Is Western Conservatism Founded on Religion Rather Than Reason?
In researching my new book "Conservatism in America: Theory and Reality" I ran across this comment by Russell Kirk about the father of conservatism - Edmund Burke. It says:
"Revelation, reason, and assurance beyond the senses tell that the Author of our being exists, and that He is omniscient; and man and the state are creations of God beneficence. This Christian orthodoxy is the kernel of Burke's philosophy. God's purpose among men is revealed through the unrolling of history. How are we to know God's mind and will? Through the prejudices and traditions which millennia of human experience with divine means and judgments have implanted in the mind of the species. And what is our purpose in this world? Not to indulge our appetites, but to render obedience to divine ordinance."
Do you agree that is what Western conservatism is based on?
Do conservative Jews and conservative Muslims believe similarly?You present a false choice. It is not either or. It is both. Western Civilization is founded on Christianity AND Reason. The Bible teaches that true faith is built on reason and evidence. The Bible, in both Testaments, shows us that it is essential to test any truth claim. The scientific method, in fact, has its origins in Scripture.
Belief in God and Jesus is rational, not blind faith. It is based entirely on evidence. The opposite of reason is not faith but ignorance. The opposite of faith is not reason but unbelief. Spiritual growth involves increasing our understanding of God and Jesus, and of the Cosmos in which we find ourselves.
Science and faith are not opposed. Science cannot exist without faith, without trust in the comprehensibility of the Universe; trust in the laws of reason, logic, and mathematics. Faith simply means 'confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing.'Actually, this country the USA was founded by Christians who practically wiped out the Native Americans who lived here, then they sailed to Africa to capture, shackle and bring back slaves to the USA to be used by the CHRISTIANS to do their work and render intimate favors:
Then, those very same CHRISTIANS, viciously attacked Irish Immigrants as they tried to come ashore to America, then they viciously attacked German Immigrants, Then they viciously attacked Italian Immigrants, then they viciously attacked Japanese Immigrants, then they viciously attacked Polish Immigrants, then they viciously attacked Chinese Immigrants, all of whom survived those vicious attacks to remain in this country to make significant contributions to our society and now, those very same CHRISTIANS led by weirdos like phony Jerry Falwell Junior and Bozo trump are viciously attacking Mexican Immigrants but if history is any indication, the Mexicans too will survive these attacks and prevail just like all the immigrants of the past did:You just described the history of the Democrat party.
Conservatives are and always have been dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.No, O, Jake just described conservative Christianity to a 'T'.
Indian removal act: Andrew Jackson, Democrat
Slavery; Democrats
Segregation: Democrats
Eugenics (the Negro project): Mragaret Sanger, Democrat
Japanese internment: Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
Andrew Jackson - Conservative
Slavery - Conservative
Segregation - Conservative
Eugenics - Conservative
Japanese Internment - Conservative inspired.
All those just happened to be Democrats during their CONSERVATIVE phase.- No, It was and is a conservative principle that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Liberals are dedicated to the pursuit of abortion on demand, equality through socialism, segregation on college campuses, and the expansion of government.
Also Liberals worship Roosevelt for his "new deal" programs that expanded the power of government, and drew out the depression into a decade long disaster which got us the wonderful ponzi scheme we know as social security.
So, wrong again.Actually, no it isn't. John Locke (and Thomas Jefferson) were liberals. Conservatives believe those things derive from the Christian God, which isn't true and the state above the individual. In reality, those rights (of which Happiness is melding of other natural rights), derive from simply being a human being regardless of how we were created
The rest of your statement is just plain stupid, as well as being wrong."endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "
"Conservatives believe those things derive from the Christian God"
Didn't you both just say the same thing? How can it be wrong?
(And no, they don't derive from "simply being a human being" OR from a god - they derive from a society willing to guarantee them. Even though the guarantee isn't worth a plugged nickel.)No, were are not. O, and I suspect you, see rights as being "given" by the Christian God. They are not, since that does not exist as the Christian's define him.
Human rights are natural rights which we are born with. Gov'ts can deny them, of course, and so many gov'ts do (including Trump) but that doesn't mean they don't exist.As there IS no god, none guarantees the rights. But that does not mean that people don't THINK it happened that way.
If we are born with "natural rights", does nature guarantee them? Does it guarantee the right to life to a person in the jaws of a croc? And if we were born with natural rights, why does the number of those rights keep increasing all the time, coincidentally as we become more able to supply things that we could not in past years?If you follow the reasoning of Locke, you do. Just because you have a "right" to life, doesn't mean somebody or something (a croc) can't take it away from you.
The point of gov't is to "protect" your right to life, not "guarantee" you will live forever. I am not sure where this idea of "guarantee" comes from in any case ... nothing is guaranteed in the since you mean it.If it is a "right", it cannot be taken away. That is self evident, by definition.
And that means a guarantor - some entity that will guarantee that right (given that eternal life doesn't happen). Even assuming that no guarantee can be perfect (a mugger can always kill you), still, society does what it can to guarantee your right to life. Nature does not - nature goes the opposite direction and will take it from you at every opportunity as it cares not one iota whether you live or die.
So the difference between "protect" and "guarantee" is nothing but semantics and means nothing as long as we all recognize that there is no absolute guarantee in this world and cannot be. All there can be is an effort to guarantee OR protect.Please stop playing word games, Wilderness, it is unbecoming of anybody with a brain.
So it is. Now, if you can but show that we are born with certain unalienable rights, and just who granted them? (Make sure that they are rights that have been assigned through the history of mankind, please!)
Eso, it has become popular in the last few decades to proclaim that this is a "human right" or that is, but somehow no one seems to ever understand that to be a "right" it has to be enforced by someone. Some claim it is a god, some claim that humanity as a whole grants them and some, like you, seem to take the stance that it just is, without any enforcement at all.
You have the right to die one day, and that's about it. Nothing else is provided by individuals, by nature or even by society (although it does make an effort). Your statement that "Human rights are natural rights which we are born with." doesn't even make sense then, for (again) unless someone or something is guaranteeing (won't go into the semantics of "guarantee" vs "try") that right it is no right at all.As I said, read John Locke and the thinkers he relied on to formulate logic between tabula rasa and his conclusion humans, by simply being humans, have natural rights (which Jefferson terms inalienable rights) to Life, health, Liberty, and Property. It makes sense to me, but maybe not you.
By what logic do you arrive at the conclusion that for a "right" to even exist, it is a necessary condition that it be enforceable? Why, for me have a natural right to live must there be some entity to enforce that right?
I wasn't talking about Christianity, or God. I'm talking about your skewed view of history. John Lock and TJ were liberals?!
Those guys based this country's economics on the writings of Adam Smith, liberals are more about Karl Marx. They believed in as small a federal government as possible. Life, liberty, and property. -John Locke
Also I will add that classical liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with modern day liberalism. It is quite the opposite.
I'm starting to think you are writing satire.That shows everybody how much you don't know, O. No, "those guys" did not base their America's economics on Adam Smith. First, Locke didn't write much about economics, he wrote about politics, and he was British. Second, while Jefferson did believe in Smith's ideas of free trade, that is not where he got his political ideas.
While Marx was certainly liberal, so were the authors of our Constitution.
You "add" wrong, O. Please study up on it before going to combat with me on it. Both minimal-state (your Classical) and active-state (modern) liberals come from the same root, they believe the state serves the individual. Conservatives, such as Burke and Kirk, believe the individual serves the state. Further, the only real difference between minimal and active-state liberals is the degree of role the gov't should play in ensuring citizens' rights are protected.
The key word in your "as small a federal government as possible", is "possible". "Possible" meaning "consistent with the role of government." It should be no larger than necessary to carry out, in our case, the goals of our Constitution as laid out in its Preamble of Justice, Tranquility, defense, general Welfare, and Liberty.
Because we are a republican form of government, we elect representatives to carry out our will. Whether you like it or not, that "will of the people" end up as the laws and regulations that govern America.
Like it or not, as well, is the Constitution was created to serve the people of the United States, not the states of the United States - the states are secondary. Hell, if James Madison, that old liberal, had his way, ALL state laws would have been subject to federal veto. Obviously he didn't get his way, but he did have a lot of support for that idea.The founders didn't hold to a shred of the kind of liberalism that is alive today. The definition of "liberal" in the classical sense is "of or pertaining to freedom" Todays liberals define it more along the lines of "pertaining to freedom with other people's money". Were they alive today they would hold more closely to the ideology of conservative libertarianism. They didn't believe in killing babies in the womb, they believed in establishing sovereign borders, in a free and open market, gun ownership, free speech, property rights, they didn't fight anybody else's wars, they believed in God, and they created a constitution that limits the power of government rather than the power of the people.
All principles that are diametrically opposed to the tenants of modern liberalism, and the Democratic party, past and present. Liberals own a past of slavery, segregation, eugenics, and denial of womens suffrage. The United States Revolution was a demonstration of true conservatism. If you want to see what liberalism was in those days, look to the unhinged insanity of the French Revolution. That's more of a reflection of modern day liberals.Conservatives own slavery lock, stock, and barrel O. No matter how many times you repeat the lie that they don't doesn't change history. Not one liberal, past or present, believed that slavery was a good thing. ONLY Conservatives did.
Because you refuse to do the research, you keep believing Brietbart's view of the world.
Repeat after me, liberals believe in the individual over the state. Socialists and Conservatives believe in the state over the individual.
And that is just plain fact.
Libertarians are liberals (of the minimal-state mode). They only vote with Conservatives because they can't get elected in their own party and they believe in no government, while Democrats, like our founders, believed in a strong, central government. (what is left to interpretation is the word "strong", but you nevertheless see that word or its synonym sprinkled throughout the Constitutional Convention.)
What set modern liberals apart from so-called Classical liberals is their belief that the gov't has a role to play in protecting its citizens from harm by others.
The conservative and libertarian MO is to say, "let them be harmed, who cares".History from the modern liberal point of view has nothing to do with actual history. And you continue to prove it.
"Liberals believe in the individual over the state" You are the first liberal I've ever met who believes this. But if you can make the change then more power to you.
The overwhelming majority of liberals, Democrats, and Republicans believe that the answer to all of life's problems is expansion of government.
Liberals have always answered to the call of the race baiting mob mentality from the inception of segregationist jim crow laws in the south, to present day segregation attempts in colleges, the Democrat KKK suppressed free speech and used terror tactics to bully their opponents, just as liberal organisations like Antifa and BLM do today. It's always been the same strategy.History is history, regardless of point of view. Now, like most on the extremes, they (and Trump) rewrite history to their heart's content.
Again, you get on this ridiculous mind set that Democrats were ALWAYS liberals and Republicans were ALWAYS Conservatives. That is revisionist and historically incorrect O - you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
It wasn't until the 1940s did the liberal wing of the Democratic Party start to gain power over the conservative wing. It wasn't until 1994, that most of the deep Southern conservatives left the Democratic Party to join their kindred spirits in the Republican Party.
Federalists were mostly liberal with a high-tariff and business orientation
The Jefferson Democratic Republican Party were conservative land and slave holders who believed in low-tariffs and small gov't.
The Jacksonian Democratic Party (which replaced Jefferson) was completely conservative in orientation (especially when John Q. Adams left). The liberal wing was very small and ineffective while the conservatives dominated for several decades.
The Whig Party took up where the Federalists left off and were the party of business, big, active gov't pushing for high tariffs.
The Republican Party absorbed the abolitionist Whigs and the Liberal Democrats and retained the Whig's liberal orientation under Lincoln.
Teddy Roosevelt and Taft were the last of the liberal, progressive Republicans and were ultimately resurrected by FDR.
At the same time as the liberal wing of the Republican Party weakened, conservative Republicans replaced them, Harding, Coolege, Hoover, Eisenhower (not so conservative), Nixon, Reagan, Bush I (not so conservative), and Bush 2. Nobody knows what Trump is, but acts like a conservative on social issues and liberal on trade.
Once you finally understand, if you ever will, this dynamic, you will stop making misleading statements like Democrat KKK and pretending they are liberal. They weren't, they are conservative to the core.
Antifa - I suppose you are going to tell me the murdering Nazis and white supremacists they were protesting against were just nice guys out for a stroll.
And you will tell me that BLM ought to stop protesting the murder of blacks by white cops who go unpunished for it.Wow, that's a whole lot of revisionism there. It's a known fact that the KKK was the strong arm of the Democrat party, a party that has always taken liberties with precepts like "all men are created equal". Funny how this big switch that you liberals are always talking about caused the KKK to shrink into obscurity in the South, and the rise of violent mob action began to rise in the North. Liberalism is always where the action is at. Whereas conservatism is preoccupied with equal protection under the law, Liberals are pining for special rights for special interest groups. It's always about supremacy and subservience of races.
Not a revisionist thing in there - it all in the history books that you are welcome to research.
Your problem is trying to fit round pegs into square holes. You need to be specific in your proclamations for them to be true. For example:
Your statement "It's a known fact that the KKK was the strong arm of the Democrat party" is only partially true. What is totally true is that "It's a known fact that the KKK was the strong arm of the CONSERVATIVE WING of the Democratic party". The KKK (white nationalist/supremacists) clearly didn't represent the LIBERAL wing of the Democratic Party, such as it was.
"Liberalism is always where the action is at. " REALLY?
Such as:
* Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church
* 16th Street Baptist Church bombing
* The very recent black church fires in Louisiana
* Overland Park Jewish Center
* Sikh Temple of Wisconsin
* Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church
Massacres by conservative white supremacists all.Liberals always trying to attach white supremacy to conservatism. Sorry but you liberals missed out on the civil rights movement.
"I'll have them n***rs voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." LBJIt's never been true, Sorry, but no. Republicans never held a majority of congressional seats in the South until 1994. The myth of the so called "southern Strategy" perpetuates the lie that southerners base their voting on skin color when in fact that is a characteristic of liberalism (always has been). Which is why Sen Tim Scott of the Republican party won over a liberal Democrat in South Carolina. Their votes are based on values.
BTW, Liberal hero FDR Executive order 9066.Again, check your facts. Until you get the facts right no one should believe you.
The National Republicans, Whigs, or Republicans (all version of the same liberal philosophy back then) from the South controlled the House in (1870 - 1874) MS; (1868 - 1875) AL; (1839-1843, 1868-1871) GA. I assume the rest of the South followed suit.
The South was primarily conservative throughout its whole history with the exception of reconstruction when the liberals took over for a short while.
Conservatives like John Calhoun defended it on the floor of Congress.
Slavery is an entirely conservative thing while freeing slaves was what liberals did.Again what you are defining as a liberal has nothing to do with the lunacy of the liberals of today, even JFK would be too conservative in todays world to garner a single vote. Conservatism has always been about individual liberty, and the upholding of the constitution, since the time of Lincoln to the present it has been about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Conservatives have always believed that all men are created equal. Liberals have never believed that. They still don't believe it. They want special rights for special interest groups.
FDR liberal or conservative?I am defining liberal as it properly should be - the way academics define it. -
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equal rights.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] - you can check out the citations if you go to https://hubpages.com/education/forum/34 … ost4071591
Conservatives, on the other hand, is defined as "American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values,[1] moral universalism,[2] business[3], anti-communism,[4][5] individualism,[4] advocacy of American exceptionalism,[6] and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.[7] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservat … ted_States
Those are standard definitions you will find in any text or authoritative discussion on the subjects. Personal definitions have no place in intelligent dialog."I am defining liberal as it properly should be - the way academics define it."
The way "academics" defines it, rather than the way it actually is, as espoused and demonstrated by self proclaimed liberals throughout the country.
I doubt there is a liberal in the country espousing limited government, except that the limit is 100% control.
There isn't one promoting free markets, particularly in the buying and selling of labor.
They can hardly agree with freedom of speech when the bastions of that concept - universities such as Berkely - are consistently shutting it down and disallowing conservative speakers.
These are high sounding goals, and perhaps what liberalism should be about, but the reality falls far short.Well then, Wilderness, you would be, in general, wrong. I will grant you that you can find an anecdote here or there to support your contention, but, they are only rare anecdotes.
But then for your side, that is all you need - just one example that doesn't fit the main.All of the examples you provided don't fit the main. You haven't described liberals from any era that fit your definition.
O, it is impossible to argue with something that doesn't exist such as your personal, unique definition of liberal. So I won't try. You can enjoy your fantasy by yourself.
Depends on the subject. Death penalty, he was probably in line with the conservatives. Social Security, he was in line with liberal thinking.
Wow, that is so fluid of him, to be able to swing his own pendulum at any time. Makes it real easy for you to say the bad things he did were conservative, and the good things he did were liberal. What a crock...
So, it is your position that humans are so rigid and inflexible such that if they hold just one identiable conservative position, every position they hold on ANY subject MUST be conservative???
How ridiculous and shallow (let alone, wrong).No, it's the fact that liberalism is steeped in a history of racism that you completely ignore by shifting the blame to conservatism that's mind blowing. Liberals today ask for special rights for special interest groups. They do today, and they have in the past. Conservatives on the other hand have consistently fought for equality.
O, I don't ignore it because what you say is simply False! It is not True!
Conservatives have NEVER been about equality (read Burke, read Kirk, read Buckley Jr., read the 10 Principles of Conservatism) . They are ONLY about keeping the status quo and the relationship between superior and subordinates (man and wife, employer and employee, and back in the day master and slave) stable and unchanging.Another facet of liberalism, you get to make it whatever you want it to be because it's principled in moral relativism. it's baseless, meaningless, progressive like cancer. Whereas conservatism is consistent with specific values rooted in constitutionalism, liberty, and yes Judaeo-Christian values. A true conservative is preoccupied with people being given the ability to solve their own problems without a bureaucratic, wasteful, big brother government getting in the way.
Then you clearly have no idea what liberalism and conservatism is all about, do you, O?
Let me try again.
Liberalism is about the individual - Liberalism is a political and economic doctrine that emphasizes individual autonomy, equality of opportunity, and the protection of individual rights (primarily to life, liberty, and property), originally against the state and later against both the state and private economic actors, including businesses. Everything today's (as opposed to yesterday's) Democrats propose as policy try to further individual autonomy, equality, and protection of their rights (like against slavery).
Conservatism is about the tradition and the status quo: Conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatives want to take away your right to choose, to vote, of religion (unless it is Christian), to be yourself as God made you, etc.
You can make up your own definitions if you want, O, nobody wants to stop you (except maybe a conservative because they don't like change). But when you, just know, nobody will pay attention to that is outside your bubble.Interesting how you accuse me of making up definitions, and then present your own definition that nobody not even liberals would agree with. But then again, that's what liberals do.
Since liberals don't even believe in an objective reality, (and it's been stated many times over by liberals) that reality is formed of narrative and if you change the narrative, you change the reality. Therefore if they can simply force you to tell a different story than the facts you see in front of you somehow everything's going to change.
They project onto the outer world their opinions what really is coming from the inner moral world which is not in fact a narrative but a kind of subjective reality. And so you get to make saints out of Liberals throughout history, and blame all of their sins on whatever you decide to define as conservatism.Those aren't my definitions 'O', they, as you should know, from the Encyclopedia of Britannica.
How about Merriam-Webster:
Liberalism - a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Conservatism - tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions and a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
How about Wikipedia:
Liberalism - is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equal rights.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government [as in only big enough to accomplish the will of the people], individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.
Conservatism -is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.
Three out of three athoritative sources say the same thing and none of which agree with your fabricated definition.
Don't you feel foolish now?And none of them agree with yours, or the political beliefs of todays liberals.
Of course they agree with my views since I use commonly accepted definitions. Today's liberals also believe in the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't be liberals, would they? (Remember, liberals have a higher education level than conservatives as a group)
No they don't. And I would urge you not to take an argument from the stance of authority. Simply because someone doesn't have a phd doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. That's a dumb argument. People don't need a seven year degree in sociology or political sciences to know BS when they hear it. And it tends to flow regularly out of the mouths of liberals.
There is nothing to concede to. You are simply wrong and any thinking person knows it even if you do not.
James, I would argue that Faith does not equal Reason. Christianity, as written, is unreasonable because it requires one to believe, without questioning it, things that can't be reasoned through. You are Required to believe men who say they speak for God.
Further, there is zero, zilch so-called "evidence" that God, in any form, exists. What Christians point to are words from man, not God.
Now, I happen to believe in a form of God but it is certainly not that fabricated by the monotheistic religions. Mine is just the name for whatever it was that got this universe (and maybe the ones before this one) started. Reason tells me it must be something because everything must have a beginning some where at some time.
I firmly believe in a "higher power", but in this sense - the "higher power" is the some total of every material thing and every immaterial thought that flows throughout the universe. Simply put, God and the Universe are one in the same.
And that is not what conservatives are told to believe is true.
I don't think that is the right question to ask My esoteric. With polite intentions, I must say I think your question is derived from your own perceptions, not Kirk's or Burkes.
I wonder... at the time of Burke, were there religious, (Christian, or any monotheistic faith), Liberals? Were there even defined liberal or conservative belief schools at that time?
We have discussed Kirk before, and I think you are still giving him more authority than he deserves, relative to the definition of Conservatism. Just as you frequently note that Democrat/Republican stands have changed over time, I also think Liberalism and Conservatism have changed. Kirk's is only one perspective - even though it is cited by many.
I think it would be fair to say your quote describes the life beliefs of most folks during the formative years of Western conservatism, and those beliefs would certainly affect the thoughts and actions of conservative leaders, but I think it is too much of a step to assign that to the foundation of conservatism. I think such beliefs would have been the foundation of Liberalism of the period also.
However, that is just a thought. I have not done any reading that would make me offer it as a rebuttal to your perception.
Has your book research provided any similar nuggets regarding Liberal -thinking of the same period?
GAI am going to have to disagree with you GA. In the main, what liberalism and conservatives stand for have withstood the test of time, as it were. Kirk died in 1994 and Conservative Mind was first published in 1953. He last updated not too long before he died.
There is no disagreement between scholars that Edmund Burke was the "father" of modern conservatism, even though he lived in the 1700s. Kirk codified what he and others after him agreed upon were first principles of conservatism. Other, more modern conservatives, look at Kirk as the guy who best argued the conservative cause; William F. Buckley Jr. being one.
What I find, at least so far, is that Kirk's view of "liberalism" is based on his upbringing in the Red Scare era, just as Burke's was colored by the bloody French Revolution (who Jefferson supported and Adams opposed, btw). This leads to a very jaundiced view of liberals. Kirk goes go far as to say something like "Burke's liberalism was based on his conservatism" (I marked that with a question mark to get back to)
But that said, the fundamental first principles of prejudice (not meant in the modern term), prescription, custom, convention, continuity, and prudence, just to name a few, are as true today as they were in 1800.
This won't be about Trump, really, because he is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He blows up about every conservative principle there is - just read "Everything Trump Touches Dies" by Republican operative, strategist, and anti-Trumper Rick Wilson (https://hubpages.com/politics/Everythin … ick-Wilson)
It is, however, about his supporters who claim to be conservatives. Do they hold by first principles, and if so, how can they stomach Trump?
What has changed about liberalism (think Locke) is whether the government should be part of the solution in protecting people's life, health, liberty, and property (again Locke). Locke thought so, maybe not to the degree we have it today, but he realized that the government must step in when necessary when others try to do deny people their rights and liberties.... what rights are you thinking of, e x a c t l y ??
Life, health, liberty, property for starters. How about tranquility, justice, general Welfare, etc. Maybe freedom from discrimination or how about protecting people from greedy corporations. You know, things we expect from our Constitution.
Are The People or the Constitution at fault?
PS Locke embraces principles of both Liberalism and Republicanism.What fault??
Yes he does; so does Burke and Kirk. I embrace Republican (the form of government) principles as well. But Republicanism isn't conservatism. Republicanism is simply representative democracy and nothing more.What is conservatism, according to your research?
That is an outcome of putting conservative principles into practice. Marxism isn't all that terrible either - until you try to apply it to the real world; then it goes all to hell.
I think you were right to disagree with my response, Scott. After more than several hours of looking around last evening, and a couple more this morning, I find my offered first thought was nothing more than a skeleton that needs some meat of muscle to form it and hold it together.
It was Burke's declaration that Conservatism must be based on a religious belief foundation that caused my contrarian perception. Also, after looking at more of Kirk's work, and, looking at the context of his comment after that Burke quote, I found that I am in more agreement with Kirk than I thought.
If your question was phrased as "was" instead of "is" I would say yes. Kirk even said so in his comment following the quote:
"This view of the nature of things may appear delusory to the utilitarian and the positivist; it will appear transcendently true to the religious man; but whether sound or erroneous, there is nothing incomprehensible about this confession of faith..."
"... For a thousand years hardly an educated man in Europe dissented from this belief."
I think that supports your question when phrased as "was."
However, with his seeming agreement here, he did not carry the specific religious mentions into his more contemporary descriptions of Conservatism.
If your question remains as "is," and you cite Kirk as the source, then I think you have to consider how he incorporated Burke's thought into his own First Principles. It appears he replaces the religiosity of the idea with less conditioned terms. Instead of "God" he says, (from his essay Ten Conservative Principles:
"First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
"Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably..."
My point in those quotes is that I think a religious person would read those as agreeing with Burke, but a non-religious person could derive the same stated meaning without needing a religious context. In short, I think Kirk recognized the modernization of religious beliefs--the admission that religious structure isn't the only structure--that can support his conservative principles.
So I am back to disagreeing with your question as asked, and rather than supporting it, I think the context of Kirk's reference to the Burke quote also shows disagreement.
Change "is" to "was" and I think Kirk and I both would agree with you.
As a note; I am not finished some of my marked essays, so consider this response still needing the finish of skin to be complete. I have only added some connective tissue at this point.
Also, I am not writing a book, yet you are making me read and research as if I were. Work, work, work. Work, work, work. (Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles)
GA
GA - Here is some new things to consider (the words in brackets are mine):
"So you say you are conservative" he declared to the slaveholders - Abraham Lincoln. He continues -
"Eminently conservative - while we [Lincoln] are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort [as described by Conservatives]. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and the untried? We [Lincoln] stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy [slavery] which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"; while you [Conservatives] with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. ... Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourself , and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundation. (1860)
Lincoln was, of course, speaking about the Confederacy as they were about to lead America into the Civil War.
There is a couple of points here:
1. It is clear Lincoln thought slave-owners and their supporters were Conservatives.
2. That conservatism is just as much about revolution as they claim liberals are.Ah historical illiteracy! Three cheers for the job the ethnic coterie of America haters who own the press have done to persons too dim to think for themselves.
Intelligent and mature persons all know the American Civil War had nothing to do with slavery at all.Exactly how dumb are you, Todd?
Here, maybe this will help - https://www.history.com/topics/american … ar-history
Religion and American politics are closely connected. Even today it is unthinkable to have an atheist president. Probably a lot of presidents were atheists but for the public eye they have to act as if they believe in God.
Although this is changing and it could well be that in the next election this hypocrisy is broken and a president will have the guts to say that he/she is an atheist.
Religion and politics should be separated as a government should be there for the whole population and not just for one religious group.Simply put, if Conservatives win, America becomes a theocracy since the supremacy of Christianity is core to their belief system while if Liberals win, America remains a secular nation which is what our founders wanted.
I just saw a poll where "no religion" (which doesn't mean atheist, BTW) is on equal footing with Catholics and those who claim to be Evangelical (but given their support of Trump, I would say they ought to fall into the "no religion" group since they do not hold Christian values). All around 23%.
It seems what has happened is that those you use to check the Protestant box are now checking the "no religion" box."America remains a secular nation which is what our founders wanted."
Come, come. Our founding fathers never wanted a secular nation; they wanted a nation where each state was free to worship God (the common Christian god, as there was no other except the Indian gods and they were ignorant heathens) as they chose. "Separation of church and state" was not about freedom from religion; it was about freedom to worship as one chose.
This is apparent as it was only the federal government that was forbidden to establish a religion; states were free to do so.Wilderness, I am sorry, but your knowledge of American history is sorely lacking. Have you not read the Constitution and what it says about religion? Have you not read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention when they discussed this topic? Have you not read Jefferson's discourse on religion and the Virginia Constitution?
There are so many sources that says your view is wrong about the Federal gov't.
Yes, until the 14th Amendment, they left religion to the states (although they effectively prohibited a theocracy which a few states were close to). They were, however, bothered by how much religion colored several of the state governments.
I was an atheist, just like you, but I was a teenager. Sad that you are an old man who never grew up, intellectually, at all. Later on I was somewhat a secular humanist, I believed in some sort of God. So glad I've got a high enough IQ to have sorted it all past that level. So sad there are persons like you who're children in ancient adult bodies.
I'm saying I used to be a complete moron. And just like you also, I used to hate the USA for it not being the place my childish mind thought it should be. I'm so glad I grew up, and though you are rather ancient, and also not very observant or much with the capacity for deep thought, there is still hope for you, as you are still alive. Isn't that something to be hopeful for? I think so. It's possible something could happen to you, and cause you to think for the very first time. *fingers crossed*Problem is Todd, I am not an atheist. I believe in God - not just your God.
Given your last sentence, I must seriously doubt your claim of having a high IQ. You sound like DumbTrump.
Like everything in the world, conservatism evolves and changes. For instance, it is almost the direct opposite of what it was in the past.
We currently have, IMO, a segment of conservatives (and conservatism) that comes directly from religion, specifically Christianity. And we have another segment that does NOT use religion as a building block for their brand of conservatism. As time passes I expect the concept to move further and further away from religion, with the religious zealots fading to "far right" designation along with supremacists and others radical groups.
Conservatism is thus, IMO in a state of flux just as much as liberalism is. It is moving away from it's Christian roots just as liberalism is moving towards socialism and massive wealth re-distribution.What do you consider the "past", Wilderness? Are you saying Russell Kirk no longer represents what conservatism is all about?
If Kirk represented conservatism of the 50's to a large degree then he certainly does not represent what is "conservative" today.
Take just the inclusion of their god into our money supply and pledge in the 50's; while there are certainly people today that support that and would do it again, the large majority of conservatives (IMO as a conservative) would not.
"Like everything in the world, conservatism evolves and changes. " - THAT is true, even Kirk says as much. But it is the speed of that change and what that change derives from that is in question. If Kirk was alive in the late 1700s and early 1800s I could see him arguing forcefully against the 13th Amendment. That sort of change to the social order was simply too radical for his taste.
An anti-intellectual post, just like every single one the poster has done which I've ever seen.
One of these days, Wesman, I hope you can make some sense. That certainly didn't. The best I can tell is you are calling the man behind modern conservatism an "anti-intellectual".
What are the first principles of conservatives?
THESE?????
"Revelation, reason, and assurance beyond the senses tell that God exists.
God is omniscient
Man and the state are creations of God's beneficence.
God's purpose among men is revealed through the unrolling of history.
How are we to know God's mind and will? Through the prejudices and traditions which millennia of human experience with divine means and judgments have implanted in the mind of the species.
And what is our purpose in this world? Not to indulge our appetites, but to render obedience to divine ordinance."So, you say that conservatives no longer follow these first principles.
That they do not believe in, trust or listen to omniscient God and are not obedient to Him and do not follow his will.
... and liberals do?No, I said die-hard supporters of Trump have abandoned conservative first principles by supporting the kind of man Trump is. Evangelicals gave up their Christianity in order to get in bed with Trump.
Conservatives like Jeff Flake, John McCain, Rick Wilson have not given up their conservative principles - Trump supporters have.I see. You truly believe that, "Evangelicals gave up their Christianity in order to get in bed with Trump."
Good to know.You don't agree? They accept Trump's thousand lies as OK. They accept Trump's philandering as OK. They accept that he was pro-abortion before he claimed he wasn't. They accept Trump denigrating every person under the sun.
That doesn't sound like the Christianity that I use to know.Jesus said to check your own soul and see how perfect you are before you start condemning others.
Trump was elected. All complaints about his " bad character" should be silenced so he can do his job. Yes, he has his faults. However, he is SAVING THE NATION.
You want the nation saved? Yes?
But you don't think Trump is doing so?
How would YOU save the nation?Adolph Hitler was similarly elected in a free election. So would you say "Trump was elected. All complaints about his " bad character" should be silenced so he can do his job." about him??
We are all guilty, yet you want to find fault with one political party.
Why do you wish to pinpoint, criticize and find fault with the party you are NOT affiliated with? Yet you want to research: "Conservatism in America: Theory and Reality"
In order to accomplish your purpose, you need to get rid of your prejudice.
The Way I See ItI just look at the facts. I will analyze conservative position since America was created and compare them whether they caused social good or social harm. People I will consider are the likes of Vice President John Calhoun, arguably one of the principle agitators for the Civil War.
I'll look at who opposed the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments and why. I'll look at who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I'll consider the success by the Supreme Court in rolling back the reconstruction and the attempts of a more modern Supreme Court to roll back the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.Kathryn is right - you are most definitely cherry picking for events you think have a high probability of showing conservatives in a bad light.
She is also right that to accomplish anything useful you must first dump your prejudice. Of course, if your goal is to convince yourself of the evils of conservatism, you are on the right track (although it sounds like you're already convinced).If I am "cherry-picking", I sure didn't leave much of the tree did I?
Also, as I have said before, I don't find "conservatism" evil, it is just a set of principles (a few of which I find off-putting, but not evil); just like liberalism is a set of principles. What I find evil is the application of those conservative principles to the real world.
BTW, "prejudice" means I have "pre-judged" something. I have not. I simply look at history and come to a conclusion.
It is the challenge of every person to align themselves with what they perceive is reality.
To the extent that they accomplish this connection equals the extent they will achieve Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights are given by God to EVERY man and woman. The Constitution protects these rights with laws. To the extent that we follow and enforce the laws equals the extent that the Constitution is at all useful.Whether those rights are given by the Christian God is debatable, but they are a function of being human.
The God of nature and nature's God. Creator of everything, including man.
God IS nature, not OF nature. They are not separate things.
The terms liberalism and conservatism have morphed over time.
Today:
Liberals want to help the down trodden through government policies and intervention.
Conservatives want to enable people to become successful to prevent them from becoming down trodden and dependent on the government.Actually they haven't, they mean the same thing 200 years ago as they do today.
And your understanding of what liberals and conservatives are all about is quite flawed.... and what did conservatism mean 200 years ago?
... what did liberalism mean 200 years ago,
E X A C T L Y ?Let me offer this as to what conservatism stands for. Do you agree with it?
https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten … rinciples/
You have claimed elsewhere that these no longer apply to conservative, how so
Religion and reason are inherently incompatible as faith is not reasonable.
Faith is believing in something that you cannot perceive directly or logically. If you could perceive it or reason it through, there is no need for faith.
In the Bible, the Psalms I believe, God says, Come let us reason together. In the New Testament, Paul says the wisdom of God is foolishness to man. Religion can be quite reasonable if you study the Bible and understand what it is trying to say.
You will have to explain "the wisdom of God is foolishness to man." to me. That doesn't sound right, Doneta.
It really comes down to human nature.
Humans require a good upbringing if they are to become strong and independent.
A bad upbringing will produce people who can't live in freedom.
Its a pity.
We need good moms and dads. We need good teachers. We need to understand human psychology and human nature.
it's all based on love and science
and we're just not there yet.down·trod·den
oppressed or treated badly by people in power.
"... a downtrodden proletarian struggling for social justice."
Synonyms:
oppressed, subjugated, persecuted, subdued, repressed, tyrannized, ground down, crushed, enslaved, burdened, weighed down, exploited, disadvantaged, underprivileged, victimized, bullied, browbeaten, under the heel, powerless, helpless, prostrate; abused, misused, maltreated, ill-treated.
Oh, so many victims created by TRUMP and the Godless CONSERVATIVES.
Right
So do you consider LGBTQ, one of Trump's favorite punching bags, downtrodden?
PLEASE prove they are his favorite punching bags!
Read the news or ask the patriotic Americans who Trump won't let serve in the military.
Conservatives are Evangelicals? Thats news to me.
Or maybe you mean that conservatives are giving up their reason.You said it, not me, but I do agree. There are no liberal Evangelicals - name one.
Are liberals not evangelicals?
Are liberals more reason-based than Conservatives?No and yes, even Kirk agrees with that last statement. He says so outright by bashing reason.
"Abstract reason or (alternatively) idyllic imagination may be employed not merely to study, but to direct, the course of social destiny" (by liberals)I don't think he is bashing reason here. He is bashing a type of reasoning - abstract reasoning. He even describes what he is bashing; "idyllic imagination." that isn't reasoning as is typically discussed.
GABut isn't all reasoning abstract? What is non-abstract reasoning? Is he also against "imagining a better future" which is what I take "ldyllic imagination" to be. Of course I assume he has some other idea in mind.
Also, you will find Kirk is quite flowery with his wording so you must tone it down a bit.Because I see the answer as so obvious, your question puzzles me. My first thought is; "Of course all reasoning isn't abstract." So I must be misunderstanding something.
As an example, I would say that if a program is reasoned to be beneficial for the citizens, then the reasoning is that the government should implement it. However, I think that would be "abstract reason or (alternatively) idyllic imagination " because it only addresses the concept, not the reality of whether the government can pay for it, or even the question of whether the government should implement it.
Non-abstract reasoning would consider that and the cost, (not just monetary), benefit ratio.
Kirk has been described as eloquent, but I don't think that detracts from his messages. You may see "idyllic imagination" as "flowery" but I see it as unmistakenly carrying his point. I think I understood exactly what he meant.
GAGA - let's start with the definition of "abstract"
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"
synonyms: theoretical, conceptual, notional, intellectual, metaphysical, philosophical, academic;
And then "abstract reasoning" - Abstract reasoning refers to the ability to analyze information, detect patterns and relationships, and solve problems on a complex, intangible level. Abstract reasoning skills include: Being able to formulate theories about the nature of objects and ideas.
Do you agree that Kirk objects to that?
Now, when I perform economic analysis for the Air Force (or use to anyway), I would formulate the question at hand, say "Is it economically feasible to replace this labor intensive process at an Air Force repair depot (as I did) and replace it with a more automated process (one I was given the specifications about).
The first thing I would do is formulate "restraints" such as the measured labor productivity for the activities involved or the life of the equipment or what year dollars were going to be used. Then I would come up with a set of applicable assumptions like inflation rates, any trade-offs that might apply, what to do with the displaced workers, etc.
From there we determine as many of the tangible and intangible cost and income flows as we can think of. After which we run an inflation weighted cost-benefit analysis considering actual dollar changes and programmed dollar impacts.
If we have uncertainty around any of the assumptions, then we might assume certain distributions around each variable and run Monte Carlo simulations around that.
To me, that is abstract reasoning. I used all of the above once to determine the operating and maintenance cost for various choices of helicopters and airplanes the Slovakian government was considering as they made and application to join NATO.
When Kirk says such thinking is a drawback to Leftist (he would say radical) thought process, I must scratch my head.
As to the "alternative", this is what Kirk says about that - "With Irving Babbitt, we may call the mode of imagination represented by Rousseau “the idyllic imagination”—that is, the imagination which rejects old dogmas and old manners and rejoices in the notion of emancipation from duty and convention. "
Now, what does "emancipation from duty and convention" have to do with imagination, idyllic or otherwise. Sounds like good old fashioned bias like we see today.Well damn, not only is this conversation making me work, now it is also causing me to lose sleep. I saw this response just as I was heading off to bed, and was stuck thinking about it as I lay there. Damn.
Have I once again made the error of relying on a common understanding of a word, vs a context-specific meaning? Abstract means abstract right? Apparently not as I thought.
Things didn't look good when I took a quick look at the definition of reasoning before heading to bed. Relative to philosophy, the first listing was abstract reasoning. Double damn.
Now here I am up at 6am just to answer.
That abstract reasoning was followed by references to Aristotle and Plato, and such. It is not looking good for me.
Then I read further and see explanations like reasoning being the process of understanding. A process that can use logic and rationality. A process of evaluating ideas and facts to reach a reasoned conclusion.
Then I found this blurb:
"The fundamental attribute of reason is clarity, and the use of identifiable ideas, memories, emotions, and sensory input. Since reason is a means of achieving understanding, its method is significant. Reason is organized, systematic, and a purposeful way of thinking. Reason also makes use of vehicles such as logic, deduction, and induction to make sense of perceptions and knowledge."
That doesn't sound abstract to me. That sounds like what my original thought of what reason was.
So I am stuck in an irreconcilable position. It seems it can be said that you are correct, in the field of philosophy all reasoning is abstract, but all that I read--beyond that related to philosophy--still implies to me that there is also rational reasoning that is not abstract, (as I understand the word), in any way.
And it gets worse. I have to admit that Kirk's use of idyllic imagination does show a bias. However, relative to the context of his statement, I still say his word choice carried the point intended, and an understanding that there are shades of reasoning; from rational to irrational, from logical to illogical, and from known to abstract.
As to your final rhetorical question I would point to another phrase Kirk used relative to that point. It has to do with idyllic imagination in the sense of a reasoning that would "discard the devil you know, (the old manners and dogma), for acceptance of the devil you don't, (a new speculative and unknown course).
I find many current and historical societal change examples that I would see fitting that thought.
So I am stuck with a phrase from a country western song; That's my story, and I am sticking to it." I still think that there is reasoning and also abstract reasoning. And I think that was the context of Kirk's quote.
GA:-) As well you should, GA. Sorry for keeping you up.
No worries bud. A nap fixed everything.
Except for the Hayek rabbit that I am still chasing. Burke essays led me through a half dozen open tabs, and now a Hayek connection has opened even more.
Hayek was agnostic, so I am finding his agreement with most of Burke's thoughts much more agreeable. ;-)
GAI listened to a lecture on Hayek a long time ago, don't remember a damn thing about it. Guess I wasn't impressed, lol.
I found my lead in to my book in another book I started reading, "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism From Edmund Burke to Donald Trump" by Corey Robin, a political scientist at the CUNY Graduate Center. He states,
"Since the modern era began, men and women in subordinate positions have marched against their superiors in the state, church, workplace, and other hierarchical institutions. They have gathered under different banners - the labor movement, feminism, abolition, socialism - and shouted different slogans: freedom, equality, rights, democracy, revolution. In virtually every instance, their superiors have resisted them, violently and nonviolently, legally and illegally, overtly and covertly. That march and demarche of democracy is the story of modern politics ..." - a sentiment I agree with.
I also learned a new word "demarche". I've seen it several times but didn't know that it meant "a political step or initiative."I can see why you would agree with it. It is an accurate description of the inborn bane of the combination of humans and hierarchy.
Civilization's history has shown that we can't live without hierarchies, and our modern era development has given us the illusion that we have the power to alter or abolish them.
That sentiment that you agree with, (and multiple historical societal experiment examples - think Communism), proves that the thought that a human hierarchy can be subverted or abolished is just an illusion.
It is sort of like that old, (now determined to be sexist), male sentiment concerning women; "Can't live with them, can't live without them."
ps. Have you given any thought to rephrasing your OP question from "is" to "was?"
GAis = was, in this case, I would say.
Is it true that the foundation of western conservatism is religion rather than reason?
Yes?
No?Here is the critical difference, as I see it, between liberalism and conservationism Both understand societal hierarchy exists. Conservatives build that as a requirement into their ideology - in black and white. Liberalism understand that such hierarchy is a natural phenomenon, but its negative effects should be reduced.
For example, the superiority of men over women dates back to the Bible and is alive and well today among many conservative religions - Islam, fundamentalist Jewish, Evangelicals, fundamentalist Christians. Conservatives see no need to change that view; liberals do.
We have no idea how Communism really works, except maybe the Israeli Kibbutz; what we saw in the Soviet Union and China wasn't Marxism, as written.I agree that Conservatism accepts that human society will be hierarchal; our human nature requires it. I also agree with your word choice concerning Liberalism - hierarchy is a natural phenomenon.
I won't throw a definition at you, we both know what phenomenon means.
I chose my words with purpose - relative to changing hierarchies. I did not say they could not be altered or modified because I think they can. I think that is the work of progress. I think it is with that goal in mind that you noted our historical changes. They are not the subversion or abolishment of hierarchies, they are the modification of them.
You also seem to have misconstrued my reference to communism relative to my historical reference to it. Regardless of how it has been or would be, implemented, the very concept itself does not recognize the need or reality of hierarchies in human societies. I think we do have an idea of how communism really works - just read its precepts. There is no importance, to my point, of whether it has been properly executed in the past.
We may disagree on the main point about the Conservatives perception of hierarchies, (I agree with them that they are required), but do you disagree that they, (hierarchies), are a natural requirement for the accommodation of human societies? Do you believe we can defeat our human nature, rather than just mitigate it?
Getting back to your OP, and to come back to your topic; I honestly think that you are starting with a bias and that it will show. If your topic is to be seriously considered, I really think your question should be "was." I think Hayek's almost total agreement with Burke--except for the God part--would support your question, and premise, of what Conservatism "was," and what it started as", but would diminish your point if it was extrapolated to what Conservatism "is."
Folks aren't going to be considering Conservatism relative to Burke's time, they are going to be thinking of it relative to their time, (or at least the time frame of the modern era).
Otherwise, I can see the development of your thoughts bordering on being viewed as a polemic, (Ha! 2 points for using a vocabulary word), scree, (2 more points for an aphoristic metaphor?).
GANo question I have a bias, but that was developed over years of observation, reading, and listening to lectures. In my opinion, the bias against conservatism, as practiced in America, is well deserved and is quite different than saying I am biased against blacks simply because they are black (which I am not).
Recognized the word, but still had to look it up. I doubt the result will be "bordering on" but will definitely be polemic - given what I can prove about how conservatives have harmed America.
Let me through this into the mix. I learned years ago listening to a series of lectures on one of my long drives to Arkansas that there are two types of liberals along with the other major political ideologies. In addition to having socialists (Eugene Debs) and conservatives (George Wallace), you have minimal-state liberals (Rand Paul) and active-state liberals (Benjamin Franklin).
I think many of those today who call themselves "conservatives" are really minimal-state liberals. The difference is the belief that the individual is superior to the state as opposed to the "state" (be it political or religious) being superior to the individual. Liberals of both persuasions believe in the former while socialists and conservatives believe in the latter.Your closing paragraph has given me something to ponder My Esoteric.
I can say that I think your minimal-state liberal can probably also be accurately labeled as a Classical Liberal. I don't see a lot of difference.
However, because my first reaction to your contention that Conservatives prefer the state over the individual is wrong, I have to give it some thought and look at the basis for my belief. I will get back to you.
GAAnd you would be correct, GA, there is great similarity between classical liberalism and minimal-state liberalism. The main difference, as the labels imply, is both see social ills as being undesirable, the minimal-state liberals do not see a role for gov't, at least at the federal level, to correct the wrong (like slavery) while the active-state liberal clearly does believe that is a role of gov't. Based on the rational I have read from minimal-state liberal philosophers, their approach to life is something akin to social Darwinism.
To put it inelegantly with a bit of jade, the way I see it, relative to such a clear bad as slavery is as follows:
- Socialist will cry and whine about slavery and take over the plantations to stop it.
- Conservatives will (and did) justify it for from both practical and religious perspectives.
- Minimal-state liberals will cry and whine about it and do nothing hoping the problem will take care of itself
- Active-state liberals will pass the 13th Amendment.Your choice of slavery to make your point makes me feel like I am walking into a trap.
I am aware you will point to a differentiation between Liberal vs. Conservatives, and not Republicans vs. Democrats because the parties philosophies have changed, but ...
The president that was the impetus for the amendment, and signed the amendment was a Conservative Republican. The Congress that passed the amendment was in one house the conservative, (Republican), majority and in the other a conservative Republican plurality.
I looked around and at the time of the 38th Congress, I think the values of the Republican party could still be considered conservative and not liberal values.
Since I think your use of active-state liberalism would be compatible with a description of modern-day liberals, I can't see why you would equate the passage of the 13th to active-state liberalism when history seems to show that it was Conservatives, (or at the most broad interpretations minimal-state liberals), that initiated and passed the Amendment - not active-state liberals.
Did I misconstrue something? Is my foot in the trap? Am I taking you illustration too literally, or was your example just misplaced?
Or, (which seems most likely), your example is just an illustration--independent of the actualities? If so, I see your point and your example makes it.
GASorry GA, Lincoln, was a liberal, not a conservative. He would have been a Democrat today. Then he was a Whig turned Republican turned National Union turned Republican (today's Democrats) - yeah, I know, confusing. Jefferson Davis was a conservative.
While not a radical Republican like many of the abolitionist were, Lincoln clearly held liberal views and he detested the conservative Democrats (now Republicans) of the day.
No trap on the slavery thing, it is just the most, pardon the pun, black and white example I can think of.
Here are a couple of articles to consider:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinio … 226115.php (it says T Roosevelt was the last of the liberal Republicans, I think it was his successor)
http://dnews.com/opinion/his-view-abrah … 8dfb3.html
While slightly off-topic, I figured you would find it very interesting (while I try to drive home my points of who was liberal and who was conservative.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timreuter/ … c5b355ad5c
Damn! It was a trap. A coil of rope just long enough for its purpose.
However, all is not lost. Relearning something that had been forgotten, (or neglected to be remembered), is as beneficial as learning something new.
Those were a good choice of links. I particularly linked the Forbes one because I have never previously considered the potential impact of the Confederacy receiving international recognition. I was aware of their diplomatic efforts to get it but hadn't considered how seriously that might have affected the war.
Thanks
GAIs this your first book Scott?
I always find it fascinating when someone writes about a topic they are firmly against.
When is it due to hit bookshelves or Amazon - I'll definitely be picking up a copy.No, just starting it, it will probably take a year or better. I do have another book on A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics: Why Conservative Economic Theory Doesn't Work. that was released a few months ago.
The thing about writing about something you are against, to be credible, you have to provide lots of research to sustain your point.Thanks, how are sales on the first book?
I stick to publishing poetry myself - unlike any book on politics, poetry seems to make all people happy rather than just half of the people.
Best of luck in your research !That would be true about poetry.
There is a reason they call these publications - vanity books, lol. I have sold 7, I think, and one was to me. I haven't promoted it, however, and it only has one review.
Related Discussions
- 116
Healthy diversity in civilization = Orders & Classes & Inequality
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Because it is so controversial throughout American history it might be useful to discuss what makes a TRUE conservative. Among many others, the philosophical pillars of conservatism are Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797), Russell Kirk (1918 - 1994), and William F. Buckley Jr. (1925 - 2008)Russell Kirk in...
- 30
Liberal Christian?
by marinealways24 14 years ago
What is the ratio of liberal Christians compared to conservative Christians? It seems like the conservative Christians would outnumber the liberal Christians. If you are a liberal Christian, what are your political beliefs different from conservative Christians? Is it even possible to be a liberal...
- 35
Is liberalism a religion?
by AdsenseStrategies 14 years ago
I mean liberalism and not Liberalism (the second of these two is the belief that there should be no tariff or border restrictions on trade between nation states ). Now, first off, liberalism is obviously not a religion in one sense because a religion has to include a set of beliefs about the...
- 45
It seem that conservatives r "do as I say, not do what I do" WHY?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Why do conservatives think that virtue and morality should be identified with their political agenda and what view of morality do they profess?The conservative Speaker of the House of Representatives, embracing family values, suggested that the children of welfare mothers be taken away from the...
- 13
Is conservatism founded in Old Testament thought and liberalism in New Testament
by Tim Mitchell 7 years ago
Is conservatism founded in Old Testament thought and liberalism in New Testament?One line of thought says the Old Testament is morality focused while the New Testament is compassion. A study conducted stated from their findings, "Liberal Christians tend to believe that Jesus is more...
- 32
In Christianity, do non believers go to hell?
by cblack 8 years ago
In Christianity, do non believers go to hell?What happens to the people that believe in another religion and another God. If the Christian God is the only true God, then are those people damned?