The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

[SkyBubble]

Republican administrations pick winners and losers just as much.

Not nearly as much.

 

[SkyBubble]

No, YOU can. But SOMEBODY'S ox is always gored by a cut -- and they ain't welfare queens, either.

WE can. WE'd be vastly better off without about 99% of our government, and most of it is not constitutionally authorized.

 

[Wilson23]

WE can. WE'd be vastly better off without about 99% of our government, and most of it is not constitutionally authorized.

No modern industrial state can get by with that little government.

 

[SkyBubble]

We're $38 trillion in debt because WE SPEND TOO MUCH. Year after year, we spend massive amounts of money on things we don't need, that aren't doing what they were supposedly designed to do, that aren't constitutional, that we can't afford. We either borrow the money or we print it. Just creating money out of nothing is inflation. Borrowing it is just future spending and therefore future inflation.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

No, not really. It started more or less in the 1940s and 1950s in opposition to the New Deal, led by Bob Taft. The seminal conservative work, Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, came out in 1953.

oh ok

 

[Wilson23]

We're $38 trillion in debt because WE SPEND TOO MUCH. Year after year, we spend massive amounts of money on things we don't need, that aren't doing what they were supposedly designed to do, that aren't constitutional, that we can't afford. We either borrow the money or we print it. Just creating money out of nothing is inflation. Borrowing it is just future spending and therefore future inflation.

How is that any different from what other First World countries do? They're in no danger of collapse, and have no other reasons to regret their spending.

 

[SkyBubble]

Of course they regret it. The politicians don't, but it's hurting the people. It's a hidden tax that deprives them of wealth and liberty.

 

[Wilson23]

Of course they regret it. Teh politicians don't, but it's hurting the people. It's a hidden tax that deprives them of wealth and liberty.

But they're not short of either wealth or liberty, not by any means.

 

[SkyBubble]

Explain to me, then, why we're the more prosperous country.

As Mises explained, it's because we were about 20 years later getting on the road to socialism.

 

[YDB95]

Explain to me, then, why we're the more prosperous country.

In many ways, we no longer are. The rich are getting more prosperous all the time, but in real dollars just about no one else has seen their income rise since the mid-70s. Our infrastructure is aging, we're the only industrialized democracy where people fear one illness or injury driving them to bankruptcy, student loan debt is crippling a generation...as an American who has lived overseas for the past 20 years or so, I can tell you, it simply doesn't work that way elsewhere.

 

[HisArpy]

In many ways, we no longer are. The rich are getting more prosperous all the time, but in real dollars just about no one else has seen their income rise since the mid-70s. Our infrastructure is aging, we're the only industrialized democracy where people fear one illness or injury driving them to bankruptcy, student loan debt is crippling a generation...as an American who has lived overseas for the past 20 years or so, I can tell you, it simply doesn't work that way elsewhere.

Dude, did you eat yesterday? How about today? Got enough food for tomorrow? That makes you richer than most of the people in 3rd world countries. You own a car? Same deal. Multiple changes of clothes? You getting it. How about disposable income for "toys"? Safe drinking water right at the tap? And more...

The US is THE most prosperous nation on the planet as well as in all of human history. To say that we here in the US aren't "rich" is beyond ignorant, it's plain fucking stupid.

 

[Wilson23]

Explain to me, then, why we're the more prosperous country.

Not compared to other 1st World countries.

 

[YDB95]

Dude, did you eat yesterday? How about today? Got enough food for tomorrow? That makes you richer than most of the people in 3rd world countries.

That's why I didn't say anything about 3rd world countries. Do you know what "industralized democracy" means? Or did you simply choose to ignore those two words because to acknowledge them would blow your point out of the water?

 

[Wilson23]

The third pillar is the rule of law.

THAT'S a lie, it is now flamingly obvious.

 

[YouteAllDumbLikeReallyDumb]

The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties). Above all, it means freedom from oppression by government—and the protection of government against oppression. It means political liberty, the freedom to speak your mind on matters of public policy. It means religious liberty—to worship as you please, or not to worship at all. It also means economic liberty, the freedom to own property and to allocate your own resources in a free market.

Conservatism is based on the idea that the pursuit of virtue is the purpose of our existence and that liberty is an essential component of the pursuit of virtue. Adherence to virtue is also a necessary condition of the pursuit of freedom. In other words, freedom must be pursued for the common good, and when it is abused for the benefit of one group at the expense of others, such abuse must be checked. Still, confronted with a choice of more security or more liberty, conservatives will usually opt for more liberty.

The second pillar of conservative philosophy is tradition and order. Conservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights and that has the capacity to repel the forces of evil. Order means a systematic and harmonious arrangement, both within one’s own character and within the commonwealth. It signifies the performance of certain duties and the enjoyment of certain rights within a community.

Order is perhaps more easily understood by looking at its opposite: disorder. A disordered existence is a confused and miserable existence. If a society falls into general disorder, many of its members will cease to exist at all. And if the members of a society are disordered in spirit, the outward order of society cannot long endure. Disorder describes well everything that conservatism is not.

The third pillar is the rule of law. Conservatism is based on the belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty. Put simply, a government of laws and not of men is the only way to secure justice.

The fourth pillar is belief in God. Belief in God means adherence to the broad concepts of religious faith—such things as justice, virtue, fairness, charity, community, and duty. These are the concepts on which conservatives base their philosophy.

Conservative belief is tethered to the idea that there is an allegiance to God that transcends politics and that sets a standard for politics. For conservatives, there must be an authority greater than man, greater than any ruler, king, or government: no state can demand our absolute obedience or attempt to control every aspect of our lives. There must be a moral order, conservatives believe, that undergirds political order. This pillar of conservatism does not mean mixing up faith and politics, and it certainly does not mean settling religious disputes politically. It also does not mean that conservatives have a monopoly on faith, or even that all conservatives are necessarily believers.

This is almost as funny as your post talking about kill lists.

"We believe in liberty (1), but only if you conform (2-4)"

 

[Chadrone]

In many ways, we no longer are. The rich are getting more prosperous all the time, but in real dollars just about no one else has seen their income rise since the mid-70s. Our infrastructure is aging, we're the only industrialized democracy where people fear one illness or injury driving them to bankruptcy, student loan debt is crippling a generation...as an American who has lived overseas for the past 20 years or so, I can tell you, it simply doesn't work that way elsewhere.

Gotta pay for all that Ukraine/Somalia/Eurotrash first and FUCK AMERICA that you've been voting for........

 

[HisArpy]

That's why I didn't say anything about 3rd world countries. Do you know what "industralized democracy" means? Or did you simply choose to ignore those two words because to acknowledge them would blow your point out of the water?

My point stands on firm foundations. You claim the US isn't prosperous yet the FACTS belie this.

That you're now attempting to shift the goalpost to "I never said anything like that!!!" only shows that you know you're wrong.

 

[ll74]

I think the new conservatism is colonialism.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom.

Freedom for the rich is power over the rest of us. I want the government to force manufacturers to clean up their pollution, to produce safe consumer goods, and to provide their employees with safe working environments and decent incomes.

 

[HisArpy]

I think the new conservatism is colonialism.

No one really cares what you purportedly "think."

 

[stxjimmy]

WE can. WE'd be vastly better off without about 99% of our government, and most of it is not constitutionally authorized.

That sham statistic alone exposes you as a fool and a fraud.

 

[ll74]

No one really cares what you purportedly "think."

And yet you need to tell me that you don't care...lol

 

[JohnEngelman]

We're $38 trillion in debt because WE SPEND TOO MUCH. Year after year, we spend massive amounts of money on things we don't need, that aren't doing what they were supposedly designed to do, that aren't constitutional, that we can't afford. We either borrow the money or we print it. Just creating money out of nothing is inflation. Borrowing it is just future spending and therefore future inflation.

 

[Rightguide]

The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties). Above all, it means freedom from oppression by government—and the protection of government against oppression. It means political liberty, the freedom to speak your mind on matters of public policy. It means religious liberty—to worship as you please, or not to worship at all. It also means economic liberty, the freedom to own property and to allocate your own resources in a free market.

Conservatism is based on the idea that the pursuit of virtue is the purpose of our existence and that liberty is an essential component of the pursuit of virtue. Adherence to virtue is also a necessary condition of the pursuit of freedom. In other words, freedom must be pursued for the common good, and when it is abused for the benefit of one group at the expense of others, such abuse must be checked. Still, confronted with a choice of more security or more liberty, conservatives will usually opt for more liberty.

The second pillar of conservative philosophy is tradition and order. Conservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights and that has the capacity to repel the forces of evil. Order means a systematic and harmonious arrangement, both within one’s own character and within the commonwealth. It signifies the performance of certain duties and the enjoyment of certain rights within a community.

Order is perhaps more easily understood by looking at its opposite: disorder. A disordered existence is a confused and miserable existence. If a society falls into general disorder, many of its members will cease to exist at all. And if the members of a society are disordered in spirit, the outward order of society cannot long endure. Disorder describes well everything that conservatism is not.

The third pillar is the rule of law. Conservatism is based on the belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty. Put simply, a government of laws and not of men is the only way to secure justice.

The fourth pillar is belief in God. Belief in God means adherence to the broad concepts of religious faith—such things as justice, virtue, fairness, charity, community, and duty. These are the concepts on which conservatives base their philosophy.

Conservative belief is tethered to the idea that there is an allegiance to God that transcends politics and that sets a standard for politics. For conservatives, there must be an authority greater than man, greater than any ruler, king, or government: no state can demand our absolute obedience or attempt to control every aspect of our lives. There must be a moral order, conservatives believe, that undergirds political order. This pillar of conservatism does not mean mixing up faith and politics, and it certainly does not mean settling religious disputes politically. It also does not mean that conservatives have a monopoly on faith, or even that all conservatives are necessarily believers.

Mankind existed for 4000 to 5000 of known history organized around kinship, caste or status, divine kingship, Empire, obligation, not rights, and no state existed to protect liberty as such, before the advent of English common law (due process, habeas corpus), John Locke (natural rights to life, liberty, property), The Glorious Revolution (1688), The American Founding (1776–1789). Just a thought.

 

[Rightguide]

Conservative British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge write in The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America:

The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of "conservative" offered by the Concise Oxford Dictionary are "adverse to rapid change" and "moderate, avoiding extremes." Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. "Conservatism" -- no less than its foes "liberalism" or "communitarianism" -- has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed.

But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism. Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, "preferred the past to the present and the present to the future."

To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke's principles and contradiction of the last three. The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in "schemes and speculations" like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not.

If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke's last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don't know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right -- unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another.

The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a "prophet of the past." Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting.

As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated "clerisy" of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the "silent majority." In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president's son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots -- on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold.

Here again Politruk defaults to the British wisdom parade by taking a sprawling, wildly inconsistent movement and neatly boiling it down to a confusing cocktail of elitism, frontier spirit, and “exhausting optimism.” Because nothing screams clarity like lumping together rugged individualists and aristocrats while lecturing Americans about conservatism from a vantage point halfway across the pond. It’s adorable how “classical conservatism” becomes a flexible prop to stuff modern politics into an 18th-century mold, all while ignoring the messy reality that real-world ideologies rarely fit into tidy academic categories. But hell, let’s keep pretending American conservatives are just misunderstood descendants of Burke,