And as long as we remember that everyone else feels the same way about their home, it's no problem
Your response sounds sensible and balanced to me. But maybe more of a centrist position than a conservative one ?
Those who value tradition tend to have in mind their own culture's tradition rather than somebody else's...
In your experience, are conservatives more likely to be positive about America ?
You appear to be falling prey to those who think "conservative" means "looney tunes." Please don't. We sane conservatives have enough on our plates already, and both sides (conservative and liberal) have their loony fringes.
I am patriotic and traditional in the same way that Blake's Jerusalem is. I love England's green and pleasant land, but will work with all my might to make it better than it is - to build Jerusalem among its dark satanic mills (and there are plenty of those). I don't know, but I wonder if this is how @Lamb Chopped feels about America.
Yep. I love my country, I am proud of many things about it, I hate a lot of things that have happened in it (e.g. I am partly American Indian, and you can fill in those blanks), and I have every intention of making things better to the extent that I have power to do so. Those who say "My country, right or wrong" are probably their countries' worst enemies.
Yep. I love my country, I am proud of many things about it, I hate a lot of things that have happened in it (e.g. I am partly American Indian, and you can fill in those blanks), and I have every intention of making things better to the extent that I have power to do so. Those who say "My country, right or wrong" are probably their countries' worst enemies.
I like the extended version I've seen:
"My country, right or wrong: if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right."
Seems to me that it encapsulates the difference in attitude you're discussing.
IMHO "my country right or wrong" is both an ethically totally indefensible statement and incompatible with Christian faith, so much so, that in my head, I'd condemn the value system of anyone who says it.
'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.' No doubt if a decent man's mother took to drink he would share her troubles to the last; but to talk as if he would be in a state of gay indifference as to whether his mother took to drink or not is certainly not the language of men who know the great mystery.
G.K.Chesterton.
I hold on to my conservatism, not because I was brought up in it, but because it suits my personality and I've found nothing better.
Could you give a concise definition of conservatism? I (not a conservative) have a definition, but I don't want to impose it. When I think of the core of a political ideology, I think in terms of three questions:
1. What is the fundamental nature of human relations?
2. What is the basis of political authority?
3. What is the proper role of government?
I think nationalism and conservatism are different things. I expect they are correlated positively, but I'd also expect that what's considered liberalism today and historical liberalism (they are not the same things at all) to also be positively correlated.
I'm one who would hold that "love for country" is the using the wrong word. Loyalty perhaps, but certainly not love in sense of willing to die for.
I hold on to my conservatism, not because I was brought up in it, but because it suits my personality and I've found nothing better.
Could you give a concise definition of conservatism? I (not a conservative) have a definition, but I don't want to impose it. When I think of the core of a political ideology, I think in terms of three questions:
1. What is the fundamental nature of human relations?
2. What is the basis of political authority?
3. What is the proper role of government?
Can you sum that up in a few sentences?
My first impulse (and second, and third) is to say No. I'm bound to get myself into trouble, because this whole thread has been an attempt at defining ONE person's version of conservatism, namely mine, and trying to do it in a single post is basically impossible. So there's that.
That said, I can take a stab at answering your questions, as long as you understand that I speak for myself, not conservatism-in-general, and that there are bound to be huge holes in my answers, because the subject is Just.That.Big.
1. What is the fundamental nature of human relations? I would say personally that the fundamental nature of human relations is as created beings relating to one another, to the God who made them, and to the rest of creation. So, if you're focusing on human-to-human relationships here, I'd say broadly fraternal/sororal. Note the elements both of family relationship (no human being is truly alien to me) and of equality.
2. What is the basis of political authority?
Well, in the end, political authority, as all authority, derives from God. Which is not to say that it can't be corrupted or usurped or misused in a host of ways. But given the sororal/fraternal relationship of human beings to one another, PLUS the stewardly relationship in which we stand to our planet (and boy do we suck on that one!), we are free to institute any number of governments provided they respect human beings (and do not, say, enslave them or abuse them) and do not as a matter of course destroy the environment or other creatures living in it (God help us all). So democracy is on balance going to be a better choice than dictatorship, however well-run and well-intentioned, because the latter treats fellow human beings as lesser.
3. What is the proper role of government?
Government, when it behaves as it should, is properly the left-hand kingdom of God. (The right-hand kingdom is the church, which goes by different norms.) But as it derives its authority from God directly (and NOT through the church), its behavior is going to be a bit different. For instance, the state is responsible for dispensing justice, for running large communal projects (such as roads and other infrastructure) that require coordination and coercion (pay your freaking taxes!) and cannot be left in the hands of volunteers, and things like that. There is a murky line on just where the state's responsibility for welfare issues lies; quite a lot of this falls under "large communal projects that cannot be safely left in the hands of volunteers," yet the church and other groups have a role to play, too--often filling in the chinks arouund the government programs. (please excuse spelling--computer isn't letting me fix it!)
I have no faith in the general goodness or reliability of human beings en masse, though individuals and groups can reach amazing heights at times. But the general human tendency to muck things up means that we need government, both to curb evildoers and to try to steer society-in-general away from stupid or evil choices. (Yeah, see how well we're doing, I know.)
Oh, and since politics and government are human things, they are just as contaminated by the Fall--that is, the human tendency to Go.Wrong.--as anything else, and must also be watched carefully. Just as the church is. Just as individuals are.
Does that help?
I for one, would say your answers don't position you as anything on the liberal-conservative spectrum. Just kind of rational. And helpfully raising the point that humanity is messy and so is organizing them via governance.
Not that it's asked, I'd position myself as very much social gospel. That we have extensive responsibility for each other, and I'd see the role of gov't to help people who cannot help themselves with <whatever>, including the basics of like, education, their potential, and would see the need to assert that we are mutually dependent on each other "love one another as I have loved you" with the work love meaning much more than the English version of an attitude, but being absolutely required via behaviour, i.e., act kindly, empathisize.
Re social values, I'd position myself as having rather different standards for myself, where I tend to hold myself to account, and try as much as possible to forgive all sorts of things for others that I'm not nearly as gentle as I am when it is me. I also hold dear the general value that if telling others what to do can be avoided, it is best to do so. Except when someone is going to harm someone else. Which brings me into a clash with the social gospel, where I see systemic harms and then have motivation to boss others.
My point in writing all of this, is that I don't know that I can position myself as conservative or liberal. And that these terms, well used today, tend to obscure the real nuances of how people operate. Liberal about some things, conservative about others.
I suppose. Noting that the originators of the social gospel in my world were Baptists.
The Republican party in this country used to be anti-slavery. Now it's pro-racism. Groups change as much as ideas or the meanings of words. In this country the largest group of Baptist churches, the Southern Baptist Convention, has long been about as anti-social-gospel as you could please.
I have always considered myself a Democrat, and liberal. I will however always vote for person over party. That said I have also always wanted an equal conservative Republican presence in our government. I think the best government comes when two sides each have input and come up with the overall plan. I blame Knut Gingrich for much of the disarray. When I was living in D.C. back in the day there was a lot of social interchange going on with members of congress. Knut in his wisdom told people to leave the city on weekends and go back to their home territory and start campaigning for the next election from day one. I think a lot of work and understanding happened when the members of congress spent time together in social settings.
Fair enough. My question was an attempt to understand exactly why you call yourself conservative even though you obviously see yourself as quite different from some others who use the same label (obviously there can be and are intense arguments among self-identified conservatives about who is a “real conservative,” just as we progressives are capable of getting positively vicious about who’s a real progressive).
I kind of agree with No Prophet that the values you describe don’t really place you at any particular point on the spectrum as we tend to think of it in the US nowadays. They’re compatible with both an older sort of communitarian conservatism that’s very different from the individualistic version we see now (though most versions of conservatism emphasize hierarchy more than fraternity/sorority) and with the Christian socialism that was somewhat popular about a century ago (and that most people have no idea ever existed).
I don’t see conservatism and liberalism as opposite poles of a spectrum so much as fuzzy sets of ideological attitudes that overlap in a Venn-diagram-like manner, if Venn diagrams are compatible with the idea of fuzzy sets. Socialism would be a third fuzzy set that overlaps the others at some points, not an extreme version of liberalism. So there’s no contradiction in being a liberal conservative (or even a conservative socialist).
Why? It only undercuts what I’m trying to show: that conservatism can and does include relatively sane, normal people like me (shut up, gigglers in the back). If you relabel me to suit your tastes, then we’ve gotten no further along at all. (Rather like saying, “Oh, but you’re a GOOD Indian!” re my racial background. You pull me into the lifeboat at the cost of shoving what I care for overboard.)
That's true, but taken in isolation it is hilarious.
Conservative and centrist have always been analogous - steady as she goes, keep things as they are, rely on the institutions. Its only over the last 30 years in Australia at any rate that "conservative" has come to mean a political stance that hankers after reform. I know because I saw it happen.
I was hanging around our conservative political party's youth wing in the mid 1980's, and distinctly remember the moment when I realised that I, as a true-bred liberal, did not belong in the Liberal party. First, the object of my political fandom was kicked out of his safe seat by losing a preselection battle; and second I attended a young Liberal party convention where the sentiments expressed were so offensive to me that I decided to leave halfway through.
I have moved to the left over the years, especially on industrial relations, but our Liberal Party has moved decisively to the right.
[when I write liberal, I mean the philosophy, more or less what Americans understand as liberal. When I write Liberal, I mean the Liberal Party of Australia, the party representing the interests of employers in Australia. In its current iteration, it is a conservative party.]
sorry, re-reading the bit in brackets, the last line should read "new right" or "reformist conservative"
I think you, LC, are the first type of conservative - the steady hand on the tiller sort. I used to be that, but moved to the left - probably from right of centre to left of centre on the spectrum.
To the best of my knowledge, we don't usually use the term "centrist" here. I do hear "moderate," which may be something similar. But there have been movements among the US parties, and some of those movements have left certain members (like me) high and dry. So it becomes really hard to assent to a particular label, because nobody quite agrees on what it means anymore, or so it seems to me--which is why I started this thread. Better to show than just label, I thought.
I appreciate your effort to find a place for yourself, and I know many people like you who I would call traditionalists rather than conservatives—I’m inclined to agree with Corey Robin (google him) that conservatism is at its core a reaction against democratizing movements from the lower classes (the word was coined by Edmund Burke, reacting against the French Revolution).
I use the word “centrist” a lot, mostly when I’m criticizing establishment Democrats. There are different kinds of centrists, but the ones I really can’t stand are those who take as an axiom that the truth is always in the middle of whatever extremes are most obvious. For instance, healthcare: I believe that health care is a human right that ought to be provided to all members of society by society; the other extreme is the belief that health care is a commodity offered in the market and it’s up to individuals to decide what they get based on what they can afford. I’m not against compromise, but centrists are those who assume that both the best policy and the truest principle lie in the middle. I think that’s self-serving bullshit.
How Nature always does contrive--That every boy and every gal That's born into the world alive Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative! - W S Gilbert, Iolanthe.
Comments
You appear to be falling prey to those who think "conservative" means "looney tunes." Please don't. We sane conservatives have enough on our plates already, and both sides (conservative and liberal) have their loony fringes.
I like the extended version I've seen:
"My country, right or wrong: if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right."
Seems to me that it encapsulates the difference in attitude you're discussing.
G.K.Chesterton.
Could you give a concise definition of conservatism? I (not a conservative) have a definition, but I don't want to impose it. When I think of the core of a political ideology, I think in terms of three questions:
1. What is the fundamental nature of human relations?
2. What is the basis of political authority?
3. What is the proper role of government?
Can you sum that up in a few sentences?
I'm one who would hold that "love for country" is the using the wrong word. Loyalty perhaps, but certainly not love in sense of willing to die for.
My first impulse (and second, and third) is to say No. I'm bound to get myself into trouble, because this whole thread has been an attempt at defining ONE person's version of conservatism, namely mine, and trying to do it in a single post is basically impossible. So there's that.
That said, I can take a stab at answering your questions, as long as you understand that I speak for myself, not conservatism-in-general, and that there are bound to be huge holes in my answers, because the subject is Just.That.Big.
1. What is the fundamental nature of human relations? I would say personally that the fundamental nature of human relations is as created beings relating to one another, to the God who made them, and to the rest of creation. So, if you're focusing on human-to-human relationships here, I'd say broadly fraternal/sororal. Note the elements both of family relationship (no human being is truly alien to me) and of equality.
2. What is the basis of political authority?
Well, in the end, political authority, as all authority, derives from God. Which is not to say that it can't be corrupted or usurped or misused in a host of ways. But given the sororal/fraternal relationship of human beings to one another, PLUS the stewardly relationship in which we stand to our planet (and boy do we suck on that one!), we are free to institute any number of governments provided they respect human beings (and do not, say, enslave them or abuse them) and do not as a matter of course destroy the environment or other creatures living in it (God help us all). So democracy is on balance going to be a better choice than dictatorship, however well-run and well-intentioned, because the latter treats fellow human beings as lesser.
3. What is the proper role of government?
Government, when it behaves as it should, is properly the left-hand kingdom of God. (The right-hand kingdom is the church, which goes by different norms.) But as it derives its authority from God directly (and NOT through the church), its behavior is going to be a bit different. For instance, the state is responsible for dispensing justice, for running large communal projects (such as roads and other infrastructure) that require coordination and coercion (pay your freaking taxes!) and cannot be left in the hands of volunteers, and things like that. There is a murky line on just where the state's responsibility for welfare issues lies; quite a lot of this falls under "large communal projects that cannot be safely left in the hands of volunteers," yet the church and other groups have a role to play, too--often filling in the chinks arouund the government programs. (please excuse spelling--computer isn't letting me fix it!)
I have no faith in the general goodness or reliability of human beings en masse, though individuals and groups can reach amazing heights at times. But the general human tendency to muck things up means that we need government, both to curb evildoers and to try to steer society-in-general away from stupid or evil choices. (Yeah, see how well we're doing, I know.)
Oh, and since politics and government are human things, they are just as contaminated by the Fall--that is, the human tendency to Go.Wrong.--as anything else, and must also be watched carefully. Just as the church is. Just as individuals are.
Does that help?
2.
Not that it's asked, I'd position myself as very much social gospel. That we have extensive responsibility for each other, and I'd see the role of gov't to help people who cannot help themselves with <whatever>, including the basics of like, education, their potential, and would see the need to assert that we are mutually dependent on each other "love one another as I have loved you" with the work love meaning much more than the English version of an attitude, but being absolutely required via behaviour, i.e., act kindly, empathisize.
Re social values, I'd position myself as having rather different standards for myself, where I tend to hold myself to account, and try as much as possible to forgive all sorts of things for others that I'm not nearly as gentle as I am when it is me. I also hold dear the general value that if telling others what to do can be avoided, it is best to do so. Except when someone is going to harm someone else. Which brings me into a clash with the social gospel, where I see systemic harms and then have motivation to boss others.
My point in writing all of this, is that I don't know that I can position myself as conservative or liberal. And that these terms, well used today, tend to obscure the real nuances of how people operate. Liberal about some things, conservative about others.
The Republican party in this country used to be anti-slavery. Now it's pro-racism. Groups change as much as ideas or the meanings of words. In this country the largest group of Baptist churches, the Southern Baptist Convention, has long been about as anti-social-gospel as you could please.
Fair enough. My question was an attempt to understand exactly why you call yourself conservative even though you obviously see yourself as quite different from some others who use the same label (obviously there can be and are intense arguments among self-identified conservatives about who is a “real conservative,” just as we progressives are capable of getting positively vicious about who’s a real progressive).
I kind of agree with No Prophet that the values you describe don’t really place you at any particular point on the spectrum as we tend to think of it in the US nowadays. They’re compatible with both an older sort of communitarian conservatism that’s very different from the individualistic version we see now (though most versions of conservatism emphasize hierarchy more than fraternity/sorority) and with the Christian socialism that was somewhat popular about a century ago (and that most people have no idea ever existed).
I don’t see conservatism and liberalism as opposite poles of a spectrum so much as fuzzy sets of ideological attitudes that overlap in a Venn-diagram-like manner, if Venn diagrams are compatible with the idea of fuzzy sets. Socialism would be a third fuzzy set that overlaps the others at some points, not an extreme version of liberalism. So there’s no contradiction in being a liberal conservative (or even a conservative socialist).
Conservative and centrist have always been analogous - steady as she goes, keep things as they are, rely on the institutions. Its only over the last 30 years in Australia at any rate that "conservative" has come to mean a political stance that hankers after reform. I know because I saw it happen.
I was hanging around our conservative political party's youth wing in the mid 1980's, and distinctly remember the moment when I realised that I, as a true-bred liberal, did not belong in the Liberal party. First, the object of my political fandom was kicked out of his safe seat by losing a preselection battle; and second I attended a young Liberal party convention where the sentiments expressed were so offensive to me that I decided to leave halfway through.
I have moved to the left over the years, especially on industrial relations, but our Liberal Party has moved decisively to the right.
[when I write liberal, I mean the philosophy, more or less what Americans understand as liberal. When I write Liberal, I mean the Liberal Party of Australia, the party representing the interests of employers in Australia. In its current iteration, it is a conservative party.]
I think you, LC, are the first type of conservative - the steady hand on the tiller sort. I used to be that, but moved to the left - probably from right of centre to left of centre on the spectrum.
I use the word “centrist” a lot, mostly when I’m criticizing establishment Democrats. There are different kinds of centrists, but the ones I really can’t stand are those who take as an axiom that the truth is always in the middle of whatever extremes are most obvious. For instance, healthcare: I believe that health care is a human right that ought to be provided to all members of society by society; the other extreme is the belief that health care is a commodity offered in the market and it’s up to individuals to decide what they get based on what they can afford. I’m not against compromise, but centrists are those who assume that both the best policy and the truest principle lie in the middle. I think that’s self-serving bullshit.