Why I Am Not a Conservative

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm going to take a stab at some things I've read, and don't understand fully:

Language shapes the concepts we use to understand and communicate. It is very difficult, if not impossible to understand something you cannot explain in language (I include mathematics and other symbology in this).

A standard tactic of propagandists, enshrined in the tactics of the Nazis, the Soviets, and Saul Alinsky (to name a few) has been to take control of the language; use words to mean what you want them to mean, and repeat them in that context until they become accepted by your target audience. George Orwell described it well in "1984"; "political correctness" is its embodiment in our current society.

I can't speak to the definitions of "Liberal", "Conservative", "Progressive", or "Libertarian", but I have a firm conviction that the political spectrum is _not_ linear and that until we who favor the conviction that this country was founded on the principles of minimal governmental interference on guaranteed personal freedoms gain control of the _language_ of the national debate, those who feel that the State is the ultimate arbiter of our freedoms will continue to gain power and influence.

 

[downzero]

I can't speak to the definitions of "Liberal", "Conservative", "Progressive", or "Libertarian", but I have a firm conviction that the political spectrum is _not_ linear and that until we who favor the conviction that this country was founded on the principles of minimal governmental interference on guaranteed personal freedoms gain control of the _language_ of the national debate, those who feel that the State is the ultimate arbiter of our freedoms will continue to gain power and influence.

Just out of curiosity, what makes the founding principles of this country so much better than the government we have now?

From my perspective, this is an example of a conservative argument for the status quo ante, rather than the typical argument just for the status quo.

But just because something was like that over 200 years ago doesn't mean it'd be better if we returned to that now. I think this is one of the points Hayek makes so gracefully. We should want and desire the ideal level of government. If it turns out that our government is the same size it was in 1787, so be it. If not, maybe it would look different.

I want our government constrained to the constitution because otherwise it it just "gangster" government, acting without control. But I'm perfectly willing to accept that even if we did restore our government to its constitutional principles (including reeling in the commerce clause, which has been so broadly construed that we have little defensible economic liberty), that the people might desire to amend the constitution to give government additional power and authority.

The fundamental difference is that libertarians want the best, whereas conservatives want what is or what was. And in this instance, where I agree that what was would be better than what we have now, I'm not willing to stop at merely restoring us to that point. Progress, to me, would require seeking the ideal conclusion, not simply restoring the status quo ante.

Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" demonstrates the other idea you were talking about quite gracefully.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

A follow up from this post



What did OUR founders mean by this the Preamble to the Constitution, since we're on the discussion of liberty, and defining what is who and how.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I want to zero down on one tiny, often over looked word. It's quite obvious our Founders were indeed an intelligent breed of men, the best. Our Constitution, about as perfect as it can be.

Question is with the word Posterity, a word that I actually had to look up for the definition; I found this.

Future generations

All of a person's descendants.



all of the offspring of a given progenitor; "we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity"

group of genetically related organisms constituting a single step in the line of descent

posterity - definition of posterity by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Preamble | LII / Legal Information Institute
Preamble to the Constitution & Environmental Law


It is unquestionably noted, on who the Founders were speaking of when they wrote this, which is only backed by the policies they put into power.

Doesnt this null and void the 14A?
A link on the unconstitutional basis of the 14A
2nd Link
Petition


Is it unconstitutionally sound to support the original desires of the Founders in Modern America?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The problem with originalist (or original constructionists, or conservatives, or American Conservatives, or what ever you want to call those who favor a return to the original principles of the Constitution) is that the Constitution has been amended since it was written, and those amendments have consequences. Lets look at the amendments that have really reshaped the Constitution.

0 Constitution Ratified.

+6 months. The Bill of Rights. Before the Bill of Rights came along you had no right to free press, freedom of religion, keep and bear arms, freedom from warrantless search and seizure, and no States rights.

+ 77 years. 14th Amendment. Before the 14th Amendment all men were not created equally, and the Bill or Rights applied to the federal, not state governments. This amendment started us down the path or the destruction of States rights.

+ 144 years. 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment put Congress directly into your pockets through a direct assessment on income. This was the day that American's no longer had equal opportunity, but that the government started looking for eqaul outcomes for all Americans. Well, except for the Vanderbilts, Rothschilds, Carnagies, Morgans, etc.

+144 years. 17th Amendment. This was the Amendment that killed the system of checks and balances and led to the destruction of the republic as the founders intended. Before the 17th amendment passed, state legislatures appointed senators, so states had a voice in the federal government. The 17th Amendment turned senate elections into popularity contests like the House.

With these amendments in place the best that we can hope for is a government full of "limited government" legislators. But who is going to agree to that? There's a reason that Conservatives turn into Moderates and Liberals once they have been elected. It's called elections, and they want to win another to keep their jobs. They need to have the party machine working for them, and that machine needs fuel. The fuel comes in the form of patronage.

You want a party that doesn't run on patronage? You have to do two things.

First, build one. Run it ethically. Run it well. Educate people as to why it is in their best interest to not elect people who tell them what they want to hear, rather than what they need to be told.

Second, you have to destroy the partonage oriented parties. Given the choice to vote between someone who tells you what you want to hear and someone who tells you who you need to hear, you are generally going to pick the former over the latter. It's just human nature.

 

[yotewacker]

It surprises me that a liberal would even be on this forum. Because they love gun control so much.

 

[mrjarrell]

Where has there been a "liberal" in this thread? Classical liberals, perhaps, but not the type you're thinking of.

 

[PatriotPride]

It surprises me that a [STRIKE]liberal[/STRIKE] TROLL would even be on this forum. Because they love gun control so much.

FTFY

 

[miguel]

In nearly two years on this forum, I had only blocked one user in my CP. In the past 18 hours, I have blocked two...either I'm waxing intolerant or more ding dongs are joining INGO.

 

[miguel]

I'm going to take a stab at some things I've read, and don't understand fully:

Language shapes the concepts we use to understand and communicate. It is very difficult, if not impossible to understand something you cannot explain in language (I include mathematics and other symbology in this).

A standard tactic of propagandists, enshrined in the tactics of the Nazis, the Soviets, and Saul Alinsky (to name a few) has been to take control of the language; use words to mean what you want them to mean, and repeat them in that context until they become accepted by your target audience. George Orwell described it well in "1984"; "political correctness" is its embodiment in our current society.

I can't speak to the definitions of "Liberal", "Conservative", "Progressive", or "Libertarian", but I have a firm conviction that the political spectrum is _not_ linear and that until we who favor the conviction that this country was founded on the principles of minimal governmental interference on guaranteed personal freedoms gain control of the _language_ of the national debate, those who feel that the State is the ultimate arbiter of our freedoms will continue to gain power and influence.

Well said!

For a nice treatment of how moderns twist language in an attempt to alter reality, see [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Abuse-Language-Power-Josef-Pieper/dp/089870362X]Amazon.com: Abuse of Language Abuse of Power (0008987036203): Josef Pieper: Books[/ame]

 

[downzero]

Well said!

For a nice treatment of how moderns twist language in an attempt to alter reality, see Amazon.com: Abuse of Language Abuse of Power (0008987036203): Josef Pieper: Books

Check out this essay by George Orwell as well.

George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946

 

[Rob377]

Kind of interesting how many adhere to a false, pure 1-dimensional left-right dichotomy, and that I think, is what is causing a lot of the confusion here.

I've seen some improvement on that point lately, as it becomes more common to say "I'm socially liberal, economically conservative" or whatever the case may be.

(side note: here's a neat little quiz. Not perfect, but better than either left or right 1-dimensional nonsense)
The Political Compass - Test

However, what Hayek is saying in part, is that the distinction between economic and social paternalism/authoritarianism is inconsistent.

The Conservative who advocates gov't control of expression (e.g. flag burning) on the one hand, but a strictly hands off approach when it comes to money is not being entirely consistent from a philosophical perspective.


The progressive "liberal" is just as much a hypocrite when they talk about personal freedom for sex, drugs and rock n' roll, but simultaneously try to destroy personal freedom when it comes to money.

This inconsistency creates a double edged sword for conservatives. As a movement against gov't power and for personal power, you can't possibly expect to swing the pendulum your way without being consistent. The expansions of the Feds under Dubya that conservatives cheered come back to haunt us under Dear Leader.


The other part is on "conservative" aversion to dismantle big gov't.

Hayek was ahead of his time in so many ways. Think about Reagan, the consummate conservative, right? Government didn't shrink under Reagan. It just didn't get bigger as fast.

It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing.

Sure Reagan was dragged down by a Dem Congress, in all fairness. But when in modern times have we ever seen gov't get smaller and less obtrusive? NEVER. Not under Reagan, not under the early 90's GOP revolution, not under Dubya with a GOP congressional majority either.

The cold hard reality is that conservatives (not all conservatives, but we're necessarily painting in broad strokes here) are only for limited-gov't and individual liberty part-time, and only on certain issues.

Even Rush constantly complains that too many of today's "conservative" leaders willingly accept the premises of the left. They're constantly fighting on battlegrounds chosen by the left. As a result, they're never taking ground back, just slowing the enemy assault down. And that was/is Hayek's point.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty.

When has any conservative seriously done something to dismantle the Department of Education? The EPA? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? The vast amounts of corporate welfare? or any of the hundreds of federal alphabet agencies?

With a few exceptions, the modern conservative is about "slightly less big gov't" as compared to "big gov't" "liberals."

We're never going to get a doctinaire conservative that is willing to take big steps, which what Hayek is taking about when he writes

one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such,[5] while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence,

(Note: Hayek isn't talking about "liberal" leftists here)

 

[2cool9031]

It seems that was written in 1960.....50 years ago....At that time there was no Obama.

 

[mrjarrell]

It seems that was written in 1960.....50 years ago....At that time there was no Obama.

Yeah, but Lyndon Johnson and many other progressives were there and just as bad.

 

[downzero]

Yeah, but Lyndon Johnson and many other progressives were there and just as bad.

And don't forget the President--John F. Kennedy.

In the first chapter of Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, he responds to JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" speech.

He says that both of these are wrong. He states that what we should really ask ourselves is neither of these questions. The correct question, of course, is, "What can I do for me?" Because in a self-reliant society, that is really what matters. Not what a country can do for you, or what you can do for the collective, but what you can do for yourself.

 

[mrjarrell]

I tend to think more of Kennedy's getting us involved in Vietnam. That was much worse.

 

[groovatron]

To me, it's not just about word definitions, but also the faces behind the puppetry.........

Why I'm not a Conservative...................

And to be fair....................

Why I'm not a Liberal................

Enough said.

 

[downzero]

That was instant thread death right there. Shame on you.

 

[Hotdoger]

The Conservative who advocates gov't control of expression (e.g. flag burning) on the one hand, but a strictly hands off approach when it comes to money is not being entirely consistent from a philosophical perspective.

Flag burning isn't an "expression" issue. It is classififed as one by leftists.
Open burning is illegal in most incorported areas across this nation.
A true conservative is for fair and even treatment under those laws.
Leftists think that should not apply to them.

 

[Fletch]

Flag burning isn't an "expression" issue. It is classififed as one by leftists.
Open burning is illegal in most incorported areas across this nation.

Are you attempting to conflate flag burning with fire safety laws?

 

[Randall Flagg]

I tend to think more of Kennedy's getting us involved in Vietnam. That was much worse.

we were about to be pulled out under jfk, then he got shoot and lbj commited us full time after that.