Dude, I’ve studied history for 30 years. The sort of conservatism that you are elevating to the “most important part” of the foundation is in fact, not even anywhere close to it. There cannot be democracy with that sort of conservatism because no one would have taken the extraordinary risks to try it out!
In fact, it has been axiomatic throughout history that conservatives (especially social conservatives) are not crusaders working for the freedom and advancement of mankind (although they are often portrayed that way, and there have been notable exception); they have, instead, typically been a force AGAINST advancement, and FOR stratification of thought. As Irving Krystal once said “A Conservative is someone who stands in front of the runaway freight train of progress, yelling ‘STOP!’”
And while the hyperlink was quite informative (and mostly) correct, it misses the mark in several areas.
To begin with, if by “Social conservatism” you mean traditional conservatism based upon Christian faith, two arguments against:
a) Freedom advances only when people are free to question and challenge authority. “Conservatives” have historically been champions of the status-quo, therefore, have often defended authority even when doing so was immensely illogical and futile. Especially when it’s THEM being questioned and challeneged (See O. Cromwell, infallibility of the Pope, et. al.).
b) Christianity is fundamentally inimical to most liberal (Classically Liberal) thought because most liberal conventions revolve around the improvement of the human condition, which therefore raises the promise of an “Earthly Paradise”, or even the heretical idea that mankind may become his own master. This weakens the power and mystery of the church, and lessens it’s ability to manipulate superstition for it’s own benefit. Every advancement of knowledge has had a corresponding regressive effect on Religion. The Church has, in fact, been the biggest opponent to freedom in history (because it’s very survival depends, basically, on ignorance), and where it did take the “right” side in the fight for freedom (such as John Paul II’s opposition to communism) it typically only did so because of a coincidance of interests.
So, in a sense, what a “conservative” truly wants, is a moment in time when his ideology and power are at their peak, and then, as if taking a photograph, seeks to freeze time and keep things the way they are at that, penultimate moment, spining out a future which in all respects resembles the present. There can be no progress, or even democracy, if that’s your brand of “conservatism”.
Therefore, “social conservatism” based upon “Christian morality” in the context of the founding of the American government is a bunch of BS, because both are hostile, in the litteral sense, to freedom itself. What you really have is a compromise between liberalism and religion which allows a little heresy (on the one hand), for a recognition of an institution’s perogatives in matters spiritual (on the other). This is not “true” conservatism; it is a cultural compromise.
Only Big-C, Big-L Classical Liberals are able to make that sort of compromise. Therefore, Big-C, Big-L Classical Liberalism is the foundation of your democratic republic.
That such a compromise WAS made is a victory for Classical Liberalism over Social Conservatism, and one that we’re fortunate to have won; without it, there would lieterally be no United States.
You are arguing with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, not me. I wasn't there. They did it and I think they should know.
You argue indefensible points. Our founders (in addition to pointing to their chief political philosopher being Algernon Sidney and his basis of virtue as well as the double negative of Locke’s freedom) over and over and over again warned us that our free republic was only suitable to a moral people trained in the morality and character of Christianity.
Study the truth, for a change — not modernist revisionism.
Lastly, our perfect model of granting freedom has nothing to do with the weird Roman heresies.
Jesus Christ granted people the freedom to hang him on a cross.
Don’t bother to ping me again, until you are truly educated.