What is Conservatism?

Artler, let me tell you first how pleasing I find it to talk about this stuff without anyone going ape-shit. I’ve had my experiences.

I dare say our dialogue here is not tinged with the acid drip of Darwinism, Freudianism, or Marxism. We question not to cast aside and undermine but to understand. Believe me (as I’m sure you do), this is no small thing to be able to do.

The standard Christian belief is that it is man’s fault that the world is often such a horrible place. “Original Sin” and all that. Even if true, Jesus Christ would appear to be some kind of intervention, and not just for man but for God.

It’s standard doctrine to say that god is all-loving, all-powerful, all knowing, etc. But we don’t know this. God could have fucked up. The world is a mess. It sat and basted in sin, violence, and decadence for hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer, at least regarding man’s term in the world.

Jesus is clearly an advocate for mankind at the very least. And we need one. God remains (from our point of view) distant and uncaring while the world groans in misery. Maybe we invented Jesus because an esoteric belief in God just wasn’t getting the job done or didn’t provide enough tangible hope.

Darwinism isn’t apparently wrong morally. This is a world where life feeds on killing other life and misery is inherent and not just a consequence of sin (although sin obviously makes it worse). I believe there is some justification for calling this world God’s ant farm. If you ever had one of those as a kid and maybe threw some black ants in with the red ants, you’ll know what I mean.

Jesus cared deeply enough for mankind that even when they were cruelly murdering him He was forgiving mankind and (the story goes) providing an avenue for their redemption. Jesus seems more like the “good cop” god intervening in a way the “bad cop” god never could or would.

Exact evidence of the way the world works is not available to us. Religious belief is the best we can do regarding the Big Picture stuff. And much of it makes little sense. It’s sort of a sad fact that it’s all we have in this fragile and uncertain world.

I would like to think so. Particularly since I knew so many who were touched by it. 

Most people need to have some sort of certainty in a complex and changing world.  With the general loss of religion, many felt and feel adrift.  They have a void in their souls, even if they claim souls do not exist. Nazism, Communism and many other isms can, at least, partially fill those voids. Those who believe in such isms can take solace in being part of the "elect." 

I believe the main advantage of creeds such as Nazism and Communism is that they are simplistic. There in not much to them and once one gets beneath the surface there is nothing there. Most people are quite happy to avoid much digging. 

Of course, similar things might be said about religion in general, but I believe neither Judaism nor Christianity are simplistic. As regards these faiths, once one starts digging to get beneath the surface, it seems one will have to bore all the way to China to find answers.  


A high compliment indeed. I hope you are correct, but hope I will not have to be put to the test to know whether or not that is true.  

Townhall is becoming trashier all the time. The link is to the latest article written by a "conservative" writer, which anything but. He is just another libertarian who doesn't know much about the meaning of "conservative."  He purports to explain how the present situation came about, but it appears to me that he has no idea about the subject. He obviously doesn't understand that "conservatism" comes from the word conserve. 

People like the author are as responsible for cancel culture as anyone else.  


Cancel Culture

Good article in American Mind. We know what the problem is and it is time to clean the RINOs out and send them to the bench


americanmind.org/salvo/dear-conservative-inc-follow-or-get-out-of-the-way/

The real reason some in the old guard feel threatened by American Moment is not that Solheim and Sharma want to influence politics. It’s that they accuse Conservative, Inc.—that dependable stable of campaign consultants, op-ed writers, and think tank wonks who have dominated intellectual conservatism since the ’80s—of having institutionalized failure. Those accusations hit home.


Spare us the mumbling about William F. Buckley. That was a long time ago now. What Buckley accomplished was to bring a coalition together and lead it forward into battle. When National Review publishes dumb and vindictive attacks on American Moment, the Claremont Institute, and all those mendacious poor whites voting for The Donald, it reveals it is incapable of that task today. This is no longer about “having the debate” or hosting various viewpoints. This is a rudderless ship.

Another case of Canadians tell the Nazi "Health Police" to get out. A woman carrying a child has more guts than most men.  Hmmmm? An immigrant and a mother stand up.


Get out

I have no problem with a history of conservatism and liberalism over the last 50 years, even if I am not sure I agree with the author. But he then goes off on a tangent spouting typical libertarian inanities which do nothing but muddy the waters for conservatives.

Below is one of the more stupid sentences from that piece. It is exactly the type of rubbish I expect from libertarians. They are some of the most obtuse people in the world. As if culture does not effect the economy and society.  As if economics is the only thing that matters in life. 



Asa's veto of a bill to keep adolescents from going through a sex change is the type of response from those RINOs who are trying to take positions that "appeal to young people."  Yes sir, that's a real winner. 

How about teaching young people about some eternal truths, like one's biological sex has nothing to do with culture?  Or is this something too complicated for the young? 

 I don't expect 100% ideological purity, but frankly, I want nothing to do with the infantile and not-very-bright philosophy of libertarianism. It is a philosophy which has nothing to do with reality and gives people, who are too lazy to think, an excuse to hop on board another crazy train.  It is just a different materialist program as it simplifies everything to "the market." 

A couple of weeks back, I explained how libertarian economics are rubbish. They have never been practiced and never will be practiced. Thank God for that as true libertarian economics would lead to worse monsters ruling us than those who rule us today. Libertarian economics is nothing other than Social Darwinism writ large. Things would be peachy keen until they weren't. In fact, I think one aim of libertarian philosophy is to fool people into thinking that Social Darwinism is moral. 

I also found the writer's comparison between McCarthy  and what is happening today to be silly, at the very least. The people McCarthy was trying to root out were actually trying to destroy American democracy. I can provide you with long lists of communist spies who worked in the USA from the 1920s through the 1950s. These people were not invented by McCarthy.  Conservatives today are trying to save American democracy and traditions/morals, which I know libertarians are not concerned about.  

People like the author are a cancer within conservatism. They should, and normally do, caucus with the left as the policies they endorse do nothing to further conservatism. Legal dope sounds liberating, but it too often ends up getting people dependent on government and costing us billions.  Unlimited sex is great except it leads to about a million abortions per year and 1.6 million children born out of wedlock. As one can clearly see, there is no reason for conservatives to pay attention to culture. It's so unpopular. 

Typical inanities like freedom of speech, personal privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom from unwanted search and seizure, fair trade, limited regulation of business and responsibility of personal decisions and few foreign wars.  Yeah, I can see how those are muddying the water for many conservatives. 

Below is my article on ST from December 28, 2013

Libertarians, The Bolsheviks of the Right

Much of what Libertarians preach is simply a rehash of classical liberalism or constitutional conservatism. To a very great extent, American Conservatives fall into the category of classical liberals and wish for the smallest possible government consistent with maintaining a peaceful and orderly community. If Libertarians could focus on this broad area of agreement, there would be the normal back and forth on specific policies, and a working political coalition between Libertarians and Conservatives could be established.

Unfortunately, this is not likely to happen because, at the heart of the Libertarian philosophy, there is the desire for a Utopian paradise which is based on a profound misunderstanding and denial of human nature. This Utopian dream has pronounced similarities with Marxism. Some may find this statement outrageous but the following quotes should give those people reason to reconsider their position:

“The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished,”it withers away.”

The above statement was made by Marx’s good friend and financial supporter Frederick Engels. Many have forgotten this part of Marxist theory, but the end point of Marxism was the state of no State.

The next quotes are from the famous Libertarian Murray Rothbard.

“It's ours to right the great wrong done,\\ Ten thousand years ago -- \\ The State, conceived in blood and hate, \\ Remains our only foe! \\ Oh, join us, brothers, join us, sisters,\\ Victory is nigh!\\ Come meet your fate, destroy the State,\\ And raise black banners high!”

“The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary.”

“The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.”

The similarity in thought is striking. Both groups have the political end of doing away with the State. We know how Marxism’s most successful proponents, the Bolsheviks, and their cousins the Maoists, tried to attain this goal. It was by the slaughter of tens of millions of people. The Libertarians’ method is not yet clear, but perhaps they hope to bring everyone around a campfire and get them stoned on weed.

Why any rational human being would entertain the thought that humanity could function without the “State,” (however one wishes to define it — society, community, etc.) and some sort of communal coercion which comes with being a part of a political group, is something which psychologists should further study. Yet in their Muenchausian world, Libertarians such as Rothbard appear to believe that each individual is completely autonomous and can act without affecting others. This leads to several questions.

Do Libertarians truly believe that, all or even most, individuals left to their own devices could exist in harmony together, as everyone would be “reasonable”? If so, they should cite an example of such a town, state or country. Have Libertarians no idea of the volatility of human nature? Do they think by wishing to change human nature they can simply say “make it so” and it will be? Such magical thinking moves one to say “God save us from all social engineering theorists.”

Throughout history, groups starting at the family level have determined through experience that a minimum level of unity and cohesion are requisite for survival. They established rules of conduct in order to promote such unity and cohesion. These rules have sometimes been maintained by group force. Such rules, developed over time within the tribe and larger units, eventually evolved into the “Rule of Law.” The fact that the “Law” was known and everyone was, at least theoretically, subject to it, is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. Limits were imposed. People knew what the rules were and could adjust their lives accordingly. Order, safety — and freedom itself — grew from this.

Libertarians claim they set their own standards and do not wish to impose them on others. This sounds nice, but in reality they would impose their standards on others. To take an extreme case, let us imagine a Libertarian decides to walk naked down the street in a modest community and someone objects. His answer to the objection will be, “you cannot restrict my freedom to walk down the street naked as I am not hurting you. I am not imposing my beliefs or will on you. If you don’t like me walking down the street naked, don’t look.” But this is a disingenuous argument because he is restricting your freedom. He is using your communal morals against you making you avoid a public area in order to keep from seeing him. The fact that the majority of people don’t wish to be confronted with his public nudity is not relevant to the naked Libertarian. To his mind, others have no right to proscribe his behavior. But clearly, communities must set standards. Knowing this, one can conclude that Libertarians desire the advantages of the community without being subject to the demands of the community. This is a type of Egotism which if nurtured and allowed to stand would create monsters and lead to the tyranny of the individual over the majority.

Following Libertarian logic, the only norms which society can impose on the individual are those prohibiting physical assault and theft. In the end, such thinking will lead to the point where exhibitionists, oddballs and malcontents will redefine acceptable behavior and, as Moynihan said, define deviancy down. Effectively, extremists and types who fancy themselves Nietzschean Supermen will rule because the simplistic non-coercion rule of Libertarians is an opportunity for the most ruthless to rule. If you have no authority (a State) to say "no," then the law of the jungle reigns. These Nietzschean types will not be satisfied until they have brought a large percentage of society down to their level and literally forced the rest out of the public square. Their political reply to those who disagree with them is essentially, “get used to it.” This sounds very similar to what the Left is trying to do to the country and, knowingly or not, the Libertarians are simply abetting the Left in the race for the bottom.

Although Libertarians such as Rothbard may think they are moving forward, they are really regressing to some imaginary Rousseauian State of Nature. They are pining for a time when rules would become blurred and changeable depending upon each person’s whim. In reality, they would be on the road to a place where, at any given moment, the law becomes what the strongest decides. Unrestrained passion would flourish, as rules restrain such passion. The law would become capricious and capriciousness is the enemy of the individual and group. If Libertarians were foolish enough to follow such philosophy they would end up in a “State of Nature” i.e. a place where the life of man would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” as described by Thomas Hobbs. Luckily, we are not yet there and it is the State which has saved us from such an end.

Politically, I am a constitutional conservative. I believe our Federal Government, in its present form, is an abomination that has overstepped all bounds with regards to the rights of U.S. citizens. I believe it is corrupt to its core and is in collusion with big business, big labor and others, who Burnham describes as the “Managerial Class,” to the detriment of the individual citizen. In my opinion, the present Federal government is bloated beyond reason or need, is intentionally profligate with its citizens’ money, and its size and power should be dramatically reduced. However, I do not think it should be abolished. The only hope we might have to turn around our badly off-course ship-of-state is to recognize and understand human nature and the human condition. The quest for an earthly paradise is a fool’s errand. History has shown us that the pursuit of Utopia is too often a bloody journey. We should keep this in mind, as simplistic remedies with little basis in human reality will not be very helpful in reaching our political goals.

Self governance is one of man’s great treasures. The ability and right to have a say in how one’s society is ruled is something which should be highly prized. Keeping a skeptical eye on those who govern us is a duty required by all citizens if we intend to maintain our freedoms. But freedom from societal governance is a pipe dream and something beyond the moral ability of mankind. As Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” 

I believe the conservative goal is to create a society which insures a basic amount of security with a liberal amount of freedom. Achieving this goal has been the biggest problem we have had for several centuries.  

Where I am very sensitive is giving some of the nuts in the libertarian movement a credibility they don't deserve. They have a very childish tendency of painting everything black and white. It is infantile thinking and cannot be allowed to influence our movement to any great degree. Unlike the left and libertarians, conservatives know that life is complicated and there are few simple solutions to complicated problems. 

We also understand that sometimes the best thing to do with complicated problems is let them solve themselves, if the general good is not overly threatened.  This applies to international relations as well. While it was completely appropriate to confront the USSR, it matters little to the USA whether or not Mali is ruled by blood-thirsty pirates.  True conservatives, not neo-conservatives, would have kept this in mind.