Willravel

Recently we've been bombarded with a slew of wonderful pop political phrases. Among those phrases is the 'compassionate conservative'. Now when I first heard this, I took it to mean that someone was a conservative who, among other tools, uses empathy and sympathy in his or her decision making in the government. Sounds good, right? Then I started hearing politicians referr to themselves as compassionate conservatives, but the problem is that these people were not conservative! Imagine how confused I was when President George W. Bush started putting himself in that group. Here was a man who went to a preemptive war, someone who believes strongly in centralized government, someone who has done some very suspicious things in the name of national security to our freedoms, and someone who wants to try to keep homosexual people from getting right because of his personal religious beliefs. Now whether what he has done is right or wrong is for another thread (i.e. NO BUSH BASHING PLEASE), but the idea that people like Bush are conservative is very much wrong. They use a label that a lot of people identify with and use it to carry out acts that are basically the opposite of what the label represents.

(This next part is cut/pasted from one of my posts on another thread) I think it may be time to revisit what a conservative really is. Recently the trend of conservatives is to basically act liberal.
There are five ingredients necessary for conservatism. These are fundamentals:

-The first necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in smaller government. Particularly at the federal level. Statism is Leftism--an all-powerful, centralized government. Conservatives oppose this, embracing state's rights and a smaller, less centralized federal government. This is the foundational cornerstone of conservatism.

-The second necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in national sovereignty and isolationism. Conservatives do not believe in foreign aid or foreign entanglements. They revere American sovereignty. Yes, conservatives do believe in a strong national defense--but national defense as mandated by the Constitution and the Monroe Doctrine. An invasive military empire is not mandated. Therein lies a crucial difference.

When Woodrow Wilson tried to get the US into the League of Nations, conservatives opposed him. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was aggressively lobbying to get the US into the Second World War, conservatives opposed him. Conservatives have scorned the UN. They are not practitioners of global military interventionism. Conservatives believe in defense of our national borders, not aggression---and real security based on not meddling in the affairs of other nations. Conservatives believe in "Fortress America"...not Pax Americana.

-The third necessary ingredient is a belief in the Rule of Law---beginning with the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is essentially sacrosanct. A conservative does not believe in a "living Constitution".

The only way a conservative would ever alter the Constitution would be by constitutional amendment. He would never seek to override it with power-grabbing legislation. The passage of the USA-Patriot Act--an Orwellian abomination, all the way down to its namesake--established pretty firmly just how many conservatives are left in Washington DC.

-A fourth necessary ingredient to conservatism is a belief in traditional values. It is here that politics over such things as Roy Moore's Ten Commandments come into play. However, traditional values, are, by their very nature, regressive. It is true that there is no constitutional separation of church and state, as commonly stated, but there is also Freedom of Worship, and a generalized restriction of government authority. Therefore no allowances exist for the federal government to dabble in the religion business one way or the other. Real conservatives, being strict constructionists, would protect the religious rights of the individual without exploiting Christianity for seizure of power.

-The fifth necessary ingredient to conservatism is adherence to principle. The stubborn instinct to stand firm on issues, rejecting political expediency, in other words. Conservatism cannot exist without an ideological backbone, because one of the most basic philosophies behind conservatism is preservation of tradition. Traditions cannot survive in the absence of principles.

I get a little sick to my stomach when people mention Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, George Will, or a bunch of other people on Capitol Hill as conservative. Facism is not conservatism, capitolism is not conservatism (while it can compliment conservatism, it never overrides. The corporation is not more important than the Constitution), a theocracy is not conservatism, and neo-conservatism isn't conservatism.


A rose by any other name....

Mephisto2

The use of the word conservative is a label. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's a duck. In other words, if "conservative" is used to describe people like O'Reilly, Bush and Rove, then that's what conservative means.

All we're doing here is arguing pedantics over a political label.


Let me put it another way. Those who are labeled conservative usually come from the Republican party. They use the term themselves and their "liberal" opponents also use it to describe them. The term has percolated through the political consciousness of America such that it now means whet you say it doesn't!

Well, this is your definition of what conservatism means. I think you are confusing conservative ideals with the label "conservative" as it is used to describe (typically) Republicans.

In other words, and I don't mean this in a negative way, your contention that "conservative" does not really mean conservative is useless. It fails on a matter of fact. People like Bush and Co are described as conservative (by all members of American society) so therefore they are conservative.

Words and meanings evolve. Your point seems to revolve around arguing definitions, rather than arguing the nuances of their political beliefs.

Is this a generally held belief, or is this your take on the situation? I'm quite sure that if you asked five political science professors at different universities for a definition of a "conservative", you would get five different answers. But I'm also quite sure that if you asked an average American to name three famous conservative politicans, they would include Bush, Rove and O'Reilly quite often.


Do you see what I'm getting at?


I agree that this is a common, underlying characteristic. And until 9/11, the Republicans espoused such a political framework. We've had several threads already commenting on how odd it was that the Republicans now seem to be moving away from such a framework with concepts like the Patriot Act. This does not mean they are no longer conservative, but that the conservative politicans (in America) are evolvling their political structures and beliefs. The label follows them. We don't turn around and suddenly say "Oh uh... you're no longer conservative!"

A crucial difference to what? Republicans do believe in isolationism; except of course where capitalisitc ideals promote things such as the WTO, globalization and Reaganmoics. But that's another story.

In other words, Bush & Co are still conserative when using this characteristic.


Yes and no. I agree with everything you've said until the last statement. Conservatives do now seem to be believe in Pax Americana. That's what globalization and "state building" is all about. Perhaps more appropriately, we should call these people neo-cons. Again, we see in this the evolution of the term conservative.

Neo = new
Con = conservative

Splitting hairs. And only accurate if you assume that each of your proposed five characteristics are equally important. But the survival of the state (which at a fundamental level is the aim of the Patriot Act) is more important to conservatives that the rule of law. There would BE no constitution or laws if the state itself was destroyed.

Hence, it's entirely possible (and is in fact) for a conservative to support "big laws" and "big government" if they want to protect the state itself.


First of all, I don't believe that traditional laws are "regressive". By definition they are not progressive, as they want to maintains things the way they are; maintain the "traditions". Ergo, they are also NOT regressive, as that also would change the status quo.

Secondly, the use of religion is often used by conservatives as a motivating and influencing factor. To say or believe otherwise is to hamper your understanding by a blinkered belief of what conservativism should mean, as opposed to what it really means in today's America.


I disagree. This implies that liberalism does not adhere to principle. I don't see how adherence to principal is a descriptive characteristic of conservatism OR liberalism.

Well they are. You may think they don't "deserve" the sobriquet, but everyone calls them conservative; therefore the label is both appropriate and correct.

The English language evolves (there's no such language as American ). Therefore I don't see the value in arguing over pedantic interpretations of political labels.

In the UK, Conservatives (capital C) are also known as Tories. They patently are not, if we use the "correct" definition. But they are really, as that's what the word has come to mean.

In Australia, the current ruling party are called the Liberal Party. They patently are not, if we use the "correct" definition. But they are really, as when people talk about Liberals in Australia, they mean the incumbent conservative (lower case c) government.

In many countries, anarchist has negative connotations, but its original meaning is closer to what you Americans call Libertarianism. But Libertarians don't like being called anarchists, as the meaning of the word has evolved with the development of new political frameworks and concepts.


What I'm basically getting at is that it's useless to argue over whether Bush & Co are "real conservatives". There's no such thing, other than these people themselves. They use the term. American society uses the term. And liberals use the term. Therefore, they ARE conservative.



Mr Mephisto

Willravel

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?

mike059

There are no real conservatives, at least not in practice... As far as compassion goes, it is much talked about, and so proudly worn on the sleeve, but so rarely put into action that few people would recognise it.

Mephisto2

But isn't that exactly what the term neo-con means?

It covers what you want to describe and was, originally, coined by those people themselves; even worn as a badge of honour.


Mr Mephisto

Willravel

Neo-con is actually a lot closer to a facist or imperialist under the guise of patriotism and 'compassion'.

Willravel

BTW, thank you guys for responding and responding respectfully. This looks to remain a good conversation (crosses fingers).

Ilow

I would tend to agree with Mr. Mephisto that this is really a discussion about a label. As such it is of relatively small importance until it it used by either party to support (their own) or undermine (the other) position. For instance, the Republicans have taken great pains (with a fair amount of success) to turn the word "liberal" into a bad word, while the Dems have been comparitively less successful. I would really argue that at this point, the parties are so polarized that they is far less opportinity to split hairs within the party (i.e. socially liberal, fiscally conservative Democrat) so the words liberal and conservative have lilttle utility except as an alternative to calling Someone a Republican or Democrat. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, it's just what I observe.
I would be far more interested to know why this you bothers you (sorry if I'm being presumptuous, but you seemed bothered). I guess the question is why is this label important?

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Willravel

Well it wasen't always just a label. At one point it meant what I had listed above. I feel that I am a conservative. When I say to other people that I am a conservative, they take it to mean that I am a Bush supporter, which couldn't be father from the truth. I suppose it could all boil down to my being posessive of my own labels, but this term is widely misunderstood. If this term means one thing to one person, and another thing to another person, it's use in communication becomes confusing. There is no general concensus for the meaning. One mans conservative is another man's republican, or another man's libertatian, or another man's military officer, or another man's... When a word (label or otherwise) has many different meanings that are all used in the same arena - politics - the term loses meaning. Imagine it as a black hole of meanings that reaches critical mass and implodes. It has too much for people to understand, so it ceases to have substance.

roachboy

interesting...this despite the fact that the issue at hand does not really move me. on the other hand, it is kinda nice to see a conservatvie defense of the notion of conservatism

to echo what mr mephisto said, in cruder terms doubtless: the process of draining away meaning to political labels is recurrent: the communist party in most places, for example, reduced the word "fascism" to denote anyone they did not like.

the pattern of radical rightwing (nationalist) movement masquerading as conservative has a (truly unfortunate) history as well over the last century. perhaps it is this history that underpins the thread, to an extent?

other points:

mr mephisto pointed this out, but i think it worth restating: this proposition is built around a univocal caricature of the left, which is a complex set of traditions, notall of which are associated with a huge centralized state. if you are going to equate all left thinking with stalinism on the one hand, and social democracy on the other, i do not see what position you could then take to compalin about what is happening to the notion of conservative.

this is maybe not the best example to use--the monroe doctrine has long been read as being a justification for precisely what you claim it is not--an american empire--which has long rationalized the use of very aggressive military force throughout latin america.

your point about "fortress america" taken generally:
1. at this point, historically, what you are talking about in terms of isolationism is a pipe dream, for example, since around 1970 stock has traded internationally. the main feature of globalizing capitalism is a transnationalization of capital flows and types of production, in such a context, isolationism is another word for irrelevance. i do not see the point of trying to draw parallels with the league of nations and founding of the un, given the changed and changing economic reality we live in.
this also leads to the problem of the obslescence of the nation-state at a variety of practical levels, and its corresponding fetishization by the neocons. i find the neocons a kind of neurotic denial of the realities that intertwine the nation-state and contemporary capitalist realities. they will not make the dissolution of the nation-state stop or even slow down---they have simply found a fast track to irrelevance intellectually, which they are using to track a rapid decline scenario for the american empire.


well if you combine these various features, you could just as easily be defining a socail democrat working in a civil law tradition. what i do not get in here--any more than i understand it with the neocons--is the basis for their basic opposition to the one thing that has made the american legal system vialble--the common law tradition, the importance of precedent, the particular role of interpretation of the constitution in the making of new law, teh relatively wide degree of latitude afforded judges, etc.

i suppose you also believe in natural law, whatever that is.

nonsense. read edmund burke on the french revolution.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alansmithee

I find it somewhat amusing that this statement:

Is then followed by this statement:

Honestly, my neo-con handbook didn't mention facism, can you tell me where you found this fact?

More on topic, Mr Mephisto I think was close to dead on about the evolution of what is "conservative". And many of the points you made are still applicable, especially the stress on rule of law and tradition. I agree that this administration is alot more proactive in it's defense policy, but I hardly see it at odds that much if they feel the climate is no longer one where pure isolationism is feasable. And having taken (and taking) many poly sci classes, there is very few solid definitions of conservative, or liberal for that matter. They mainly are used to apply to the differing sides of the polital spectrum. And also as pointed out above the defintion is totally different in other countries.

JohnnyRoyale

How do conservatives justify a smaller government with a larger national defense? A national defense, like the one we had during the Reagan years, would require a larger national govenment to run and maintain it, wouldn't it? I don't think conservatives are necessarily for a "smaller govenment", but rather a government that doesn't get involved in peoples lives.

__________________
I'm gonna be rich and famous, as soon I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.

Arroe

willravel, you seem to think that real conservatives who voted for Bush did so mistakingly thinking that Bush is a true conservative. What about the notion that Bush is more conservative or closer to conservative ideals than his opponent, John Kerry? Sure, G.W.B. is not 100% conservative, but people lie at different spots on the political spectrum.

Arroe

I, a conservative, would say that's right.

By smaller government we mean more laissez-faire socially. Conservatives want to see social security privatized, so that people can make investments in their own future on their own without the government telling them what to do. We believe people are better at making their own decisions for themselves, then having the government make decisions.

Now, there are limits to that. Conservatives are traditionalists so that is why gay marraige is a big deal right now. I personally am against a consititional ammendment barring gay marriages because when the nation was founded with a federal government (states governments and national government), the right to control how marriages worked was given to the states. I am of a younger conservative crowd so I can see the creation of civil unions being made for gay couples, but it would have to be on a state level. That's a whole other topic though, so I'll get back on track.

But yeah, the reason why a large national defense is a conservative ideal goes along with the isolationist thing. I believe in deterrence rather than disarming the country. The United States is in a vulnerable position as it is a very large, very well-off country. Therefore a strong national defense is something we need.

mike059

It is interesting that neo-cons are compared to facists, where I work there is a guy that is a self labeled neo-con and he refers to all democrats as demi-commies, (with a certain amount of glee, I might add) however he seems to take great offense when I refer to him as a repi-facist... I figured that seeing though facists are the supposed mortal enemy of communists, that this remark would be fair, but, he fails to see the humor...

Willravel

Well I admit to trying to be whimsicle in my comparing neo-conservatism to facism, but it's hard to ignore the convergance taking place between these two formarly-seperate political term's meanings.

Isolationism is realtive. Obsiously what was isolation 50 years ago is not possible today. Just like the meaning of the word 'conservative', isolationism has to evolve with the changes in the worlds political and economic systems and rules. The libertarian movemnt, while obviously not as large as either of the other parties, still follows the "maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" ideal. In the role of state being controlled better, the effect of our government on foreign affairs lessens. The way they (and I) see it is that our government is our government. The U.S. government has enough responsibilities here on American soil to deal with (basically, it's actually infinately more complicated, but I want to make it short and sweet for it's use in this disscussion). We don't need to be so directly involved with, let's say, Isreal (we give them $500b a year ).

What I was saying is that conservatives under the older meaning of the word voted for Bush, who qualifies under the new meaning of the word. John Kerry is too similar to JWBush to call him anything different. I'd say John Kerry is the same type of conservative as GWBush.

Sounds like he needs to read up on fascism. I'll admit he'd probably get a laugh out of me calling democrats fascists and republicans anything but. Both parties share at least SOME traits with facism.