Can someone please tell me what the hell 'conservatism' even was in its original meaning?

Can someone please tell me why the hell Andrew Sullivan should define "conservatism" ?

I always kept it simple and just associated it with responsible behavior. Sensible financial activity, and planning for a successful (if boring) future.

Now it seems to mean that you want to be in the club with all the loud people and hate "libs".

I often picture a machine stamping out grubby little 15 year old bots with basic programming:

1. Scream about Christianity and hate anyone who doesn't "follow" it.
2. Defend Israel where this doesn't conflict with #1
3. Claim constant persecution
4. Question nothing and just repeat the Fox News Message, they know what your leaders need you to do.
5. Repeat #4

Oh well, if they ever get it straightened out and lose all the trash I'd be overwhelmed with joy. Then we could start seeing things get back on track and not have to risk trusting the Dems to do it.

Chindit: Can someone please tell me why the hell Andrew Sullivan should define "conservatism" ?

He's no more or less qualified than anyone else. Why shouldn't he?

DamnYankees: Can someone please tell me what the hell 'conservatism' even was in its original meaning?

It originally stood for less government intrusion into the lives of private citizens, but no "conservative" president has ever really stood for that, they've just removed or opposed whatever regulation would prevent them from funneling money to the special interest du jour (energy, insurance, banks, defense, prisons etc.)

Wendy's Chili: It originally stood for less government intrusion into the lives of private citizens,

But isn't that liberatarianism? I thought conservatism was different than that.

The original "conservatism" was Federalism, which was intended to ensure America didn't fall into the same revolutionary traps as France. Considering what emerged from Revolutionary France (Napoleon), it was a fairly successful ideology. At least until they tried to convince the New England states to secede during the War of 1812.

submitter: The word "conservative" has been moved so far from its original meaning that old conservatives are starting to pick new names for their ideology.

Well, the Know Nothing party is already taken.

Stupid f@cks, perhaps?

Nnyess - capital idea - but I'm afraid those pesky Canadians are using similar terminology and we may accidentally elect a pot-smoking, same-sex married, health care socialist lumberjack in all the confusion!

DamnYankees: Wendy's Chili: It originally stood for less government intrusion into the lives of private citizens,

But isn't that liberatarianism? I thought conservatism was different than that.

No, conservatism was originally like that to a large degree. Then conservatives who liked weed became liberatarians. (I'm kidding to a degree.)

"Whigs"? I'd prefer the "Merkin" party.

I think it will be the Coms and the Yangs.

My vote would be for the "P-funk Party." Because a P-Funk Party don't stop.

If we could eliminate the words "conservative" and "liberal," that'd be just fine with me. I see absolutely no philosophical correlation with how someone views abortion and how someone views government budgeting. Why do we have a term that describes such a wide spectrum of opinions? It's retarded.

Or, perhaps we could even have a party that follows the Constitution, wants to maximize personal freedom, minimize government, and generally let people live their lives. It's a shame there isn't already such a party.

We still have Tories in Canada.

You should go right ahead with the Whigs though. Revive the great legacy of Millard Fillmore! Uh... whatever that was. The Fugitive Slave Act?

Nabb1: My vote would be for the "P-funk Party." Because a P-Funk Party don't stop.

Stevie Wonder, Secretary of FIIINE Arts

I don't understand people who chose to label themselves and others using such narrow and meaningless terms as "liberal" or "conservative". It's basically intellectual laziness, as far as I can see... and, of course, using any kind of childish variation of the two terms as an insult just makes one sound even more like a simpleton.

KIA: Or, perhaps we could even have a party that follows the Constitution, wants to maximize personal freedom, minimize government, and generally let people live their lives. It's a shame there isn't already such a party.

I am pro choice, but I believe in fiscally conservative government spending. I support gay marriage, but I oppose gun control laws.

I think I'm going to start calling myself either a conserberal or a libervative.

Bag-o-Nugs: I am pro choice, but I believe in fiscally conservative government spending. I support gay marriage, but I oppose gun control laws.

I think I'm going to start calling myself either a conserberal or a libervative.

You may be a RussFeingoldian.

DamnYankees: Can someone please tell me what the hell 'conservatism' even was in its original meaning?

Small government, especially fiscally. If something is not absolutely needed, eliminate it and let the states decide if they need it on their own.

Less Federal power, more states power. The Federal government should only have their hands in the things the states absolutely cannot do- like fight wars, for one.

Abortion? Drug laws? The states can handle enforcing that as they see fit.

Bag-o-Nugs: I am pro choice, but I believe in fiscally conservative government spending. I support gay marriage, but I oppose gun control laws.

And this is exactly the problem with modern politics (not your views, but the whole idea of you linking opinions to parties).

The whole concept of the "platform" including specific opinions like this.

The debate is supposed to be about concepts- how the government is constructed.

The key is states rights- something no one cares about any more. I feel you can be pro-life, and I can be pro-choice- and BOTH be conservative. As long as you agree to let California allow abortion, and you agree to let Alabama make it illegal.

I rarely have a problem with states making ANY decision. Go for it. You're serving your people. They want drugs legalized? Go nuts. My state wants to outlaw drugs? Don't get on me. You do your thing, we do ours? Cool?

But now EVERYONE believes the full-on Federal government of all 50 states should conform to THEIR views. The founders built a brilliant system to handle it, and everyone is ignoring it.

downstairs: Small government, especially fiscally. If something is not absolutely needed, eliminate it and let the states decide if they need it on their own.

Again - that's libertarianism. You would think conservatism is something different.

I always understood conservatism to basically be libertarianism + social conservatism.

Bag-o-Nugs: I am pro choice, but I believe in fiscally conservative government spending. I support gay marriage, but I oppose gun control laws.

You too?

How about we have a "Fark" party?

DamnYankees: I always understood conservatism to basically be libertarianism + social conservatism.

Its complex. Libertarianism is more of a philosophy than a political platform. At least that's how it started in the modern US. Ayn Rand and all that. Individualism, free-will- its associated with these philosophies.

True conservatism and the very recent Libertarian party movement are damn near identicial. Except because of this philosophy angle it was born from, you get a lot of kooks in the Libertarian party.

And something I've always thought- if the Libertarian party removed all the whackos, toned down the crazy- their "true conservative" message might actually gain them A LOT of support.

DamnYankees: downstairs: Small government, especially fiscally. If something is not absolutely needed, eliminate it and let the states decide if they need it on their own.

Again - that's libertarianism. You would think conservatism is something different.

I always understood conservatism to basically be libertarianism + social conservatism.

I think historically conservatism described a political ideology characterized by a preference for paternalistic rule and rigid systems of hierarchy and order.

The small government thing was almost certainly a classically liberal position.

I beleive it wasn't until Communism came along that we began associating big government with the left and liberalism in general, but I think that is a mistake since Communism is not the ideal of liberal socialism imagined by Marx (despite Communist leaders insisting the contrary to justify themselves), Communism is in fact almost perfectly indistinguishable from classic conservative authoritarian structures of political rule.

downstairs: Its complex. Libertarianism is more of a philosophy than a political platform. At least that's how it started in the modern US. Ayn Rand and all that. Individualism, free-will- its associated with these philosophies.

That's objectivism. Libertariansim is a political form of objectivism, but its not a philosophy.

Bag-o-Nugs: I am pro choice, but I believe in fiscally conservative government spending. I support gay marriage, but I oppose gun control laws.

I think I'm going to start calling myself either a conserberal or a libervative.

I'm detecting a theme in this thread, I think, but what you're describing is consistent with libertarianism -- personal freedoms, and small government with fiscally conservative spending (and low taxation).

Thorndyke Barnhard: I think historically conservatism described a political ideology characterized by a preference for paternalistic rule and rigid systems of hierarchy and order.

I think we have a winner.

DamnYankees: downstairs: Its complex. Libertarianism is more of a philosophy than a political platform. At least that's how it started in the modern US. Ayn Rand and all that. Individualism, free-will- its associated with these philosophies.

That's objectivism. Libertariansim is a political form of objectivism, but its not a philosophy.

Yeah, but I'm saying because of the underlying philosophy tie-in, Libertarianism comes off differently even though the political positions are very similar.

I think of Libertarianism as Traditional Conservatism for people who spent way too much time in college.

let's go back to calling them the federalists and the anti-federalists and be done with it.

Philosopher Russell Kirk wrote a list of 10 principles that conservatism has in common in all its forms. He's a philosopher (TL;DR alert), but I'll summarize.

1. There is a moral order independent of human definition, which operates both on an individual level and collectively as a society. This is because human nature (especially our capacities for great good and great evil) is a constant. It is something that neither state regulation nor enlightened self-interest can bring about.

2. Respect custom. Custom is nothing more than the distilled wisdom of the human species, and it is the basis of the laws we live by. Changing these customs, though necessary, must always be gradual, carefully thought out process.

3. Be prescriptive. Every generation stands on the shoulders of its ancestors. This past wisdom should not be thrown out just because humans think we have a "new" or "better" idea on morality or politics - there is no such thing. "The individual is foolish, but the species is wise."

4. Be prudent. Always think about the long run, and always remember that even the best intentions can lead to unforseen consequences.

5. Appreciate variety. (This is not the same as "diversity") People are different, think differently, and have different needs and dreams. Humans will never be perfectly "equal," nor should society try to force them to be so. The only equality we can hope for is equality in a court of law and before God. Anything else, and you get social stagnation at best and tyranny at worst.

6. Understand that nobody's perfect. Not even themselves. Government will never be able to make us perfect. There will always be evil and suffering. But if human beings realize this constraint, they can at least make it tolerable.

7. Human freedom cannot exist without private property. Property is not sufficient for a good life, but it is necessary; being able to keep what you have worked for and pass it on to others when you die is the only thing that can create prosperity for individuals and communities. Redistributing property cannot create prosperity, because property teaches people to take responsibility for what they have, and to take care of what they have worked for.

8. Voluntary community is good. Involuntary, forced community is bad. Communities can only be justly governed from the bottom up, not driven from the top down.

9. Always divide power and find ways to restrain and balance passion. Anarchy is just as bad as tyranny.

10. Don't be reflexively opposed to change, but remember that not all change is for the better.

Seems simple enough...

MasterThief: Seems simple enough...

Problem being that many people who go into power hold their own sense of priorities and ethics above the rest of the nation.

Whenever going into some kind of public office, you have to remember: it is no longer all about you. This is where many politicians fail.

downstairs: Libertarianism is more of a philosophy than a political platform. At least that's how it started in the modern US. Ayn Rand and all that.

Yeah, the concept of Libertarianism comes waaaaaay before Ms. "105 Page Soliloquy and a Rape." Think Thoreau (and maybe Madison for American Thought) and J.S. Mill (for Anglo Thought).

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: downstairs: Libertarianism is more of a philosophy than a political platform. At least that's how it started in the modern US. Ayn Rand and all that.

Yeah, the concept of Libertarianism comes waaaaaay before Ms. "105 Page Soliloquy and a Rape." Think Thoreau (and maybe Madison for American Thought) and J.S. Mill (for Anglo Thought).

Right, that's why I said modern US. I know all about the goofy Randites. That's why I quit the LP.

MasterThief: Philosopher Russell Kirk wrote a list of 10 principles that conservatism has in common in all its forms. He's a philosopher (TL;DR alert), but I'll summarize.

I don't see the problem. Those 10 principals describe today's GOP almost perfectly.

er... principles too.

MasterThief: Seems simple enough...

Interesting. I disagree without half of those, and the other half I don't consider to be ideological issues at all - since when is 'be prudent' anything to list in a description of your ideology? Anyways, thanks for the list.

DamnYankees: MasterThief: Seems simple enough...

Interesting. I disagree without half of those, and the other half I don't consider to be ideological issues at all - since when is 'be prudent' anything to list in a description of your ideology? Anyways, thanks for the list.

I've got to ask, which ones do you disagree with? They seem like basic principals upon which to lead with.

RoxtarRyan: DamnYankees: MasterThief: Seems simple enough...

Interesting. I disagree without half of those, and the other half I don't consider to be ideological issues at all - since when is 'be prudent' anything to list in a description of your ideology? Anyways, thanks for the list.

I've got to ask, which ones do you disagree with? They seem like basic principals upon which to lead with.

I disagree with 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. The latter two I sort of see his point but I think he's being far too simplistic and I can't sign off on the sentiment.

DamnYankees: The latter two I sort of see his point but I think he's being far too simplistic and I can't sign off on the sentiment.

Well, you have to be simple when it comes to building the roots of a civilization... if at the very beginning you define every letter of the law, you leave little 'wiggle' room for gray areas or change in the future.

Dominionists co-opted the word and the Grand Old Party, sadly. RIP.

fark them all, they're a bunch of liars. Bush was held up as the standard bearer of conservatism for YEARS. They only changed their tune when they realized they couldn't beat the clock on his second term vs. public opinion.

Now he's derided as a liberal.

American conservatism is dead, we're just burying it now.

From Dictionary app.

The French Revolution gave the English language two politically-descriptive words denoting anti-progressive politics: reactionary and conservative. The term Reactionary derives from the French word réactionnaire (an early nineteenth-century coinage), and conservative from conservateur, identifying monarchist parliamentarians opposed to the revolution.

Bag-o-Nugs: I am pro choice, but I believe in fiscally conservative government spending. I support gay marriage, but I oppose gun control laws.

Don't buy into the belief that being a liberal/conservative means you support this or that agenda. For me, being liberal is about a way of analyzing the issues. It has absolutely nothing to do with supporting a specific set of issue items.

Not the Dominion! Those pesky J'em-Hadar!

DamnYankees: Can someone please tell me what the hell 'conservatism' even was in its original meaning?

Conservatism is what the name says. It seeks to "conserve" and to prevent and oppose change. Originally to conserve the Church of England, the Monarchy and the Aristocracy.

cxjohn: Not the Dominion! Those pesky J'em-Hadar!

Awesome.

Bag-o-Nugs: I am pro choice, but I believe in fiscally conservative government spending. I support gay marriage, but I oppose gun control laws.

I think I'm going to start calling myself either a conserberal or a libervative.

Well, I've always claimed to be a conservative and I'm closely aligned to you.

Except that I don't "support" gay marriage, I am just against the state deciding which two adults can or cannot get married. Likewise I'm pro-choice in that I'm against the state being the decider, but I find abortion to be a terrible choice to make. I guess that means I'll defend the right to abort even though I disagree with it on a personal level. I'm there on the fiscal conservative point, gov'ts need to control spending, and avoid fiasco's like Iraq at all costs. However in a depression (which is what the US is bording on) is a market failure and requires the state, so some rules must be dropped.

I'm not a libertarian as I do understand that there are cases where the state is needed because humans can be horrid.

Generally I'm positive about the future and I think we are getting better. The past was not so golden.

How do you know when you are a conservative? When you get hate mail from both sides.