What is Conservatism to you?

[404.livejournal.com]

I have started on Dr. Alitt's excellent primer on the Conservative Tradition, through The Teaching Company (available @ http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=4812 for those who are interested, it costs money though, but not too much, especially when compared to university level classes), and it got me thinking about what I feel Conservatism as a political philosophy really is. Obviously given from the word that is used: Conservative, which denotes careful planning and rational development, but is that all it is? I am curious in what y'all think it means. Maybe this will spark a conversation that does not break down into name calling, but we shall see.

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Conservatives would feel that fighting to protect individual liberty is a duty and that's why they hold military service in high esteem. Gay marriage is controversial exactly because liberals feel the group is more important. The other things are not conservative versus liberal debates.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

Conservatives would feel that fighting to protect individual liberty is a duty and that's why they hold military service in high esteem.

Ok. I'm too cynical to take this position seriously, but I can see your point. However, there seems to be more going on than that. I perceive a veneration of the military culture, not just military service among conservatives. It appears (from the outside) to be a culture that values obedience over liberty. In fact, I would say obedience to authority is extremely important to the conservative identity.

Gay marriage is controversial exactly because liberals feel the group is more important.

I don't understand this statement. The conservative position deprives the individual of the liberty to marry whom they wish, and holds the view of the group (anti-gay marriage) in higher regard.

The other things are not conservative versus liberal debates.

I'm not so much concerned with "debates" as positions. Unless I am mistaken, conservatives overwhelmingly support the current "prohibition and prosecution" policy with regard to illegal drugs. The liberal position tends more toward decriminalization and treatment. (Although they are largely unable to implement this policy because they would be branded as "soft on crime" by the right.) The conservative position deprives the individual of the liberty to make decisions over what to put in their body.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

In fact, I would say obedience to authority is extremely important to the conservative identity.

I disagree. I think it's extremely important to humans, but liberals are better at pretending it isn't.

The conservative position deprives the individual of the liberty to marry whom they wish, and holds the view of the group (anti-gay marriage) in higher regard.

No, they hold that the current state of affairs is adequate and that the liberals are pushing a pro-group issue. Yes, the reality is that the current state of affairs is also pro-group and needs to be fixed to not have government involved in marriage at all, but conservatives do tend to not analyze the present situation as much when they are confronted with a push to change to a "worse" one.

The drug thing isn't so much a conservative versus liberal issue, it's a moral argument. It's just that religious people tend to be conservative also, so it's a correlation of beliefs, not that being conservative led to that position.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

"I disagree. I think it's extremely important to humans, but liberals are better at pretending it isn't."

That statement illustrates my point. You, as a conservative, feel that obedience to authority is so integral to the human condition that you believe those that disagree with you are pretending.

"No, they hold that the current state of affairs is adequate and that the liberals are pushing a pro-group issue. Yes, the reality is that the current state of affairs is also pro-group and needs to be fixed to not have government involved in marriage at all, but conservatives do tend to not analyze the present situation as much when they are confronted with a push to change to a 'worse' one."

I don't understand. How would allowing gay marriage make the present situation worse w/r/t individual liberty?

"The drug thing isn't so much a conservative versus liberal issue, it's a moral argument. It's just that religious people tend to be conservative also, so it's a correlation of beliefs, not that being conservative led to that position."

Politics are greatly informed by morality. Why are you so sure that it's religious people bringing their morality to politics and not that they are attracted to a political philosophy that fits their morality? I think the case could be made that the current conservative drug policy has a lot to do with valuing obedience to authority. Drugs are illegal. Therefore, people that use them are demonstrating disobedience to authority and should be punished. The decriminalization and treatment policy does not punish their disobedience, and is therefore unjust. So, a liberal could say, "Look, studies from the Netherlands and Portugal show that our way of doing it would reduce violent crime and save boatloads of money." As far as the conservative is concerned the libtard is completely missing the point.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You, as a conservative, feel that obedience to authority is so integral to the human condition that you believe those that disagree with you are pretending.

I don't believe it is integral, simple observation shows that it is. Only a few people are actually anti-authority and there are signs that indicate it, regardless of lip service.

I don't understand. How would allowing gay marriage make the present situation worse w/r/t individual liberty?

It continues and extends government meddling in personal affairs.

Why are you so sure that it's religious people bringing their morality to politics and not that they are attracted to a political philosophy that fits their morality?

Because there are people with the same moral values on these issues that are on both sides of the political divide.

Also, historically, the trend cycles between punishment and rehabilitation over time unrelated to political philosophy. We've been at the apex of the punishment cycle lately and are starting to swing back to rehabilitation again.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

"I don't believe it is integral, simple observation shows that it is. Only a few people are actually anti-authority and there are signs that indicate it, regardless of lip service."

I don't trust simple observation. Things are rarely simple.

Also, I'm not proposing that this is binary condition. It's more of a continuum, and conservatives appear to be more toward the authoritarian^{* (#note)} end. I heard a good example of this on the news this morning. Conservative politicians in Arizona talking about being vehemently opposed to immigration reform that would include a "path to citizenship" for illegals already in the country. Which makes sense because that would reward illegals for their disobedience to authority.

"'I don't understand. How would allowing gay marriage make the present situation worse w/r/t individual liberty?'

It continues and extends government meddling in personal affairs."

But toward the purpose of maximizing individual liberty. And you said that
"individual rights take precedence". So clearly, there is something going on here that is trumping individual liberty for conservatives.

"'Why are you so sure that it's religious people bringing their morality to politics and not that they are attracted to a political philosophy that fits their morality?'

Because there are people with the same moral values on these issues that are on both sides of the political divide.

Also, historically, the trend cycles between punishment and rehabilitation over time unrelated to political philosophy. We've been at the apex of the punishment cycle lately and are starting to swing back to rehabilitation agai
n."

We've been in a pretty solid punishment cycle since 1914. When was the rehabilitation cycle?

---

^*There has got to be a better word than "authoritarian". It has a negative connotation that I'm not trying to imply. However, the dictionary definition fits.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

In my experience, life is always simple, it's people that make it complex either because they don't understand it or they want to make it complex.

And you said that "individual rights take precedence". So clearly, there is something going on here that is trumping individual liberty for conservatives.

I already said that I think most conservatives aren't looking at the status quo to see if it meets their principles and if they did they would see that it didn't. So, what's trumping liberty is the desire to keep things the same.

We've been in a pretty solid punishment cycle since 1914. When was the rehabilitation cycle?

That's incorrect. There was a rehab cycle that peaked in the 70's and the one before that in the 50's.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

In my experience, life is always simple, it's people that make it complex either because they don't understand it or they want to make it complex.

My life seems to be full of people that want to make it complex. ;)

I already said that I think most conservatives aren't looking at the status quo to see if it meets their principles and if they did they would see that it didn't. So, what's trumping liberty is the desire to keep things the same.

"The desire to keep things the same" would have been my definition for conservative until 1994. What would that be called? Honoring tradition? In any event, you appear to have identified something else that is at least as important to individual liberty to conservatives.

That's incorrect. There was a rehab cycle that peaked in the 70's and the one before that in the 50's.

I know that more treatment options became available during that time period. However, I'm not aware that treatment became a substitute for punishment. The laws and penalties just seem to become increasingly draconian from 1914 until today.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The laws and penalties just seem to become increasingly draconian from 1914 until today.

You're looking at the wrong thing. Laws never get repealed (generally), so of course they aren't going to cycle. What you have to look at is the attitude of society to what criminal justice is.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/313/History-Corrections-Punishment-Prevention-or-Rehabilitation.html

There was another good explanation, but I can't find it now. But there's several books in the library that go over this debate and it's history.

In any event, you appear to have identified something else that is at least as important to individual liberty to conservatives.

It's not as important, but when the issue doesn't appear to be about individual liberty then it's a fallback consideration.