Ten Conservative Principles

[SkyBubble]

The purpose of government, as a prominent conservative thinker said, is "to provide a tolerable degree of order so that liberty may flourish." That's it. I have said since I was in high school that government is like a vicious dog. As long as it's on a strong leash in its own yard, it's pretty good protection. When it breaks that leash and starts getting into everything, it becomes a danger to itself and everyone else.

We support small government, not because we don't like government, but because we want it to be strong in its proper functions and not dilute itself and because when it gets too big, costly, and intrusive, it not only threatens liberty, but threatens and subsumes Burke's "little platoons," which are the backbone of a free, ordered, and civil society.

 

[SkyBubble]

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” ― Barry Goldwater​

 

[SkyBubble]

I am the son of Bob Taft Republicans who were involved in the Conservative Party of New York State. We were Goldwater people. I came up through Young Americans for Freedom. Was on the NYYAF State Board. I am a graduate of Hillsdale and an alum of National Journalism Center. I knew Russell Kirk and Stan Evans. I'm a nearly 30-year member of Free Republic. And someone who "wrote a paper about it" is trying to tell me what conservatives believe.

 

[rgraham666]

The purpose of government, as a prominent conservative thinker said, is "to provide a tolerable degree of order so that liberty may flourish." That's it. I have said since I was in high school that government is like a vicious dog. As long as it's on a strong leash in its own yard, it's pretty good protection. When it breaks that leash and starts getting into everything, it becomes a danger to itself and everyone else.

We support small government, not because we don't like government, but because we want it to be strong in its proper functions and not dilute itself and because when it gets too big, costly, and intrusive, it not only threatens liberty, but threatens and subsumes Burke's "little platoons," which are the backbone of a free, ordered, and civil society.

Most people do not understand freedom and when they do they do not like it very much.

Why?

Freedom gets min the way of power.

 

[rgraham666]

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” ― Barry Goldwater​

Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice - Barry Goldwater

 

[SkyBubble]

Most people do not understand freedom and when they do they do not like it very much.

Why?

Freedom gets min the way of power.

I disagree with you on that. Most people just want to live their lives freely, safely, as they choose, with minimal interference.

 

[rgraham666]

I disagree with you on that. Most people just want to live their lives freely, safely, as they choose, with minimal interference.

Of course you don't. You like your power, want to keep it, and expand that power. If others object or get in your way they are 'limiting your freedom'.

So, if a person decides they don't want certain people living in their neighbourhood those certain people are just going to have to deal with it? Does that apply if certain people decide they don't want you living in their neighborhood?

 

[SkyBubble]

Of course you don't. You like your power, want to keep it, and expand that power. If others object or get in your way they are 'limiting your freedom'.

So, if a person decides they don't want certain people living in their neighbourhood those certain people are just going to have to deal with it? Does that apply if certain people decide they don't want you living in their neighborhood?

Showing your total ignorance again. That is exactly the opposite of reality.

 

[HisArpy]

Showing your total ignorance again. That is exactly the opposite of reality.

Notice how quickly his position devolved into a one about bigotry instead of liberty?

 

[Hel_Books]

A guy flew a CONFEDERATE FLAG at the Capitol during the riots.

Maybe if they'd hanged Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest like they'd hanged Henry Wirz, there would be less of this treason.

 

[SimonDoom]

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” ― Barry Goldwater​

Barry Goldwater is a good example of the distinctively American brand of "conservatism," which blended traditionalism with a strong devotion to classical liberal values, like individual liberty. What he said would have been considered radical in the 18th century and liberal in the 19th century. It was successfully branded as "radical" when he ran for president, when confidence in big government was at an all-time high in the US. After Goldwater's defeat in 1964, Ronald Reagan was probably the best exemplar of this brand of American conservatism. It's very different from European conservatism, at least until the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher embodied a brand of conservatism similar to Reagan's. And today, in the age of Trump, conservatism has taken on a different shape. Trump doesn't talk about liberty that much. He's only too willing to use expansive government power to achieve his goals of raising tariffs and limiting imports, limiting immigration, cracking down on crime, controlling what universities do, and threatening to take over territories that belong to our allies. Goldwater and Reagan would never have done any of those things. I don't regard Trump as a real conservative. I don't think he has any philosophy, unlike Goldwater and Reagan, and, more recently, politicians like former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who today is regarded by MAGA types as a "RINO."

A good example of a Reagan-style conservative today would be Ted Cruz, whom Trump belittled and soundly beat in the 2016 primary. Trump's heir apparent appears to be J.D. Vance, who also is not in any way, shape, or form a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. Vance has openly criticized Reagan-style economic views as "market fundamentalism."

Conservatism, like liberalism, is a constantly evolving thing. People don't understand the term the same way they did 40 years ago.

 

[SkyBubble]

Of course you don't. You like your power, want to keep it, and expand that power. If others object or get in your way they are 'limiting your freedom'.

Total falsehood.

 

[SkyBubble]

Barry Goldwater is a good example of the distinctively American brand of "conservatism,"

Barry Goldwater was a great conservative. Why put it in quotes?

which blended traditionalism with a strong devotion to classical liberal values, like individual liberty.

Yes, precisely; the very foundation of modern American conservatism.

After Goldwater's defeat in 1964, Ronald Reagan was probably the best exemplar of this brand of American conservatism.

True. The only conservative president in my lifetime (so far) and the greatest of my lifetime.

And today, in the age of Trump, conservatism has taken on a different shape.

This is where you're wrong. Trump is not a conservative; he's a populist. Conservatism and populism can overlap, but they aren't the same philosophy.
Conservatism is fundamentally about institutions, continuity, restraint, prudence, and limits on power. It asks, What arrangements have worked, what should be preserved, and what happens if we radically change them?

Populism starts somewhere else: the people versus the elites. The people vs. the elites is just a little bit better framing of the Marxist oppressor/oppressed dynamic. One can be vigorously anti-establishment without being populist.

Trump is not redefining conservatism. He can't.

Trump doesn't talk about liberty that much. He's only too willing to use expansive government power to achieve his goals of raising tariffs and limiting imports, limiting immigration, cracking down on crime, controlling what universities do, and threatening to take over territories that belong to our allies.

Which is not conservative in any way, shape, manner, or form.

Goldwater and Reagan would never have done any of those things.

Maybe the immigration thing.

I don't regard Trump as a real conservative.

He's not one. Never has been. He's essentially a RINO.

I don't think he has any philosophy, unlike Goldwater and Reagan

Verey little; his entire philosophy is "Make America Great Again," which apparently means whatever Trump thinks it means at any moment. That's why Ron DeSantis referred to MAGA as "listless vessels."

Populism, by itself, doesn't supply a substantive set of principles. “The people versus the elites” tells you who supposedly has legitimacy, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what government should do.

If politics is primarily understood as a struggle against an enemy, then owning the enemy can become a substitute for having a coherent political philosophy. This is the central flaw in both Trumpism and TDS anti-Trumpism. As Brit Hume said several years ago, the trouble with Trump is that he thinks everything is about him and the trouble with his enemies is that they agree.

A good example of a Reagan-style conservative today would be Ted Cruz, whom Trump belittled and soundly beat in the 2016 primary.

Ted is one example; I was one of his supporters in 2016. Perhaps the best example currently is Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has followed a principled conservative path and achieved remarkable success in Florida. I just hope Donalds doesn't muck it up.

Trump's heir apparent appears to be J.D. Vance, who also is not in any way, shape, or form a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. Vance has openly criticized Reagan-style economic views as "market fundamentalism."

J.D. isn't any kind of conservative. He's economically left and doesn't seem to care much about the culture.

Conservatism, like liberalism, is a constantly evolving thing.

This is where we disagree. Conservatism is a set of values, principles, and attitudes that do not change. Particular policies might change. Conservatism is a big tent. But he defining ideas remain the same. Rusell Kirk called them "teh permanent things."

As one of his and my favorite poets put it,

Except forteh point,
The still point, there would be no dance,
And there is only the dance.

 

[SkyBubble]

Notice how quickly his position devolved into a one about bigotry instead of liberty?

Completely false. Another of your lies. You should probably stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is where you're wrong. Trump is not a conservative; he's a populist. Conservatism and populism can overlap, but they aren't the same philosophy.
Conservatism is fundamentally about institutions, continuity, restraint, prudence, and limits on power. It asks, What arrangements have worked, what should be preserved, and what happens if we radically change them?

I understand how you use the word "conservative," and many of the people you consider conservative would agree with you. Where I disagree is that words like "conservative" don't have fixed, permanent, universal meanings, any more than words like "liberal" or "left" and "right" have fixed meanings. They mean different things in different contexts, different eras, different parts of the world. Europeans historically understood the word differently from the way Americans did. Neither is wrong. If enough people say that X set of beliefs is conservative, they're not wrong. They just use the word in a different way. For instance, you probably would agree with much of what the economist F.A. Hayek wrote, because he was strongly pro-liberty. But he came from Europe, and he didn't think of himself as conservative, he thought of himself as liberal, and he wasn't wrong. At the same time, his left-wing critics thought of him as conservative or right-wing, because they assumed that people who shared his free-market views were just shills for powerful business interests. You can tell from comments in this thread and this forum think the same way, and include people who think like you that way. I don't. I take your comments at face value and believe what you say about what you belief. My beliefs about liberty are similar, but I call myself a liberal in the classical sense rather than a conservative. The flaw of Russell Kirk's conservatism, as I see it, is that it provides no guidance for when we should change things.

For example, Barry Goldwater was, you agree, a conservative in the sense that you mean, but in the 1960s he opposed the Voting Rights Act. I think that was an example of the failure of conservatism. A principled conservative who put individual rights and liberties front and center would have voted for a law that ensured that black people would have the right to vote, which in great numbers they did not before that law. Goldwater refused to do that. He acted as a conservative in the "I don't like to change things" sense rather than the "liberty is my most important principle" sense. These are not the same thing. More recently, conservatives (including Ronald Reagan) until very recently opposed eliminating laws that criminalized consensual homosexual activity. Again, that's a failure of conservatism if by conservatism you mean a devotion to the principle of individual liberty.

You may not think of MAGA people as conservative. I agree with you; they don't fit my idea of conservative. But they think of themselves as conservative, and they call themselves conservative. They're not wrong. The meaning of the word evolves.

Russell Kirk's understanding of conservative was one brand of conservatism. It's not the only one that has existed in the last 200 years. There's no one decisive and obviously correct way to decide what words like "conservative" mean.

 

[Chernosoth]

I remember Goldwater as the guy who said he would use nukes in the Vietnam War. But that is second hand info from a high school history teacher decades ago. I don't see his name much in political discussions.

 

[YDB95]

I remember Goldwater as the guy who said he would use nukes in the Vietnam War. But that is second hand info from a high school history teacher decades ago. I don't see his name much in political discussions.

He is credited with sparking the modern conservative movement, as well as inspiring the Southern strategy although he didn't use it himself. Toward the end of his life, he had the decency to express alarm at the monster he'd unleashed, even advising his fellow Republicans to stop bashing Clinton and let him do his job as president. But his vote against the Civil Rights Act is a well-deserved ugly mark on his record no matter what you think of the man.

And it's a slight exaggeration to say he "would use nukes in the Vietnam War". He called for "low-yield atomic weapons" for deforestation purposes, to expose the Viet Cong supply routes. It was Curtis LeMay, George Wallace's running mate in 1968, who wanted to "blast 'em back to the stone age".

 

[SkyBubble]

words like "conservative" don't have fixed, permanent, universal meanings

Actually, they do. Conservatism is a particular set of attitudes, values, principles, and traditions.

They mean different things in different contexts, different eras, different parts of the world. Europeans historically understood the word differently from the way Americans did. Neither is wrong. If enough people say that X set of beliefs is conservative, they're not wrong. They just use the word in a different way.

The basic view is the same, though: preservation of that which works.

For instance, you probably would agree with much of what the economist F.A. Hayek wrote, because he was strongly pro-liberty. But he came from Europe, and he didn't think of himself as conservative, he thought of himself as liberal, and he wasn't wrong.

Yes, I know; he wrote an essay called "Why I Am Not a Conservative." He misunderstands what conservatism is about while expressing a largely conservative worldview.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

they assumed that people who shared his free-market views were just shills for powerful business interests.

Which simply shows that they are essentially economically illiterate and have no understanding of free markets. (I was taught by Austrians.)

My beliefs about liberty are similar, but I call myself a liberal in the classical sense rather than a conservative. The flaw of Russell Kirk's conservatism, as I see it, is that it provides no guidance for when we should change things.

Kirk was fond of quoting Burke's phrase about combining "a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform." Kirkian conservatism says you change when change strengthens and preserves the permanent things. Preserve the principle; reform the institution that has departed from the principle. You change the forms to preserve the essence.

Reform is conservative when it repairs a damaged institution so that the institution can continue serving its proper purpose. The alternative is revolutionary destruction -- throwing away the accumulated structure because it doesn't conform perfectly to some abstract conception of justice.

Kirk's conservatism is profoundly skeptical of abstract intellectual schemes imposed upon actual human society. Kirk emphasizes tradition, historical experience, inherited institutions, moral order, and the accumulated wisdom of generations.

What is worth preserving? Why is it worth preserving? What must change so that what is worth preserving can survive? And what happens when the proposed change destroys the very conditions that make the good thing possible?

For example, Barry Goldwater was, you agree, a conservative in the sense that you mean, but in the 1960s he opposed the Voting Rights Act. I think that was an example of the failure of conservatism.

Because some provisions were viewed as unconstitutional, and Goldwater was strict about following the Constitution.

A principled conservative who put individual rights and liberties front and center would have voted for a law that ensured that black people would have the right to vote, which in great numbers they did not before that law. Goldwater refused to do that.

Constitutionally, states run elections. When we've had Federal involvement, it has usually been done by amendments (such as lowering the voting age.) That is proper. Further, did we really need a new level of Federal involvement when we could already have achieved the end through the Fourteenth Amendment? I see no constitutional justification for pre-clearance, for example.

More recently, conservatives (including Ronald Reagan) until very recently opposed eliminating laws that criminalized consensual homosexual activity.

I disagree with that view, but I understand it. The aim is to support families and support cultural preservation. The family is the key ordering unit of cosiety, and multiple studies, as well as millennia of human experience, have shown that the traditional family is the optimal environment for raising happy, successful, productive children.

You may not think of MAGA people as conservative. I agree with you; they don't fit my idea of conservative. But they think of themselves as conservative, and they call themselves conservative. They're not wrong. The meaning of the word evolves.

That's where I think you're wrong. They may call themselves conservative, though many don't, but that doesn't make them conservative. If AOC proclaimed herself conservative, would she be one?

Again, conservatism is a defined thing. Russell Kirk was one of the chief definers. As William F. Buckley Jr. said, "No sensible conservative movement will proceed without the counsel of Russell Kirk."

Russell Kirk's understanding of conservative was one brand of conservatism. It's not the only one that has existed in the last 200 years. There's no one decisive and obviously correct way to decide what words like "conservative" mean.

True, but the point remains that there is a clear standard of what is conservative and what is not. It's a big, broad movement, but it does hoave limits and boundaries, basic ideas that define conservative philosophy. And those do not change.

 

[YDB95]

Because some provisions were viewed as unconstitutional, and Goldwater was strict about following the Constitution.

He was also wrong about the provisions being unconstitutional. Remember, Goldwater was not a constitutional scholar by any definition of the term. He never even finished college.

Further, did we really need a new level of Federal involvement when we could already have achieved the end through the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a word, yes. At the time, the Fourteenth Amendment had been in effect for over 90 years, and had next to no effect in most of the South.

They may call themselves conservative, though many don't, but that doesn't make them conservative. If AOC proclaimed herself conservative, would she be one?

No, of course not. But what you're arguing here is the exact opposite of what you usually argue when your opponents take exception to anything people you support say.

 

[Sign54]

Maybe if they'd hanged Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest like they'd hanged Henry Wirz, there would be less of this treason.

I mean, the lost cause being allowed to exist as a “theory” was a mistake

 

[Chernosoth]

Based on the representatives of Goldwater and Reagan or Trump, I'm completely fine with being a MAGA non-con.

 

[Chernosoth]

One principle is enough for me: Do what we can with what we have. Quitcherbitichin and get shit done.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Maybe if they'd hanged Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest like they'd hanged Henry Wirz, there would be less of this treason.

I mean, the lost cause being allowed to exist as a “theory” was a mistake

The "lost cause" of wanting to be able to buy and sell human beings died (in the USA at least) when the treasonous Robert E. Lee surrendered, after butchering hundreds of thousands of USA citizens.

But the "cause" of keeping people down because of their colour of their skin, from posting ape memes about them to beating them, jailing them, shooting them and poisoning them is still going strong in your country (and elsewhere, too, of course).

 

[SkyBubble]

He was also wrong about the provisions being unconstitutional.

I don't believe he was.

Goldwater was not a constitutional scholar by any definition of the term. He never even finished college.

And? Credentialism is a logical fallacy. He understood the Constitution quite well. Probably better than you do, judging by your posts.

In a word, yes. At the time, the Fourteenth Amendment had been in effect for over 90 years, and had next to no effect in most of the South.

It was having an effect, and simply enforcing the existing law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment would have done the job. But the new law created special burdens designed to be impossible to meet. Pre-clearance, for example, is a discrimnatory and in my view unconstitutional policy. Majority-minority districts are nonsense.

But what you're arguing here is the exact opposite of what you usually argue when your opponents take exception to anything people you support say.

False statement. Try again. Apparently, your comprehension level is low.

 

[YDB95]

I don't believe he was.

Surprise surprise.

And? Credentialism is a logical fallacy. He understood the Constitution quite well. Probably better than you do, judging by your posts.

I have no trouble believing you think so. You don't seem to have the first idea why law school takes three years and people borrow tens of thousands of dollars for it. Understanding the Constitution is nowhere near as simple as you insist on pretending (or perhaps really believe) it is.

It was having an effect, and simply enforcing the existing law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment would have done the job.

Where's your evidence for that?

But the new law created special burdens designed to be impossible to meet.

Politically impossible, perhaps, but that was a problem the South could have fixed and chose not to. Which is exactly why more stringent measures were called for.

Pre-clearance, for example, is a discrimnatory and in my view unconstitutional policy.

Is it really discrimination if you've made it abundantly clear you can't be trusted to do the right thing on your own?

Majority-minority districts are nonsense.

Not if they're geographically centered on an area that is majority-minority. Like, say, Memphis.

False statement. Try again. Apparently, your comprehension level is low.

Nope. You're saying what other people claim is wrong, and that is indeed often true. But you have a long history of accusing your opponents of thinking they know other people's business better than they do if they express that same skepticism of statements you agree with. Most notably the time you brought up Bill Gates saying he couldn't found Microsoft today.