15 reasons why conservatism is good.

[alrightgame]

Rules of thread:
I want listed approximately 15 reasons why conservatism is good.
The logic behind good will be your own reasons and why you think it is good. Please to try to keep each reason separate.

I do not want reasons why conservatism is bad in the forum, and I ask you also to refrain from argumentative discussion until we have this list. Discussion should be used to brew more reasons why conservatism is good. Please also refrain from listing reasons pertaining to socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism, etc.

I will also be posting a forum for liberalism as well.

Postscript: I realize a lot of you will find this hard, but if we can stick to the objective of these two forums, something meaningful may come out of it.

Edit: Since people of this discussion are finding it hard to come up with reasons, I will bring it back down to 15 reasons.

[mmw]

Ideally fiscal responsibility and limited government. The problem is that these things are almost never actually implemented by those in power who espouse conservatism.

[realitycheque]

Better go with 10-25 reasons for each. 100 is unrealistic and unmanageable (and capricious).

[Blse]

Conservatism in the Burkean sense is good because it recognizes that radical change is often a recipe for disaster. That gradual change and reform is the way to go. This usually translates in a risk-averse approach to public policy that prevents a great deal of suffering.

Conservatism, if the term is used as a synonym for classic liberalism (or libertarinaism), is good because it recognizes captialism tendency to reach a market clearing equilibrium (i.e. an efficient state at which demand and supply match so as to lead to the largest possible amount of satisfaction.

Conservatism, in the modern American (which is a combination of traditional Burkean conservatism and classic liberalism), therefore, protects against radical change and economic inefficiencies.

[mmw]

Conservatism in the Burkean sense is good because it recognizes that radical change is often a recipe for disaster. That gradual change and reform is the way to go. This usually translates in a risk-averse approach to public policy that prevents a great deal of suffering.

Conservatism, if the term is used as a synonym for classic liberalism (or libertarinaism), is good because it recognizes captialism tendency to reach a market clearing equilibrium (i.e. an efficient state at which demand and supply match so as to lead to the largest possible amount of satisfaction.

Conservatism, in the modern American (which is a combination of traditional Burkean conservatism and classic liberalism), therefore, protects against radical change and economic inefficiencies.
American conservatism used up all of it's intellectual capital a long time ago...it is none of these things.

[Blse]

American conservatism used up all of it's intellectual capital a long time ago...it is none of these things.

True in the sense that its definition has gotten muddled and the paradox of reactionary conservatism has become so popular. The "radical conservative" ala Fox News is an oxymoron. It is interesting to note, I think, that Obama is more of a Burkean conversative than the likes of Glenn Beck.

[mmw]

Before Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh there were more thoughtful and rational conservative commentators. William F. Buckley comes to mind as at least respectable even to those opposed to him. Glenn and Rush merely represent the lowest common denominator and appeal to the rampant anti-intellectualism in American society.

[Malkavia]

I really like blse's response. Can make those like 10 reasons?

[alrightgame]

Better go with 10-25 reasons for each. 100 is unrealistic and unmanageable (and capricious).

Really? Take a loved one and list 100 reason why you think that person is good. A political view that has been a part of the nation for well over 200 years should be more complex then a single loved one, after all it has been a part of billions of lives over those years. Think simpler then a text book reason.

Edit: It has been narrowed down to 15.

[realitycheque]

Appeals to the fundamental human nature of sticking with tried and true policies, rather than hypothetical speculations into the unknown, to create confidence in the government and offer its citizens a sense of stability.

BTW: Some of us don't read text books.

[larkin]

We have limited resources. "Conservatism" as it relates to the concept of "conservation" is essential.

[Warrior]

Promotes individual responsibility and the freedom to fail.

[alrightgame]

So far, people of the "thread" (thanks Synamon) have listed:

1. ideally fiscally responsible
2. limited Government
3. protects against radical change
4. protects against economic inefficiencies
5. appeals to the fundamental human nature of sticking with tried and true policies
6.limited resources control under the term "Conservatism"
7. promotes individual responsibility
8. freedom to fail


Edit:
9. strongly supports private property
10 strongly supports national sovereignty

7 & 8 are may be changed to a single good

I feel 3 and 4 are separate as economic inefficiencies are not necessarily inefficiencies in change.

[Lucid]

Fiscal responsibility is never a bad thing. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a lot of that from the right wing for awhile now.

[hubcap]

Fiscal responsibility is never a bad thing. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a lot of that from the right wing for awhile now.
The reason being, those Republicans who were in office were NOT conservatives.

[Blse]

So far, people of the "thread" (thanks Synamon) have listed:

1. ideally fiscally responsible
2. limited Government
3. protects against radical change
4. protects against economic inefficiencies
5. appeals to the fundamental human nature of sticking with tried and true policies
6.limited resources control under the term "Conservatism"
7. promotes individual responsibility
8. freedom to fail

Note that some of them overlap; #s 3 and 5 are virtually the same for instance; 7 and 8 are closely related since the freedom to fail can be argued to decrease the risk of moral hazard (a technical term for free-riders)

[Warrior]

Note that some of them overlap; #s 3 and 5 are virtually the same for instance; 7 and 8 are closely related since the freedom to fail can be argued to decrease the risk of moral hazard (a technical term for free-riders)

I submitted both 7 and 8 and I agree, they are pretty closely related. You could combine them as one item (perhaps with a little rewording).

[Ray9]

Conservatism strongly supports private property and national sovereignty.

[PunkinA]

Is it an aspect of conservatism that allows a government to enforce strongly held religious or moral values?

[lurk]

I'd like to say no, however there's a bunch of folks who call themselves conservatives who'd like to. I don't think they're conservative at all.

[Blse]

Is it an aspect of conservatism that allows a government to enforce strongly held religious or moral values?

Technically yes. Part of conservatism is opposition to radical change and a beleive that structure is of outmost importance. Thus, religions and traditions are seen as the glue that holds society together. Conversly, allowing people to alter these institutions too quickly will destabilize the social order. Since the primary duty of government is to maintain the social order, conversatives see a role for govt. in protecting the religious and traditional status quo, at least to some extent or another.

[TigerDak]

Conservatism protects the traditional family
Conservatism protects the individual, aka self defense
Conservatism emphasizes hard work
Conservatism considers consequences before action
Conservatism does not shoot from the hip. It takes the time to analyze options from all different angles to optimize the best possible outcome
Conservatism involves structure and order

[alrightgame]

So far, people of the "thread" (thanks Synamon) have listed:

1. ideally fiscally responsible
2. limited Government
3. protects against radical change
4. protects against economic inefficiencies
5. appeals to the fundamental human nature of sticking with tried and true policies
6.limited resources control under the term "Conservatism"
7. promotes individual responsibility
8. strongly supports private property
9 strongly supports national sovereignty


10. Conservatism protects the traditional family
11. Conservatism protects the individual, aka self defense
12. Conservatism emphasizes hard work
13. Conservatism considers consequences before action
14. Conservatism does not shoot from the hip. It takes the time to analyze options from all different angles to optimize the best possible outcome
15. Conservatism involves structure and order
16. Is it an aspect of conservatism that allows a government to enforce strongly held religious or moral values?

Would you say these are good reasons for having conservatism?

[themuzicman]

17. Conservatism learns from the past and applies that wisdom to present solutions.

[PunkinA]

14. Conservatism does not shoot from the hip. It takes the time to analyze options from all different angles to optimize the best possible outcome


This doesn't seem to be a unique feature of conservatism. Conservative policies can be the product of knee-jerk reactions as well as other perspectives. Additionally, liberals claim to have analysis on their side, and aim toward optimization. The goal of planning for the best solution is not exclusive to either set of values.

[themuzicman]

This doesn't seem to be a unique feature of conservatism. Conservative policies can be the product of knee-jerk reactions as well as other perspectives. Additionally, liberals claim to have analysis on their side, and aim toward optimization. The goal of planning for the best solution is not exclusive to either set of values.

I don't think he means "knee jerk", but rather that something more than "that seems to make sense" is needed as a justification to take a particular direction.

[hubcap]

Unfortunately when we throw a label on something such as "conservative" or "liberal" it is difficult to pin down precisely what we mean.

I am certain that many would throw a conservative label on me, but I have many views that "traditional" conservatives would find appalling.

[PunkinA]

I don't think he means "knee jerk", but rather that something more than "that seems to make sense" is needed as a justification to take a particular direction.

Again, that claim is neither unique to conservative nor liberal viewpoints. Both sides will argue that their arguments fulfill more than, "that seems to make sense."

If anything, just making sense is the rallying call of conservatism. Common sense lies in the realm of the established perspective, while logic often requires analysis beyond accepted ideals.





PunkinA added to this post, 4 minutes and 39 seconds later...

As I reread the list, proposed points of 13 and 17 are not exclusive to conservatism either. No political viewpoint has a monopoly on foresight.

[Paul Siraisi]

American conservatism gives Western Civilization its due.

[Conservationist]

American conservatism used up all of it's intellectual capital a long time ago...it is none of these things.

American conservatism is neo-liberalism.

I liked the original point made: gradual change is smarter than radical change.

Liberalism also has a history of radical, selfish change dissolving societies. Ho hum!

[alrightgame]

Ok, I was hoping to get a little more conversation going between the forumites, but I guess I'll just post the question.

Why do you all think these good traits are no longer being used by conservatives in politics? Why are conservative based voters voting these parties into office if they don't follow their conservative roots?

[Paul Siraisi]

Why do you all think these good traits are no longer being used by conservatives in politics? Why are conservative based voters voting these parties into office if they don't follow their conservative roots?

Because Americans as a whole are in a period of intellectual decay. Neither conservatives nor liberals really know what to think about much of anything any more. We have no vision.

It's the president after Obama who might preside over some sort of renaissance, if all goes well.

[PunkinA]

I have a hypothesis. I don't know how much stake I put in the idea, but I'll present it.

The means of communicating the message has surpassed our understanding of its delivery. Uh, that sounds too vague. Our media technology has eclipsed our values. We can't help but communicate more information than we want, at much higher volume than can be reasonably managed.

The old means; public speech, theater, and written/printed word took hundreds of years to perfect. The science of rhetoric was tangible and manageable. Politicians knew how to sell to the public, and occasionally had to make good on their promises.

The past hundred years has pushed the information market through rapid paradigm change. From radio, to film, to television, to internet, and now social networking via cell phone, our policies have lost momentum to the marketing. Rapid feedback through instant polls and blogging has forced those seeking public office to constantly mind the chatter. We have become paralyzed to ourselves. The golem has become the master. This is not the time of our computer overlords, but rather the headless swarm.

A second hypothesis may be that the values bound by the titles conservative and liberal are no longer cohesive to each other. We may be experiencing restructuring.

Again, none of this will matter when our lives are run by the central computer.

[lamplighter]

Ok, I was hoping to get a little more conversation going between the forumites, but I guess I'll just post the question.

Why do you all think these good traits are no longer being used by conservatives in politics? Why are conservative based voters voting these parties into office if they don't follow their conservative roots?
Because the modern "conservative" makes all their decisions for the wrong reasons. Conservatives are either driven on emotion and don't really know what's going on, or know what's actually going on and twisting it for their own political ends. True conservatism led to the creation of national parks.

[alrightgame]

I think Punk nailed the overlying fundamental problem with any government democracy that requires persuading and gaining votes from the masses.

Do you think truth will be the next movement in America? What I mean by this is people can finally see past the bullshit and the political persuasion and feel it is time come to terms of reality on a whole and start fessing up to the stuff that we want to deny?

In other words, is it time for a new movement to "finally tell it like it is", and what is probably going to have to happen in order to overcome the overwhelming information that is truncated into society and thrown at each other like a toy?

Will we as a world finally realize that the under lying cause of our troubles is that we can't accept reality how it is and deal with it as reality instead of passing it on to our children's children?

Will the next election finally allow a third party to emerge, the party of truth?

[PunkinA]

Sorry Alrightgame, your plight is not that you live in a world that cannot discern the truth (most people can't evaluate what is true), but rather that you are aware that is the case.

People are dupes. I am a dupe. We all get fooled sometimes. We live in a world where most of the creatures here cannot use language. Of the few who can (we call them humans) even fewer can actually identify logical fallacies in the wild. It's not a matter of wanting to, or laziness; most people look to their fellow humans to decide what is true.

This is a practical deficiency of democracy. There will always be fewer thinkers than there are voters. Luckily, the follower minds have evolved some very effective traits at identifying the most effective thinkers to follow. Historically, humans are pretty good at surviving with this imbalance. Every once in a while you get a George Bush, but for the most part the system works. The world has yet to produce environmental factors to shift the population to include a thinking majority.

You will likely never see a party of Truth, except possibly in name only.

[themuzicman]

Why do you all think these good traits are no longer being used by conservatives in politics? Why are conservative based voters voting these parties into office if they don't follow their conservative roots?

They are used by conservatives. The problem is that there are no real serious conservatives running for major public office. I suspect this is mainly because the loser blue blood republicans are back in the party apparatus and actively working against conservatives.

Of course, with the emergence of the blue blood republican comes the re-emergence of their "success" (lost both house and senate, and we're back where we were in the late '70s, fighting a filibuster-proof senate, when the conservatives started asserting themselves and actually took a majority in 1994.)

So, conservatism works when it's tried, but since Bush the GOP has walked away from it.