foriegn intervention. And Culturally then, tending to favor 'to each his own', without much influence of the 'normative value' of law.

Personally, I'm of the traditional Conservative ("tory","paleo-") camp, and we do pride ourselves on being able to give a fair description of all relevant currents of thought. So, does this seem a fair description?

92 posted on 05/31/2006 3:22:56 PM PDT by ProCivitas (Qui bono? Quo warranto? ; Who benefits? By what right/authority ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Thru post 89, as best I can tell at quick count:

Both:
18

Political C/Social L:
6


93 posted on 05/31/2006 3:31:23 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood; All
As a social libertarian/fiscal conservative, I felt I had little choice but to leave the Republican party after the 2004 election.
Yet I plan to keep voting (R) because no no viable third party has emerged.

This is the point I'm trying to make.

The 'Contract With America' was a winner because it was about 'political/fiscal' issues. Corruption. Spending.

It was NOT about abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc.

The current power of the R party came from sticking to the 'Political/Fiscal' reform. Now the R party has abandoned that.

If we don't unite on this platform again, nothing can save the R party's majority.

94 posted on 05/31/2006 3:35:58 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
Yes, something other than “Conservative.”

I'm sorry -- I thought you were disagreeing with the use of the word, "movement".

Here, I disagree.

Conservative is perfect.

Libs have run from the word L, instead of making it their own. I would prefer to staunchly define 'C' instead of running from it.

So I'm analyzing what "C" means to various people.

95 posted on 05/31/2006 3:39:44 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Bookmark/Placemark/Bump

[If I get time later, I will comment.]


96 posted on 05/31/2006 3:40:53 PM PDT by evilC (Call me Krusty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Sorry Dominic, but one of the undeniable truths of life is that politics can and does permeate anything and everything whether we like it or not!

I also *respect* your obviously Libertarian view of these issues, but as you know... slavery was treated as a "live and let live" thang for a long, long time!!!

The choices you are giving us in this thread are far too limiting and limited... And I think you know it. No offense intended and none taken!

97 posted on 05/31/2006 3:43:35 PM PDT by SierraWasp ((2006)Arnold? Or NO Arnold? (2008)Gore? Or NO Gore? NO DEAL!!! (on either one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Yes to both.

The Conservative movement has done more to advance my core values than any other.

98 posted on 05/31/2006 3:44:18 PM PDT by ChadGore (VISUALIZE 62,041,268 Bush fans. We Vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativewasp; Dominic Harr; thoughtomator; jdm; capt. norm; P-40; Beth528; nmh; tomahawk; ...
'Conservativewasp' seems to have it about right so far as I can tell.

Unless one favors 1.cultural and 2.fiscal/economic and 3.foreign policy Conservatism, one has to hyphenate the term a bit: "neo-", "libertarian-"...

Within philosophical Conservatism historically there have been two main currents of thought since Burke : Whig and Tory. 'Whig' is what we used to call 'Manchester Liberalism' emphasizing 'free trade' and the benefits of semi-laissezfair markets, etc. 'Tories' emphasized 'social fabric', mutual social allegiance, and the organic nature of the 'good society', not to be violated capriciously by radical schemes of whatever ideology, economic or otherwise. So, that's the main 'modern'(post-1780)currents of thought.

Contemporary American Conservatism (aprox. post WWII) is philosophically composed of three main currents of thought, any of which might be the 'guiding' current on a given issue at a given time. They are, roughly,: Conservatism ("Tory" or "Paleo-"), Neo-Conservatism , and Libertarianism. 'Conservatives'are pro-tradition and family on cultural issues + pro-Constitution/limited government, and unilateralist but reserved on foreign intervention -- prepared to defend an official ally against attack, sometimes willing to defend any innocent party if prudent; traditional Conservatives also tend to favor 'fair trade' over 'free-trade', being cheerfully willing to combat 'predatory trade' nations with measures like a tariff/import tax, which is the traditional trade policy of the GOP from 1856 until aprox 1978.

'Neo-Conservatives' are often reformed leftists who were honest enough to examine the empirical data on leftist domestic program results and repent mostly. They're often still interventionist on foreign policy - 'wilsonian' (often citing a high purpose)and they're often less concerned than others in the conservative realm by deficit spending for the high purposes they cite; Culturally 'Neo-Cons'are fairly Conservative through empirical experience; and Neo-Conservatives tend to favor "free trade" policies like FTAA and NAFTA that traditional Conservatives generally oppose.

'Libertarians' start with the ethical question of 'by what right?' regarding any coercion, governmental or otherwise, and so, tend to favor very limited government by which they hope to derive an active and healthy society of consentual association, help, and virtue. Basically, Government limited to essential public functions, not 'crowding-out' the other key (non-coersive) institutions of society. Very limited on foriegn intervention. 'Free trade' on trade policy. And Culturally then, tending to favor 'to each his own', without much influence of the 'normative value' of law.

Personally, I'm of the traditional Conservative ("tory","paleo-") camp, and we do pride ourselves on being able to give a fair description of all relevant currents of thought. So, does this seem a fair description?

99 posted on 05/31/2006 3:46:52 PM PDT by ProCivitas (Qui bono? Quo warranto? ; Who benefits? By what right/authority ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
I also *respect* your obviously Libertarian view of these issues, but as you know... slavery was treated as a "live and let live" thang for a long, long time!!!

'Slavery' has a victim. That is the imposition of force on an unwilling person.

I will simply point out that 'Social' views and 'political' views are two different things. 'Social' views are your opinions on social aspects of society. 'Political' views are your views on the laws, govt, etc, of society.

I'm trying to do a basic "component analysis" here, breaking the ideas down into their core components. By which I hope to understand what common threads unite us, and focus on those.

So to do some off-the-cuff analysis on the spot, I think most folks are for less govt, lower taxes, etc. (I say most, cuz I know on FR we have folks who want strong laws against victimless crimes, and such, even if they aren't here yet).

And we are *divided* on social issues.

So, like the Contract with America, I think an early theory might be we should focus on the govt issues, and avoid raising the social issues when running for offices this fall.

100 posted on 05/31/2006 3:56:52 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-198 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson