This thread is depressing. Thanks for nothing, OP.
Would that your vision of conservatism meant something today.
The Federalist is a conservative website… lets see what they are EEEEEEEK
screeching intensifies
What’s the equivalent on the left that people on the right keep referring to as equals to this scalping fantasy stuff: dailykos and motherjones?
Antivaxxers and homeopathic woo endorsers? The big Jew grasp on Hollywood? Jeez why do Jewish people get thrown under the bus still in this age with critical thinking still?
Here are some traits of conservatives I think are good:
-
Sense of personal responsibility. Very strong in conservative circles, can be very weak and excuse oriented from the other side
-
Desire to scale back the government and not over regulate people’s lives. Of you’ve every gone up against a giant beaurcracy you’d appreciate this one.
-
Family comes first. I’d actually argue this comes with a “I got mine” mentality sometimes but other times it’s pretty admirable.
-
Belief that home ownership promotes good communities and good neighbors
-
Empathsis on education and hard work being its own reward
Yes?
It make sense to protect your society customs. It gives structure and some poeple want/need that type of structure.
This is the one that worries me, because in “classical” conservationism, whose corpse is exhumed and dragged into the public square today however ghastly and ill befitting the modern preacher of conservationism is compared to his predecessor, is that the native intelligence and industriousness of the individual is repressed under a too controlling state.
Today, however, considering the scale of the problems facing societies (climate change, population control, Malthusian limits, ect) i just don’t see an easy reconciling classical conservationism with the necessary restraints a centralized state must impose. Especially when modern conservatism is so often wrapped up in ideological warfare against the very basics of reason and rationality. I just don’t see a future where your desire to go do whatever you want (ie, chop down 1000 acres of jungle to sell for your family) is going to square with necessary global environmental and ethical restraints.
You have espied the Chestertonian inspirations behind my personal philosophy!
The brand of conservatism I espouse above (which, again, is not the one typically labelled such in contemporary politics) includes a premise called Subsidiarity, which manages to untangle the knot between limiting government interference and applying government intervention when needed. It simply says that a job should be done by the smallest, lowest level of government that can adequately do it. In this view, we have ceded probably too much to the federal level of government in the US: education, welfare, non-discrimination—these could arguably be handled entirely at a local level or a state level instead of the federal. At the same time, there are things the federal government is best suited to do. That could include immigration policy, defense, and climate change. Now, let’s say you disagree with my theoretical split here and feel that non-discrimination needs to be handled at the federal level because of, say, the history of regional racism. That’s a good argument! Now our political discourse is not “Is there such a thing as discrimination?” but “Who should assess that and decide what to do about it?” Which I would posit is a way saner political conversation to have. Right now, while it’s not true that literally everything is hoisted entirely up to the federal level, we nonetheless spend all our time looking to federal officials to steer our policy and it’s part of what’s making our political ecosystem so insane, because we’re fighting over the biggest possible football, one that belongs to 300mil people.
Subsidiarity recognizes that small government can be both more understanding of the contextual complexities of their constituencies and more measured in responding to them, instead of a one-size-fits-America policy that would come from the federal government.
Back when I was getting my environmental studies degree, the popular slogan was "Think globally, act locally." There are some (many) issues that by necessity must be handled at the federal/central government (i.e. ecosystems do not recognize borders), but many environmentalists do believe in local control (contrary to right wing propaganda.)
Kinda related (and not in response to you, Night), but the federal government has almost no impact on my daily life, regardless of which party is in power. To a large degree, that’s because I’m a middle class, straight white male (so no forced vaginal probes, no one telling me who I can marry or what kind of sex is acceptable, or efforts to prevent me from voting, etc.) I drive on an interstate now and again, or visit wildlife refugees or the White Mountain National forest which the federal government maintains.
By far, though, the biggest impact government action has had for me personally happened after a Republican controlled Congress made internet poker illegal (although I can bet on horse races and team sports, woohoo.) (Almost forgot, once upon a time I had to register for selective service.)
Now, I can’t have any free range chickens (the HSA prevents it), and I have to get a permit from the town if I want to build a deck (which I might do someday, maybe.) But that’s local, not federal. But this notion that somehow liberals/democrats/the-mean-elite-left want to control your life is a myth, but a popular one people love to repeat.
Lot of good thoughts in this thread, which I just now found. Particularly the values and traits that @Nightgaunt and @Guap posted. And just to be clear, as others have said, when I say “conservative” I don’t mean the current Republican Party, who are no such thing.
I don’t consider myself either liberal or conservative, because I hold views that fall on both sides. For instance, I’m a firm believer in personal responsibility; if you made choices that led you into trouble, you need to own that and pay the price. But I also believe that it’s important to have systems in place that level the playing field for folks in poor situations that aren’t their own fault (i.e. refugee programs, affirmative action). That gets me in trouble with both sides. “You’re too soft on illegal immigrants!” “You’re too hard on people trying to recover from poor decision they made in the past!” Can’t really win.
To answer the original question, I think what’s good about the conservative point of view is largely that it is a stabilizing force. A true conservative is going to move slowly on any kind of change, and when they do make changes it’ll be the smallest necessary move. You can’t ever completely negate the law of unintended consequences, but this approach minimizes them.
I once brought up the argument of “the government doesn’t seem to do anything for me personally” to a prgressive friend who is a lifelong securities attorney/regulator.
His response to that was “of course they do, you just don’t think about it”. His counter was that when he and his colleagues visit thirld worle countries to advise them how to run central banks, regulate banks and markets, etc., the overall goal is stability and the rule of law. Without that, you can’t have markets, or investment, or anything else, because no one trusts the system so no one would invest in it. Sr thing with things like states recognizing each other’s marraiges, property rights, etc.
Without a strong and stable national governent, none of the processes and institutions we take for granted would work.
Your friends have a great view on exactly the kind of things we take for granted.
Set aside so much fluff, and look at what happens in places with high corruption and without stability. You do see it in places, but generally speaking you don’t see cops running shakedown rackets where they stop people randomly and extort them for money. And once word gets out here, they are usually corrected.
People put money in banks because they trust that the bank won’t just be taken over by the state and all the savings drained into the state coffers.
There are visible examples of things the state does, but it’s as much those as the things you don’t see that matter.
If I have to figure into my calculus the likelihood some coup will drain my bank accounts, I’m much less likely to open an account in whatever coup-ripe local bank is offering.
Conservativism is a necessary and highly valuable check on liberalism. And the best way to restore convervativism to being the valuable asset it is is to do everything possible to show the current Republican party that they have fumbled things badly as the keepers of that ideology.
It’s not so much about showing that to them. It’s done. They can’t be that anymore.
The move now is to destroy the party, and let a new one rise up.
There is, as a practical matter, no conservative party in the US at the moment. There’s a weakly progressive Democratic Party, and a Republican Party that is a party of personalities and donor service: personalities like Trump, Limbaugh, etc and donor service like the recent tax cut. The GOP does not have an ideology these days: it has leaders and followers, and a core of elite legislators who are beholden to wealthy donors.
I guess there is a problem when a party decides it no longer cares about winning the war of ideas and only cares about winning elections to stay in power. I wonder if multi-party systems in which the parties build coalitions after elections are won and lost are less vulnerable to that.
Very well said.