Wow, after my last post about conservatives running the country, there was a near side debate over what a conservative is, and one was saying that Clinton was generally more Conservative (Nafta, welfare reform) and this administration is actually liberal (steel tarrifs, farm subsidies, massive deficit spending)-

So, my question is, what is a conservative? Is it a fiscally responsible person that is a deficit hawk and hates too much spending or goverment, or is it someone like Bush, with his aformentioned steel tarrifs etc?

Could be any of those things. "Conservative", at least without any qualifiers, is a broad spectrum term that covers a large range of opinion. Sometimes people even call us libertarians conservatives ...

If you want my personal opinion on the gold standard reference American conservative, either Rush Limbaugh or Willaim F. Buckley, Jr. would do, in that they faithfully represent conservative movement orthodoxy. But there's lots of other kinds of conservatives, and they're also real conservatives.

George F. Will, who is more like an English tory in a lot of ways. Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, is a good example of a neo-conservative. The late Sen. Barry M. Goldwater was IMO more of a libertarian than a conservative, but still he called himself a conservative and no one dared say he wasn't. Zell Miller is a good example of a Southern Democrat conservative.

Conservative is a broad category in this country, not easily encapsulated.

See, I would describe a modern day Libertarian as a paleo conservative, and Pat Robertson and Bob Jones and the like, to include Rush as a neo-conservative, and I feel there is a real rift and difference of beliefs, in multitudes.

Libertarians like myself might fairly be described as paleo-conservatives, but that term is a little broad too, since Pat Buchanan can also quality as a paleo-conservative (and in fact often writes for Llewellyn Rockwell's paleo-conservative website, the name of which escapes me at the moment), and he's not much like a libertarian, being rather authoritarian on social issues and protectionist on trade.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al are clearly religious conservatives and social conservatives, and are in their own distinct category. Can't comment on Bob Jones, since I'm not sure who he is. I know about Bob Jones University, but I don't have a clue if the person it's named after is even still alive.

But Rush Limbaugh a neo-conservative? Not at all. Neo-conservatism is a distinct intellectual trend that started with Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, and other former leftist intellectuals that "saw the light" and came over. They're distinguished from other conservatives by frankly advocating a more aggressive American foreign policy, such as the Bush administration has adopted, and by not being particularly hostile to big government so long as it serves conservative ends. Sounds a lot like the Bush administration, doesn't it? But while many conservatives, such as Rush, are going along with them on foreign policy, Rush is still as suspicious of big government as ever, so he can't accurately be classified as a neo-con.

If what you're trying to say is the conservatism is a big tent kind of alliance that has incompatible elements in it, I'd have to say you're right. Libertarians and Pat Robertson-style religious conservatives are certainly not very compatible, nor
are "Conservative Opportunity Society" conservatives like Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich very compatible with the Buchananites. Yet for the most part they function pretty well as allies despite their disagreements, with only one thing in common: what Thomas Sowell describes as the "constrained vision" in his book. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggle, which I highly recommend. You'll come away from it with a much better understanding of both the left and the right.

It is very interesting to me that the conservatives on this site, a pretty well read and intelligent group, have not been able to define what they are with any clarity! And the self described liberals on this site have so many pages defining what they are on the opposite thread. Why is it so hard for a conservative to define themselves?

What I find funny is you are asking people to define themselves when you have not done so yourself on your profile"independent and private huh".

Why do I call my self a conservative?

Because I brought myself where I am today through hard work. I did not blame my hard upbringing on my parents getting divorced, or being raised poor, moving from apartment to apartment, they did the best they could.

Because I take responsibility for my own actions.

And that is what it really boils down to for conservatives(at least the way I see it). Taking responsibility for your own actions.

And don't try and bring up so called conservatives that have blamed others for their crimes, because they are hypocrites as far as I am concerned and not a true conservative.

It's very interesting to me that you view it that way. In fact, the majority of the posts on the 'Liberal' thread are from Conservatives and Libertarian conservatives. The opinions of the Liberals themselves on that thread are as diverse as those of the Conservatives here.

IMO, as a fiscal conservative, the purpose of government is to protect the "natural" rights of individuals and ensure a fair legal and economic framework. Governments should not attempt to control the personal or economic choices of individuals or coercively impose the demands of any person or group upon another, except as necessary to safeguard the rights and liberties of all.

Government should provide certain basic requirements for a peaceful and productive society...law enforcement and military protection, judicial system, a relatively stable monetary system, a safe highway and airway system, ect...but it is not the government's responsibility to legislate morality (unless in compelling interest to the aforementioned rights and liberties of others), or redistribute wealth.

Edited to add: IMO, the modern-day Liberal DOES legislate morality, but it is a different variety (the sensitivity-training variety) than the modern day religious right.

Cruising Ram,

In point of fact, I do not call myself a conservative except in the Politics line of this site's sidebar, and that's only because libertarian is not offered as an option. I have requested that it be offered, since IMO libertarians don't fit at all on the traditional Left/Right spectrum and a two dimensional spectrum must be used to accurately represent us, but unfortunately the management here doesn't agree, so I have to make the best of it and pick the best fit, even though I don't think it's very close.

But as why it is not possible to succinctly sum up what conservatism is, I've already given you the answer, you just don't want to accept it. Conservatism is not just one thing, it's a movement comprised of a number of different streams that flow together in the same general direction. so really all one can do is describe the individual streams and how they relate to one another.

I will adress sleeper first- the main reason I don't describe myself as a liberal is because of my law and order issues I am very conservative, perhaps even extremist in some poeple's view- so it would be dishonest of me to label myself as a liberal when I disagree with that very important part of "classical liberalism".

Taking responsibility for your actions is not a conservative nor liberal exclusive, and I think that both sides have good points on that one.

I also brought myself up with hard work and personal perserverance, but I don't feel it is correct to kick the ladder down behind me for those trying to climb up, or begrudge helping the truly needy with both my donations and taxes, since such a small part of my taxes go to the poor really.

Now, in some ways, I am as Mrs P, I am a very conservative fiscal person, and it shows in my own business dealings, where I have been very successful. And basic goverment functions that lower poverty, keep the streets safe etc are actually GOOD for business.

It is the changing definition of conservative that is confounding me, where the definition of liberal is fairly static, except for the fringes (uber-feminism, "sensitivity training " PETA) , whereas the Neo-con is a fairly new entity and in power right now, whereas those fringes in the liberal camp may have effected change, but never allowed to actually hold the riegns of power.

But so many poeple CALL themselves conservative, and have no ideas how to define themselves, other than calling liberals names, and this is the area that bothers me.

Actually, I was talking in generalsims, I was not pointing out you, and in fact, I thought you did a rather good job of describing your views and giving links to books (which I will attempt to get at the library next go-round there) which I appreciate. I definately understand your frustrations with not enough choices on your sidebar, that is one of the reasons I started this thread. However, it is the actual definition of conservatism that seems to be elusive to most, including myself, which I think that this is a good thread for debate.


oops, sorry for the double post

From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative".

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.


When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends. It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.(end of quote)

Here I am addressing the term conservative and liberal on economic grounds only. Let me point out that Hayek is using the term liberal in the classical sense of the word. More akin to the word libertarian today. His use of the word socialist is akin to the word liberal today. Conservatives, like the modern liberal, are not against the coercive power of government, providing it is in the "right" hands. I agree with Izdaari that conservatives, like liberals and libertarians cannot be placed in one neat little ideological basket, I must agree with Hayek, that conservatism has had no real direction and conservatives find themselves pulled along by the liberals of today (the socialists of the era in which Hayek wrote this article). Conservatives are helping slow the modern liberals imposition of "serfdom" on the American populace (when you look at the recent growth of government under the so-called conservative party I may have to re-think that last statement).

When I think of a conservative, I think of the old right, people like "Mr. Republican" More specifically, old senator Taft. This person is:

*Protectionist(by no means a free trader)
*Against government spending, but not all government spending
*Isolationist, but pro-military spending
*Favors "right to work" laws and is generally unfriendly to labor
*Targets government abuse and abuse by agencies

Of course, such a definition is perhaps better left to the 1950s when this notion died out. Then again, I see Pat Buchanan as being an old guard conservative.

Right, Nebraska, Pat Buchanan is rather Taft-like in his positions, and is a good example of a Paleoconservative. And in fact, the Taft agenda suits me pretty well too except on trade, my most notable difference.

But for better or worse, the Taft Republican has gone the way of the Adlai Stevenson Democrat. Not many of us Goldwater Republicans left either ... Goldwater I would describe as less a conservative than a kind of militaristic libertarian, in the Robert Heinlein/Poul Anderson mold, which describes me as well.

CruisingRam,

This Wikipedia article on Conservatism seems to give a lot of what I think you're asking for.

See also the Wikepedia articles on Paleoconservative, Neoconservatism and Libertarianism.

My view of what a conservative is [which stems from what I am] is:
-Free Market, where as some are "fair market", particuarly paleo-cons
-Limited gov't spending, this is where Neo-cons float away from the mainstream, they like to spend
-Small gov't, people don't need a nanny gov't, personal responsibility is king
-I think that the average conservative is midway between the neo-cons, and the paleo-cons, we don't want an "American Empire", but we also aren't pacifists. [again, this is mostly based on what I am, and I consider myself pretty mainstream, I guess others would disagree, I will again take this time to say that I am not a Neo-Con ]

CP

For some Conservatives (Hugo) just knowing that some of his tax money might provide a homeless person with a warm meal and a place to sleep causes him great distress. Feeding the hungry is a Liberal cause and he doesn’t want any part of it. Liberals are too generous with other people’s money he complains (over and over.)

Well, I think GWB is pretty darn generous with other people’s money. 28 billion to Iraq, 400 million(or is it billion?) for Medicare “Reform” (what a laugh) of which 61 percent goes to drug companies.

Here’s a good one….a $2.5 billion tax break for Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco to write off the cost of exploring for oil on our public lands and off our coasts. Now, I wonder who’s going to make up that loss. The American taxpayers, that’s who. It's a wonderful bill, research subsidies etc.

Remember the big S&L bailout caused by Conservative crooks (Neil Bush) that cost the tax payers 1.4 trillion? That’s 32 billion every year for 30 years. I could go on and on, but you probably get the picture. CONSERVATIVES are the big spenders.

So, Conservatives (some) are people who don’t mind big give aways to the rich and powerful, but don’t you dare help the down and out!

Since I am not a conservative I also oppose corporate welfare. The fact that conservatives also are generous with other peoples money does not change the fact the homeless need to rely on family or private charity. If you want to help the down and out do so. Adopt a homeless man. Don't be distressing my pocketbook. Show you really care, pick the stinkin' bum up, take him home and introduce him to the family. He needs more than a handout, he needs a compassionate human being who will provide both material and emotional support. You seem just the type.

Conservatives do tend to be pro-business versus liberals being pro-laziness. A neutral position would save taxpayer dollars while allowing the free market to allocate resources properly. Inefficient businesses and lazy people would quickly be forced to change their ways.

Conservatives believe that many people need to be ruled and they are just the ones to do it based on morals that come from their religious beliefs. They also believe the world needs to be ruled and they are the ones to do it via their place in the United States government.

-----

There are those who have mentioned a belief in small government as a conservative viewpoint. I do not see that as a conservative opinion but as a libertarian one. You may wish the conservative movement had this policy but reality has shown otherwise. It has been given lip service by conservatives but in the end this policy has gotten in the way of their more valued objectives.

[QUOTE=Hugo,Dec 3 2003, 07:17 AM]
[/QUOTE]
Since I am not a conservative [/QUOTE]
It is funny how the Bush's are always labeled conservative. I just don't see it.

The above was not part of my original post. Must have been added by Hugo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you whine about your money.... like a conservative

If you lump all the poor under one label "stinkin bums"....like a conservative

If every decision must be based on how it would benefit ME....like a conservative

If you cannot define a liberal without calling him "pro-lazy" or some other insulting, untrue name.....like a conservative;

Guess What?? YOU'RE A CONSERVATIVE!!

[QUOTE=Madtown,Dec 3 2003, 10:29 AM] [QUOTE=Hugo,Dec 3 2003, 07:17 AM]
[/QUOTE]
Since I am not a conservative [/QUOTE]
It is funny how the Bush's are always labeled conservative. I just don't see it.

The above was not part of my original post. Must have been added by Hugo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you whine about your money.... like a conservative

If you lump all the poor under one label "stinkin bums"....like a conservative

If every decision must be based on how it would benefit ME....like a conservative

If you cannot define a liberal without calling him "pro-lazy" or some other insulting, untrue name.....like a conservative;

Guess What?? YOU'RE A CONSERVATIVE!! [/QUOTE]
I don't see how supporting transfer payments to the poor cannot be labeled pro-lazy. It seems to me people of all political ideologies vote for policies that benefit them. Conservatives tend to be more honest about it. The rare times I have been close enough to bums to get a whiff of them, they have had an unpleasant odor. Stinkin' bums is a factual definition that is not a result of political ideology. Seems like liberals whine about money too when it goes to the war in Iraq or big businesses. Guess what, if you cannot understand the difference between a libertarian and a conservative you are incapable of rational thought.

I have seen Presidents tout conservatism. I have not seen a truly conservative President in my lifetime. Fiscal conservatism was revived only when Ross Perot was making it a political issue. Unchecked government spending is back again. Madtown is correct in inferring the only difference between so-called conservatism and liberalism, as practiced in the last 40 years, is who feeds from the government trough.