Why are they called Conservative

[NavajoEverclear]

Well? why are or were conservatives called what they are? The only thing they effectively conserve is brain power. Not as in valuing it, as in using very little of it.

[atinymonkey]

Because they want to conserve the country and it's values. The conservative values are :-

 

The promotion of the family.

The right of individuals to pass on their inheritance to their children.

The embracing of Christian teaching and morals.

The support of the Monarchy, the Constitution and Law. *

Resistance to change for the sake of change.

 

The policys the conservatives support are the ones that suport the core ideals.

 

*Same for the US, minus the monarchy.

[Rev Prez]

Well? why are or were conservatives called what they are? The only thing they effectively conserve is brain power. Not as in valuing it, as in using very little of it.

 

Slow day at Sears?

 

Rev Prez

[NavajoEverclear]

thanks for the reply monkey, realize now i'm going to express some frustration, not with your reply, but that conservatives would claim those be their goals.

 

I'll address those points on at a time

 

The promotion of the family.

 

That's one of my values too. But not just for the sake of propagation alone. If you start a family to bring a children into a world with limited opportunities for their future, what's the point? I'd personally put priority on the QUALITY of life first. I know conservatives would say the same but its just lipservice usually without logical reinforcement.

 

The right of individuals to pass on their inheritance to their children

 

um kay. Then you go to your high paying job and leave them to parented by babysitters and televisions. I know this is a stereotype and often also the case with democrats and what not, but what i'm saying is, sure pass your values to your children, but thats not what they are actually doing. They are hoping God will make it work out, while they do whatever the hell they want. Then they have the right to inflict punishment when it goes wrong. Punishment that never works, without even thinking of trying to actually get to know your children. If you start a genuine relationship you are more likely to be able to influence change.

 

The embracing of Christian teaching and morals.

 

if you went to actual fundamentals, not whats popularlized as fundamentalism, i'd not have a problem with this. Jesus never said to force christian standards on everyone.

 

The support of the Monarchy, the Constitution and Law.

Resistance to change for the sake of change.

 

I just wont rant about those two.

[NavajoEverclear]

shouldn't everyone in a democracy be democrat? democrats with different ideas sure, but they aren't going to try to shut each other up for being different. I say if you want to have a monarchy, go start you're country where people who like to be slaves can join up. The rest of us who value thinking for ourselves can exist in a different country.

[Pangloss]

I guess I'll go along with your rant to a certain extent. It's a good set of complaints in general.

 

But I think the targets your aiming at are really no different from the far left crowd. People who forgo logic and critical thinking because it's just easier to go along with whatever your friends/parents/coworkers believe.

[budullewraagh]

i don't appreciate being labelled illogical or a follower, or inconsiderate

[Douglas]

Well? why are or were conservatives called what they are? The only thing they effectively conserve is brain power. Not as in valuing it, as in using very little of it.

Conservatives are more likely to interpret the U.S. constitution as it was meant when it was written.

 

Liberals are more likely to interpret the constitution the way they think it would have been written, had it been written in 2005

[In My Memory]

Well? why are or were conservatives called what they are? The only thing they effectively conserve is brain power. Not as in valuing it, as in using very little of it.

The most minimalistic meaning of the word conservatism basically amounts to "preservation of the status-quo, keeping things the way they are, submitting to change only in moderation".

 

Conservatism actually has a very rich philosophical history, tracing itself back to the political theories of Burke (and possibly back to English philosopher Hooker), who's reaction of the French Revolution caused him to become skeptical of social changes that occurred too quickly.

 

In the past, conservatism valued strong political institutions (not unlike the doctrines of Hume or monarchies), as a result there have been some very far right ideologies (though arguably not characteristic of conservatism) such as faschism, authoritariansim, elitism, totalitarianism, etc.

 

In the philosophical context, conservatism derives from a few central doctrines:

* Continuuous tradition - which basically amounts to the maintenance of political institutions, and skepticism toward large sudden change (and especially against violent revolutionary change). There is a common analogy that change should be approached slowly and gradually, as in the same way that one would approach walking on ice. Continuuous traditon is valued in a way that would make Hobbes applaud, that if it werent for strong traditions and values then men would be at each other's throats.

 

* Value traditionalism based on intellectual pursuit rather than emotional pursuit - a fair amount of skepticism toward political institutions generally encourages that changes made to any political system be done by experienced educated authorities in the most prudent fashion possible.

 

* Skepticism and Pessimism - the idea that there is no universal human nature, that the needs and desires of individuals will differ. It also argues that there really is no "ultimate" way in which government should be run (i.e. there is no literal theory of government, as theorizing about government cannot be attained in the same way as theorizing about the natural sciences).

 

So, thats the basic explanation of why conservatism call themselves conservatism. Unfortunately, very little of that kind of conservative doctine remains in the way that the word is used today.

 

 

Notice the values bulleted above, it becomes obvious that conservatism is essentially a political attitude rather than an actual theory of government. Today's "conservatism" has much less to do with actual preservation of historical tradition, and much much more to do with some of the political doctrine behind anti-Federalism and State's rights.

 

I'm not sure when conservatism became associated with free-market capitalism. However conservative ideals such as having a strong well-devoloped military are actually a fairly recent invention. In fact, if you look back in history, the pre-1964 Democrats were the ones who valued strong military and interventionalist foreign policies. As a result of divided attitude with the Vietnam War, the Democratic party reformed drastically, and adopted more Federalist attitudes and backed the Civil Rights movment - as a consequence the formerly solidly Democratic southern states shifted firmly to modern meaning behind conservatism.

 

Since the 1980s, the word conservatism has adopted a few values behind theocratism after Falwell and Robertson formed the Christian Coalition. In a technical sense, the Christian Coalition's theocratism is "right-wing", but its reactionary attitudes toward sexual morality and agressively interventionalist campaigns against the operations of government have next to nothing in common with conservatism at all. Reagon's contribution to conservatism was tying it together with supply-side economics.

 

Modern conservatism has very little to do with its philosophical roots. The reason is simply due to the fact that many modern political candidates run under the label of conservatism, however what they stand for is something that cannot be considered conservatism (or liberalism) at all.

 

The reason why the word "conservativism" isnt outdated is because American politicians have transformed the word "tradition" into a catch-all justification for most modern conservative beliefs.

 

In my experience, common opposition to issues such as homosexuality are defended with "homosexuality is impulsive, and hence as a conservative I oppose homosexuality", being anti-abortion is defended with "the traditional end to sexual relationship is children, and hence as a conservative I oppose abortion", etc. I find these justifications to be a completely disingenous use of the word conservatism.

 

Today, being a conservative has much more to do with adhering to a label than the actual philosophy behind the label. (To be fair, modern liberalism has little to do with its philosophical roots either.)

[Pangloss]

i don't appreciate being labelled illogical or a follower, or inconsiderate

 

Well everyone has their own definitions, but you're not what I consider "far left". You act like you are, and you may even think you are, but you're far too intelligent, introspective, analytical and thought-provoking to fall for the kind of idiot traps that extremists constantly fall into (and in fact are incapable of NOT falling into, and more importantly, incapable of climbing out of).

 

BTW, there's a big difference between labelling a category, and labelling an individual. The former is something everyone does. The latter is something nobody should do (at least not in polite company). I did the former, not the latter. If someone posted that "centrists are idiots", it might rile me up, but it would be inappropriate to cry foul, saying that that person insulted me personally.

 

 

Nice post, IMM.

[In My Memory]

Conservatives are more likely to interpret the U.S. constitution as it was meant when it was written.

 

Liberals are more likely to interpret the constitution the way they think it would have been written' date=' had it been written in 2005[/quote']

Actually, prior to 1937, it was the liberals who adopted the battle cry of judicial self-restraint. Pre-1937 liberals opposed judges interpreting the constitution's due process and clauses of the 5th and 14th amendment to strike down labor regulation laws and women's rights laws. The liberals opposed judges broad interpretation of the constitution to prevent what they believed were excessive regulations of property.

 

Nixon, Reagon, Bush 1, and Bush 2, are the ones who have been arguing for judicial activism to overturn some of the precedents on civil rights and property regulation that have accumulated over the past half-century (especially the laws protecting abortion and the laws promoting affirmative action).

 

Whether someone favors broad and narrow interpretations of the constitution arent based on being a liberal or conservative, its based competing sets of values and proper balances of government authority v. individual rights.

[budullewraagh]

thank you for your input, pangloss

 

"Conservatives are more likely to interpret the U.S. constitution as it was meant when it was written."

would you consider the current administration to be conservative? think about it for awhile

[Aardvark]

shouldn't everyone in a democracy be democrat? democrats with different ideas sure, but they aren't going to try to shut each other up for being different. I say if you want to have a monarchy, go start you're country where people who like to be slaves can join up. The rest of us who value thinking for ourselves can exist in a different country.

 

So everyone in Spain and Japan and the Netherlands and Belgium and Denmark and Sweden and Britain is a slave who doesn't value thinking for themselves?

 

Or are you just an ignorant American brought up on biased fake history about the 'American Revolution' and a lot of rot about how evil and despotic monarchy always is?

[Sayonara]

Don't forget to report to the Royal Pyramid for your monthly brain wipe next week Aardvark - there was a hell of a stink when you didn't turn up last time.

[atinymonkey]

I feel the need to point out here that the conservative values date back to the 16c and the Magna Carta. Although they are equally apt in the US, or rather equally usable, the only reason they exist in the US is because the democratic system of government is a facsimile of the UK's. This is important, because the definition of a conservative cannot be amened by the behavior of the party in either country. Therefore discussions surrounding the values of the US conservatives are moot.

 

Republicans, on the other hand, are unique to US politics. Unless you count the Rome of antiquity, of course.

 

Plus I aught to point out that the Liberals and Democrats have almost the identical core values*, but obviously different PR companys in the US .

 

 

*I know this is inflammatory due to the mudslinging during recent US elections, but it's one of those little points politicians gloss over. I think it's quite important.

[Pangloss]

Yeah you're probably right, the ancient Romans would be a pretty good facsimile of modern conservatives. This being the society that invented the patron/client system, not to mention class division by income. Heck you couldn't even be a Senator (or in the early days a SOLDIER) unless you owned *land*. None of that stuff may be directly analogous to modern conservatism, but viewed in the context of that society it really comes across more or less exactly like modern conservatism.

 

It's also worth noting that that system broke down because of rot from *within*. Staunch "conservatives" breaking the rules and traditions in order to get ahead. (chuckle)

[Douglas]

Nixon, Reagon, Bush 1, and Bush 2, are the ones who have been arguing for judicial activism to overturn some of the precedents on civil rights and property regulation that have accumulated over the past half-century (especially the laws protecting abortion and the laws promoting affirmative action).

Guess I'm not sure what you mean by "judicial activism", seems like "activism" is in the mind of the beholder.

 

LBJ enacted affirmative action via an executive order, and I think Nixon expanded it by introducing "quota's".

 

Bush #2 is opposed to affirmative action, so my question is....who are the judicial activist's??

[john5746]

Conservatives are more likely to interpret the U.S. constitution as it was meant when it was written.

 

Liberals are more likely to interpret the constitution the way they think it would have been written' date=' had it been written in 2005[/quote']

 

That's why we eventually need liberals, progress dictates that we amend the constitution or interpret it in a different viewpoint. Same reason the Bible is interpreted differently through time.

[Tetrahedrite]

That's why we eventually need liberals, progress dictates that we amend the constitution or interpret it in a different viewpoint. Same reason the Bible is interpreted differently through time.

In this connection, liberal governments tend to make changes for the better, although the population will often not agree at the time. Preserving the status quo at all costs is not beneficial to society. The conservative government in Australia is often accused of trying to take us back to the 50's, as their policy decisions are often regressive, not progressive.

[In My Memory]

Douglas,

 

Guess I'm not sure what you mean by "judicial activism", seems like "activism" is in the mind of the beholder.

There is an article called Judicial Activism Reconsidered which I think you would find very interesting. It is an incredibly long article, but a definition of "judicial activism" is found in this quote:

At the heart of the concern over judicial activism is the fear that the judge will impose his own personal preferences in his decisions, to such an extent as to ultimately negate the very meaning of law as a body of known rules to guide individual and social conduct.

 

LBJ enacted affirmative action via an executive order' date=' and I think Nixon expanded it by introducing "quota's".

 

Bush #2 is opposed to affirmative action, so my question is....who are the judicial activist's??[/quote']

I'm really tempted to say "everyone, excluding Libertarians"

 

There really is nothing that unites all judicial activists (aside from being judicial activists, of course), and I believe that the claim that most liberals are activists is false - if that were true, I'd be interested to know why most liberals feel the Defense of Marriage Act is an inappropriate violation of constitutional guaranteed rights of Full Faith and Credit and Equal Protection clauses and, why some liberals dont support the idea that the government can single out Christianity for special treatment and moral authority.

 

Both liberal and conservative groups are known to be supporters of judicial activism and judicial restraint.

[Douglas]

That's why we eventually need liberals, progress dictates that we amend the constitution or interpret it in a different viewpoint. Same reason the Bible is interpreted differently through time.

There are judges in some states that have interpreted the constitution (or one of the amendments) to read that children have the right to sue their parents if they're not allowed to go out on a Friday night. In addition, in the state of Washington (I think) the child's "rights to privacy" laws allow a parent to be jailed if they listen in on their childs telephone calls. Is this progress??

[Douglas]

Douglas' date='

I'm really tempted to say "everyone, excluding Libertarians"

True

and I believe that the claim that most liberals are activists is false -

I agree, but I think most activists are liberal

 

why some liberals dont support the idea that the government can single out Christianity for special treatment and moral authority.

Do you support the idea??

[TimeTraveler]

Keep in mind there is a huge difference between Neo-conservatives and Conservatives. Just as there are between Neo-liberals and Liberals.

[atinymonkey]

What does the prefix 'Neo' indicate?

[Douglas]

What does the prefix 'Neo' indicate?

It's a catchword. "Neocon" means "newconservative", but neocons have been around for numerous decades. I think it started when the traditionally democratic Jews became disgruntled with their party and moved to the republican side.

 

There are several types of conservatives, the neocons, the paleocons, traditionalcons, religeouscons and a few I forgot.