It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Define "Conservatism". What It Means. What Qualifies One. Opinions Wanted.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain




But it seems to me that the abortion issue is CENTRAL to the "Who is Conservative" debate. So I wonder.


No it isn't... Conservatives believe that the Federal Government is inept, overreaching, insanely bureaucratic, cash eating machine. They believe the best government is limited, and more local. The government has been growing and growing and becoming more intrusive on all aspects of our lives. Your talking about specific litmus test for sub groups of Conservatives. Some just have bigger problems with rules the government has set up, like abortion, guns, taxes, etc. This is how we can have Donald Trump and Ted Cruz on the same ticket. Because at the heart of the party is based on my definition above. If you vote one issue your usually not really that bright. There are plenty of dumb people on both sides.

If you want to know the "heart" of current Conservatives then you need to understand Reagan and his speeches. He started all of what we have today. Prior to Reagan most of the people who are now Conservatives were Democrats. "Conservative" only has meaning in the context of the time we live in. It is just a word and the definition changes based on the people that call themselves the same.


V




posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
Is being a Christian a rule for being Conservative?

Can we at least define that benchmark?

Yea or Nay?



Nay.

Individuals make their own decisions.

Same with abortion and everything else.






posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain




But it seems to me that the abortion issue is CENTRAL to the "Who is Conservative" debate. So I wonder.


No it isn't... Conservatives believe that the Federal Government is inept, overreaching, insanely bureaucratic, cash eating machine. They believe the best government is limited, and more local. The government has been growing and growing and becoming more intrusive on all aspects of our lives. Your talking about specific litmus test for sub groups of Conservatives. Some just have bigger problems with rules the government has set up, like abortion, guns, taxes, etc. This is how we can have Donald Trump and Ted Cruz on the same ticket. Because at the heart of the party is based on my definition above. If you vote one issue your usually not really that bright. There are plenty of dumb people on both sides.

If you want to know the "heart" of current Conservatives then you need to understand Reagan and his speeches. He started all of what we have today. Prior to Reagan most of the people who are now Conservatives were Democrats. "Conservative" only has meaning in the context of the time we live in. It is just a word and the definition changes based on the people that call themselves the same.


V


Perhaps my wording was wrong.

When I said abortion is "Central"...what I mean is that it seems central to the current definition, by voters and sub groups as you said. A central part of discussion.

I was a huge fan of Reagan though. Remember him well. Loved living under his Admin. Fun times.
edit on 23-1-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Conservatism is supposed to be about keeping something you already have. I agree with NWTrucker ( a reply to: nwtrucker ) that the things that conservatives want to keep are already gone. So being conservative is technically impossible.

Before WW2 and the New Deal, Conservatives favored decreasing central governmental power, no foreign action outside of free trade, and free market economics. These were called the "Old Right". The last "Old Right" candidate for president was either Senator Taft in 1952, or Barry Goldwater in 1964. (I don't know much about Goldwater)

Conservatism was killed sometime after William F Buckley wrote circa 1952

“The thus-far invisible aggressiveness of the Soviet Union… means that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores… [conservatives] will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war-production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.”

blog.skepticallibertarian.com...


Conservatism is a relative term now. andor a media term.

Abortion, Christianity, Home schooling, Gun Rights, property rights, lower taxes, economic freedom are all things that are part of having a smaller, non centralized, government. Rule of Society by Society is an alien concept to the MSM.

Albert Jay Knock , who wrote the book Our Enemy the State , was an Old Right Conservative. The first paragraph of that book is ...


If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, "agricultural adjustment," and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power.


At its core, conservatism leaves as much as possible to social power.



edit on 23-1-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
In other words, I won't seek to stop you, but I can and will disapprove.


Beautifully said. If that was the mantra of conservative Americans, I wouldn't have such an issue with them.

When somebody disapproves of my lifestyle, no big deal. When they try to stop me from living as I please, that's when it is wrong. Likewise, I don't agree with the basic Christian nuclear family lifestyle but I wouldn't, even for a moment, think I had a right to prevent them from living that way.

If people on all sides of the political spectrum had that basic filter through which to pass their thoughts, our nation would finally achieve a vision that has been in the making since its inception.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
They've twisted the meanings. This is a republic of we the people and elected representatives, by democratic means (one man one vote)

They've bastardized that to a two party system of politicians called Republicans and Democrats, The republic is gone so is democratic means of electing the people we want to represent us.

Conservative and Liberal is another twist. Used to be conservationist, preserving, not wasting resources and Liberals, or liberally exploiting resources more.

Big battle to preserve America after they wiped out the Buffalo, chopped down all the trees to make wooden buildings and genocided the Natives.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
In other words, I won't seek to stop you, but I can and will disapprove.


Beautifully said. If that was the mantra of conservative Americans, I wouldn't have such an issue with them.

When somebody disapproves of my lifestyle, no big deal. When they try to stop me from living as I please, that's when it is wrong. Likewise, I don't agree with the basic Christian nuclear family lifestyle but I wouldn't, even for a moment, think I had a right to prevent them from living that way.

If people on all sides of the political spectrum had that basic filter through which to pass their thoughts, our nation would finally achieve a vision that has been in the making since its inception.


Libertarian



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
In other words, I won't seek to stop you, but I can and will disapprove.


Beautifully said. If that was the mantra of conservative Americans, I wouldn't have such an issue with them.

When somebody disapproves of my lifestyle, no big deal. When they try to stop me from living as I please, that's when it is wrong. Likewise, I don't agree with the basic Christian nuclear family lifestyle but I wouldn't, even for a moment, think I had a right to prevent them from living that way.

If people on all sides of the political spectrum had that basic filter through which to pass their thoughts, our nation would finally achieve a vision that has been in the making since its inception.


Libertarian


I don't consider libertarians to be conservative, though. They are more embraced by conservatives because that's where the roots lay.

Aside from the libertarian goal of smaller government and the GOP's pretending to have that same goal, there isn't much else in common. I think Ron Paul was just as out of place in the GOP as he would have been in the DNC (in fact, he would have been the first republican I had ever voted for if only he had been nominated).

Honestly, there are certain aspects where I would consider myself a libertarian but I have seen very few libertarians truly espouse libertarian ideologies.
edit on 23-1-2016 by Abysha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
The term "Conservative" has become Orwellian because there is nothing left to conserve. To gain the goals of conservatism one has to follow a plan, whereas before being conservative meant leaving things as they are, the opposite of following a plan.
edit on 23-1-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

A lot of of "Libertarians" are former refugees of the Bush camp, which hid and ducked under the fallout of his reign and hijacked the "Tea Party" under Glenn Beck and other notables.

Just sayin...



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75
My opinion a true conservative is effectively a libertarian.


Hmmm....


As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

The facts are somewhat different. As Murray Bookchin noted, “libertarian” was “a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57] While we discuss this issue in An Anarchist FAQ in a few places (most obviously, section A.1.3) it is useful on the 150th anniversary to discuss the history of anarchist use of the word “libertarian” to describe our ideas.



anarchism.pageabode.com...

Suck on them eggs.
edit on 23-1-2016 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Interesting.

I never heard of that before. I have heard of the Left Libertarians, who want Georgist (Historical term en.wikipedia.org...) land reform and a guaranteed income for everyone like about $20,000 per year.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Interesting.

I never heard of that before. I have heard of the Left Libertarians, who want Georgist (Historical term en.wikipedia.org...) land reform and a guaranteed income for everyone like about $20,000 per year.



Yes there are Left Libertarians. There are Consequentialists, Minarchists, Paul Libertarians, Mises School, Friedmans, Spooners, Anarchists, some who don't agree borders, some that do.

It's not a monolith in itself. There are core principles though that bind it.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Nay.

The closest I would come to it is to say that you need to at least acknowledge that Western Civilization, including its Judeo-Christian roots, in large part helped make our current society and the principles of personal liberty and responsibility enshrined in the COTUS possible.

That doesn't mean you have to be Christian to enjoy the benefits or believe in them, only that you acknowledge those roots.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
Is a Conservative one who is :

1) Christian
2) Pro Life

Are the two written in stone? Can one be Pro Choice and still be Conservative? What about Agnostic or Atheist?

Is there a Purist defined line? Who thinks yes?


Absolutely not. You are "conservative" if your primary concern is conserving things. Those things are often traditions, ways of life, values that are perceived to be threatened by social forces over time. You do not need to be Christian and you do not need to be "Pro Life". Those are common elements in modern American Conservatism, but they are certainly not part of the "price of admission".



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
Is being a Christian a rule for being Conservative?

Can we at least define that benchmark?

Yea or Nay?




Nay, imho


Nay in my experience, as well. I've known more than one vocal conservative who was essentially an atheist, but agreed with the majority of the "conservative platform", that aside.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Nay.

The closest I would come to it is to say that you need to at least acknowledge that Western Civilization, including its Judeo-Christian roots, in large part helped make our current society and the principles of personal liberty and responsibility enshrined in the COTUS possible.

That doesn't mean you have to be Christian to enjoy the benefits or believe in them, only that you acknowledge those roots.



GREEK and Roman philosophy and traditions influenced us more than "Judeo Christianity"...on a political and social level. The Founders stylized the Constitution after Greeks which many highly revered. There is ZERO mention of Christianity or Jesus in the entire Constitution.

Our influences are Greek and Roman largely culturally and politically.

"Judeo Christianity" on a more personal level. Yes, you may have a case.
edit on 23-1-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Nay.

The closest I would come to it is to say that you need to at least acknowledge that Western Civilization, including its Judeo-Christian roots, in large part helped make our current society and the principles of personal liberty and responsibility enshrined in the COTUS possible.

That doesn't mean you have to be Christian to enjoy the benefits or believe in them, only that you acknowledge those roots.



GREEK and Roman philosophy and traditions influenced us more than "Judeo Christianity"...on a political and social level. The Founders stylized the Constitution after Greeks which many highly revered. There is ZERO mention of Christianity or Jesus in the entire Constitution.

Our influences are Greek and Roman largely culturally and politically.

"Judeo Christianity" on a more personal level. Yes, you may have a case.


The Christian Religion gave each person an immortal and individual relationship to reality, that is, the soul. Also the responsibility for managing that soul, that is, choosing correctly, falls to the individual.

The Greeks and Romans had no individuality. Democracy in Greece meant that every man could vote the City State to do anything. The City State had no limits. Rome was the same in that regard, The individual had a say about what the collective could do. The collective was not limited. They are both examples of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The West has always opposed Eastern Despotism. Much of that opposition manifested itself in property rights. No one person or group owns everything until communism, or the divine right of kings, which was a historically short period.

Christianity in particular has had an enormous effect towards individual sovereignty.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Lol...the labels have blurry definitions because they are used for debating issues in politics. They don't actually mean anything and you can adjust the representation of each one depending on what the issue is. It gives the appearance of talking about something important basically.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

This is all you need to know about conservatism:

Reflections on the revolution in France — Edmund Burke

its a great read. Burke was the philosophical opponent of Thomas Pain. Pain's "Rights of man" was a direct response to Burke's "Reflections".

The core is:

We should trust the inherent wisdom of our institutions, which have passed through hundreds of years of trial and error, over the abstract idealism of philosophic dictators, who seek to realign those institutions to their own fancies. We have a duty to pass along this wisdom to our children, as it was passed to us. These institutions have taken a long time to build, but can be quickly destroyed by the ambitious and violent.

Burke was basically correct about everything, foreseeing the Napolionic wars, the Declaration of Independence, and much more.

Regarding religion, conservatism defends it as one of those human institutions, but given its western basis, it adheres to secular law, common law, before religious law, which is between the individual and his God. There are plenty atheist conservatives. I am one of them.
edit on 24-1-2016 by TheTory because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join