[w:88]What Happened to American Conservatism?

[Nickyjo]

I think, my friend, you're going to have to do better than that. In what way are they "not doing their jobs"? I don't think, frankly, your assertions are responsive.

I stand by my statement, "It is often the mission of conservatives to prevent government from functioning". Prove me wrong. I have lots of evidence I can muster, and I'm not talking about the fringe pseudo-conservatives Brooks objects to. We can go back a century for examples.

I think one can distinguish between Reagan, who condemned Medicare when it was being considered, but did little (I know of) to harm it when in office, the Reagan who slowed civil rights enforcement which was his prerogative as Prez, and Gingrich who was a disrupter, one who didn’t want government to function.

I don’t think conservatives generally want to prevent government from functioning, tho one could argue that states’ resistance to the changes suggested by the ACA - depriving their citizens of fairly low cost benefits - reflects that.

 

[NWRatCon]

I think one can distinguish between Reagan, who condemned Medicare when it was being considered, but did little (I know of) to harm it when in office, the Reagan who slowed civil rights enforcement which was his prerogative as Prez, and Gingrich who was a disrupter, one who didn’t want government to function.

I don’t think conservatives generally want to prevent government from functioning, tho one could argue that states’ resistance to the changes suggested by the ACA - depriving their citizens of fairly low cost benefits - reflects that.

I'd be one to make that argument.

But, I want to reiterate that I don't condemn conservative tendencies in whole, but, as Brooks asserted, that what passes for "conservatism" in modern parlance, is far from the roots of conservative thought. On the other hand, too much "conservation" leads to stagnation.

There is a reasonable middle that can be achieved, and has, at times, achieved much. NASA and the Interstate Highway System are two such achievements. To reach such as those, I argue, requires looking at the "bigger picture". In its nascent development that was something that conservatives were able - often with difficulty - to do. Burke provides some classic examples. "Had it not been for the revolution in France," Bret Stephens wrote in The New York Times, "Edmund Burke would likely have been remembered, a bit vaguely, as an 18th-century philosopher-statesman of extravagant rhetorical gifts but frustratingly ambivalent views."

The Irish-born member of the British Parliament was sympathetic to the grievances of the American colonies but not (like his onetime friend Thomas Paine) an enthusiastic champion of their independence; an acerbic critic of George III but a firm defender of monarchy; a staunch opponent of English rapacity in India but a supporter of British Empire; an advocate for the gradual emancipation of at least some slaves, but no believer in equality.

The usual caricature of Burke is that he is the conservative’s conservative, a man for whom any type of change was dangerous in practice and anathema on principle. That view of him would have astonished his contemporaries, who knew him as a champion of Catholic emancipation — the civil rights movement of his day — and other reformist (and usually unpopular) causes.

A fairer reading of Burke would describe him as either a near-liberal or a near-conservative — a man who defied easy categorization in his time and defies it again in ours. He believed in limited government, gradual reform, parliamentary sovereignty and, with caveats and qualifications, individual rights. But he also believed that to secure rights, it wasn’t enough simply to declare them on paper, codify them in law and claim them as entitlements from a divine being or the general will. The conditions of liberty had to be nurtured through prudent statesmanship, moral education, national and local loyalties, attention to circumstance and a healthy respect for the “latent wisdom” of long-established customs and beliefs. If Burke lacked Thomas Jefferson’s clarity and idealism, he never suffered from his hypocrisy.

James Coniff, in The Useful Cobbler: Edmund Burke and the Politics of Progress wrote that

Burke held that history is broadly, though not uniformly, progressive; that is, history is the story of a gradual evolution from primitive barbarism to modern commercial civilization. Therefore, he argued that at all times a balance must be maintained between the need to adapt society to changing circumstances and environments and the equally strong need to preserve its essence for those who are to come.

Those are conservative principles that modern American conservatives - even those not of the fringe - have abandoned. Progress in any form is objected to and blocked, no sense of balance is extant, and the effort to preserve "its essence for those who are to come" has been forsaken.

 

[weaver2]

James Coniff, in The Useful Cobbler: Edmund Burke and the Politics of Progress wrote that, "Those are conservative principles that modern American conservatives - even those not of the fringe - have abandoned. Progress in any form is objected to and blocked, no sense of balance is extant, and the effort to preserve "its essence for those who are to come" has been forsaken."

Paul Weyrich's writings represent the sense of todays political and religious conservatives. Just shortly after he and Jerry Falwell established the anti-abortion movement and the Moral Majority Weyrich wrote this astounding bit, "When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” "We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about the Gospel in a political context."

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

"We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms.." http://www.theocracywatch.org/yurica_weyrich_manual.htm

 

[HikerGuy83]

Paul Weyrich's writings represent the sense of todays political and religious conservatives. Just shortly after he and Jerry Falwell established the anti-abortion movement and the Moral Majority Weyrich wrote this astounding bit, "When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” "We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about the Gospel in a political context."

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

"We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms.." http://www.theocracywatch.org/yurica_weyrich_manual.htm

This is where I take exception with your labels.

Political and religious conservatives are only conservatives if they behave like conservatives.

Getting political power to "re-create" something and "Christianizing America" demonstrates hubris and a disregard for things this country was established on. That ISN'T being conservative in any way shape, form, or fashion. And I don't just mean with regard to preserving things...I mean in other ways. Here are some of Kirk's ten principles:

1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

That would include a respect for agency and diversity. You can have disagreement. But the objective to "Christianize" America probably has God wondering just how stupid people can be.

As to the moral struggle....I have to wonder who the good and who the evil is in this case.

4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

This one reminds me of some of the things people say that make me wince....in the name of religion.

8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Forcing religion on someone is not voluntary...and violates just about everything else there is....too.

Mind you, I want religion or a discussion of religion in the public arena. I want school prayer for those who want to pray and I want the Pledge to be said every morning. I don't find those beyond the principles described here. There is no perfect system.

But the statements you quote do not represent conservatives.

Conservatism isn't a relative thing in my world.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Those are conservative principles that modern American conservatives - even those not of the fringe - have abandoned. Progress in any form is objected to and blocked, no sense of balance is extant, and the effort to preserve "its essence for those who are to come" has been forsaken.

Then they are not conservatives.

It's time to get straight on who is really what in this discuss.

Much like people making war in the "name of God" (hiding behind it because THEY think it's what He would want), I don't see how you can call people American Conervatives who are not conservative in their behavior.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I noted earlier, "The central tenet of Conservatism, I argue, is the preservation of something. That something can take up many forms, be it the church, the economic system (landed gentry, monetarism, colonialism, slavery, capitalism, mercantilism, depending on the age), established civil institutions, or some gauzy conception of an earlier age (Greek classicism, Roman colonialism, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Britannia ruling the waves, the 1950s)." As Brooks noted, those ideas can sweep in some pretty ugly tendencies.

Or it could mean fealty to a process.

Like the legislative process.

Or the process of selecting judges to SCOTUS.

Or the amendment process

All related to federal government.......

And state processes as well.

Jeff Toobin, many years ago was quite pointed in his comments about extremists agendas bypassing legislation (knowing they would not get support) and going right to the courts in the hopes the courts would perform the same function......Something conservatives say they don't like. Except they are not conservatives when they do the exact same things.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This money-only, me only attitude that pervades the modern conservative psyche is actually of relatively recent vintage. Barry Goldwater didn't espouse it, nor did Nixon, and certainly not Eisenhower. It came to the fore with Ronald Reagan, but that was long enough ago, now, that current "conservatives" don't remember or honor those prior times and values.

So, I am curious....do you really think that is a "conservative thing" ?

A discussion about money and wealth is a very complex thing. Are you really saying this exclusive or more heavily weighted towards true conservatives ?

 

[NWRatCon]

So, I am curious....do you really think that is a "conservative thing" ?

A discussion about money and wealth is a very complex thing. Are you really saying this exclusive or more heavily weighted towards true conservatives ?

Generally, yes, American conservatives, since the beginning of the nation, have hewn largely toward preservation of wealth, however that wealth is accumulated (slavery, exploitation, monopolies, robber baronism, etc.). I cannot think of a period in our history when this has not been true. I'm open to counter-examples.

Now, what I was specifically talking about in the post you responded to is a particular species of conservative - the "money-only, me only" conservative is a derivation of traditional conservatism, that shed the veneer of national preservation in favor of personal preservation. There are a number of sources that came together in its creation - Chicago school economics, class-based prejudice (a byproduct of traditional prejudices, so there is considerable overlap), Baby boomer-me generation ascendance, and radical libertarian reverence for the "rugged individual" fantasy - but they were all made possible and were strands of "traditional" conservative thought processes.

It was, primarily, in the Reagan era that traditional "conservatism" began to be replaced by revanchist tendencies. Reagan was a famous fabulist and consummate bullshitter, and left the heavy thinking to ideologues without scruples. The threads were all there, and there the weaving began.

Column: How Reaganomics, deregulation and bailouts led to the rise of Trump (PBS)​

Trump’s destruction of America started with Ronald Reagan (Salon)​

The time when America stopped being great (BBC)​

 

[weaver2]

This is where I take exception with your labels.

I didn't create the labels.

Political and religious conservatives are only conservatives if they behave like conservatives.
Getting political power to "re-create" something and "Christianizing America" demonstrates hubris and a disregard for things this country was established on. That ISN'T being conservative in any way shape, form, or fashion. And I don't just mean with regard to preserving things...I mean in other ways.

You do realize that Weyrich et al. are talking about political power not conservatism.

Here are some of Kirk's ten principles:
1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

That's just religious authority threatening people into obedience.

That would include a respect for agency and diversity. You can have disagreement. But the objective to "Christianize" America probably has God wondering just how stupid people can be.

God isn't the only one what wonders how much more stupid religious conservatives are going to get.

As to the moral struggle....I have to wonder who the good and who the evil is in this case.

You've just defined who is good and who is evil.

4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Q-anon is prudent? The Bundy boys are prudent? MTG is prudent? Trump is prudent? Kirk is joking right?

8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Forcing religion on someone is not voluntary...and violates just about everything else there is....too.

Yes forcing religion on someone is not voluntary and conservatives need to stop doing it.

Mind you, I want religion or a discussion of religion in the public arena. I want school prayer for those who want to pray and I want the Pledge to be said every morning. I don't find those beyond the principles described here. There is no perfect system.

Wev='ve had a discussion of religion in the public arena and the supporters of the 1st Amendment won. Christian prayers is public schools are not allowed. They are not a principle. They are just conservative Christians bullying

 

[NWRatCon]

Not to get too far from the focus of the topic, but I see the devolvement of the Republican party - the current home of conservatism in America - as an iterative process. Prior to the post-Civil War period, conservatism and progressivism was divided between the parties, depending on the topic. With the rise of the industry "barons", however, the economic conservatism became the province of Republicans, and has been since.

Tied to that was the xenophobia - a conservative staple - that resulted in the Chinese Exclusionary Acts of 1875 and 1882. Before that, it was a social gems These were the beginning of border closing and the adoption of the policies of exclusion that have been a central tenet of conservatism since. The economic arguments have mutated over time, but the impetus has remained the same. It also presaged the open racism that migrated from the Democratic to Republican parties in the 20th Century.

As late as the election of 1968, social liberals could still be found in the Republican party, but the purge began with the massive importation of Dixiecrats into the party during the 60s. They brought with them virulent racism and illiberalism regarding religion. It was also the heyday of the John Birch Society and "Bircherism".

 

[HikerGuy83]

Yes forcing religion on someone is not voluntary and conservatives need to stop doing it.

When the point was that if they are doing it, they are not conservatives.

 

[HikerGuy83]

As I read through Hayek's essay on "Why I am not a conservative", I started to ask if these labels are really worth anything anymore.

I understand Hayek's perspective, but what he calls conservative is certainly not what "today's follower of Carlson calls conservative.

 

[NWRatCon]

As I read through Hayek's essay on "Why I am not a conservative", I started to ask if these labels are really worth anything anymore.

I understand Hayek's perspective, but what he calls conservative is certainly not what "today's follower of Carlson calls conservative.

Hayek was idiosycratic in many ways, and his view of "conservative" was, too. But, I think, in a backhanded way, he supports your thesis of conservatism (and undercuts it in another). I recommend Hayek was not a conservative. Here's why. (Janet Bufton, Econolib). which discusses his essay at length.

He viewed conservatives as "moderating" the swing of the pendulum whichever way it swung.

“… conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes—with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

“The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies.”

That is, perhaps, an appropriate way of seeing it (as I, too, once believed), but it hasn't ever worked that way in practice (ironic, that), in my experience. At the same time, he noted

“This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since [conservatism] distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks.” (Emphases added)

That is why conservatives tend to be at home with right-wing proponents and can be swept along by iconoclasts, as they are being now.

Again, the source for this paradox he identifies:

conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas.

This part of Hayek's analysis I endorse.

So, I think your reliance on Hayek is well-placed in your expressed world view. I think, you, too, see conservatism as a moderating force, and see the tilt toward fascism/authoritarianism with alarm, as a genuine conservative (or liberal, or plain American) should.

 

[NWRatCon]

I didn't create the labels.

This is where I take exception with your labels.

This has been, in my view, an interesting back-and-forth, and really pretty central to the discussion. I don't think y'all are as contrary as you might think. It's a matter of paradigms and cooption. Here's what I mean:

At various times in our history, and particularly now, people/politicians give themselves the label "conservative" for political expedience or advantage. I think some even righteously believe it (pun intended).

That really is what the OP and essay were all about. Does the label fit? In principle, I think you both agree (feel free to correct me) that what passes for "conservative" today doesn't meet the conception. Weaver2 accepts the claimants' claim, but HikerGuy83 does not. Therein, I think, lies the conflict. Who gets to claim the term?

I happen to agree with you both, to various extents. I don't think that the label accurately describes the extremism in vogue, but I think that the tendencies inherent in conservative thinking leaves it vulnerable to being the case. As noted in the Hayek response, and previously, I think that there is, inherent in conservative thought, the tendency to allow (and even promote) "bad things" and "extreme things" under the rubric of conservatism because, at bottom, conservativism isn't a philosophy or coherent "thing", but a set of approaches or feelings. Like a boiling frog, extremism creeps into the label because it comes there by degrees and becomes "the way things are", and thus to be preserved, rather than something adopted deliberately.

Conservatism backs into things, then backs them. But, like the woman who backed into the fan, the result is, disaster.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That is why conservatives tend to be at home with right-wing proponents and can be swept along by iconoclasts, as they are being now.

It's a tough situation.

Up until Trump, a great many people saw their views as being marginalized, especially by Obama (bitterly clinging).

The entrenched "establishement", who they supported as best they could even though at times it was painful finally decided to cast them off (or ignore them) altogether.

Along comes a voice in the form of Trump (not a conservative himself, but whose views....in many ways....would accomplish some conservative ends).

I can't detail everything that went on and what motivated it, but there was a mixture of disdain for the rulers at hand as well as some gold-plated BS that was meant to assauge those who wondered if the trade-off was worth it.

Regardless.....he won. For all the prognostication and subsequent excuses regarding 2016.....he won.

Why we can't get someone to pick up the good parts and leave the rest behind is still my big question.

Why is everything measured in terms of Trump ? Seems we can't let go of what (I believe was and) is a transient situation.

One reason is the lack of anyone who looks reasonable.

The only thing saving the GOP is that their stall (the left's) is also filled with old white hypocrites too.

BTW: I've started reading some of Brooks "mentions" and it has been rather educational.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This has been, in my view, an interesting back-and-forth, and really pretty central to the discussion. I don't think y'all are as contrary as you might think. It's a matter of paradigms and cooption. Here's what I mean:

At various times in our history, and particularly now, people/politicians give themselves the label "conservative" for political expedience or advantage. I think some even righteously believe it (pun intended).

That really is what the OP and essay were all about. Does the label fit? In principle, I think you both agree (feel free to correct me) that what passes for "conservative" today doesn't meet the conception. Weaver2 accepts the claimants' claim, but HikerGuy83 does not. Therein, I think, lies the conflict. Who gets to claim the term?

I happen to agree with you both, to various extents. I don't think that the label accurately describes the extremism in vogue, but I think that the tendencies inherent in conservative thinking leaves it vulnerable to being the case. As noted in the Hayek response, and previously, I think that there is, inherent in conservative thought, the tendency to allow (and even promote) "bad things" and "extreme things" under the rubric of conservatism because, at bottom, conservativism isn't a philosophy or coherent "thing", but a set of approaches or feelings. Like a boiling frog, extremism creeps into the label because it comes there by degrees and becomes "the way things are", and thus to be preserved, rather than something adopted deliberately.

Conservatism backs into things, then backs them. But, like the woman who backed into the fan, the result is, disaster.

As usual, there is a great deal to unpack and not enough time.

As I considered Hayek's thoughts, I started to wonder just what adjectives might be attached to the word conservative to NOT denote the thing he (and you) describe.

Or, if a another descriptor might be better.

 

[NWRatCon]

I want to extend a point I made earlier in the discussion, quoting Hayek:

“… conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes—with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

“The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies.”

I believe this is exactly where "conservatism" should be, in principle. I think most of us agree that Donald Trump is not a "conservative" in any traditional sense.

Conservatism, in my estimation and epistemology, as in Hayek's, is supposed to be a moderating force. It, philosophically, is about experience over theory, the known versus the not-yet-known. But, where it has gone off the rails for some time is, ignoring what is known.

For example, we know that racism exists, and that much of the economic and physical infrastructure of our nation was conceived and constructed during juridically-sanctioned discrimination. Equality being a foundational aspiration of our nation should, to a traditionalist, militate against maintenance of such unequal structures. Yet, conservatism, in practice, seeks to keep them intact. As another example, we lived through the fascism that destroyed much of the world in the middle of the last century. We watched as it grew, so we know the process by which it develops and the signs of its development. Yet, modern conservatives revel in the authoritarian tendencies from which it springs, in contravention of "law and order", and the norms of "liberty" that are traditional. Right wing authoritarianism is anathema to the themes of tradition that conservatism lauds.

How do we reconcile these contradictions?

 

[weaver2]

I've seen a lot of references to Reagan in the article, and hints in the posts, as a marker for when things began to go wrong with Conservatism.

I don't see it that way. Reagan wasn't perfect, no... he did some things I questioned, and a few I opposed. But to understand Reagan and why people loved him so, you must understand the late 70s... and that is very hard unless you lived through them and were old enough to understand what was going on.

The late 70s were a dark time. Dark to a degree you won't understand unless you were there.

Russians in Afghanistan, hostages in Iraq. Energy crisis, gas lines, people thought the oil was nearly gone. Three Mile Island, Panama Canal. The country still reeling from the Kennedy assassination, the Nixon scandal, Vietnam and the counterculture revolution, and now this.

Our leaders appeared on TV with their heads down, shoulders slumped, and grim faced: defeated looking. The pundits said we'd soon surrender to the Soviets without a shot fired. Oil was nearly gone, many thought, soon the wheels would stop turning for good. Mile-long lines at the gas station and rationing of fuel reinforced that idea. Everywhere it seemed our strength was gone and our national interests in a Kipling-esque recessional.

Many preachers said the End was nigh, and many people believed it. The attitudes of our leaders seemed to confirm it: America was doomed to go the way of Ninevah and Tyre, of Ozymandias and Rome.

Then came Ronald Reagan, standing tall and smiling. Smiling! What was there to smile about, everyone asked. Weren't we doomed?

Then he gave his "Morning in America/Shining City on a Hill" speech, and we were astonished. You mean it might not be sunset for America after all? Only morning?

He gave us hope in a time when hope was in very short supply, and we loved him for it. He was bold and decisive in a time when our leaders seemed weak and weary and defeated. We found some pride in being American again, and began to believe in a brighter future again.

I was there, and I remember those dark days, and the moment we saw the dawn again. That is why I honor the memory of Ronald Reagan all my days. Not as a perfect man, but as the man we needed.

Yeah, I lived through the 60's and 70's and also remember:
The Vietnam War.
National Voting Rights Act 1965
Feminism and the ERA
Bette Friedan and the Feminine Mystique.
1sts for Black athletes, actors, models, politicians, professionals etc
Roe vs Wade 1973
Sandra Day O'Connor 1st woman on the Supreme Court
Harvey Milk 1st openly gay politician
Stonewall Inn riots and subsequent gay rights

And I also remember the response of conservatives to all of the above:
The killing of Kent State students for protesting against the Vietnam was
Killings of Black and White civil rights workers by southern conservatives.
Reagans opening campaign speech lauding states rights in Phildelphia, Mississippi
Reagans dog whistles to those same racists who voted for him
Phyllis Schlafly's destruction of equal rights for women and Reagan congratulating her
The evangelical movement against legal abortion and their demonization of women who abort.
Conservative anger about federal laws that stopped corporate water and air pollution.
The withdrawal of conservatives from mainline denominations and the rise of the isolationist hate
centered evangelical churches.
Reagan's steady production of comments and speeches giving veiled permission to be racist.
Paul Weyrich's appeal to evangelicals to "Christianize America".

Yup I remember conservatives white hot anger at having to stop discriminating against people that weren't conservative, Christian, white and male and how it is effecting our country today.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I want to extend a point I made earlier in the discussion, quoting Hayek:

I believe this is exactly where "conservatism" should be, in principle. I think most of us agree that Donald Trump is not a "conservative" in any traditional sense.

Conservatism, in my estimation and epistemology, as in Hayek's, is supposed to be a moderating force. It, philosophically, is about experience over theory, the known versus the not-yet-known. But, where it has gone off the rails for some time is, ignoring what is known.

For example, we know that racism exists, and that much of the economic and physical infrastructure of our nation was conceived and constructed during juridically-sanctioned discrimination. Equality being a foundational aspiration of our nation should, to a traditionalist, militate against maintenance of such unequal structures. Yet, conservatism, in practice, seeks to keep them intact. As another example, we lived through the fascism that destroyed much of the world in the middle of the last century. We watched as it grew, so we know the process by which it develops and the signs of its development. Yet, modern conservatives revel in the authoritarian tendencies from which it springs, in contravention of "law and order", and the norms of "liberty" that are traditional. Right wing authoritarianism is anathema to the themes of tradition that conservatism lauds.

How do we reconcile these contradictions?

So, as I was thinking about some of this and whether or not I should give up the term conservative altogether....I recalled something from a while ago.....

In and around 2005/2006 there was a book published called "Crunchy Cons". It was written by a fellow that either did or was working for National Review.

It was pretty interesting.

And while I am not sure it describes me, it certainly could if I chose to make some different decisions (which I could feel good about even though I didn't make them).

Crunchy Cons | National Review

EDITOR’S NOTE:This appeared in the September 30, 2002, issue of National Review. One day this summer, I told a colleague I had to leave early to pick up my weekly fresh vegetables from the organic …

www.nationalreview.com

One day this summer, I told a colleague I had to leave early to pick up my weekly fresh vegetables from the organic food co-op to which my wife and I belong. “Ewgh, that’s so lefty,” she said. And she was right: Organic vegetables are a left-wing cliche. Early last summer I had made fun of neighbors who subscribed to the service, which delivers fresh fruits and vegetables from area organic farms to our Brooklyn streets.

But then the neighbors gave us one week’s vegetable shipment, and we were knocked flat by the intense flavors. Who knew cauliflower had so much taste? It was the freshness of the produce, not its organic status (of dubious nutritional advantage), that we were responding to. But you can’t get produce that delicious in grocery stores here, so when this summer rolled around, we signed up enthusiastically. Now, Julie picks up our weekly delivery in her National Review tote bag.

It never occurred to me that eating organic vegetables was a political act, but my colleague’s comment got me to thinking about other ways my family’s lifestyle is countercultural. Julie is a stay-at-home mom who is beginning to homeschool our young son. We worship at an “ethnic” Catholic church because we can’t take the Wonder Bread liturgy at the Roman parish down the street. We are as suspicious of big business as we are of big government. We rarely watch TV, disdain modern architecture and suburban sprawl, avoid shopping malls, and spend our money on good food we prepare at home. My wife even makes her own granola.

********************

Anyway....this whole concept seemed to fall away (or I lost track of it).

But in just a few minutes on the internet it seems things are getting active again.

Just something I thought I'd point out.

As part of this I came across this article that describes 7 types of conservatives.

What Are the Different Types of Conservatives?

Here is a breakdown of the various forms of conservatism, from the crunchy conservative to the social conservative.

www.thoughtco.com

As I search for what is me....I find I can't just go to one type. There are parts and pieces of each (and how I hated seeing GWB's picture in front of one....talk about a credibility killer).

 

[NWRatCon]

So, as I was thinking about some of this and whether or not I should give up the term conservative altogether....I recalled something from a while ago.....

In and around 2005/2006 there was a book published called "Crunchy Cons". ....

Crunchy Cons | National Review

EDITOR’S NOTE:This appeared in the September 30, 2002, issue of National Review. One day this summer, I told a colleague I had to leave early to pick up my weekly fresh vegetables from the organic …

www.nationalreview.com

This gets to a point that I think it very worth making. What starts as a tendency to "buy local" - a laudable goal - is a conservative idea, and one shared by many liberals. But, when it becomes fetishized and expanded, it can become destructive. There is a tendency, I think, for conservatives to think narrowly and express broadly. "Local control" is not always an appropriate answer - say in responding to a natural disaster, the environment, or common defense (or protecting fundamental rights). One of the things pointed out in that article was this:

American Enterprise Institute pollster Karlyn Bowman says that while the environment isn’t a big political issue nationally, it is “very important at the state and local levels,” particularly in populous, environmentally conscious swing states like California and Florida. AEI’s Steven Hayward has studied these issues, and says that the GOP’s bad rap on the environment is somewhat deserved. “It’s the flip side of what defense policy is for the Democrats. Republicans don’t like it, they don’t study it very hard, and they tend to do a lousy job with it,” he says. “Conservatives tend to belittle environmental concerns, or issue blanket condemnations of all environmentalists.”

That is a tendency that I have observed over my lifetime, and there are an increasing number of topics "Republicans don't like" and their "blanket condemnations" have proliferated. The playing field has broadened and conservatism has not kept up. For example, what is the appropriate conservative approach to "social communications"?; to diversity?; to demographic changes? Because they haven't thought broadly about those subjects, they don't study or have comprehensive plans regarding them, and so they condemn, willy-nilly.

That tendency is NOT limited to the fringe, either. My question then becomes, is it a hallmark of conservatism itself?

As part of this I came across this article that describes 7 types of conservatives.

What Are the Different Types of Conservatives?

Here is a breakdown of the various forms of conservatism, from the crunchy conservative to the social conservative.

www.thoughtco.com

As I search for what is me....I find I can't just go to one type. There are parts and pieces of each (and how I hated seeing GWB's picture in front of one....talk about a credibility killer).

I'm going to spend more time cogitating on those categories - I have seen similar lists before - as I think these categories are intended, deliberately or inadvertently, to give "conservatism" a "big tent" feel. In that sense, it makes it easier to describe one as "a conservative" when only particular elements apply. In a way that has mongrelized "conservatism" and robbed the concept of a lot of its meaning. Frankly, that's how the deplorables make their way into the tent.

 

[weaver2]

......... Frankly, that's how the deplorables make their way into the tent.

Back in the 1950s 60's Republicans like Democrats identified the conspiracy ridden, anti-commie, tin hat, fundy crowd as nut jobs called them nut jobs and didn't include them in their ranks even when they voted with Republicans. It wasn't until Weyrich, Schlafly,F Clifford White, Robert Welch, Tim LaHaye, Falwell, and Joseph McCarthy became national figures and could deliver the nut job vote that Republican Parrty began to give them a voice in the party. Most of those people were border line deplorables or catered to the deplorables but they delivered millions of votes and the Republican Party let them in. They had no intention of becoming traditional Republicans. As Weyrich said, "When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Nobody thought he was serious except the nut jobs.

 

[The Mark]

As I read through Hayek's essay on "Why I am not a conservative", I started to ask if these labels are really worth anything anymore.

I understand Hayek's perspective, but what he calls conservative is certainly not what "today's follower of Carlson calls conservative.

Changing what words mean is part of how the confusion that serves their purpose is spread.
People like Carlson I mean.

If words can have multiple meanings, then people seeking a solid footing of understanding will latch onto people like Carlson who tells them what they think is the Truth.

As long as he and those like him sound coherent enough, they will have a following who believes their disinformation.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Changing what words mean is part of how the confusion that serves their purpose is spread.
People like Carlson I mean.

If words can have multiple meanings, then people seeking a solid footing of understanding will latch onto people like Carlson who tells them what they think is the Truth.

As long as he and those like him sound coherent enough, they will have a following who believes their disinformation.

Which is where this article, several others and some discussion with friends has taken me.

While Hayek carries more weight than I do, I don't agree with his analysis in parts.

And I have reached a point where I no longer try to figure out if I fit the mold.

There are several of Kirk's sentiments that describe me (and some that do not....at least no fully) and I see nothing that comes close.

As a result of my considerations (which are sometimes diluted by the temptation to troll threads in other forums ), I just don't see needing to worry about it further.

Analyzing Carlson (and other media types) at length might be a descent (but tricky) thread.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Back in the 1950s 60's Republicans like Democrats identified the conspiracy ridden, anti-commie, tin hat, fundy crowd as nut jobs called them nut jobs and didn't include them in their ranks even when they voted with Republicans. It wasn't until Weyrich, Schlafly,F Clifford White, Robert Welch, Tim LaHaye, Falwell, and Joseph McCarthy became national figures and could deliver the nut job vote that Republican Parrty began to give them a voice in the party. Most of those people were border line deplorables or catered to the deplorables but they delivered millions of votes and the Republican Party let them in. They had no intention of becoming traditional Republicans. As Weyrich said, "When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Nobody thought he was serious except the nut jobs.

No broad insults, demonizing, or belittling of political parties, groups, or views.
No libtards or tea baggers. No "democrats hate the country" or "republicans are bigots" type of comments. Broad scale insults do nothing but detract from the conversation and inflame a situation. Respectfully disagreeing with a party or view is one thing, calling them evil or a blight upon America is not.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This gets to a point that I think it very worth making. What starts as a tendency to "buy local" - a laudable goal - is a conservative idea, and one shared by many liberals. But, when it becomes fetishized and expanded, it can become destructive. There is a tendency, I think, for conservatives to think narrowly and express broadly. "Local control" is not always an appropriate answer - say in responding to a natural disaster, the environment, or common defense (or protecting fundamental rights). One of the things pointed out in that article was this:

Local isn't a digital term.

There are several forms of government and identifying which is best to handle an issue is conversation that should take place and does not. If it did, the rest of the argument would subside very quickly.

Common defense is clearly a Federal responsibility.

The rest....as I said...up for discussion.

I will admit the GOP does a terrible job of putting this idea out there because they are pretty pathetic in their behavior.

American Enterprise Institute pollster Karlyn Bowman says that while the environment isn’t a big political issue nationally, it is “very important at the state and local levels,” particularly in populous, environmentally conscious swing states like California and Florida. AEI’s Steven Hayward has studied these issues, and says that the GOP’s bad rap on the environment is somewhat deserved. “It’s the flip side of what defense policy is for the Democrats. Republicans don’t like it, they don’t study it very hard, and they tend to do a lousy job with it,” he says. “Conservatives tend to belittle environmental concerns, or issue blanket condemnations of all environmentalists.”

Again, not a topic you can cover in short length.

I will accept and agree with the basic assertions that the GOP does not lead out well in these issues. And why, I don't know. It irks me to no end.

By doing nothing, they create a vacuum and the justification for filling that vacuum that gets them things like the EPA and Obamacare (federal programs).

That tendency is NOT limited to the fringe, either. My question then becomes, is it a hallmark of conservatism itself?

I am a little amazed at the question.

Conservatism does not change. That is what I disagree with about Brooks article. The whole GOP and everyone claiming to be conservative could engage in the worship of Sean Hannity and follow his decrees.

Conservatism, as a philosophy, is still what it was when first articulated. It has not changed in spite of being dropped or ignored.