What is "conservatism" about?

[GoSlash27]

zukiphile,

An honest traditional conservative

Now I've got you doing it

The first priority of a traditional conservative (as I understand it) is to resolve conflicts at the lowest possible level, thus limiting the scope and power of higher levels of government.
This matter could have been handled at a much lower level than the United States House of Representatives and should have been IMO. But of course election year politics have a habit of overriding ideals.

Brings up the next point:
Could the real reason behind the liberal drift (more accurately populist) be that the political reality on the ground is that people won't vote for candidates who don't promise to "do stuff"?

After all, populism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive...

 

[zukiphile]

An honest traditional conservative

Now I've got you doing it

My purpose in repeating that is to note that a traditional conservative can honestly take either side of the issue.

The first priority of a traditional conservative (as I understand it) is to resolve conflicts at the lowest possible level, thus limiting the scope and power of higher levels of government.

That sounds as if you are describing the principle of subsidiarity. The family is the basic unit, and handles all matters that can reasonably be handled at that level. Town, county, state and nation each exercise authority only where the authority of the next inferior level of organisation is inadequate.

It isn't precisely the same thing as limited government -- you could be smothered in many levels of authority micromanaging all your decisions -- but it can be worked into a rationale for limited federal government.

 

[Musketeer]

Could the real reason behind the liberal drift (more accurately populist) be that the political reality on the ground is that people won't vote for candidates who don't promise to "do stuff"?

After all, populism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive...

Yes.

Most people are ignorant of the nation's true libertarian pricipals and would gladly sell them down the river at the first sign of a pork barrel spending bill or piece of legislation THEY agree with.

Obama's campaign right now is a perfect example of the boundless expansion of governmental power and how people desire it when it benefits them. Look at the promises made. Just yesterday I heard him say "I will make certain teachers are paid what they deserve." Excuse me but what does the head of the executive branch of the federal gov't have to do with local schools and teacher's salaries? If you are a member of the UFT (teacher's union) though this is great because an expansion of power is fine as long as you benefit. He has made plenty of equally stupid promises. The republicans are little better though as the latest farm subsidies rolling through gov't prove. Food prices are through the roof, we are burning food to use as inefficient fuel (at higher cost) yet we are supposed to subsidize farmers. The pigs at that trough could clearly be seen at the Iowa primaries...

 

[GoSlash27]

zukiphile,

That sounds as if you are describing the principle of subsidiarity.

Not exactly. I'm referring to the Constitution.

 

[zukiphile]

The states are unitary governments, and have no duty to devolve authority down to the lowest level possible.

 

[Limeyfellow]

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.

It has always been an irony that people use one of the most liberal documents ever written to justify their own conservative principles. People are rarely outside a middle range between the two and regularly variate in their lifetime. What was stated here is a constitutionist's point of view and can have thousands of different interpretations. I guess when it comes down to things conservatives tend to want the status quo in a certain area, while liberals want to change tradition and alter the status quo. If that is for good or bad, is for history to decide on each individual's actions, though even paragon's of the conservative movement tend to have a lot of liberal intentions and in the end classifying anyone from either extreme, apart from a few examples. say Marx or Spencer, does not work.