Conservatism (Our last best hope)

Conservatism (Why it is the last best hope)

Conservatism in my view is simply any American who takes on the obligation to conserve America's first and most basic principles of governing which is nothing more than the implementing of the practice of limiting our government that is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and reinforced by our Constitution.


We believe that this basic concept is what truly enhances our society to provide a thriving economic opportunity to all of its citizens.


The following are in my opinion the basic concepts of conservatism:


Creating and maintaining religious liberties

One of the first and most important concepts is a solid belief in recognizing that the foundation for all human freedoms requires the acceptance and value of religion and that there was/is a significant role in this belief. In recognizing our heritage, that God was revered by many of our forefathers and that His word was utilized in forming this nation. Also that we recognize the significance in keeping a separation from it and the state. Where Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of it, or prohibiting the free exercise it.


That we maintain a strong conscience and faith which is embedded by Godly values that demands justice and secures a “limited” government.


I believe the Martin Luther King has summed it all up best with his quote…”The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”


I think that describes it best through the eyes of conservatism.


To provide a strong military, keeping peace through strength

Conservatives maintain a strong significant stance that it IS up to our government to provide for the common defense. That peace through strength is the best way to assure our liberties and freedoms as one nation.

George Washington tells it simply that “There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”


That providing economic freedom is essential for the protection of liberty

Conservatives hold onto the belief that basic concepts that Americans have the right to sell or give property or goods to others on terms of our own choosing and that a free market will dictate a moral and truthful outcome. That is not saying that our government should not have a limited role in regulating the economy. But limited is the key word. Conservatives merely believes that government has over the course of time has expanded its role and has over-regulated the markets and have created a cumbersome economic burden and has stifled economic growth.


A noted economist once said: "To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything." That if our government would ever gain control our basic economic decisions, such as how much we can sell products for, what we can or cannot buy, or where we can work, it can and will control most facets of our lives. We are nudging ever so close to that idealism.


To provide the lowest possible taxes on the American people

History has demonstrated to us that the periods of higher tax rates are directly related with poorer economic performance and fewer tax revenues. It has been times in history when our economies have thriven the most, when those who have the capital the freedoms to invest without penalty. Conservatives hold on to the fact that it is the entrepreneurs of this country that has created the most powerful economy on earth. We want to encourage those who have the desire to pursue happiness, to be able to do so with the fewest restraints of our government.


We also realize that we cannot spend more of our revenue than we generate in a fiscal year. It is most vital that we restore or return to a more prudent government. Understanding that the role of our federal government is not to create jobs, but to create an environment where its citizens can have the freedoms and the liberty to capitalize off of their labors and efforts.


In conclusion:

I believe that conservative values are the most effective way to uphold the philosophy that our forefathers created to assure our freedoms and liberties. When it is at its best, all individual have the freedoms and the responsibilities to live each of their lives to the fullest, and to honestly pursue happiness in the real American way.


The liberal left has such opposing views that we are becoming more and more divided as a nation. Standing firm on conservative values will be of utmost importance to proving too many Americans that actions are louder than words, and only then, can the conservative ideology take a grass roots start into rebuilding America as I hope to one day see. That is why I see it as the last best hope for America.


Comments 104 comments

TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 4 years ago from Tucson, Az.

The only box I didn't punch was funny. Very well put together Chris, and this should be reflected on often. Thanks for the reminder as we approach the new year. I hope you'll encourage like minded folks to join us at The Housefire Project, in our effort to wake folks up to a new brand politics in 2012, beginning with a raising of expections of results from our leaders. Sorry to use your commemts section to advertise, but "Saving a nation is a very cool thing to do."

Awesome job here Chris. Happy New Year!!

jim


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

http://www.housefireproject.com/--from-the-founder...

No problem Jim...you project is right in line with my train of thought,

I appreciate the kind words.

Chris


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 4 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Chris,

I want to say this in front of the folks who read you. In 2011 you've proven yourself to be a loyal friend to me. You've always shown class with those who disagree with me even when I haven't at times. You are a gentleman and a patriot my friend, and good things will come your way. :)

jim


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

I pushed funny because you said you have one rant left for this year. Maybe you can muster up another one next week.

As a true Independent, I must point out that the principals you went over here are not conservative platform issues. They are standards for American liberals as well. These are American principals. What's the problem?

If attitude is everything, then how about this attitude? "I have such a passion for what I think is best for this country . . . "

That's where it starts. If you don't have that attitude, then you don't belong here. If you want what is best for America, then let's do what's best for America. It will require sacrifice, balance, and cooperation.


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 4 years ago from Arizona

Chris, Mi Amigo, what a great hub to render to those who will stop read and think about it. People often think that being a conservative takes and makes a person to deny forward motion in the USA. and I find that as a downfall judgement. They very thought brought great power to an idiot named Barry Obama, when he burst forth declaring that conservatives are old fashion Bible and gun hugging people who don't want change, or forward moving ideas and plans.

What a wrong, wrong label he threw at Conservative folk. Damn Skippy! I hug my Bible as it holds my moral code and makes my yes a yes and no a no. Forget flip flopping on issues. I eye them over and JUDGE them to see if they fit.

I hear somebody in the back row of churchianity, a conservative no less, spout off "the bible says, judge not lest ye be judged", "I am" never said that snippet

he said don't judge another with a rule of measure that you don't want to be used against you come judgement day. It is a matter of the adage of the world "you made your bed, now sleep in it"

My conservative adage is "you better be doing some judging!" That book says "don't follow the blind, in doing so every one following the blind will be in company together in the ditch". It says to love everyone as you love yourself. I love Obama, I hate his actions and I can hate his actions with looking at them, judging them with my NO and my know that I will not do them and if asked as I stand alone on judgement day, I can answer I never promised something that I could not or did not do to the best of my ability, and accept my judgement. We can all be progressive conservatives pressing forward to return to our foundation of the 10 commandments. Pressing forward to become fiscally responsible as a nation. As a nation this country took money from me, under duress, if I didn't let them, they would send me to jail, take my home car and furniture at auction and set my two girls on the curb of the street homeless and they do it to those who won't and worse those who can't pay up do to conditions out of their control.They call all the money taken from me an "entitlement" because instead of putting it into a coffer that earned interest the spent it on war machines and who knows what else and now they don't have it to pay back in smaller rates than they took, and should have it on hand with the interest. Think about that a bit!

We are approaching a time where we [if we choose to] JUDGE a person out of a group to put him in place to become our leader, a mere mortal to lead us? NO I don't want a leader, I have one, and come what may I have faith in my leader Yahweh the father and his right hand Ruler and my personal Savior Yahshua, Jesus Christ.

I remember the story of Jericho, the faithful walked around it, once a day for seven days and seven times on that seventh day and the priest blew trumpets and with a loud shout from the people, the walls fell and all inside except a whore and her family along with spies for the Lord and all of the whores belongings were brought out and all else with life were killed with the sword [the animals, women, and children were killed as well]

I'm hoping and praying that we all can come forward in Faith and the pentagon the white house and all the unworthy are removed by faith and replaced by men worthy of the job and Constitutional base of all being part of one nation under God! as expressed in the beginning of this nation. We need to take it back and lay it at the feet of God and with faith he will harvest the grain from the thistle, then cast the thistle into the fire. It will be Gods choice as to the dealings of this country not ours. Pray for the Will of Yahweh, nothing more and nothing less.

Peace and Blessings,

dust


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

@ wd curry,

Okay, let analyze this one at a time:

Creating and maintaining religious liberties

It is my belief that MANY, not all on the liberal side, seem to lead the push in re-writing our heritage and discount all positive influences that God and the Holy Bible had on the forming of this nation.

That to even mention “God” or “Jesus Christ” is a bad word, if used as discussion on our heritage.

I find that if they had their way, they would PROHIBIT the FREE EXERCISE of religion.

Again, not all, but it is in no way part of any liberal platform.

To provide a strong military, keeping peace through strength

This one is clearly not part of any liberal agenda. Reducing our size and strength has always been the target by the left.

That providing economic freedom is essential for the protection of liberty

I specifically discuss the manner of Governments intervention into the daily business affairs of American entrepreneurs. The vast regulations and government control is growing constantly every year, is a liberal issue.

Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual "Regulator's Budget," compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.

Since Obama took office, 75 new major regulations have been enacted, costing $38 billion annually, according to a study by the Heritage Foundation. "No other president has imposed as high a number or cost in a comparable time period,"

The bottom line is this, when our free markets recognize that the government is striving to increase more and more burdens on their daily business operations…

unemployment will continue to grow and not sustain. Just as we know see.

This is NOT a conservative way of handling this problem.

To provide the lowest possible taxes on the American people

We clearly know that this is NOT a liberal notion. Raising taxes on ALL Americans would be first and foremost if they had their way.

To sum in it up, these are NOT Standards for American Liberals…

I am not saying they do not want what is best for America….I believe they do, it is the approach they have is not what is best, the way I see it.

I appreciate your comments, I do value YOUR opinion, and I welcome your thoughts at all times.

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Dusty,

Your wisdom is valued more than you will ever know.

You proudly put Christ first, as we all (Christians) should....that is first and foremost, and we sometimes get caught up in the politcal grind of things and lose our priorieties.

I thank you for sharing...

Peace and Blessying to you my friend.

Chris


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

I didn't say that people were being true to their original positions. I was talking base philosophy. It was the Republican, Dwight Eisenhower who warned of the "Military/Industrial Complex". Take a look around. What you are calling the left doesn't have as much juice as you are giving it credit. Democrats are not "lefties". Some are.

Most Independents aren't. We aren't swayed by Republican media propaganda that refuses to accept responsibility for the overt failure of their policies and procedures. The Republicans and Democrats have sold our economy out over the last 50 years. Each with their own special brand of greedy ignorance. Both parties, in their present state, need be abandoned for the sake of sanity. I have no enemies who are Americans . . . run independent . . . vote Independent. Then I will know you mean business. Otherwise, you are a flag, flapping in the wind on a sinking ship.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Why would I want to vote independent if there is not a conservative running on as an Independent.

I am NOT a republican, I am a conservative. There is a big difference now days it seems. Just as you point out that all democrats may not be liberal.

I am not swayed by ANY media. I know WHO I like, and what I stand for.

I do know this much though, and as bad as it may be, I WILL throw my support to WHO EVER has the best chance of running Obama out of town. Even the RHINO's would offer less liberal policies than what we now see or will see more of.

I vote to give this country its best chance to survive.

Voting for someone who has NO chance will not change the direction.

Sad, but true.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 4 years ago

Very wise and important piece of writing. The principles you present are a prescription for success and in an ideal world should be embraced by everyone. They make sense, pure and simple. Up and useful and awesome!


J Elaine profile image

J Elaine 4 years ago from Northern Minnesota

Thanks for posting your hub. The GOP has a huge battle to win in 2012 and it won't be easy. You are absolutely correct that we must win or risk losing our freedom and our form of government.

I got involved with the Republican party to get it back to its platform and elect people who are accountable to it. So far it's working in my little corner of the country, but we have a long way to go.

The entire world is facing some very immense challenges in the global economy, energy and social unrest. If we lose our freedom to solve these problems in a free market system, we're doomed. The liberal central planning model would only lead to further disaster and prolong the agony.

Keep up the good fight!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Bpop,

your commments and votes are very much appreciated.

You play an important role in all of this, your work is so helpful in reminding us of issues that are going on.

Thanks

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

J Elaine,

Thank you for your comments, and thank you for not just talking the talk, but for walking the walk...with being involved local politics and for doing something about it.

Stay strong, and come again,

Chris


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

C

Very good article. The conservatives have a lot of work to do in 2012, none more than making sure people get out in November and dump Obama


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Amen AV, AMEN!


lifegate profile image

lifegate 4 years ago from Pleasant Gap, PA

Rant on, CM. Looking forward to more in 2012. Have a blessed New Year!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks Lifegate....may YOU have a blessed new year also!


PegCole17 profile image

PegCole17 4 years ago from Dallas, Texas

Great thoughts and great quotes. I liked the Martin Luther King and the George Washington perspectives along with your statement, "A strong conscience which is embedded by Godly values", the basis upon which our country was founded.


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 4 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Second Comment:

Chris, I've always known that we lined on political surface. Wealsoline up on the critical things below the surface. I was starting to feel like that lone voice out here in the desert. (laughing) Our gang in Wshington are anything but conservatives and liberals. They both sold out a long time ago in order to play an old game in which the American people's only role is to provide the stakes.

I'll be dropping you a hub mail pal!

jim


Alexander Mark profile image

Alexander Mark 4 years ago from beautiful, rainy, green Portland, Oregon

Nicely said C, it seems that both sides of the political spectrum have amped up their rhetoric in the last few decades and especially in the last decade, but the liberals are worse and a return to conservative values would allow everyone equal freedom.

What struck me in particular was this: "it is the entrepreneurs of this country that has created the most powerful economy on earth."

Yes! I never thought much about it until now, but you made me think. I basically grew up in the American school system starting 1985 (Second grade - I was 8 years old and we had just re-immigrated back to the US) and the overall feeling I had up until recently is that the US Gov. was the source of America's prosperity. I currently work for the government myself at the airport, and a LOT of my coworkers are liberals who believe that jobs come from the government. Yet the only reason we have government jobs and welfare is because of taxes on business and individuals - and although there are way too many taxes, that money doesn't come from thin air (well, not all of it), it comes from hard working people and small and large businesses. Without commerce, there would be no prosperity. Especially in America.

Thanks for helping me to see that today.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Alexander Mark,

You have made my day. I am so happy to see your well thought out response. YOU GET IT! That is so refreshing to hear firsthand of those understand, that government does not create jobs, but those hard working people who take chances and invest their OWN money inot an idea, and become successful.

Thank YOU for commenting and your kind words.

Chris


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"I actually believe the Martin Luther King has summed it all up best with his quote…”The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”

I think that describes it best through the eyes of conservatism."

Strange that you would say that. Dr. King would not have described himself as a conservative. He was a registered Republican, that much is true. However at that time, in Georgia, he was living among southern Dixie-Crats like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. Both were ultra conservative. Dr. King was a Republican in the same sense that Lincoln was. The Democrats in the South were all conservatives. After the Civil Rights Act, they all switched parties and became Republicans. The switched parties but not their conservative ideology. They brought that baggage with them. Conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act that he fought for. They opposed the Voting Rights Act that he fought for, and in general...hated his guts. So, now you're saying that conservatives adopted Dr. Kings views of the role of religion in America? I'm afraid I don't see it. My impressions of the conservative view of religion in America is far more intrusive than anything that Dr. King envisioned.

In fact, Ron Paul just today received the endorsement of a minister who advocates the execution of Gays. Hows that for Big Government? Dr. Paul hasn't disavowed that endorsement. Somehow I doubt that Dr. King had anything like that in mind.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Conservatives merely believes that government has over the course of time has expanded its role and has over-regulated the markets and have created a cumbersome economic burden and has stifled economic growth."

Have you considered that there is a huge difference between the number and variety of products that exist today as compared with what was available at the time of the founders? That alone would require an entirely different set of rules in introducing products into the economy for the safety of the public. There were no automobiles for example. There wasn't even electricity. No internet. The sheer variety of products that exist today that couldn't even be imagined back then, and that without regulation could kill you, is something that is constantly overlooked. We don't live in the 18th century anymore. The government is charged with protecting its citizens. Sometimes it seems that conservatives only see that in military terms. Or don't you feel that the consumer deserves protection from dangerous products?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

You say this: "Conservatives maintain a strong significant stance that it IS up to our government to provide for the common defense."

So, I assume you have no problem with defense spending.

But you also say this: "Understanding that the role of our federal government is not to create jobs,"

So..I assume you are saying that the Government doesn't create jobs.

Well...during the debate on the Super Committee, when the president was reprimanded by Republicans for not weighing in on the committee and instead taking a trip to the far east, it seems to have escaped a lot of people that he was not only visiting Australia as a precursor to establishing a base to offset Chinese ambitions...but while he was there, he brought back contracts of $40 Billion dollars for Boeing which meant jobs for several states.

But that's not all. Republicans who repeatedly reject the idea that an infusion of federal dollars can produce new jobs overlook the billions flowing to the makers of guns, tanks, aircraft and ships for the sake of creating jobs in their home districts and states. That's government contracts, and it's for the very defense of the country that you endorsed as an imperative earlier. So you want a strong defense...but you insist that the Government doesn't create jobs, when clearly those government contracts amount to billions for private companies and employs hundreds of thousands of people. How can you say that the government doesn't create jobs when it's obvious that it does?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"A noted economist once said: "To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything."

He's advocating unlimited pursuit of economic interests. And you subscribe to that? Those are the words of an economic reductionist. It also sounds like Karl Marx. That probably comes as a surprise, however Marx believed in historicism. That is, the belief that the course of history is predetermined by scienti?c laws. Karl Popper described Marx’s historicism as “economism,” since “Marx, in opposition to Hegel, contended that the clue to history, even to the history of ideas, is to be found in the development of the relations between man and his natural environment, the material world; that is to say, in his economic life, and not in his spiritual life. It's the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and especially for their historical development. I find it strange that today's conservatives would share any of Marx views.

Economism, is not a theory in economics. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. Which is exactly what your "noted economist" is saying. This philosophical stance is often bolstered by the claim that economics is a science, and that its theories and predictions have the cognitive authority that only a science can have.

The most obvious proponents of economism are economic reductionists, who believe that all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms or, in other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist. Marx is probably the best-known proponent of this view, and the prevalence

of economism in contemporary thought is undoubtedly due to his in?uence. Hayek, was a proponent of economism so is Friedman.

Hayek held that freedom is important ?rst and foremost for its economic consequences. Whereas Popper thought that it was wrong to base the rejection of tyranny on economic arguments.

The difference in their priorities is striking. What is at issue between them is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes ?rst. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is

profitable; whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end.

Personally, I agree with Popper and reject the Marxist view. I think that freedom is a value in itself, rather than a means to another end. I find that today's conservatives seem to agree more with Marx. They may detest him, but they agree with him.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

adagio4639,

First of all, where did I say that "Dr. King would not have described himself as a conservative"?

That has NOTHING to do with my point of conservatism, but rather using a wonderful quote by a man who understood the signifcants of religion being utlized as a moral compass to the forming of this nation and the role it that is must still play in order to maintain a civil and robust society that holds our libery and freedoms as something sacred.

Second of all, regarding regulation. I stated with much conviction, that our government has taken on too strong of role in its participation of regulating business and personal affairs of its citizens.

I merely believe that the conservative approach is to have more of a common sense regulations, to where

business' are not being over-burden with gov. red tape.

I know this IS a problem, all you have to do is talk to ANY small businessman or entreprenuer and they will tell you.

Even the liberal notions that banning guns will stop gun crime, that raising the minimum wage will end poverty

are just a few examples that come to mind.

No one is saying that common sense needs to be removed from governments intervention of regulating..it just

needs to be applied.

Thirdly,

regarding the military and governments role. I have said from the onset, that MILITARY IS absolutly in the hands of our federal government. Having a strong military should result in expanding jobs in the PRIVATE sector. Again adagio, this is just common sense. My point is that our Governments role is NOT spend our tax dollars to create jobs. They ARE to provide for our military which in turn DOES create jobs. They are NOT to provide automobiles, or manufactoring products...they

simply are not to be businessmen, but voices of the people. PERIOD.

and lastly,

You remarked on the quote "To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything."

this was not by Karl Marx, but by Friedrich Hayek a very well known economist and philosopher who a Nobel emorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974.

He was an economic advisor to Magaret Thatcher. He understood the significance of free-market capitalism...and the dangers of socialism.

I also find your remarks comparing conservatism to marxism, is nothing more than a well spun argument, that

hold zero truth. At least the type of conservatism that I support and speak of.

With all of this said, I appreciate your comments and input...I totally disagree with you, but I welcome

your comments.

Chris


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

Excellent way to end the year! Great hub and maybe one of your very best! I almost got teary eyed! Chris, the left doesn't get it! We can show them how liberal states suffer and conservative states flourish and they don't get it! We show them how conservative Tea Party folks are respectful and clean and how OWStreeters are filthy, violent and disturbed and they don't get it! We show them how free work states have a better quality of life for the middle class opposed to the unionized states and they don't get it! We prove to them how individuals built this country with ideas and ambition and how parents should raise children instead of villages and they don't get it! Why? I DON'T KNOW! Happy New Year my friend!


J Elaine profile image

J Elaine 4 years ago from Northern Minnesota

Great conversation and debate! Though the conservative view often seems like a lone voice crying in the wilderness, we need to always remember that we outnumber liberals 2 to 1. The liberals just have the MSM megaphone.

The majority of people in the USA and the world can't disagree with these conservative principles;

Sensible government

Free enterprise

Fiscal responsibility

Personal responsibility

Stick to those 4 ideas and you win every time.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

AR,

Thank you very much for those awesome words! I apperciate you very much for coming by.

You are RIGHT, (no pun intended lol) the left simple does not get it. Their ideology overlooks some very basic ideas, and some plain and simple common sense.

I hope you have an awesome New Year,

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Elain, I do believe you are right, when the rubber meets the road, I think we will see some people open their eyes, and stand up for some conservative values and principals.

It is hard to over look those 4 items you said:

Sensible government

Free enterprise

Fiscal responsibility

Personal responsibility

I wish you the happiest new year,

Chris


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"First of all, where did I say that "Dr. King would not have described himself as a conservative"?"

You didn't. At least not directly. What you did was ascribe Dr.Kings views as consistent with conservatism. You said this:"I think that describes it best through the eyes of conservatism." I responded with this: "Strange that you would say that. Dr. King would not have described himself as a conservative." In other words, Dr. King wasn't politicizing his views. You were.

"I merely believe that the conservative approach is to have more of a common sense regulations, to where business' are not being over-burden with gov. red tape."

Well...red tape certainly sucks. But I have to ask what exactly do you mean by common sense which rarely is common and even more rarely makes sense? Is there a particular criteria for determining "common sense"? It seems to me that the most logical solutions are the ones that make the most sense. Unfortunately, applying logic is not a common undertaking today. We tend to rely on "the Gut" and assume that this is what common sense is all about. It often comes down to assuming what "Everybody Knows", even though "Everybody" might be as false as blue money to the truth of things.

The Gut is the repository of dark and ancient fears. It knows what it knows because it knows how it feels. Intellect is pitted against feelings, on the ground that it is somehow inconsistent with warm emotion. It is pitted against character, because it is widely believed that intellect stands for cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly or the diabolical. If something feels right, it must be treated with the same respect given something that actually IS right. If something is felt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument, or more to the point, if there are people willing to take up two sides to every argument, they both must be right or , at least, equally valid. But doesn't that simply bow to relativism which is the very thing that most conservatives would oppose? I would think that looking for the truth of things would be most important, and in order to do that, don't we have to hold our own preconceptions up to our own criticism? How else can we know that our views are actually correct? After all, we are fallible are we not? We could be wrong about many things couldn't we? If we are all fallible, and conservatism is an ideology that dates back to Edmund Burke, and reinforced in the 1950s by Russell Kirk book, The Conservative Mind, with it's 6 Canons of Conservatism, don't we need to recognize the basic fact that an ideology created and forumulated by a fallible man, cannot itself be infallible? It must be prone to error? Rather than clinging to a bunch of stated principles, isn't it more honest and truthful to ask what those principles are based on, and not to stop there but to then ask ourselves, what then justify's the basis that we are basing our ideas on? We have a basis. But in finding it, we are admitting that our ideas need a basis. So what is the basis for the basis? Seeking the truth doesn't end with saying, "at last I have a basis". It follows that the basis must also have a basis. And on, and on and on..into an infinite regress. Ultimately, I think you'll find that there actually is no basis that doesn't require another justification. This is the problem with all ideologies. They're simply theories of rationality that we adopt. That doesn't however make them true.

"Even the liberal notions that banning guns will stop gun crime, that raising the minimum wage will end poverty"

It's not a liberal notion. I'm a liberal and I know that banning guns will not stop gun crime. That's a very simplistic view of the liberal position. It would likely reduce it however. There are many countries with strict gun laws that don't have our amount of crime where guns are involved. Regulating who can have a gun will reduce the number of deaths related to guns. I don't think that's really debatable, and I'm not here to engage in a second amendment debate. There are many deaths that are gun related that have nothing to do with crime, but rather unfortunate accidents involving children.

"My point is that our Governments role is NOT spend our tax dollars to create jobs."

But that is exactly what they are doing when they use your tax dollars to give contracts to defense contractors who spend that money creating jobs and putting people to work in the defense of our country, or in the maintaining of our infrastructure. The government built the Interstate Highway system which you use and enjoy. It was done with our tax dollars, but private companies actually employed people as a result. How is that not an example of the government creating jobs?

"They are NOT to provide automobiles, or manufactoring products...they. Simply are not to be businessmen, but voices of the people. PERIOD."

But that isn't what they are doing. They do provide contracts to companies to build a number of things which does in fact put people to work which benefits the country economically. They put people to work in construction with regards to the infrastructure of the country. They aren't setting up shops to sell products. I think you know that. But we just landed a contract for Boeing that was worth $40 Billion from Asia. Boeing couldn't do that on its own since it was a State Department issue, but that contract put a lot of people to work.

"this was not by Karl Marx, but by Friedrich Hayek"

I already knew that it wasn't Marx. I assumed it was Hayek. I was correct. And Hayek as I pointed out was an Economic Reductionist. I could post actual quotes from him regarding that if you like. I'm very familiar with him. Hayek was not a conservative. He wrote an essay title "Why I'm not a Conservative". I can't help but wonder why conservatives need to appeal to non-conservatives to establish their identity? First Kin, and now Hayek.

Hayek said this in his essay; "So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern advocates, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal."

"I also find your remarks comparing conservatism to marxism, is nothing more than a well spun argument, that

hold zero truth. At least the type of conservatism that I support and speak of."

Rather than simply call them a "well spun argument", don't you think that supplying a reason for that claim would be more effective?? I mean...you claim that it holds zero truth. Can you demonstrate the "truth" of that claim? I wasn't comparing conservatism to Marxism. I was simply pointing out that Economic Reductionism and economism/historicism IS a Marxist concept. I gave the reasons why and a background for where it came from. I wasn't comparing "conservatism to Marxist socialism", however the man you quoted, Hayek, does exactly that in his essay. So you're quoting from a man that finds similarities between those two concepts. The man you are quoting does in fact compare conservatism to socialism.

From Hayeks essay: Why I'm not a Conservative

“Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds."

"This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule – not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he

is less concerned with the problem of how the p


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Well, Chris, you have got quite a crowd here. Of course,it goes without saying that I disagree with the Conservative ideology as the right course. But, we live in America and we each have a right to our opinion and the ability to act on it at the polls. A very cogent, to the point article. But I agree with Adagio much more. I also note that you are clear that being conservative does not necessarily mean being GOP, because they spent like drunken sailors on liberty. The only difference is where they spend the money, in areas that I favor much less.

Happy 2012 to you, Cred2


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

It seems that my post was cut off. Here's the rest of it picking up where it left off.

"Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the

socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.”

This is coming from F.A. Hayek. He's comparing conservatism to socialism. The man you and other conservatives love to quote. Why do you resort to an Appeal to authority, (Argumentum Ad Verecundium) which is a deductively invalid argument. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true. I have to say that I agree with him when he says that "So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern advocates, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal." Or at least, not conservative. When you quoted him, you did exactly what he's describing. They seem to need to look outside their own ideology to define themselves, and I think it's for the reasons he stated.

Anyway... my intention was to invite a reasoned debate with a conservative but I think that's expecting too much. When you say this: "I also find your remarks comparing conservatism to marxism, is nothing more than a well spun argument, that hold zero truth. At least the type of conservatism that I support and speak of." there are several problems with that. I have to say that I view that as a cop out. First of all you don't tell me WHY my remarks held zero truth, since you haven't demonstrated that for me or anybody else. It seems that any view that may contradict what you present is a "spin". But I presented a detailed and reasoned argument for what I was saying. It wasn't a spin of anything. Hayeks views are well documented, and I could provide them to illustrate his Economic Reductionist views if you need that. Also, suggesting that every time a person disagrees with you amounts to a spin, is to suggest that all things are relative and facts and truth don't matter. You simply say it. But that doesn't really end it does it? I realize that my remarks represent a threat or challenge to your theory of rationality but simply saying something, doesn't make it so. I was actually hoping for something more specific as to WHY my remarks had zero truth. You didn't provide them. Perhaps it's because they were actually true. Lastly there's this; "At least the type of conservatism that I support and speak of". Just what type of conservatism is it that you're speaking of? Is it something different from the ideas of Burke, or Kirk, or Reagan, or Buckley, or the conservatism of somebody like Mark Levin that is documented in his Manifesto for Conservatism? A Manifesto?? That's as ideologically defined as it gets. Is your conservatism something different than these? Is it the comic book version as portrayed by Ayn Rand? It seems to me that the candidates running for president are all attempting to display their conservative credentials and they all seem to agree on many things. Views on taxes, views on gays, views on religion, views on foreign aid, views on Healthcare. Are you a different version of these people?

Well...I saw your article and thought I'd chime in. Have a pleasant holiday season.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

@ adagio4639

You are welcome, and thanks for "chiming iin"

I hope your CHRISTmas was great, and I wish you a very Happy New Year.

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hello credence,

If I was a betting man I would have bet that you WOULD agree with adagio4639!.... lol.

I honestly do appreciate you and your thoughts, ALWAYS.

You 'SOMETIMES' at least make some sense to me, with your train of thought. You are a good person, whom I have enjoyed getting to know on here.

May you have a GREAT New Year.

Chris


J Elaine profile image

J Elaine 4 years ago from Northern Minnesota

Thanks Chris! Happy New Year to you and everyone on this comment line!

2012 will be the a monumental challenge and destined to be a huge turning point in global history. We're all very fortunate to be alive now to witness the turn of events that are about to unfold and to participate in the outcome.

Good luck everyone! May the best ideas win!


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

;)~

heheh....happy new year.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks J Elaine,

Best of luck to you and THANK YOU for contributing.

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

lol, adagio....

:)


Sueswan 4 years ago

Hi Chris,

I hope your vision comes true.

Voted up and awesome.

Happy New Year


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thank you Sueswan, and I hope and pray the very best for you this year.

Chris


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago

Thank you, Chris, for pubishing this magnificent article. I, of course, agree with you. And I understand what you mean about MLK and Conservatives today: both want a color-blind society where people are judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

White men are horribly discriminated against in America and the losers are not only them but all of us. If you take 10 percent of the college slots and 10 percent of important jobs out of the hands of those who demonstrate excellence and put them in the hands of the mediocre at best, the whole economic output of the nation—our aggregate wealth and income—has to be go down.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

James, I always appeciate you stopping by and commenting, It means a lot to me.

That is an interesting thought regarding the 10% of taking the jobs out of the hands of excellence in our market....never thought of that angle before.

Chris


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

Sorry to respond so far down from your good answer. I've been busy in the real world.

Frankly, the Independents don't have a real candidate. I think we should distance ourselves from the power structure that approved the bailout, and that isn't Obama. He's the one who is allowing Geithner to centralize (federalize) the banking industry with TARP.

Who says an Independent can't be a conservative? It is the political machine behind each party that I would like to get rid of. I don't care much for our gawdy displays, flag waving and party hat wearing at election time. We turn into a bunch of ridiculous kooks. We should keep our emotions in check. It is serious business. New Years eve is over.


geordmc 4 years ago from Beliot, Wisconsin

Hey C

First, Happy New Year

Second, You are right! As you know I am an Independent, However, we do need to go back to the fundamentals of our constitution, limit govt. in all areas that they do not belong in. As many should know, when govt sticks its noes into places it doesn't belong EVERYBODY winds up hurt in some way, be it the lack of jobs or the fact that you need to jump to govt. tunes. This is nothing more than despotism. More people need to read AND understand what the Declaration of Independence really says.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hi WD,

The bottom line for me is this...we MUST change direction of the last three years...who ever has the best chance of achieving this, will get my vote.

I am very tired of holding my nose while I vote, but it is all a manner of perspective at this point of time.

Doing what is BEST for the country, all the while being a realist.

I too have been very busy in the real world,

Thanks for coming by.

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hey geordmc,

when govt sticks its noes into places it doesn't belong EVERYBODY winds up hurt in some way...it dead on!

It is a shame we have such a wonderful document as the Declaration of Independence...and our Constitution...and so many no NOTHING about it.

Thanks for dropping by, I always appreciate your comments.

Chris


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

Please don't hate me. I am not happy about the last three years. Reality check . . . the eight years before that were a nightmare. I won't be duped into voting for a modern Republican to get rid of Obama. The America we love is ground up in either machine. The Republicans sent industry out of the country and were proud at the time. Reagan started the ball rolling to legalize white collar crime. They have made "entitlements" a negative buzz word to rob us of our entitlements (Social Security/Medicare). They are big oil. We need to put the financial laws back where they were in the Fifties (more or less).

I will not hold my nose when I vote. We should boycott the election and send a real message. We need a dose of salts.


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

I wish I had time to search out the speech that "Bonzo Goes to Washington" made about how it was his great pleasure to do so . . . never mind that . . . all you have to do is trace the flow of deregulation and factory closures. We should not be in China at all, for real.

Maybe we don't realize how dangerous our present position is. No one ever fought and died for this. If not boycott, find a real leader outside of those two parties. I would rather have The Man With No Pants as president than anyone I see. Or, how about you?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

I think a day will come,when the two-party system is done.

Right now, I don't see a third party candidate that is giving me the warm and fuzzy feeling.

Until then, I think we have to inch our way to reforming our government.

With that said, the Man with No Pants would have my vote in a heartbeat.


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

WD,

I understand why some 8 years ago was a nightmare, but was it? In fact Revenues went up dramatically after the tax break, the problem is Congress went on a spending binge. After Obama became president, revenues tanked and the Democratic controled Congress went on a huge spending binge.

The one question that should be asked of Obama is if he was given 4 more years, what policy or changed will he make to improve things. Does he have a plan or new idea? If he has a new idea, why has he not tried it already? He has no new ideas and will only do the same failed policies again. Obama has not earned another for years


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Obama himself said, that if HE could not "fix" the economy in three years,HE will be a one term POTUS.

His policies drove us further and further in debt, without creating jobs.

If his plan is to do the same thing.......we are doomed.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, CM,

This is a useful, awesome, beautiful and very useful article. It delivers one of the best messages I have read on this site.

No, doubt about it, conservatism is the answer, and that is the reason why, at this point in time, we conservatives must rally our forces and carry out a full-scale offensive against the forces that are out to turn America into something that it is not supposed to be.

But we must contiually keep in mind that in order for us to prevail, we must always "work smart." We have to have highly-effective strategies and tactics in place.


J Elaine profile image

J Elaine 4 years ago from Northern Minnesota

For those of you who are anti-political party;

Have you ever tried to get involved with one and change it for the better? I HAVE!

I read the GOP platform, I agree with and I'll defend it. My efforts are to get the party back to that platform and get candidates elected who agree with me. So far, with the help of other like-minded people, we've had some great successes and suffered some setbacks.

It's a long hard process and maybe I will fail, but I at least am making an effort to effect change instead of just complaining.

As a footnote, I have also read the Dems platform and I disagree with it completely and I challenge anyone to defend it. Right now the GOP is the only party with the power to defeat the Dems, so I will support their candidates even if I don't agree with them on some issues. I hate the lesser of 2 evils approach, but have come to realize it will take time to purge the party. It all starts at the local level and works up from there.

So unless you've gotten into the trenches to try to make a difference, STOP COMPLAINING!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thank you so much feenix! I am humbled, and yet ever so ready to fight for this country. You are a natural born leader, and I am willing to listen and follow....as you know, I am a firm believer in common sense...YOU amplify this.

I want nothing more, than for this nation to show the world, just how glorious this nation CAN be. I want my children to experience this land of opportunity. I want God to bestow His blessings upon this Nation.

I am optimistic....let's get busy.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

J Elaine,

I offer you my most sincere and enthusastic cyber high-five!!

YOU, have said it all, very well....

I think something is going on, in a very positive fashion....the conservatives of this nation are waking up!!

Thank you and thank you!

Chris


Peggy W profile image

Peggy W 4 years ago from Houston, Texas

The principles you laid out are so simple and true. Let's hope that we change direction soon and get back to some sense of fiscal responsibility. We cannot keep spending more than we take in running up higher and higher deficits. Government jobs (while some are important) do not create wealth...they help spend it. The private sector is where jobs and wealth are created. So many of our companies have fled this country because of our high tax structure accounting for loss of jobs. We need to wake up and SOON! Voted up and useful.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks Peggy, It is so good to see so many others that agree with these principles....I am an optimist, and very hopefull that positive outcome is on its way.

I appreciate you dropping by,

Chris


Eiddwen profile image

Eiddwen 4 years ago from Wales

Wow Chris what an amazing hub with so many in-depth coomments !

It's easy to see why though.

I vote up and here's to many more to share on here.

Take care and enjoy your day.

Eddy.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thank you Eddy,

I hope to write more, but sometimes I hit a wall.

You enjoy YOUR day as well,

Chris


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan

Very well thought out point of view. I don't know how people disagree, but somehow half of the country does.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

It IS amazing how to groups of people can be so passionate about beliefs and be so far apart.

For folks like you and I, conservatism is just common sense.

Thanks for coming by.

Chris


J Elaine profile image

J Elaine 4 years ago from Northern Minnesota

Sorry to correct you michiganman, only 20% of Americans are self-identified liberals and 40% are conservatives. We outnumber them 2 to 1. We are the now-less-than-silent majority. We only need to convince another 11% to achieve the majority of the population and the libs need 31%.

It's hard to realize it sometimes, but the odds are in our favor.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"White men are horribly discriminated against in America and the losers are not only them but all of us."

Oh Boy, another Angry White Man and of course it's James. Why am I not surprised? Yes, we can see the discrimination against White Men in the fact that out of the 8 people running for president for the Republicans, only 6 are white men. The other two were a black man and a white women. (Of course they're gone now) It's easy to see how minorities have their boot on the neck of the White Man. Terrible.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

" As many should know, when govt sticks its noes into places it doesn't belong EVERYBODY winds up hurt in some way, be it the lack of jobs or the fact that you need to jump to govt. tunes."

Does that include Big Government Conservatism? You know..the Rick Santorum kind that wants to tell people how to live their lives. This guy wants to get rid of contraception at the drug stores. He's a bit anal isn't he?? Isn't his idea of government invasion into peoples personal lives the very thing that conservatives should reject?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"I understand why some 8 years ago was a nightmare, but was it? In fact Revenues went up dramatically after the tax break, the problem is Congress went on a spending binge."

Well, corporate profits went up dramatically as did the personal wealth of those at the top of the food chain. But the incomes of most people fell. Jobs disappeared and we began to spiral downward. Wages have stagnated for the past thirty years. Wall street and banks were all deregulated leading to the collapse of our economy and now, the Republicans want to deregulate even more, as if the damage done wasn't enough. There is little doubt in my mind that these policies were taking us into a bad position if something catastrophic happened, and it did. Then we borrowed money for two wars, a prescription drug bill, and we cut taxes even more. We took a nose dive. Now we have to crawl our way out and it's a slow process.

"The one question that should be asked of Obama is if he was given 4 more years, what policy or changed will he make to improve things."

Things are already improved. How long are you gonna ride that horse?? When Obama took office, that month we lost over 850,000 jobs in this country. The Jobs Report for December 2011 Shows US Economy Gained another 200000 Jobs. In December 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, and the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6 percentage point since August 2011. The number of unemployed persons, now at 13.1 million, also continued to trend down. Considering where we were when he came into office, we are obviously trending in the right direction. Unemployment has now fallen to 8.5% and could fall lower if the Republicans would stop obstructing every proposal that would put more people to work. People like Rush Limbaugh rail against the Stimulus claiming it hasn't added any jobs. The Stimulus has actually added over 2.5 million jobs. There's a jobs bill that could be passed right now, but the Republicans in congress are only interested in one job. The one in the White House. Don't think this has gone unnoticed by the people. Republican Congress poll numbers are in the toilet, while Obama's continue to rise.

"He has no new ideas and will only do the same failed policies again. Obama has not earned another for years"

That isn't getting much traction with the people. Obama has put forth his ideas which are very popular with Democrats, Independents and even Republicans. Poll numbers show that, yet Republicans in congress continue to block everything. It's Repubs that want to take us back to the policies of tax cuts and deregulation that failed us already. That's hardly a new idea. We've done it and look where it got us.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"His policies drove us further and further in debt, without creating jobs."

How can you say that when we've seen 21 straight months of job growth? When he came into office, that month we lost 850,000 jobs. Unemployment has dropped to 8.5%. It's still too high, but it could be a lot lower, if Repubs would stop obstructing everything.

This report just came out yesterday. "ADP: Private Sector Added 325K Jobs in December"

The private sector added a seasonally adjusted 325,000 jobs in December, according an ADP (NASDAQ:ADP) report issued on Thursday, up from 204,000 in November. Last month’s gain marked the largest monthly gain since December 2010, and far surpassed economists’ forecasts.

The month before that it was over 200,000. We've had 21 straight months of jobs growth. So, how can you honestly say that jobs are not being created?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"No, doubt about it, conservatism is the answer,"

I'm sure you sincerely think that, but can you explain why? I mean...can you demonstrate why that's true? Conservatism is an ideology. It's an organized approach to governing and life in general. Organized by who? I mean, you have no doubt that it's "the answer", so can you at least tell me what its organizing principles are and who codified them? What are the conservative principles and what demonstrates them as being true? And please don't simply say "Freedom". We all love freedom. What makes the conservative approach to that "the answer"?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

I think starting with the Constitution, and quotes from our forefathers are pretty clear about the role of government.

I personally think that conservatism is more of an attitude than just an ideology.

A sense of right and wrong....good vs evil...some things are clearly black and white.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"I believe that conservative values are the most effective way to uphold the philosophy that our forefathers created to assure our freedoms and liberties."

Ok. George Washington is considered the Father of our Country and said this: " “Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775.

Yet Conservatives such as Michelle Bachman and others advocate the use of Water-boarding prisoners, which of course is torture. Ronald Reagan even had a sheriff in Texas sent to prison for 10 years for using it on a prisoner. If you don't agree with that, ask our Special Forces people that undergo that technique in their training. We train them to endure torture and we don't short change them on something like that. Clearly Washington felt that mistreatment of prisoners didn't represent American values, and he would know something about that. So...how do conservative "values" uphold the philosophy of our founders when Washington himself would have you shot for using this technique on prisoners?

"Standing firm on conservative values will be of utmost importance to proving too many Americans that actions are louder than words, and only then, can the conservative ideology take a grass roots start into rebuilding America as I hope to one day see. That is why I see it as the last best hope for America."

But that doesn't demonstrate why those "conservative values" are true? Isn't truth the most important value? You said this, "The following are in my opinion the basic concepts of conservatism:" Ok... these are your opinions of the basic concepts of conservatism. But what are the basic concepts based on? Give me the bedrock basis for your opinion. And when you do...can you then tell me what that bedrock basis is based on? It seems to me that what you're promoting here is another belief system that can't demonstrate what makes it true.

When Rick Santorum says "“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." How things are supposed to be?? Who is this guy to tell anybody about how things are supposed to be regarding their sex lives? How is this not an example of Big Government Conservatism intruding into the lives of everybody?

He also says this:"“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.” So, the government has the right to limit people from pursuing their dreams? And that's a conservative idea?? How is that not a Big Government Conservative concept that imposes limitations on the very freedom they claim to promot? According to Santorum's view, he seems to think that we will all do whatever we want, but what does it mean to say, “whatever we want”? Moreover, can you demonstrate the truth of “we will all do whatever we want if we can’t demonstrate the truth of our values”? Look...all these ideas may sound grand on some level to you, but when you closely examine them, they fall apart.

Here's a brilliant idea from a Conservative in New Hampshire. "Eight hundred years later, an inspiration.

New bills would cite Magna Carta"

House Bill 1580 is the product of a brainstorming session this summer between three freshman House Republicans: Bob Kingsbury of Laconia, Tim Twombly of Nashua and Lucien Vita of Middleton. The eyebrow-raiser, set to be introduced when the Legislature reconvenes next month, requires legislation to find its origin in an English document crafted in 1215.

"All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived," is the bill's one sentence."

The Magna Carta?? Really? Not our Constitution. The Magna Carta. Upon seeing the bill, New Hampshire Democratic Party spokesman Ray Buckley said he was "mostly speechless." "I appreciate all the hard work the Republican legislators are putting into the effort to make them look like extremists," he said. "Saves us the trouble."

Asked about any legal hang-ups in requiring New Hampshire bills to derive their authority from an English charter, Kingsbury said "that's an interesting thought."

Yeah...interesting. It's this kind of crap that could only come from conservatism. These are the "bold fresh ideas" offered up by the conservative mind. Go back 800 years to find your ideas.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"I personally think that conservatism is more of an attitude than just an ideology."

You're probably correct on that. Edmund Burke is considered the "father" of modern conservatism and Burke has, rather than a theory, he has an attitude or a disposition, an outlook, and that outlook is informed first and foremost by extreme distrust not only of science, but of anybody who claims to have scientific knowledge. That would explain the conservative's rejection of things like evolution or climate change. They basically don't trust science. They trust the "gut".

"A sense of right and wrong....good vs evil...some things are clearly black and white."

But if you claim it to be a "sense" of right and wrong what informs your sense? Good and evil? I have my own sense of these things and I'm not a conservative. I'm sure that everyone has a "moral compass" that they tend to follow. Mine is the Golden Rule. So what makes your sense of these things right, and mine wrong? I can tell you this about mine. I'm fully aware of my own fallibility. I could be wrong about a lot of things. I'm also very aware of the fact that all ideologies come from other fallible men who are prone to error. So what makes an ideology infallibly correct if it originates from a fallible person? The important thing is locating the truth isn't it? So the bottom line I think is finding what makes your view on these things true. Can you say the same for your position? Or is your position based on a theory of rationality that you've simply adopted which has done all the thinking on these subjects for you? Don't we decide on truth? If not, then truth is demonstrable. Well...if so, then demonstrate it for me? Either truth is demonstrable or we decide on it for ourselves. You can't have it both ways. They contradict each other. If you accept that humans have values, then it’s "their" values. They are not dependent on demonstration, otherwise, why would we consider them "our" values? If you hold that “humans decide about the truth” then you can’t hold that “truth is demonstrable.” These are mutually contradictory ways of viewing the world. Merely claiming a standard or a criteria or a basis does not help one to demonstrate the truth of values. Instead, it creates a certain amount of hypocrisy. If we claim a basis gives us truth, we then are making the implicit claim that truth requires bases.

But then it is plainly obvious our own basis lacks a basis, as it cannot be its own basis. By claiming truth must be demonstrated by bases we undermine our own moral integrity which is something I'm not willing to do. I don't understand how a conservative that claims to hold high moral values could.

I don't think that Truth is found through some positive methodology. They have about as much humanity as a software program. Positive methodologies are automatic. They tell people exactly how they must judge the truth, so that they need "not" judge the truth. This is the problem I find with conservatism. It relies on "traditional" ideas rather than ever questioning the basis of those ideas. I’ve never known a positive methodology that actually works. What I have known are several people who are dogmatic and dictatorial because they think they have a positive methodology. You can look at any of the candidates running for the Republican nomination to see that. Each one claims to be the True Conservative. Each one is More conservative than the next guy. Moreover, as I pointed out before, the positive methodology can’t demonstrate it’s own truth. It’s own standards can’t justify it’s own standards. So those with positive methodologies either have to resort to circular arguments or hypocrisy or both. And that is exactly what is happening with each of these candidates. They argue from the box of their own ideology; their own theory of rationality and they get away with it because they're preaching to the choir in these debates. To a conservative in the audience, it's all matches and is consistent with their own theory of rationality But any critically rational mind can see there's no there there. Attitude is there in abundance, but truth is missing.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY

"To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything."

I believe Milton Freidman said something to this effect, that there is no liberty without economic liberty because economic liberty effects so many of our other liberties.

You are quite correct that Conservatism for the most part embodies the true vision of the founders and I would also add that liberalism today is a reputiation of that vision.

Regards and God bless


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

""To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything."

And I assume that you subscribe to that view. That is the view of an Economic Reductionist. It's the view of what is known as Economism. This will probably come as a surprise to you but it's also the view of Karl Marx. I'll bet you never thought that you shared the views of Marx in anything. Well...it appears that you do.

Marx was criticized for his “historicism,” which is the belief that the course of history is predetermined by scienti?c laws. Marx’s historicism is known as “economism,” since “Marx, in opposition to Hegel, contended that the clue to history, even to the history of ideas, is to be found in the development of the relations between man and his natural environment, the material world; that is to say, in his economic life, and NOT in his spiritual life. Are you with me so far??

Economism is the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of

matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and especially for their historical development. It is important, however, to understand that economism is not peculiar to Marx, and that it is entirely consistent with a free-market approach to economics. This is actually the view of Ron Paul and others that you're probably familiar with. Economism is the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. Economism, is not a theory in economics. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. This philosophical stance is often bolstered by the claim that economics is a science, and that its theories and predictions have the cognitive authority that only a science can have.

The most obvious proponents of economism are economic reductionists, who believe that all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms— or, in other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist. Marx is

probably the best-known proponent of this view, and the prevalence of economism in contemporary thought is undoubtedly due to his in?uence. But Hayek, was ultimately a proponent of economism as well and so of course is Ron Paul and a host of other Free Marketeers that you're no doubt familiar with in the conservative movement.

But what is, perhaps, more to the point is that Hayek held that freedom is important ?rst and foremost for its economic consequences. Your quote is from Hayek. His belief is that economic pursuits are the only pursuits that matter, and to be controlled in those pursuits means to be controlled in everything that matters.

Karl Popper on the other hand; another Austrian and a friend of Hayek's thought otherwise. Popper thought that

it was wrong to base the rejection of tyranny on economic arguments. The difference in their priorities is striking. What is at issue between them is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a

matter of priority, or what comes ?rst. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable — whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end. I tend to agree with Poppers view that Freedom is an end in itself. I assume by your post that you disagree.

Hayek thought that individual freedom is valuable for its economic consequences, and that its economic consequences are valuable for human survival.

Many people, since Darwin, have accepted the idea that

valuing something for the sake of survival is as close as one ever gets to valuing it for its own sake. But this is not the reason why the patriots shouted “Give me liberty or give me death!” And it is not the reason

why Socrates chose to drink the hemlock. The appeal of economism is that it gives a clear rationale for defending freedom. But its rationale is cold comfort to anyone who has to put his life on the line to protect it.

And the poverty of economism is that the value that it places upon freedom ultimately depends upon empirical facts — upon whether the market is more ef?cient, more productive, and more able to sustain the existence of human beings “in large numbers” than other economic

systems whose truth, like that of all empirical facts, is contingent upon particular circumstances that may change over time. This, in a nutshell, means that those who value freedom primarily as a means to economic ef?ciency and productivity may come to repudiate it if and when they feel that the economic bene?ts of freedom are no longer so obvious, or if and when they discover how to acquire those bene?ts in other ways.

This much, however, seems clear. People who begin a discussion by attributing opposing beliefs to ignorance or malice are often so committed to their own beliefs that they do not even try to imagine how others could possibly make sense, and, without trying to make sense

of them, they cannot possibly engage in serious discussions about them.

But I also believe that charity involves an awareness of

our own fallibility, and that an awareness of our own fallibility implies an epistemological (if not a moral) imperative to take the opposing views of others, who are fallible like ourselves, seriously. It implies that

we should seriously consider how their views could possibly be true, and how our own could possibly be false.

Just something for you to consider.

"Conservatism for the most part embodies the true vision of the founders and I would also add that liberalism today is a reputiation of that vision."

"For the most part?" You mean there is something in conservatism that doesn't embody the true vision of the founders?? What might that be? Apparently you know or you wouldn't have phrased it this way. Maybe it's that torture thing (water-boarding) that Washington wouldn't have approved of. Now if there were just a way to empirically prove your statement as true, you'd be all set. Truth would be demonstrated and we'd never have any reason for a debate would we?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

wba108@yahoo.com,

You said:

"Conservatism for the most part embodies the true vision of the founders and I would also add that liberalism today is a reputiation of that vision"

I say:

Right ON!

Thank you for your comment.

Chris


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

This much, however, seems clear. People who begin a discussion by attributing opposing beliefs to ignorance or malice are often so committed to their own beliefs that they do not even try to imagine how others could possibly make sense, and, without trying to make sense of them, they cannot possibly engage in serious discussions about them. That much is evident on this thread Chris. How can any rational discussion take place when people are so committed to an idea that they can't even entertain the possibility that they could be wrong and simply argue from the view that Conservatism is infallibly correct because...it is. That's a belief system more along the lines of religion. A circular argument is not only illogical, it's irrational. How can anybody argue with somebody committed to irrationalism? Furthermore, why would anybody want irrational people running the government of the United States?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

adagio,

when you say things like "It's this kind of crap that could only come from conservatism"....it is not exactly the epitome of a rational and logical debate.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Well...when I say that, it's in response to an irrational absolutist position that refuses to accept its own fallibility which strikes me as crap. How can anybody hope to have a rational debate when one side is locked into a position of certitude? Seriously, have you ever questioned your conservatism? I'm not just being critical of conservatism. I hold my own ideas up to criticism all the time. How else can I determine whether they are true or not? I make no claims to owning the truth. Can you tell me honestly that it's something that you can possess in its entirety?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

If you are seriously interested in the truth, then it stands to reason that you would hold your own views up to your own severe scrutiny to determine if they hold water or not. And...you won't allow any preconceptions, beliefs or appeals to faith or authorities you may have, get in the way of that. In other words, look for the holes in your own argument rather than ignore them. How can you possibly be right, if your argument doesn't contain the possibility of it being wrong? There's no way to demonstrate the truth of the argument you make unless it contains the possibility of falsification. Otherwise, it's nothing more then preaching, and that is evidence of a belief system. What makes that belief system true?

James is a good example of relying on Appeals to Faith. But that simply cuts of a debate. It serves as a short circuit to any reasonable argument since it completely depends on everyone agreeing with the faith that is being used as the source of authority as a pre-requisit. That kind of argument always fails. Reason is thrown out the door, and an irrational argument is put in its place. If I have to resort to some belief system that can't justify itself to make my case...I don't have a case to make.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

adagio,

You said "I make no claims to owning the truth. Can you tell me honestly that it's something that you can possess in its entirety?"

Short answer would be NO. Of coarse not.

It is something that I passionately believe to be true, based upon my upbringing, and what I conceive as common sense.

I know that answer will drive you completely bonkers....but, that is enough for me to live with.

I do not have that extra gene running through my brain that demands a scientific explanation of everything that I conceive to be true.

With all my heart, I admire your desire to obtain an absolute truth and to a degree wish I had that burning desire to obtain it in your fashion.

But I stand behind this hub, and every word I wrote in it as "my beliefs" of what conservatism IS, and how it would benefit this Nation.

I am not speaking on behalf of anyone else....it is merely my conception of an "attitude" that needs to be applied to our governments way of doing business.

For what it is worth, you may try cutting your responsed down to more specific concerns. For me, you overwhelm me with long responses, that I usually end up not responding at all....but that is just me.

I appreciate your stedfast opinion and thirst to open debate on this subject. Perhaps one of my conservative buddies will entertain some of your responses.

Chris


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"It is something that I passionately believe to be true, based upon my upbringing, and what I conceive as common sense."

I'm sure that you passionately believe it, but that doesn't make it true does it? Is truth measured by how passionately one believes in something? And I have to ask you, which is more important to you...your beliefs or the truth? They aren't necessarily the same thing. The only way to know if they are is to test them to see if they hold up to criticism. And if you find that they aren't, are you willing to ignore Truth to hold on to your beliefs? What kind of belief would that be? How could you look in the mirror knowing that you embrace something that isn't true? I've found that common sense is rarely common and even more rarely does it make sense. It comes down to assessing what "Everybody Knows" even though "Everybody" might be as false as the earth being flat to the truth of things. When you say that it's your upbringing isn't that an appeal to authority? The authority in this case being your parents. Our parents could be wrong about many things since they too are products of some other authoritarian upbringing. Some parents raise their kids to be members of the KKK. I'm sure they would tell us that they had the "proper" upbringing, but does something like that seem as a morally sound way to raise your kids? I just saw a story on the News about the Beaver Creek Elementary School in Georgia that uses racist word problems to teach third graders. "If Frederick got two beatings a day, how many would he get in one week?". "If you had 5 slaves and sold 3 slaves, how many slaves would you have?" The NAACP has called for 9 teachers to be fired. The teachers claim they were just trying to incorporate social studies with the math lessons. So...is this the conservative concept of education? It certainly isn't what we'd call a liberal education. I guess my question would be, how can anybody with a conscience associate with an ideology that promotes that kind of thinking to the point of indoctrinating 3rd graders? I would seriously look at what is there in my philosophy or ideology that attracts people like this, because there is NO similarity or bond I would have with people that think this way. These people find common ground with conservatism. So where do your ideas come together with somebody like this??

My own parents taught me the Golden Rule when I was very young, and I found that to be an excellent guide in my life. Every religion on earth has a version of it. On many other things I found that I disagreed with their ideas, and that they had their own prejudices to overcome, or beliefs that they held that I rejected as being illogical or irrational. I didn't find those prejudices sound and so I rejected them. I am my own person and have my own mind, and I'm fully capable of thinking for myself without subjecting myself to authoritarianism on any level. Whether it's parental, or within the school systems or within any church its still authoritarian. When does a person make a conscious decision to begin to think for himself? When you really get down to it, who can tell you anything authoritatively when it comes to God that you can't find on your own?


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"I know that answer will drive you completely bonkers....but, that is enough for me to live with."

Nahhh. Not really. I'm interested in how and why people think the way they do. Often times I find that they really aren't sure or don't know or attribute it to what somebody told them was right or true. They accept that and it becomes their theory of rationality.

Theories of rationality are like the Matrix. We accept what we are told without question and organize our lives around the canons’ and dogma that indoctrinates us into the prescribed idea of reality. Prescribed by who? Good question. Who is it that tells us what is real? We think that we decide on these things, but we don’t. We are indoctrinated into prescribed ways of thinking to such an extent that we never question the ideology that we log on to. If something corresponds to what we were told, we accept it. If it doesn’t’ we reject it. This comes from our parents, our clergy, our schools. We’re a blank page coming into the world and we are told what to make of all that we see and how to interpret all we experience. We ask questions, but are never given answers as to why things are done the way they are done. We are fed theories of rationality and we accept them without question. To question is to make waves and invite scorn,

and a young person wants to avoid that at all costs. We lack the courage to challenge authority. So, we take it on “authority” that what we are told is true, without ever questioning what is the basis for the authority?

"I do not have that extra gene running through my brain that demands a scientific explanation of everything that I conceive to be true. But I stand behind this hub, and every word I wrote in it as "my beliefs" of what conservatism IS, and how it would benefit this Nation."

I'm sure you do, but don't you question any of it? I've pointed out some serious flaws in it and I have to wonder why if you see the conflicts and contradictions do you continue to adopt something that is not only flawed, but has no basis to it? What is the appeal? Understand that I'm not suggesting that all liberals are right about everything. They can be wrong about many things as well and often are. I think that the difference here is that when they are, they change and look for something that works rather than clinging to an idea that doesn't. Somebody asked what truth was once. I told them that truth was what was left when you eliminate those things that are false. We can't own it, but we do get glimpses of it when we can sift out the BS. I think this is most important in our politics so that we are dealing with things that correspond to reality rather than our emotional or gut responses to what we want to be true.

I find that Conservative people are generally very willing believers whether it's religion, or their conservative ideology. They invest themselves into the authority of an ideology and it's canon. Either ecclesiastical canon or conservative canon. Either way, the investment comes from the same place.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"I am not speaking on behalf of anyone else....it is merely my conception of an "attitude" that needs to be applied to our governments way of doing business."

Just what we need. More "attitude" in this country. I would disagree. I think we need just the opposite.Less attitude. I think that people who adopt attitudes become obstructionists in congress. Attitudes are non-compromising and compromise is necessary in politics. Those who think there is some kind of virtue to being non-compromising are people that think their ideology is always right. I would say, leave the attitude at the door whatever that attitude might be. By doing that you enter with an open mind and the best argument is the one that corresponds to facts that correspond to reality. I'm not so selfish to think that only my idea is the right idea. I think a person with an attitude of some kind would have a hard time saying that.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

You call it obstructionism, when one party refuses to go along with another party's BAD ideas?

Healthcare was a joke, even Pelosi was not aware of what all was in it. The vast majority of Americans was against it, but yet the repubs are obstructionist because the refused to bow down to it?

I think we need MORE attitude and less apathy.


geordmc 4 years ago from Beliot, Wisconsin

@adagio4639

With all that's been written by you here why don't you write a few Hubs on this subject yourself? Even though I am an Independant, I too, think that conservatism is much better for this country than the liberal viewpoint that more govt control over MY life is best for me. If you think that "common sense" is rarely common or makes much sense" as you put it them look to your own upbringing. "I follow the golden rule" is a good BASE on which to start, however, it cannot be the only creed you live by. As with all beliefs, there are good and bad. This is a fact of life. I have found that liberal beliefs to actually constrain people from achieving what they want by way of having govt in all facets of their lives. I, personally could do with less govt intrusion and more of my freedom that is supposedly garaunteed to me through the Constitution. Not have the views of a few shoved my throat.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"You call it obstructionism, when one party refuses to go along with another party's BAD ideas?"

But who says they're bad Chris? Why are they "bad"? This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's not enough to simply call an idea "bad". You need to demonstrate WHY it's bad. And if you simply say that the idea will lead to this or that, you haven't demonstrated anything. You're simply applying inductive reasoning and attempting to predict an outcome that you can't prove will actually take place. Is it "bad" because it's not consistent with your ideology? Maybe it's the ideology that's bad and needs to examine itself before dismissing an idea that is beneficial to the country. When you declare an idea as bad, before trying it, you're exhibiting a closed mind and simply assuming that your ideas are the only ideas worth using. As I said above, " I'm not so selfish to think that only my idea is the right idea. I think a person with an attitude of some kind would have a hard time saying that." You're proving my point here.

"Healthcare was a joke, even Pelosi was not aware of what all was in it. The vast majority of Americans was against it, but yet the repubs are obstructionist because the refused to bow down to it?"

No it isn't. Today people can't be refused for pre-existing conditions. They can't lose their healthcare insurance when they get sick and need it the most. And their children are covered up to the age of 26 if they are living at home. My daughter works in the Healthcare field in billing, and elderly people are very surprised when they go for a yearly examination that they have no charge. These are the same people that thought this was a bad idea. She tells them to thank President Obama for the pleasant surprise. This may seem small to you, but it isn't for those that need it.

The Affordable Healthcare Act was the target of the Insurance lobby and millions were spent to try to defeat it. My only complaint is that it isn't a single payer system.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"With all that's been written by you here why don't you write a few Hubs on this subject yourself"

What makes you think I haven't?

"Even though I am an Independent, I too, think that conservatism is much better for this country than the liberal viewpoint that more govt control over MY life is best for me."

So you prefer corporate control. I see. I prefer knowing that there is a "watchdog" to oversee the practice of corporations and Wall Street, which have done enormous damage to this country. Regardless of what Mitt Romney may say, Corporations are NOT people. They can't have children. They can't enlist in the Army. They can't play shortstop for the Cubs. They can live forever. They can however kill people, so I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one.

People, especially those on the right, feel that it's governments job to keep us safe but they assume the only predators come from outside the country. Corporations have only one function...to provide profits for their investors. That's it. The product is irrelevant. So there is a vested interest in every decision. People are always an afterthought. All that matters in every decision is the interest of the investors. The profit margin. When the profit margin is the overriding factor in every decision, the safety and health of the public always is a secondary consideration. The government, regardless of what you may think, is a non-profit. It has no profit motive. It must always respond to the needs of the people. When I lived in Alabama, my Representative got $3 million in campaign contributions from the Insurance Industry, the Real Estate Industry, and Big Pharma. So...who is he going to respond to? The people in his district or those that bankroll him?

"If you think that "common sense" is rarely common or makes much sense" as you put it them look to your own upbringing."

I had an excellent upbringing. I was taught to think for myself. To be independent. What you think is common sense is actually a theory of rationality that you've been told to accept. Hence..."common sense". Everyone thinks this way, even though it's possible that "everyone" could be wrong. Do you honestly believe that "common sense" is infallibly true? If so, why? What is it based on? Itself?? Common sense is the Gut. Not the mind. In that sense, the Gut is a moron. It ignores the brain. This is evident in anyone who's ever tossed a golf club, punched a wall, or kicked a lawn mower. It's a repository for dark fears. It knows what it knows because it knows how it "feels". If something "feels" right it must be treated with he same respect given something that actually IS right. So if something is felt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument - or more to the point, if there are people willing to take up two sides to every argument - they must both be right, or at least, equally valid. Great! Now the very people that tell me that can't stand relativists...are demonstrating their very own relativism. I thought Truth was important to you? If it is, how can you accept relativism? You can't have it both ways here. There is that little thing called the Principle of Non-Contradiction that Aristotle came up with that is the foundation of logic.

""I follow the golden rule" is a good BASE on which to start, however, it cannot be the only creed you live by."

Really? Why not? What more do I need to add? Seems to me that pretty much covers everything. Tell me what other "creed" is needed and why.

"As with all beliefs, there are good and bad. This is a fact of life."

You're making an absolute statement here, and claiming that it's a "Fact of Life". Can you demonstrate that claim as factually true? Good and Bad are subjective. You're going to need to demonstrate objectively how a subjective claim can be true. Good luck with that.

I don't hold beliefs so I don't have that as a problem. I think I can see things a lot more clearly by not holding some belief that I can't justify. The only thing that matters is what corresponds to reality. That's where you'll find truth and unfortunately your beliefs may need to be adjusted in light of the truth. Or are you a person that would cling to a belief in spite of the truth? Which is more important to you? Your beliefs or the Truth. They aren't necessarily the same thing. You can't demonstrate your beliefs as Truth. I think you need to examine what your beliefs are based on before you can determine whether the "belief" is good or bad. How do you know that your belief is good? What's it based on?

"I have found that liberal beliefs to actually constrain people from achieving what they want by way of having govt in all facets of their lives."

Does that include not having the government tell women what they can do with their own bodies? Or what a family decides when a family member is in a vegitative state on life support? Or whether you can get contraceptives? Or...what goes on in your own bedroom?? That's Big Govt. Conservatism at work and it amounts to complete intrusion into your personal life.

So you provide the "boiler plate" talking point that is used by conservatism but it's simply not true. I'm probably one of the most liberal persons you'll run into and the government has NEVER blocked me or stood in the way of doing anything that I wanted to do. I've been self-employed for the last 35 years. I've pursued and succeeded in doing exactly everything I set out to do in my life without any interference from Government. So...meet the exception to your rule? The problem with your assumption now is that it's simply not true in any absolute sense. With absolutes there can be no exceptions.

"I, personally could do with less govt intrusion and more of my freedom that is supposedly garaunteed to me through the Constitution. Not have the views of a few shoved my throat."

Why don't we just do away with stop signs and traffic lights while were at it? I expect my govt. to solve problems. I'm afraid that Laissez faire is not something that I have any trust in. I would like to have my 4th Amendment rights back. Bush took them from me, and Obama hasn't really restored them to my liking. I've found that most conservatives groan about the constitution, but very few of them actually understand it. Whenever the SC rules against them they cry foul and claim they're making law from the bench. So in other words, when they agree with you they're constitutional, and when they don't they're legislating from the bench. What makes you think your views on the constitution are right? Most conservatives can't figure out the first amendment and that's pretty simple.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Very poignant and well said adagio4639, my sentiments exactly, thanks Cred2


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

credence, though I don't agree with adagio, he is the epitome of poignant and well said...lol


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Thanks for the nice words guys. I would just like to see truth emerge as something that matters in our lives and not just a word that's tossed around with preconceived notions standing in the way of it. It's hard to put our own beliefs on trial when we act as the jury. It's a test of just how honest we can be with ourselves. If we can't do that, how can we hope to be honest with others?


CarltheCritic1291 profile image

CarltheCritic1291 4 years ago

Speaking as a non-conservative (But don't worry, I am not liberal either), this is a brilliantly written hub. Keep up the great work. Voted Up, Awesome, Beautiful, and Interesting.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks Carl,

I appreciate your comments....and no worries, everyone is welcome to their opinion here.

Chris


Pamela Kinnaird W profile image

Pamela Kinnaird W 4 years ago from Maui and Arizona

I concur. Not much more to say. You've said it all and said it well.

Voting up, useful and interesting.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Pamela, thank you! Your visit is appreciated.

Chris


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

Wonderfully written.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thank you very kindly Ken. I will pay a visit to your hubs very soon,

Chris


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 4 years ago from Florida

You are very welcome, you have some great articles, and even your comments to others shows that you take the time to analyze the particular situation/topic and respond to it intelligently. Your participation on this site makes it worth coming to.


Chuck RitenouR profile image

Chuck RitenouR 3 years ago from Front Royal, Virginia

I enjoyed this very much.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey

A short concise conservative Manifesto. Always good to read fellow Conservatives express Constitutional truths.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 3 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks Chuck!

Thanks Mitch! I will be over soon to checkout a fellow conservatives thoughts....

Chris


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 3 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Very interesting hub page by Adagio. And Chris I'm glad you were able to get a few words in edgewise.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 3 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks tsadjatko! I think I kind of rubbed Adagio the wrong way with my choice of hub.... lol! Hey, I STILL appreciate ALL views....

Good to see you!

Chris


wilderness profile image

wilderness 2 years ago from Boise, Idaho

I can agree with everything you've said here...AFTER the section on religion. You make it very clear that although you pay lip service to separation of church and state we must still all be Christian, following Christian values and rules.

The issue of conservatism and religion is the only reason I cannot call myself a conservative. When a political group says their religion is right and all must follow it's tenets and in the next breathe pays homage to the constitution it just doesn't make sense.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 2 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hi wilderness, I appreciate your comments.

I only believe that we became the Nation we are (or were) because of the Christian values that was deemed important by our forefathers. I think the Bible was the moral compass used to put forth our founding documents. It built the character of each signer to mold the words needed to carry out that decree.

Just as important, I agree that one's religion or lack of has to be respected. I never said that ONE has to be Christian or follow Christian rules.....at least that is not my intent. On the same breath, I think if one chooses to use Christian values to apply to law making as a reference point, then they have that right according to our Constitution. We have an election process to carry out our chosen leaders.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 2 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hi wilderness, I appreciate your comments.

I only believe that we became the Nation we are (or were) because of the Christian values that was deemed important by our forefathers. I think the Bible was the moral compass used to put forth our founding documents. It built the character of each signer to mold the words needed to carry out that decree.

Just as important, I agree that one's religion or lack of has to be respected. I never said that ONE has to be Christian or follow Christian rules.....at least that is not my intent. On the same breath, I think if one chooses to use Christian values to apply to law making as a reference point, then they have that right according to our Constitution. We have an election process to carry out our chosen leaders.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working