[Nonsuch]

An article on Salon today touched on something that I've been wondering for a while now about conservatism in this country.

Conservatism as I've always understood it is a movement dedicated to preserving personal freedom from encroachment by state power, while promoting a concomitant emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability.

While I'm a leftist in many ways, I have much respect for this "old-school," intellectual conservative approach. Even when I disagree with it, its ideas are usually based on solid thinking and strong principles.

This is why some aspects of American conservatism so bother me. I don't understand why so many conservatives favor the death penalty, the ultimate encroachment of state power on individual rights. I don't know why they're so often opposed to abortion--shouldn't that be the individual's choice? Why do so many feel that posting the ten commandments in public schools and amending the Constitution to punish flag-burners are somehow congruent with a philosophy that seeks to minimize governmental intrusion into citizens' lives?

(Please don't mistake this as a backhanded attempt to praise liberalism, nor am I saying all conservatives hold these views. Liberalism has its own problems and in this country has descended as far from its intellectual principles as conservatism has. In fact, I've long thought that both of these terms need to be taken out and given decent burials; I'm not prepared to suggest what should take their place, but we need to start acknowledging that these aren't the same movements they were a hundred years ago.)

Anyway, today's particular Salon piece (and I know many regard Salon as a liberal hack rag, David Horowitz and Andrew Sullivan notwithstanding) talked about how even fanatical right-wing conservatives are becoming increasingly upset and disenchanted with the Bush administration for its assaults on civil liberties in the name of the war on terror. I can't link the article 'cause it's a subscriber piece, but here are some excerpts (I've done a bit of editing for space):

Chuck Baldwin, a radio host in Pensacola, Fla., is chairman of the state chapter of the Moral Majority and the founder and pastor of Pensacola's Crossroad Baptist church, where his guest speakers have included Jerry Falwell and Patrick Buchanan. His Web site features a waving Confederate flag, pictures of a "memorial to aborted babies," and rants about Bill Clinton's murder of Vince Foster.

But he's no Bush supporter either. In fact, as he wrote in a widely Web-circulated Nov. 26 essay, the "Bush administration seems determined to turn our country into the most elaborate and sophisticated police state ever devised.

"We're not dealing with traditional conservatism," Baldwin says. "We're dealing with pseudo-conservatism that's very accommodating of big government instead of resisting big government and promoting individual freedom."

(I'm not sure if that guy embodies traditional conservatism himself, but I thought the quote was interesting anyway.)

Philip Gold, a former Georgetown professor who campaigned for Barry Goldwater, worked on Steve Forbes' presidential run, and has written for publications like the Weekly Standard and the American Spectator, finds the new direction of the conservative movement so disturbing that he's recently resigned from his job as a senior fellow in National Security Affairs at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute because of his opposition to the war with Iraq.

"Over the last several years," he wrote, "I've become sadly convinced that American conservatism has grown, for lack of a better word, malign." The movement he's devoted his life to, he writes, "has gained the government, trashed its soul, and now bestrides the planet.

"We no longer have a commitment to limited government. I no longer recognize the movement. What I started out with isn't there anymore. The fact that mainstream conservatives are going along with [Total Information Awareness] and with TIPS indicates that these principles are no longer resonant in the movement."

The reason? "Power corrupts," he writes. "It corrupts especially when you've got it, but can't seem to accomplish what you set out to do, and you've jettisoned your ideals somewhere along the way but can't quite face the fact." ... In other words, mainstream conservatives favored limiting government powers when they didn't run the government. For example, as a senator, John Ashcroft was a consistent defender of privacy rights when he felt Clinton was trampling them.

Lisa Dean, director of the center for technology policy at right-wing Republican activist Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation, describes Bush's expansion of domestic surveillance programs as "antithetical to everything we stand for. I never thought I'd see conservatives running to the government to solve problems like they do now. That's just not conservatism to me," she says. "People look at Homeland Security, the USA PATRIOT Act, national I.D. cards and say, if that protects us, we'll go ahead. I never would have thought I'd hear conservatives say that," she says.

Asked who is standing in the way of government assault on civil rights, Baldwin names only one group -- the ACLU.

(OK, I put that last one in because I'm a member. )

Anyway, I open the floor: what's the deal with American conservatism today? Should it still be considered "conservatism"? Or is everything as it should be? Am I just a pinko commie rat who doesn't know what he's talking about? I await your opinions.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
An article on Salon today touched on something that I've been wondering for a while now about conservatism in this country.

Salon...certainly a middle of the road, not very liberal rag.

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Conservatism as I've always understood it is a movement dedicated to preserving personal freedom from encroachment by state power, while promoting a concomitant emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability.

That's a good way to sum up what I believe.

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
While I'm a leftist in many ways, I have much respect for this "old-school," intellectual conservative approach. Even when I disagree with it, its ideas are usually based on solid thinking and strong principles.

This is why some aspects of American conservatism so bother me. I don't understand why so many conservatives favor the death penalty, the ultimate encroachment of state power on individual rights. I don't know why they're so often opposed to abortion--shouldn't that be the individual's choice? Why do so many feel that posting the ten commandments in public schools and amending the Constitution to punish flag-burners are somehow congruent with a philosophy that seeks to minimize governmental intrusion into citizens' lives?

So putting someone to death for taking someone elses life is wrong, but killing what will someday be a child is not?

I ask that only to guage what you really believe. I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I believe the death penalty isn't an incroachment on someone's rights because they gave up their right to live when they killed someone.

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Anyway, I open the floor: what's the deal with American conservatism today? Should it still be considered "conservatism"? Or is everything as it should be? Am I just a pinko commie rat who doesn't know what he's talking about? I await your opinions.

Should liberalism today be considered liberalism? I mean, much of what they do today hurts poor people, hurts race relations, separates, divides and pits groups against one another....

I think the problem is the assumtion that Bush or Republicans are "conservative." That's a dangrous assumtion to make.

[BRussell]

Conservatism = traditionalism.

The libertarian strain of conservatism is a by-product of the fact that American conservatives view the American tradition as freedom. But other conservatives view traditional American values differently (e.g., religious values), and so they are conservatives too.

In Iran, the mullahs are the conservatives, because they want to keep things the way they are - a fundamentalist Islamic state. The liberals are the students and others who want to get rid of that old way of doing things.

And old-fashioned liberalism = libertarianism.

[thunderous_funker]

Nice post, nonsuch.

I tried to make the same point when we were debating the Mid-term election results and what it meant about America, but you've put it much more succinctly.

I personally broke with the Democratic party when it abandoned it's Progressive ideals. I'm surprised at smart conservatives who haven't made the same realization about the GOP and it's abandonment of it's traditional ideals.

Neither party is worthy of it's traditional ideals.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
So putting someone to death for taking someone elses life is wrong, but killing what will someday be a child is not?

The cause of individual liberty would say that these are choices to be made by states and communities based on their common values. Not rubber stamped by the Federal government thereby limiting the liberty of individuals, communities, states to decide for themselves what they consider to be moral and ethical.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The cause of individual liberty would say that these are choices to be made by states and communities based on their common values. Not rubber stamped by the Federal government thereby limiting the liberty of individuals, communities, states to decide for themselves what they consider to be moral and ethical.

Thanks t_f, that's pretty much what I was going to write.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I think the problem is the assumtion that Bush or Republicans are "conservative." That's a dangrous assumtion to make.

Well, that is what they call themselves, by and large. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators seem to agree with them. What name would you consider appropriate?

[spacefreak]

Conservatives aren't against abortion, at least nowhere near the point of making it illegal.

Conservatives do believe, however, that anyone under the age of 18 should have parental consent. They also believe that abortion should be limited to the first trimester (3 months) of pregnancy - except when the mother's health is at serious risk. Additionally, the taxpayers should not have to pay for society to have abortions, and especially not in other countries.

So when making a blanket statement, please make sure you understand the full scope of the stance you are describing. Otherwise, you sound ignorant.

[Nonsuch]

The point I was making is that many in this country who consider themselves conservative would ban abortion outright. You seem to have an awfully specific take on the "conservative" position on the issue.

[Millennium]

What is liberal? What is conservative? In the end, they're really nothing more than labels used by each side to vilify the other.

However, having known more than a few people who supported the death penalty and opposed abortion, this is my understanding on the issue. The death penalty, when applied judiciously (i.e. after careful examination of the relevant facts) is not an encroachment of a person's right to live, because one who kills forfiets that. It is a matter of

Most who oppose abortion are not trying to subjugate women or anything. They believe that a fetus is a human being, not particularly far along in terms of development but a human nonetheless (and one doesn't need religion to come to this conclusion: any consistently-applied scientific standard in use today places a fetus squarely in the realm of humanity, something "pro-choicers" would like to forget). And while most believe that a woman should have the right to determine "what is in her body", the right of an innocent person to live trumps that; ndeed, it is the only thing which could ever trump that. After all, their theory goes, pregnancy, and even parenthood, need not be permanent conditions, but it's rather difficult to unkill someone once they are dead.

[thunderous_funker]

I've never considered the words "liberal" or "conservative" to be insults. They get used that way a lot, however. I've never understood why.

I'm for individual rights even when it comes to very personal ethical dilemmas like birth control and reproductive freedom. I wouldn't want a law that makes it illegal. I wouldn't want a law that makes it mandatory.

Where it becomes very complicated, IMO, is when we start talking about Public Services paid for with Public Funds. It makes everyone involved when their money is spent on providing controversial services.

I'd like to see financial responsibility for reproductive services rest with individuals. On the other hand, financial hardship should not dictate choices.

I suppose if everyone had health coverage, it wouldn't be necessary for Public Funds to be involved directly. Maybe that is a way out.

[nonhuman]

Yes, but should that health coverage be provided by the government? I would rather have the freedom to choose whether or not to have health coverage. And why should people who choose not to be covered themselves have to pay for those who do?

[zigzag]

I've been wondering the same thing for many years, Nonsuch. Shortly before he died, Barry Goldwater said that he didn't recognize the party that he once led.

There's the libertarian brand of conservatism and the "traditionalist/moralist" brand. I prefer the former but I wouldn't presume to say that it's more worthy of the name "conservative" - after all, the root of the word "conservative" is "conserve", i.e. maintain the status quo.

Where I get upset is not so much with the terminology but the hypocritical rhetoric. We hear some conservatives preaching about "personal liberty" and so forth, but some of the same people wouldn't hesitate to try to tell you what you should or shouldn't read or watch, and would require prayer in the public schools if they could. Liberal or conservative, most people take contradictory positions if it suits them.

I don't see an inherent contradiction re: favoring the death penalty and opposing abortion. The death penalty is (we would hope) inflicted on adults, abortion (or so the argument goes) on innocents (I'm pro-choice but I'm not unsympathetic to the anti-abortion position).

My own opposition to the death penalty is based not on the idea that the state doesn't have the right to execute people for heinous crimes, but that the risk of the state executing innocent people is too great.

Before anyone thinks I'm picking on conservatives, I have equal disdain for some forms of "liberalism." I think one can draw parallels between moralist conservatives and moralist liberals - both camps would impose their personal values on everyone else, just in different ways (the liberals think there's too much violence on TV, the conservatives too much sex). There are also parallels between "libertarian" conservatives and "libertarian" liberals. It's confusing - that's why, although I'm an extremely liberal-minded person, I don't consider myself a Liberal with a capital "L." I vote for Democrats more often than I vote for Republicans, but it's mostly because, on the two issues I care about most - personal liberty and the environment - Democrats are more often on my side. I disagree with Democrats and agree with Republicans on other issues but for me those two are of overriding importance.

A few weeks ago, there was an interesting discussion on Andrew Sullivan's blog about political labels. What do you call yourself if you (a) value personal liberty, (b) are pro-choice but think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, (c) put a high value on environmental protection, (d) favor strict separation of church and state, (e) are equally suspicious of organized labor and large corporations, etc. etc. Am I a pragmatist, a Liberal, a Conservative, a Libertarian, a Neo-con, a Neo-Lib, a Tory, or what? I have no idea. I like to call myself a "Neo-Moderate" because it sounds impressive but has no meaning.

[FWIW, I don't see a contradiction between environmentalism and libertarianism. For me, libertarianism means "do as you please as long as you don't impinge on the rights of others." IMO, polluting the environment is as good an example of infringing on the rights of others as there is.]

[undotwa]

You can't say 'All conservatives think the death penalty is good', because I don't. You can't say 'All conservatives think abortion is good', because I don't.

In the end, saying someone is conservative or liberal doesn't mean much, because it is just a label which people apply to other people so they don't have to think of a proper description.

Conservative, Liberal, Left, Right, can all mean so many different things.

[clod]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
...and amending the Constitution to punish flag-burners...

From The Simpsons

[undotwa]

Originally posted by clod:

From The Simpsons

Ahh thats hillarious.

[Sven G]

The reason? "Power corrupts," he writes. "It corrupts especially when you've got it, but can't seem to accomplish what you set out to do, and you've jettisoned your ideals somewhere along the way but can't quite face the fact."

This explanation quite well synthesizes the average contemporary politician's personal and collective tragedy: there's no way out from corruptive power mechanisms if you don't revolutionize the very way "power" relations operate in this society...