Conservatives are #1!

[kaydee457 13]

Yep... there it is.

How did you know I have a twitch? Am I on someones "Enemies List"?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yep... there it is.

How did you know I have a twitch? Am I on someones "Enemies List"?

I never said you did. Try reading a little harder. But certainly, yes, you are on a list- and its not exactly an enemies kind of list, but one that should be turned over to mental health people for further study and treatment.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is pretty confused, but not a political conservative. Social liberalism doesn't allow for fiscal conservatism. Liberalism is very expensive.

That's not true... I've known lots of people who are conservative democrats & although you may disagree with many of their opinions to call them "confused" is hardly accurate. Heck I've even heard of liberal republicans & that seems like a contradiction in terms as well. Point is unless a person's views are rather extreme (far right or far left) it's almost impossible to say they are 100% conservative or liberal.

Sorry, they're not conservatives. moderates, maybe, but not true conservatives. Liberal Republicans are called RINOs - Republican in name only.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Sofiyya

[kaydee457 13]

Yep... there it is.

How did you know I have a twitch? Am I on someones "Enemies List"?

I never said you did. Try reading a little harder. But certainly, yes, you are on a list- and its not exactly an enemies kind of list, but one that should be turned over to mental health people for further study and treatment.

Straight to the personal attacks...Liberals doing what liberals do....................

[HAL 9000 96]

Do you deny it then?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Edmund Burke made much the same point when he wrote: "I cannot stand forward and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions, and human concerns, on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction. Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind." Non-ideological conservatism, then, seeks a more complete view of political reality--one which captures all the nuances and subtleties of each particular situation. It is for this reason that conservatives in the Burkean tradition mistrust abstract political systems and "metaphysical" principles founded on "reason." Political reality, Burke would say, is far to complex to be summed up in a handful of bromides thought up by some pretentious academic or philosopher. "The science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming it, is, like every other experimental science, not to be taught a priori," Burke gravely warned his readers in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. "Nor is it a short experience that can instruct us in that practical science, because the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate; but that which in the first instance is prejudicial may be excellent in its remoter operation, and its excellence may arise even from the ill effects it produces in the beginning. The reverse also happens: and very plausible schemes, with very pleasing commencements, have often shameful and lamentable conclusions. In states there are often some obscure and almost latent causes, things which appear at first view of little moment, on which a very great part of its prosperity or adversity may most essentially depend. The science of government being therefore so practical in itself and intended for such practical purposes-a matter which requires experience, and even more experience than any person can gain in his whole life, however sagacious and observing he may be--it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society, or on building it up again without having models and patterns of approved utility before his eyes."

This, in a nutshell, is what non-ideological conservatism is all about. Particularly important is Burke's assertion that "the science of government" requires "even more experience than any person can gain in his whole life, however sagacious and observing he may be." Here we have the conservative defense of tradition. Tradition, for the conservative, is not good in itself. No, for the conservative, only the good is good in itself. The reason why conservatives favor tradition is because they see tradition as a sort of accumulation of many lives of wisdom. Tradition is something "confirmed by the solid test of long experience." Or, as the historians Will and Ariel Durant put it: "No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history."

Of course, this does not mean that all traditional customs and institutions are good. The conservative is well aware that some customs and institutions are bad, either because they were always bad or they became bad over time. All that the conservative insists is that you have to have very good reasons before you decide to abolish or reform a custom or institution. You cannot get rid of a custom or institution merely because there are some inconveniences associated with it or it is short of perfect. Human instititutions, by the very fact that they are human, must always be imperfect. If their imperfections are severe, they can be reformed. But we should never abolish something merely because it doesn't conform to our "reason."

From this, it can be gathered that nonideological conservatism is intransigently anti-rationalistic. Knowledge, for the conservative, is based, not on words or ideas, but on practical experience. It contains a large intuitive component which defies precise articulation. The conservative believes that concepts and ideas never completely agree with the reality they represent. Articulate knowledge is symbolic, and as such, is flawed and inadequate. Reason is therefore regarded as limited. As Hume put it, reason "sees a full light, which illuminates certain places; but that light borders upon the most profound darkness. And between these reason is so dazzled and confounded, that she scarcely can pronounce with certainty and assurance concerning any one object."

Thus speaks the non-ideological conservative. What about the conservative who is not non-ideological? How does the one species of conservatism differ from the other?

To answer this question, we must needs examine this conceptual contrivance called ideology. What, precisely, is an ideology? James Burnham defined ideology as "a more or less systematic and self-contained set of ideas supposedly dealing with the nature of reality (usually social reality), or some segment of reality, and of man's relation (attitude, conduct) toward it; and calling for a commitment independent of specific experience or events." When Burnham describes ideology as a "self-contained set of ideas," what he is driving at is the dogmatic nature of the ideological creed. Ideologues are immune to experience. No fact or event will ever convince them that their ideology is bogus or flawed.

[This concludes the excerpt of the essay "Conservatism True and False"]

http://homepage.mac.com/machiavel/Text/conservatism.html

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is pretty confused, but not a political conservative. Social liberalism doesn't allow for fiscal conservatism. Liberalism is very expensive.

What's the official conservative position on energy conservation?

Suck it all up then use something else.

As per usual.... Stupid.

What would my answer have mattered? Your delusions would continue unabated.

You're feeble attempts at political commentary are quite wretched. But as to your statement "Suck it all up then use something else." that is sad both on an economic and scientific level and just screams lazy. The truly sad thing is, you're right, that is the conservative point of view. I've seen far too many sporting hats stating "Drill Baby Drill".

Yes drill baby drill - until there is a viable alternative. Your answer is - cut off all oil now even though a new infrastructure for alternatives has been estimated to take 30 - 50 years to become efficient and affordable. Why do you want to hurt the economy even more by keeping oil high? Pumping more oil into the world market by drilling and building more refineries will bring the price down worldwide. Its basic supply and demand.

We can't afford to go all electric either. It will cause electricity's price to sky-rocket and we'll have to burn more coal since the libs won't allow for nuclear power. Too bad no matter what route you go, you'll be burning lots of coal or gasoline...

Not only is that illogical, but it's just plain dumb. If you wait until we've exhausted all the petroleum in the ground, you'll drive prices through the roof. Every consumer product and service is dependant upon oil. Why not be smart about this and use the resources we have to develop transitional energy until we have reached the point on a scientific level when we can detach ourselves from our dependancy. Our nation will be much stronger in terms of global economics and politics when we are no longer dependant on oil.

I don't disagree with that.. (except for the childish remark that i'm dumb)

I never said anything about using transitions... But you cannot dictate it from the government.. All that happens when the government dictates a product arbitrarily is no one buys it. Because there isn't a market for it. I do not appreciate the purposeful move to drive oil prices up in order to coax people into buying hybrids which actually "damage the environment" more than if I were driving a full size hummer around. The emissions created during the production of a hybrid are more than the life of emissions that come from driving a hummer. So how are we saving the environment there?

It is true that if you try to tax the grid with all electric cars, you'll have to burn more coal. Wind power isn't going to take care of that demand. They have their uses, but you cannot power the world on wind. Its just not reliable enough.

[Susita 175]

You guys do a great job... at generalizing everything.

All I see is conservatives attacking liberals and vice-versa. Just agree to disagree and move on. You're only giving yourselves carpal tunnel syndrome.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

You guys do a great job... at generalizing everything.

All I see is conservatives attacking liberals and vice-versa. Just agree to disagree and move on. You're only giving yourselves carpal tunnel syndrome.

Thanks for your contribution

[Susita 175]

Thanks for your contribution

I usually contribute pretty well ask anybody... I can just see when there's no hope left. Right vs. Left generalization is getting pretty old. Seems like every issue ends with almost the same thing.

I also care about you all and your ability to type and debate over other issues later on So get a gelly wrist rest.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Thanks for your contribution

I usually contribute pretty well ask anybody... I can just see when there's no hope left. Right vs. Left generalization is getting pretty old. Seems like every issue ends with almost the same thing.

I also care about you all and your ability to type and debate over other issues later on So get a gelly wrist rest.

OK i stand corrected. THATS THE LAST TIME!

[Susita 175]

OK i stand corrected. THATS THE LAST TIME!

Why the angry face?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

OK i stand corrected. THATS THE LAST TIME!

Why the angry face?

Hmmm just a lot of stress right now *hops on couch*

Do you charge by the hour?

I'm having to relocate for work, i signed the lease on the house, we received NOA2 today (which should be exciting-- but now even more stressed), its just a crazy time..

[Susita 175]

Congrats on the NOA2 that's so exciting! New house too, awesome. You should have a happy face on.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Conservatism True and False

There are few things more unstable than political labels. Policies which in one decade are called "liberal" may find themselves called "conservative" in another, and men who in one age thought of themselves as "liberals" are in another age regarded as intransigent "conservatives." Yet for all the migratory propensities of labels, there is nonetheless at the bottom of labels a certain consistency or core meaning which transcends the semantic fluctuations of the moment. That men like Edmund Burke, David Hume, Alexander Hamilton, Alexis de Tocqueville, George Santayana, Joseph Schumpeter, Michael Oakeshott and James Burnham are all conservatives hardly anyone would doubt. Nor would very many more doubt the conservative credentials of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Milton Friedman, and Jack Kemp. Nonetheless, it should be clear to anyone who delves beneath the mere surface of things that the men in the former list are conservative in an appreciably different way than the men in the latter list. This is not to say that one group is better or worse than another, but simply to point out that there are differences that deserve to be noticed and appreciated. And what, may we ask, are these differences? To put it briefly, we could put it this way: the men in the former list, the Burkes, the Hamiltons, the Santayanas, are non-ideological conservatives. Their conservatism is not a precise creed; it is a method of interpreting experience. The other conservatives, the Limbaughs, the Gingriches, and the Kemps are ideologues. They believe in a precise creed which transcends experience. They are dogmatic and full of political zeal.

http://homepage.mac.com/machiavel/Text/conservatism.html

The purpose of The Machiavel Review is to present excerpts from some of the least known but most provocative thinkers and artists working in today's culture. We care little for who is "popular" or accepted by either the mainstream media or the academic establishment.

Good source, there!