Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Some Further Thoughts on Conservatism
It seems that there are a plethora of conservative groups, each having a certain shading of the fundamental belief system of conservatism. It is all very confusing.
I see the term social conservative used, which leaves openings for other belief systems by the same person or group. Perhaps they are also economic liberals.
Financial or economic conservatives are also identified, implying that they too can hold other beliefs in parallel, such as social liberalism.
Paleo conservatism is the term for “old school” conservatives that apply a conservative approach to their every endeavor, but especially their belief in isolationism, and their rejection of the welfare state. Paleocons are often allied with the nostalgic Southern conservatives of the Agrarian school.
Then we have neo conservatism, which originally applied to Liberals that switched their beliefs to the conservative camp. It has been morphed by Liberals into a derogatory term for those who support the GWOT and the invasion of
Then along comes compassionate conservatism, which seems to be an attempt to show the heart behind the pragmatism of the conservative, and a leavening of the coldness of staunch conservative fundamentalists. It is hard to simply reject the concept of compassion, for that is indeed one of the basic tenets of conservatism. However, the term is not sufficiently broad enough to satisfy many conservatives, and it has been a term of derision for those who take a hard line on anything.
Some few conservatives have been labeled ultra-conservative for their hard line insistence on matters of principle, and their outspoken championship of true conservatism. Bill Buckley was given this title.
Just to compound the name game, I call myself a common sense conservative, which signifies some yet to be definitive amalgam of all the above isms, where the ideological glue is applied common sense to today’s world. For example, it is only common sense to be very careful when addressing possible changes of our fundamental institutions.
If you cannot restrict the scope of the change and assure us definitively that it will have great benefits for the citizens, and will not have unexpected and harmful consequences, the change should not be rushed into willy-nilly. Further, it is sensible that we cannot be isolationist in today’s world. Far from it! We must be proactive internationally or we will suffer untold consequences.
An example of this unexpected change from a single decision by the Supreme Court is abortion. Who would have imagined that a million and a half abortions per year would result? But then, there is the other factor, a loosening of the moral fiber in our society, which permits gross, morally degrading sexual shifts in all directions, including greatly increased sex by teenagers, and an inevitable increase in pregnancies outside of marriage. So now we have what amounts to no-fault, promiscuous sex. I wonder who it is that thinks this is a fine, morally beneficial, and uplifting thing?
Another set of wonderful trends has been the proliferation of pornography, smutty lyrics as in rap, and a new teen slang talk that appears to emanate from black culture by reverse osmosis, thus infecting white teens inordinately. We have received truly stupendous gifts from diversity and multiculturalism, even on TV, although they are totally beyond any form of common sense, moral, social development.
This is a result of allowing all forms of speech to be free, including those that have a proven negative effect on our citizens. The only cure for this invasion of the sex fiends, potty mouths and porn freaks appears to be moral and economic suasion, neither of which will be sufficient to stem the tide.
We have thus spawned a morally degenerate sewer in our midst and an attractive trap for our children. I hope decency and good taste eventually prevails in our society, but I am not at all sure it will, so long as Liberals push for relaxation of our morals.