Replies

The ping to Jimrob was to alert him to another "traitor"?Your 'definition' sounds suspiciously like the boortzian image of libertarianism. It has a circular quality to it that purposely omitted 'moral values' in order to focus upon denigrating religious values as passe.

Actually, it's nothing like that. Traditional (classical) conservatism leaves moral values to the individual, as it places tremendous responsibility on the individual, not other institutions to inculcate those values. They are a part of the freedom I mentioned, and are no business of others, as long as those moral values do not interfere with the rights of others. Classical conservatism recognizes and approves of religion as a part of the structure of society. But religious people support liberalism, socialism, and the nationalism of even Germany. Those political philosophies have nothing to do with conservatism, and are antithetical to it.

To interject some particular set of moral values into the workings of government has nothing to do with conservatism. That is more linked to theocracy, yet another political philosophy. Nor is libertarianism simply a version of conservatism. Libertarians deny government control; conservatives do not. Libertarians set individual freedom ahead of all other characteristics of a nation; conservatives value individual freedom, but as a part of an organized government, and recognizes that some of those freedoms are necessarily curtailed to ensure that a social structure together with the necessary security for it is maintained. Those are not insignificant differences.

t also rings of democrat efforts to paint themselves as 'just as religious' as republican conservatives, while championing abortion on demand and societal engineering.

Again, you err. Abortion is a special issue, that most conservatives do not approve of. Their disapproval revolves around the issue of the rights of an unborn, and at what point does that unborn take on sufficient human characteristics that it must be considered a "person" for constitutional purposes. So conservatives, while accepting some abortion, especially early term abortions are not to be confused with liberals who believe that a woman's right to choose overrides all else.

But conservatives do understand that liberals can be religious just as can conservatives. Finally, conservatives do not in any way accept social or societal engineering. Culture is the purview of the people and is normally changed by changes in demographics, technology, and a host of causes unrelated to governmental interference. Conservatives generally slow the changes in culture simply because they embrace tradition and institutions. They do not slow those changes by utilizing governments to enforce cultural stability. Moral viewpoints and culture are intrinsically linked. Changes in culture will usually precipitate changes in certain moral attitudes (in a macro sense).

With what you espouse for conservatism, that appears to be an explanation of why some Rudy supporters are so willing to compromise/drop treaditional conservative values as defining character in order to endorse Rudy.

What I listed for you were traditional, classical conservative values. Nor do they necessarily point to Rudy as the ideal candidate. Again, there is some, but little relationship between libertarianism and conservatism.

I do not think libertarians will be successful in taking control of the republican party for '08, but I could be wrong and republicans may end up being dumb enough or scared enough to accept the libertarian definition of conservatism.

You seem to cling to the notion that conservatives of the stature of Hume and Burke were Libertarians. They essentially defined conservative thought. So I have nothing to do with libertarianism except to the point that some libertarian thought is taken from conservatism. That you disagree with those characteristics of conservatism that I gave you earlier merely reflects that what you define as conservatism, (eg: a set of moral or religious principles)has no historical basis, especially as an influence on the selection of candidates for office.

We never touched on many other facets of conservatism including the source for the rights of man, justice and inequality to just name a few. But this is not the proper thread, because most here are quite comfortable knowing that they can distinguish between RINOs and "us right-minded people". So be it.

"They (conservatives with conservative values) do not slow those changes by utilizing governments to enforce cultural stability." I wonder if you would agree that those in political power can do many things to influence, manipulate, and direct culture, in effect, use government to enforce their desired culture. As a social conservative, I see the election of a Rudy Gillan as opening the door for a liberal politician to manipulate the culture, and he proved he was more than willing to do that in New York. That's why I would not vote for him in the primaries and if nominated not in the presidential election.

You can go on for paragraphs of philosophical exegesis, but it remains true that a liberal republican president would have influence to make this society in the liberal image he holds. I don't agree to have that done, just as I would resist strongly politicians' attempts to remake this society into a strict Christian or Islamic theocracy.

"That you disagree with those characteristics of conservatism that I gave you earlier ..." You seem more than ready to read into what I don't address, so don't be surprised when I assert that your perspective is very libertarian, especially when you dodge moral values in relation to choosing a political representative. I did not in fact reject the characteristics you proposed, I pointed out that you avoided moral values as significant in the expression of conservatism.