|
I see what you're saying, but I think the 'conservative' you describe is a neo-con. That is a relatively new label. I think the problem is that people can't keep up with the changing (or evolving, if you will) meanings of these political lables. People hear 'conservative' and think of real conservative leaders from the past. The problem is that, as you pointed out, the word conservative used today by pop culture is much different than the post WWII meaning. Presidents like Bush do not fall in the same catagory as presidents who only go to war as a true last resort. Christian cult followings aside, Bush did win the 'conservative' vote. He won the vote of those who think he is a traditionalist and follows the Constitution.
The problem is that there are two different conservative meanings floating around, and it is really confusing people. The definition I gave was based on what the term originally meant. Evolved or not, 'conservative''s roots still lie in strict adhearing to the constitution and isolationism. I can understand the meaning growing, but the fact is that it seems to mean the opposite of what it originally meant. That's why I brought this up. It's duplistic meaning stands on opposite sides of itself. When a term as common as this one gets thrown around in every direction, it seems it might be time to set a, perhapse temporary, but certian definition. My ultimate goal, being to seperate traditional conservatives from neo cons because the actuality of their respective beliefs are opposite, may not be obtainable. When has that stopped me before?
|