What is "conservatism" about?

G

GoSlash27

New member
I remember a day when "conservatism" was about "personal freedom" through limiting the scope and size of government and strict adherence to the Constitution. The converse, "liberalism" was about improving the lot of the common man (and hence society in general) by pooling our resources in government and encouraging it's participation.

These days, "conservative" principles such as I understand them are scoffed at (even by Republicans) as fringey, wacko, and/or outmoded.

So just to clarify... what *is* conservatism about these days? I'm not talkin' policy, but philosophy.
 
So just to clarify... what *is* conservatism about these days? I'm not talkin' policy, but philosophy.


I think the philosophy is still small government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. The practice and policy has gone completely off the rails.

This morning's Fox News Sunday show featured a Republican from OK defending the Farm Bill as good for increasing food stamps, while spending "less" than the Democrats originally asked for.Over a hundred Republican Congressmen voted for this multi billion dollar basket of welfare transfer payments.

The presumptive GOP Presidential candidate, John McCain, is in the current issue of American Rifleman advocating the elimination of all private transfer of firearms outside of immediate family members.

Our "right wing conservative" elected officials do not believe Big Government is the problem, just that they should have a say in how it gets bigger.
__________________
 
The presumptive GOP Presidential candidate, John McCain, is in the current issue of American Rifleman advocating the elimination of all private transfer of firearms outside of immediate family members.
Click to expand...

I happen to have that issue, but I can't find the purported quote by Senator McCain which advocates any such thing. Could you please quote the part of the article that you're referring to, and include the page number? Thanks!
 
Fremmer
The presumptive GOP Presidential candidate, John McCain, is in the current issue of American Rifleman advocating the elimination of all private transfer of firearms outside of immediate family members.
I happen to have that issue, but I can't find the purported quote by Senator McCain which advocates any such thing. Could you please quote the part of the article that you're referring to, and include the page number? Thanks!
Click to expand...

This is what he said. He was very "slick" in the way that he phrased it. The full text of the speech is at the link below.

I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife.
Click to expand...

No mention of a transfer between a neighbor and a neighbor.

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/239202741.html
 
June 2008 American Rifleman page 15 McCain's answer to gunshow question

slick like this:


"Ialso oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as a transfer between a father and son or husband and wife."

No specifics on uncle and nephew either.
 
Goslash,

I think your definitions are good. There are just so few conservatives in politics because it is not natural for a politician to say that their own power should be limited. Most politicians seem to think they are smarter than everyone else and think others should be acting as the politician wants them to act. They use the collectivist arguments to contentrate power for themselves. And judging by the actions of previous totalitarians...absolute power does corrupt them absolutely.
 
I think people get confused on these terms because of the way the parties themselves are composed of many different groups. People tend to just say that "Republicans are conservatives" which is far too simplistic.

There are social conservatives. This is the religious right. Abortion, prayer in school, gay marriage, etc.

There are economic conservatives. Small government, lower the budget and taxes. Trust the market to fix things rather than an interventionist government. (Many times economic conservatives aren't socially conservative at all.)

There are small "l" libertarians. They tend to be economic conservatives as well but they expand on limited government beyond just economic issues. Lots and lots of these people vote GOP. And many of the people in this group are uneasy with the ideas of the social conservatives. Definite area of division within the GOP. Gun people tend to be here.

And there are other groups as well like the neo-conservatives. They tend to focus on foreign policy.

If you just call all these groups "conservatives," you can see how a person would get confused about what the label actually means!

Gregg
 
This is a great thread and a topic that I've always been wondering about myself.

To start, I believe we should look at both sides of the coin because the sides are seemingly so muddy. What is the difference between a liberal and a Liberal?

I ask this because there are some views that we would attribute to being "conservative" but may look liberal on the surface. The difference being that a Liberal seeks to enlist the government's involvement.

I bring this up especially after reading tulsamal's mention of social conservatives and libertarians. I believe the former would label the latter as "Liberals" in this case because the latter does not feel that the "social" issues are a concern of government involvement.

Was it not Reagan who said that at the heart of conservatism is libertarianism? Political points aside, do you personally agree with that statement?

I do (I think), I believe in maximum individual liberty and minimum government involvement. People should be free to do as they please as long as they don't infringe on the natural rights or the Constitutional rights of others, or otherwise cause them harm.

I never liked the term neo-conservative, as it seems there is almost nothing conservative about them. Perhaps this is where the term RINO applies the most?
 
Supposedly, the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" have changed in meaning over the decades. I've read in multiple places that today's Conservative core is basically the Classical Liberalism core of our Founding Fathers.

Maybe so. From what little I've studied on the subject, that description fits. I find it difficult to imagine that Thomas Jefferson, the supposed founder of today's Democrat Party, was the same kind of Liberal that we find in today's U.S. politics. But I haven't made any detailed study of the matter.

I base my conservatism on the Declaration of Independence - our nation's Mission Statement - and the U.S. Constitution - our nation's Policies and Procedures manual that carries out the mission statement. By following those two documents to my best abilities, I sometimes reach conclusions that are not typically "conservative." I have no problem with that.
 
I love it. Another neo-lib lie about what Senator McCain has said about the private transfer of firearms between individuals.

Here is what was asserted:

The presumptive GOP Presidential candidate, John McCain, is in the current issue of American Rifleman advocating the elimination of all private transfer of firearms outside of immediate family members.
Click to expand...

As stated already, I have that issue of American Rifleman magazine. And I know darn well that Senator McCain said no such thing as asserted by Acr, which is why I requested a specific quote and reference to the page of the article from Arc. And the responses I get are totally devoid of any such statement by Senator McCain. If you guys are going to make this stuff up, you'd better do a better job than that. Because right now, you have no credibility concerning Senator McCain's positions regarding firearms. Seriously, if you're going to misrepresent Senator McCain's positions, at least do a better job of it. Put some effort into it. Something that's not so cheesy and so easily refuted. Remember, this is not the Daily Kos or MoveOn.Org. :rolleyes:

Edited to add: the thread veer (consisting of the misrepresentation of Senator McCain's position on guns) has nothing to do with the OP's post. Instead, it was simply another weak smearbund. Smearbunds! (I hope Lew Rockwell enjoys my use of his invented words!)
 
I would say with all due respect to conservatives that to get back on track you need to reject the social right. I understand they brought the Republicans success during the 80s and 90s – and for many traditional conservatives it may be like riding the back of a tiger – but conservatives need to get back to basics: small government and limited foreign involvement.

For many conservatives this will be very difficult. Like Barry Goldwater many will need to realize that small/limited government also means a woman has a right to privacy with regard to abortion. For Goldwater it may have been personal, of course, as his daughter had an abortion. But he and his wife Peggy were founding members of Planned Parenthood in AZ in 1937 and remained involved with the organization during his lifetime.

However much a conservative may despise abortion, gay rights, or stem cell research, as a ‘true conservative’ he must realize that small/limited government not only applies to foreign adventures or low taxes, it also limits government involvement in our personal lives.

That goes for the right to privacy and the right to keep and bear arms.

I hope you guys find your way back – good luck.
 
However much a conservative may despise abortion, gay rights, or stem cell research, as a ‘true conservative’ he must realize that small/limited government not only applies to foreign adventures or low taxes, it also limits government involvement in our personal lives.
Click to expand...
+100

Social conservatives who spend money liberally are what is killing the Republican party. A true conservative doesnt care what religion somone is, wether or not they pray in school, have abortions, or marry their same sex partner. A true conservative belives that the goverment has no right to tell you how to live your private life.

Hardcore right-wing republicans scare me more than far-left liberals. Liberals have a loud mouth, but are generally harmless. Hardcore Republicans will take your rights away under the guise of security wrapped in the American flag.
 
conservative are

those who do not want anything comprising rules and the regulation of business unless they own the business and the government has given them a monopoly. :cool:
 
Liberals have a loud mouth, but are generally harmless. Hardcore Republicans will take your rights away under the guise of security wrapped in the American flag.
Click to expand...
Liberals will do the same thing in the name of their own concept of safety and security and "protecting minorities" and keeping "separation of church and state" and "social justice." Their actions are no less abominable or dangerous.
 
I think real conservatism is a more realistic view of libertarianism, smaller goverment - more personal freedom, but realizing that some laws and regulations are still needed, just to a lesser extent.
 
but realizing that some laws and regulations are still needed
Click to expand...
and, on the federal level, it is the Constitution which defines what areas Congress can legislate. Compare what it says, to what Congress currently does.
As for state and local government, I would like them to be as limited as possible.
It's best if government leave individual people to live as they will, and to reap the rewards of good decisions and suffer the consquences for bad decisions.
When government gets involved in controlling what people do to and for themselves, or trying to take care of them, then liberty is lost.
Conservatism should be about living in liberty.
 
Agencies like the FDA and EPA need to still exist which is my point, I believe in liberty, but people shouldn't be able to do anything they want if it directly impacts somone else.

Me owning a gun doesn't have a direct impact on my neighbors, but a company setting up a waste dump next to someones house does.

Laws are needed, but less of them should be present.
 
Fremmer,

I joined this forum to learn more about guns and to trade with people locally--not to argue politics. McCain is a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights as they are currently limited by government. Obama has no respect for our rights. Even so, McCain's support of "ending the gun show loophole" clearly refers to restricting the private transfer of firearms beyond what we are allowed now.In 2009 you can bet intra-state FTF transfers will be banned by Federal law no matter who is elected. All "private sales" will require an FFL and an NCIS background check. His statement was pretty clear in an evasive sort of way.If he has clarified that he doesn't support further restrictions on private transfers outside the physical premises of a gun show please let me know and I will retract my statement.

I don't think we need more gun control, nor do I think it is "just about right".
I would like to reclaim as much of my rights as possible through peaceful political means. I would think most gun enthusiasts would agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top