Conservatism as understood by a non-conservative

Post Reply New Topic

I am not a conservative, but I would like conservatives to think I basically understand their point of view, as they often claim to be misrepresented in the "liberal press". I will try to be as candid as possible. Ironically, if I am close enough to the mark, then some conservatives may be puzzled that I am not one myself, since a good understanding of the conservative point of view ought to inevitably lead to its acceptance and adoption.

By conservative, I primarily mean the sort of people who lost this year's Republican primary. I would cite Scott Walker as the most "pure" example of this sort of conservatism, perhaps Paul Ryan would be another. It's pure coincidence that both are from Wisconsin, I am not.

So conservatives strongly support the US Constitution but also have a particular interpretation of various parts. To them, the most important function of the Constitution, apart from identifying various governmental institutions and public offices, is to limit the power of the Federal Government. Although these limitations are mostly articulated in the Bill of Rights which I believe was somewhat of an afterthought at the time.

Conservatives believe the role of the Federal Government to be limited to a small number of functions, such as defense of the Union against foreign aggression (i.e. the Military, and arguably the INS), enforcement of Interstate law (i.e. the FBI), and applying Constitutional Law to real-world situations (i.e. the Judiciary, the Supreme Court). In general to ensure the Union peacefully continues as such, i.e. the States don't go to war with each other as they did 150 years ago (although this already gets into a gray area when the notion of States' Rights comes into play).

For those unfamiliar with the US system of government, the Constitution is also very difficult to amend, doing so requires ratification by 75% of the states. Over the last 100 years, only 10 amendments have been ratified, and the last of these was ratified 24 years ago. And that amendment had been submitted for ratification in 1789!

Apart from views regarding the Constitution, conservatives have particular beliefs regarding authority. For example, conservatives believe that authority is granted by laws, not political office. However if a law is believed unconstitutional, then its authority can be questioned.

Having said that, constitutionality only really becomes a major concern for federal laws. States can pass laws that liberals may consider undemocratic or discriminatory, but if they have been duly passed, then they are to be strictly enforced until and unless repealed.

The other recognized source of authority for conservatives is religion, although in practice limited to judeo-christian beliefs. So a government official who exercises authority on behalf of Christian doctrine, at the state level, will be supported whereas an official who exercises a similar degree of authority in the name of an abstract concept such as human rights, will be accused of overreach. Of course, some conservatives are not religious, but they tend more towards the Libertarian end of the spectrum, also they may have a reverence for the Constitution similar to the reverence a Christian has for the Bible.

Once authority is recognized, then conservatives believe it should be exercised to its fullest extent. A wrongdoer who has been convicted by due process should be punished without giving any thought to circumstances that may have led to the infraction, in fact there can never be too much law enforcement so long as it is carried out according to existing law and in accordance with the Constitution. Other approaches to dealing with crime such as community action of some sort are not the proper concern of government, although quite acceptable if undertaken by religious or volunteer organizations (although it is wise to keep a close watch on some of the latter). A conservative believes in arresting and deporting illegal aliens, and punishing those who hire them, not because they threaten our jobs or might rape our female family members, but simply because they are illegal.

My last major point is that modern conservatism has been heavily influenced by two philosophies that did not exist in the 18th century, libertarianism and objectivism. The former teaches resistence to the unwarranted intrusion of the state into our private lives. For example, a libertarian may believe himself entitled to grow his own marijuana at home and smoke it, but he may also feel entitled to deny service to gays in a business he owns, and to defend this right at gunpoint if deemed necessary. An objectivist believes that people are generally responsible for their own well-being and will become enraged at the thought that the government can coerce him into paying some of his hard-earned income in tax and then using it to "help the less fortunate."

I could go on but this will have to be enough. I may edit later on. Conservative board members, please feel to point out any errors you may see. None of this is intended as criticism.

I'd have to argue I'm not quite in line with a lot of that either.

I do agree with K Cleon Skousen somewhat that the bigger question is more government vs. less government, not to be a parrot - it really has to be examined to see just how much of what actually works and what kinds of things are handled by a well-built legal code better than a bureaucracy. I would also agree that the integrity of the UCC is critical to our going concern, otherwise we can say hello to all of the commerce problems that places like India have between states.

I almost think what you represented though angled more toward a Christian libertarian view - ie. there should be, and needs to be, a sufficient safety net for the disabled and those who are on hard times. I also am not a fan of the Judao-Christian exceptionalism in certain government action, and if we ever get enough Muslims in congress it's a great precedent to start passing bits and pieces of sharia.

Part of why I can't really call myself a conservative in the usual sense - I really don't have a problem with the legalization of marijuana, in truth I really think we should not only build a cultural context for that but a cultural context as well for psychedelics and entheogens in both psychotherapy and religious communion. So much of what we still do socially is just built on bad ideas with little or no mooring in fact, much like the rampant regressive types of liberalism (SJW's and the like) are an equally wrong-headed reaction to problems that came before.

I do think we in the US want to look back into strong civics, we'll need it if innovation forces us into an increasingly socialized economy - you'll need to keep people who aren't needed in the workforce integrated into society somehow. Similarly there need to be more social bridges built and re-emergence of a small-town ethic with respect to people respecting the dignity of fellow humans as humans, if that sort of thing can be reintroduced in a secular manner. If we can build a sort of national mythos, ie. an organizing story that gives us an impulse of who we are and where we're going - all the better, just so long as that mythos is realistic and doesn't include world conquest. Somewhere along the way in our social experiment of the last fifty years, while we did a lot of things that had to be done, we lost a lot of heart and we need to try and find a way to get that back if we're going to survive the sociological challenges to come.

Don't know if there is really a label to fit that, sort of messy semi-masonic centrist?

I notice that both conservatives and libertarians have a fondness for parsimony. They really don't like complexity or grey areas. They think politics should be treated like mathematics. Rules should be limited but strict. Fundamental rights are treated as axioms from which laws are derived impartially. The right to be left alone trumps other "positive" rights. The problem is "positive" rights are much more difficult to guarantee and lead to some "squishy" issues that infringe on the right of others to be left alone. For example, to guarantee some the right to enough income to not have to live on the street or beg denies the right of others to do what they want with the money they earn. Conservatives seem to believe "squishy" issues can be abused by government, so things should always be kept as simple as possible.

I'm socially libertarian, and am that way precisely becuase I regonise grey areas and nuances. Government should be still only be interfering with private life only when absolutely necessary.

Economically I'm competitionist, trade liberal, with some classical liberal leanings. No, I don't believe in "naturalistic" self-righting economics.

I think many people who use the libertarian label often aren't in practice. In the US it has become by-word for someone who is not socially conservative, but supports right wing policies. Yet in fact libertarian is on a completely different axis. In reality these people just see the protectionism they support and suits them as something other than protectionism.

I think you are painting with too broad of a brush, way more nuance to your traditional conservative and I would disagree that this is who were defeated in the primary this year can claim that mantle since Trump has the support of those that consider themselves the most conservative.

When talking about the masses, I think most people are fairly non-ideological beyond their particular self-interest. Most people in this country are traditionalist, they put a lot value in the values that they(their family, their people) were raised with and I imagine this is true for most the planet. Most people in the US are culturally conservative in the sense they believe in the nuclear family and 'Judaeo-Christian' values even if they're not religious, some people on here recently have posted about the how certain strains of Protestantism have played in the national psyche that I thought were really interesting. I love history, I think I have a strong understanding of American history and I think religion has definitely had its hand shaping this country since the very very beginning with the Pilgrims and how the colonies developed and created their own sense of nationhood.

What I love about learning about American history is that it is linear and you really can trace the evolution of the national psyche from its earliest days. America has always been very consumerist since the 18th century when we as a people finally found a footing in this country and were able to import massive amounts of goods from abroad primarily from the British Empire obviously which created something of a shared culture between the colonies who were radically different in character and purpose. This is how someone from say the Chesapeake Colonies were able to feel connected to those in New England or the Middle Colonies, and all these places were very different in terms of people but they all shared in their use of imported British goods. The Brits once they played started with these goods with taxes and whatnot created a shared experience for these very different colonists, there developed a huge resentment against this unseeable unaccountable central authority and as pioneers they very much resented their dependence on this authority, they organized themselves from north to south against tariffs/whatever and they had successes but then the Brits also reacted in ways that only further agitated the colonists. Many of the grievances laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the rights protected in our Bill of Rights are direct responses to actions taken by the British Empire in trying to maintain control and to extract revenue out of the colony.

You can trace it all to this very day and I think it would a lot of sense if you did, that's multiple books worth of information however and I'm not an expert by any stretch but I do recommend taking a class on early American history up until independence if you ever have a chance to because our great nation was not born out of vacuum obviously and I think it really helps you understand the uniqueness of our country and our people and how our values have developed.

^

Ever read Albion's Seed? It's a lengthy tome on exactly what you're talking about, and fascinating reading besides.

I haven't, I think I might pick that up at the library next time when I go. 946 pages kind of proves what I was saying about how much can be written about this subject.

I merely took a class on early American history on top of what I already knew and it was something I really enjoyed learning as I felt it really started to make this country make sense to me and I felt a very strong connection to it as my mother traced her maternal line all the way back to our earliest ancestor here in what wasn't even America at the time in 1641! I know the date he landed in this country(November 29, 1641 in the colony of New Netherlands at New Amsterdam after more than 4 months at sea) and what he did with his life, it made it all seem much more real to me. This country most definitely has a culture and history unique to itself, it's always bothered me when people ignorantly say otherwise and even more so now. History most definitely repeats itself, technology has advanced but we're not much smarter, if we grew up in that world we'd be the same way.

If you are talking about Trump supporters, I wouldn't categorize them as ideologically conservative or libertarian. At least not in the American tradition of conservatism. Protectionism and nativism wasn't talked about much until recently. I think the last person to campaign on those issues was Ros Perot way back in the early 90s. The new Trump conservatism is a more nationalistic style, more in line with the right in Europe than in the US.

I'm beginning to feel that popular conservatism in the US isn't really a single ideology. It's a conglomeration of ideologies that often conflict. Most modern intellectual conservatives are closer to libertarian or classical liberalism, at least in terms of economics. Some like to promote more traditional social values (are church-goers etc...), but don't necessarily support government enforcement of social mores. These are the people I was talking about when I was saying conservatives have a fondness for parsimony. They believe government inefficiency is the source of economic dysfunction.

I don't think you should base conservatism on what comes out of the mouths of 'conservative' politicians; what they say should be taken cum grano salis. Conservatism is an umbrella term, and there are different types. For example, pale-cons like Pat Buchanan or neo-cons like Bill Kristol. And then there are libertarianish people like Rand Paul.

My point is that people who identify as conservative (I am not one) may get their views from different traditions or even a mix of different traditions. Human beings are complicated, and may even hold views that seemingly conflict.

One could describe me as libertarian, but I call myself a classical liberal. I see myself in the tradition of Hayek and Friedman. Despite this, I'm an empiricist and try not to view the world through an ideological lens. But as a human, I am not perfect, and I fall victim to my own biases.