What is a conservative?

[RoyalShock]

CNN's Glenn Beck

His segue about putting principle ahead of party and/or candidate is spot on, IMO. And it's the reason why I don't believe voting for someone other than Obama or McCain is a throwaway vote. If the D's and R's know they can count on your vote, even with a poor candidate that doesn't align very well with your principles, where is their motivation to listen to their membership? If you fall blindlly in line behind a donkey or elephant you're probably going to step in some crap.

I also like his list of conservative traits, but he missed what I think should be the most important one: that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[Maggie]

When asked for a concise definition of conservatism William F. Buckley, Jr., a person I would consider an authority on the matter, stated:

"Conservatism aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition. Now this leaves room, of course, for deposition, and there is deposition -- the Civil War being the most monstrous account. But it also urges a kind of loyalty that breeds a devotion to those ideals sufficient to surmount the current crisis. When the Soviet Union challenged America and our set of loyalties, it did so at gunpoint. It became necessary at a certain point to show them our clenched fist and advise them that we were not going to deal lightly with our primal commitment to preserve those loyalties.

That’s the most general definition of conservatism. "

Here is the link if you would like to read the entire interview:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2007/11/19/william_f_buckley_jr_on_conservatism_an_interview

As an aside, Royal, he talks about Ron Paul a bit. I believe you supported his candidacy.

[SubGod22]

Why am I Conservative? This is one I read about a month ago. Not from anyone as famous as the first two but still not bad.

[wu_shizzle]

Re: What is a conservative?

...it's the reason why I don't believe voting for someone other than Obama or McCain is a throwaway vote.

That's all well and good during the primary, neither McCain or Obama were selected by their respective parties, they were chosen by a majority of voters.

When it comes to the general election, one of those two will win, so who most fits your principles? Me personally, I want to make sure one candidate doesn't sniff the presidency, more than I want my party's candidate to win this time.

For me not to vote for my party's candidate is essentially a throwaway vote for the candidate I least want to see in office. Work all you can to change the party and support good candidates, but don't throw your vote away on people like Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.

[RoyalShock]

When asked for a concise definition of conservatism William F. Buckley, Jr., a person I would consider an authority on the matter, stated:

"Conservatism aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition. Now this leaves room, of course, for deposition, and there is deposition -- the Civil War being the most monstrous account. But it also urges a kind of loyalty that breeds a devotion to those ideals sufficient to surmount the current crisis. When the Soviet Union challenged America and our set of loyalties, it did so at gunpoint. It became necessary at a certain point to show them our clenched fist and advise them that we were not going to deal lightly with our primal commitment to preserve those loyalties.

That’s the most general definition of conservatism. "

Here is the link if you would like to read the entire interview:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2007/11/19/william_f_buckley_jr_on_conservatism_an_interview

As an aside, Royal, he talks about Ron Paul a bit. I believe you supported his candidacy.

The bolded portion is an interesting definition. But after reading it several times, you could replace "Conservatism" with "Liberalism" or "Socialism" or almost any political philosphy-ism and it would be no less accurate, as the key word "community" remains undefined and groups have "perceived truths", using their own criteria to judge "universal recognition".

I guess I'm saying that it's so general it doesn't have any teeth. And to that end, there are some things with which I don't agree with him, particularly his notion that neoconservativism isn't vitiating (I had to look that up!) legitimate conservatism.

But that was an interesting read. I find his method of answering questions a bit odd. Either he's short (Yes. No.) or explains his answer to the point of obfuscating or not even answering the question presented.

Other than those things, there is some good stuff in there. His characterization of Ron Paul was interesting and not surprising, though I get the sense he may be underestimating the long-term effects of Paul's campaign. Of course, time will be the judge of that.

[ShockBand]

Another good question would be what is the perception of what a conservative is? By a conservative? By a non-conservative? Then just replace the word "conservative" with any other ideological label and let your brain crunch it for awhile.

Here's an exercise that I'll try and do while on the plane this weekend, if one doesn't mind stating what they perceive their own ideology to be.

State your ideological viewpoint
State five words or short statements that characterize each of the following:
conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, and any other you see fit

I write that after pondering the notion of "perception becoming reality" after reading the book unChristian, by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. They explore the challenge those who call themselves Christian face with the perceptions "outsiders" (a term from the book) have about Christianity, Christians and the church. BTW, its a good, albeit uncomfortable, read.

[Snapshot9]

If you have never done it, you should: Take the test to see where you stand politically. What you think you are as opposed to what you get rated may be different than what you think:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I was pretty much where I thought I was, a little left of center, and a little below the horizon.

[wu_shizzle]

While I prefer a more scholarly, articulate definition, I'll give you my own definition in layman's terms.

I believe a Conservative views the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as perfect documents and the adherence to their original intent as the foundation of our society.

In opposition to that, I see the Liberal view as one who thinks the foundations of society can and should move as society evolves. What was appropriate in the past may be antithetical to what is preferred today. In short, the perfect society is the society of the future not the past.

[Maggie]

When asked for a concise definition of conservatism William F. Buckley, Jr., a person I would consider an authority on the matter, stated:

"Conservatism aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition. Now this leaves room, of course, for deposition, and there is deposition -- the Civil War being the most monstrous account. But it also urges a kind of loyalty that breeds a devotion to those ideals sufficient to surmount the current crisis. When the Soviet Union challenged America and our set of loyalties, it did so at gunpoint. It became necessary at a certain point to show them our clenched fist and advise them that we were not going to deal lightly with our primal commitment to preserve those loyalties.

That’s the most general definition of conservatism. "

Here is the link if you would like to read the entire interview:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2007/11/19/william_f_buckley_jr_on_conservatism_an_interview

As an aside, Royal, he talks about Ron Paul a bit. I believe you supported his candidacy.

The bolded portion is an interesting definition. But after reading it several times, you could replace "Conservatism" with "Liberalism" or "Socialism" or almost any political philosphy-ism and it would be no less accurate, as the key word "community" remains undefined and groups have "perceived truths", using their own criteria to judge "universal recognition".

I guess I'm saying that it's so general it doesn't have any teeth. And to that end, there are some things with which I don't agree with him, particularly his notion that neoconservativism isn't vitiating (I had to look that up!) legitimate conservatism.

But that was an interesting read. I find his method of answering questions a bit odd. Either he's short (Yes. No.) or explains his answer to the point of obfuscating or not even answering the question presented.

Other than those things, there is some good stuff in there. His characterization of Ron Paul was interesting and not surprising, though I get the sense he may be underestimating the long-term effects of Paul's campaign. Of course, time will be the judge of that.

I don’t have time to get into this in detail right now; however:

As you are probably aware, Bill Buckley is widely and correctly considered the father of “modern” conservatism. Without Buckley there would have been no Ronald Reagan. Such was his influence.

I think if you actually read Buckley you will find that he had plenty of "teeth". The definition, in my opinion, was intended to point out, in part, that conservatism is not a strict dogma but is by nature very practical. And if it is any consolation, don’t feel bad about having to look up “vitiating”, if you read Buckley you will find yourself knee deep in a dictionary more often than not.

I have not made a judgment about the “neo-conservative” influence – generally I am not pleased with it and I do tend to side with Buckley in that it has not “vitiated” “legitimate” conservatism. The problem, in my mind, with legitimate conservatism is that it has lost its main adversary – communism – for several years. I suspect; however, that a new “adversary” will arise very soon.

As for Ron Paul and his influence – you may be correct. After all Goldwater’s loss paved the way for Reagan.

[ShockBand]

I too was, not surprisingly, ever so slightly left of center and actually about a third of the way below the horizon, making a slightly left leaning libertarian I guess. The closest international person to me on their list was the Dalai Lama, interesting.

There is also the world's smallest political quiz at:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

where I am in the Libertarian section.

[SubGod22]

There's no such thing as a throw away vote in my mind. There's a purpose behind it even if that guy doesn't win. Continuing to vote for the same crap both parties keep throwing out there won't help change anything. Both candidates suck. There's really no other way to put it.

[RoyalShock]

Re: What is a conservative?

...it's the reason why I don't believe voting for someone other than Obama or McCain is a throwaway vote.

That's all well and good during the primary, neither McCain or Obama were selected by their respective parties, they were chosen by a majority of voters.

When it comes to the general election, one of those two will win, so who most fits your principles? Me personally, I want to make sure one candidate doesn't sniff the presidency, more than I want my party's candidate to win this time.

For me not to vote for my party's candidate is essentially a throwaway vote for the candidate I least want to see in office. Work all you can to change the party and support good candidates, but don't throw your vote away on people like Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.

I have to respectfully disagree. Throwing your vote behind the party nominee because you both have an (R) behind your name only perpetuates the status quo. If you really feel a candidate represents your values then by all means vote for them.

Using pragmatism as a basis of who gets your vote is, in my opinion, a big reason why we have such a huge monstrosity of a government that seems more concerned with it's own interests than the interests of the people it purports to represent. It shouldn't be about keeping the other party out of office. I used to be a straight-ticket voter, so I fully understand why people vote pragmatically. For me, doing that now violates my conscience. I no longer think that is a good way to go about electing leaders, particularly since it's become harder to discern between the ruling parties.

In my opinoin, the only voice party leadership listens to is your vote in the general election. If you are unhappy with the direction of the party (forget the other party and their candidate), but vote for their candidate anyway, you just gave tacet approval.

Since I've continued to follow Paul's campaign and the "liberty movement", I've read many incidents (first-hand accounts, media reports, as well as recorded video and audio) where party leaders at state Republican conventions broke party rules to exclude the opinions and influence of registered party members that just happened to support Ron Paul, right up to disqualifying properly elected delegates on those grounds alone. Party leaders don't give a crap about the rank-and-file beyond the November vote. Dissent is not allowed. That doesn't sound very "democratic" to me.

The bottom line for me is that I'm a conservative. John McCain is not. Neither he nor the Republican party, of which I'm still a member, will get my vote. I actually hope they lose and lose badly. That may be the only way the party leadership will get the message I want them to get. Sometimes things need to get worse before they'll get better.

[SubGod22]

I feel ya Royal. Although I'm not a member of any party. I can't vote for McCain and Obama scares the hell out of me. No matter who wins, things will get worse before they get better.

[Snapshot9]

KISS definition of a conservative is one who has money leftover when his next payday arrives, and hasn't maxed out the credit cards.

Believing in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should be a given for all Americans.

Per my rating, I am a conservative liberal, but I am not much on labels or that you have to believe one way or another depeding on the label.

With the way of the world today, and the way things are going, we would all do well to have a very conservative mindset. (which, BTW, is a good reason why bringing football back to WSU would not work).

[kcshocker11]

While I prefer a more scholarly, articulate definition, I'll give you my own definition in layman's terms.

I believe a Conservative views the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as perfect documents and the adherence to their original intent as the foundation of our society.

In opposition to that, I see the Liberal view as one who thinks the foundations of society can and should move as society evolves. What was appropriate in the past may be antithetical to what is preferred today. In short, the perfect society is the society of the future not the past.

Thats pretty good! I guess thats why liberals are also called progressives. 8)