Posted on Aug 9, 2014
What is your definiton of "Conservative", Politically speaking.
7.93K
35
68
1
1
0
I have heard many call themselves political conservatives but I know of few people who can define what conservatism is. What's your definition?
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Conservative
Politics Conservative
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
4
4
0
I see these sorts of arguments often, and hear them as well from personalities on the Radio. One of the problems with those who consider themselves "Conservatives" have no idea where the word comes from, what the principles are, or more importantly, how to express what Conservatism is. Their Definitions are almost always anecdotal, relating their beliefs to their definition of Conservatism.
I think 1LT Sandy Annala came closest with her defense of the Constitution comment.
I hope the following makes sense to all of you, and I also hope this will give you cause to consider what a "Conservative" actually is.
The Word "Conservative" has it's root in the word "Conserve" which means to maintain, or to be resistive to change.
So, In the American Sense, to be Conservative means to maintain the principles upon which this country was founded. That means upon the principles put forth in our Declaration of Independence, and the Principles, Arguments, Ratification and establishment of our Constitution.
So, where "Progressives" wish to do exactly the Opposite. That is to CHANGE the Constitution, or to make it irrelevant, or diminished in favor of more seemingly "modern" and immediately pressing issues. Progressives wish to move us slowly away from our founding principles, by addressing a never ending parade of "emergent" issues which they claim are outside the scope of our Constitution, with the aim of creating a greater and more powerful state.
Conservatives on the other hand wish to Utilize those founding principles of liberty and limited governance to keep the heavy and forceful hand of the Federal government as far away from our private and business lives as is possible. In doing so Conservatives believe the Principles of economic freedom, personal liberty and freedom of association will propel us, and influence others in the world to trade freely with each other to the benefit of all.
Now, a note here. If this idea of Conservatism doesn't sound like what the GOP does.... well, that makes you very observant. The GOP, as a rule, is as uninterested with the principles of our Founding that they have long lost the ability to be labeled Conservatives.
Any Constructive comments are welcome and appreciated.
The closest thing to Conservatives one is likely to find in the Organized political spectrum are the Libertarians. If you wonder where you stand, take this "World's smallest political quiz" to find out.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php
I think 1LT Sandy Annala came closest with her defense of the Constitution comment.
I hope the following makes sense to all of you, and I also hope this will give you cause to consider what a "Conservative" actually is.
The Word "Conservative" has it's root in the word "Conserve" which means to maintain, or to be resistive to change.
So, In the American Sense, to be Conservative means to maintain the principles upon which this country was founded. That means upon the principles put forth in our Declaration of Independence, and the Principles, Arguments, Ratification and establishment of our Constitution.
So, where "Progressives" wish to do exactly the Opposite. That is to CHANGE the Constitution, or to make it irrelevant, or diminished in favor of more seemingly "modern" and immediately pressing issues. Progressives wish to move us slowly away from our founding principles, by addressing a never ending parade of "emergent" issues which they claim are outside the scope of our Constitution, with the aim of creating a greater and more powerful state.
Conservatives on the other hand wish to Utilize those founding principles of liberty and limited governance to keep the heavy and forceful hand of the Federal government as far away from our private and business lives as is possible. In doing so Conservatives believe the Principles of economic freedom, personal liberty and freedom of association will propel us, and influence others in the world to trade freely with each other to the benefit of all.
Now, a note here. If this idea of Conservatism doesn't sound like what the GOP does.... well, that makes you very observant. The GOP, as a rule, is as uninterested with the principles of our Founding that they have long lost the ability to be labeled Conservatives.
Any Constructive comments are welcome and appreciated.
The closest thing to Conservatives one is likely to find in the Organized political spectrum are the Libertarians. If you wonder where you stand, take this "World's smallest political quiz" to find out.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php
World's Smallest Political Quiz
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
(4)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG (Join to see) I wouldn't have such a problem with progressives if they actually DID work for change within the existing system. All too often their mode of change relies on mechanisms such as "judicial review", "federal" laws, regulatory expansion, and "case law", when the ONLY mechanism that exists to expand the powers of government is the Amendment process, Constitutionally speaking. Regards.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. - First I'd like to point out that a lot of people who call themselves Progressive or Conservative should really be called Statist or Authoritarian. Second, mechanisms such as Federal laws and regulations are a part of our system of government. I'm not always a fan of everything that the POTUS does or every law that congress passes, however I accept that is the system within which we have to work for greater liberty and equality.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG (Join to see) - I agree with your first comment, however, regarding the balance, I would only point out that when the Federal government creates laws and regulations that expand its powers beyond those allowed it by the Constitution, they are NOT doing so "within the system". Such additions of federal power, (which come at the expense of our freedoms and our pocket books), are only permitted through the Amendment process. If you disagree I would respectfully ask you to place your finger on that clause of our Constitution that gives the government the power to expand its own power, unilaterally, by its own regulation and lawmaking.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. - Ultimately it is the courts who get to decide which laws or regulations are constitutional or unconstitutional. I don't always like or agree with their findings, however that is how things work in our system of government.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I self identify as a conservative, despite this little quiz defining me as a libertarian. While it's true that in a Venn diagram, there would be much overlapping, one plank in the libertarian platform prevents me from changing my affiliation towards them - I despise isolationism. I don't think it's a realistic or safe way to look at the world.
In other news, as a conservative - and a Christian evangelical one at that, (that may be important to know in a minute, given a particular view or two), I also believe the following:
1. Government shouldn't tell me what drugs I can or can't put into my body. I'm not a recreational drug user - but if I were, it's not the government's business.
2. Government shouldn't regulate who anyone can marry. I'm heterosexual, and because of my Christian beliefs, I believe marriage is one man and one woman. But those are MY beliefs. Marriage didn't originate with government...God created marriage. That makes it HIS to define, not government's. I don't condone gay marriage, but not because I have a problem with it...but because God does. Therefore, this isn't a matter to which government should involve itself, but rather one that should be between a person and God. I'm called to love my neighbor...not judge him - no matter how tempted I might be to do so.
3. Government shouldn't have the power to dictate what school my child must attend. For that matter, the Federal government shouldn't even have education on it's radar. Education is a state issue. And yes, the federal government IS involved in dictating school assignment by virtue of controlling states that take federal dollars for the education system. The threat of taking that funding away from the states for non-compliance allows DC to control local schools in a very real way.
I could go on for pages and pages...
Suffice it to say that I firmly believe that the Federal government should only have the power that was explicitly given to it in the Constitution. ALL other rights not named were reserved for the states.
However, strong politicians coupled with an uninformed and uninterested electorate have allowed the central government to usurp powers that were never granted to them. Seeing the over reach of the current administration is proof of what I'm talking about - and he is not the first, by any means.
But the fact that we seem to be deteriorating as a republic in this respect, only strengthens my resolve to remain steadfast in the face of such intrusion into my life.
In other news, as a conservative - and a Christian evangelical one at that, (that may be important to know in a minute, given a particular view or two), I also believe the following:
1. Government shouldn't tell me what drugs I can or can't put into my body. I'm not a recreational drug user - but if I were, it's not the government's business.
2. Government shouldn't regulate who anyone can marry. I'm heterosexual, and because of my Christian beliefs, I believe marriage is one man and one woman. But those are MY beliefs. Marriage didn't originate with government...God created marriage. That makes it HIS to define, not government's. I don't condone gay marriage, but not because I have a problem with it...but because God does. Therefore, this isn't a matter to which government should involve itself, but rather one that should be between a person and God. I'm called to love my neighbor...not judge him - no matter how tempted I might be to do so.
3. Government shouldn't have the power to dictate what school my child must attend. For that matter, the Federal government shouldn't even have education on it's radar. Education is a state issue. And yes, the federal government IS involved in dictating school assignment by virtue of controlling states that take federal dollars for the education system. The threat of taking that funding away from the states for non-compliance allows DC to control local schools in a very real way.
I could go on for pages and pages...
Suffice it to say that I firmly believe that the Federal government should only have the power that was explicitly given to it in the Constitution. ALL other rights not named were reserved for the states.
However, strong politicians coupled with an uninformed and uninterested electorate have allowed the central government to usurp powers that were never granted to them. Seeing the over reach of the current administration is proof of what I'm talking about - and he is not the first, by any means.
But the fact that we seem to be deteriorating as a republic in this respect, only strengthens my resolve to remain steadfast in the face of such intrusion into my life.
World's Smallest Political Quiz
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
(3)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
It sounds a lot like you hold Conservative beliefs, which makes you much more a Libertarian than a Republican. Well stated my friend.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SPC (Join to see) , I am curious though as to what you mean by the Libertarian plank suggesting isolationism? The Libertarians want to engage with free and equitable trade with the everybody, and to quote their platform regarding international affairs, "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."
And here on the use of our military "We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
I often hear people on the radio, and on tv calling Libertarians "isolationist". I would start by saying that this country was founded on military "isolationism" i.e. to be used in defense of the United States. As Thomas Jefferson told us. America should maintain "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." Statements such as these are directly in line with Libertarian views, and since it is one of our founding principles, it makes the Libertarian standpoint the Conservative viewpoint.
The sense I get from some of those I hear today is that we should be less isolationist by sending our military around the world to meddle in local and regional issues, while trading with other countries less, and erecting trade barriers with those whom we disagree. This is the exact opposite of the founding (Conservative) principles.
Interested in your thoughts, and I would also be interested in the planks that make Libertarians Isolationist in the Conservative sense.
Respectful Regards
https://www.lp.org/platform
And here on the use of our military "We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."
I often hear people on the radio, and on tv calling Libertarians "isolationist". I would start by saying that this country was founded on military "isolationism" i.e. to be used in defense of the United States. As Thomas Jefferson told us. America should maintain "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." Statements such as these are directly in line with Libertarian views, and since it is one of our founding principles, it makes the Libertarian standpoint the Conservative viewpoint.
The sense I get from some of those I hear today is that we should be less isolationist by sending our military around the world to meddle in local and regional issues, while trading with other countries less, and erecting trade barriers with those whom we disagree. This is the exact opposite of the founding (Conservative) principles.
Interested in your thoughts, and I would also be interested in the planks that make Libertarians Isolationist in the Conservative sense.
Respectful Regards
https://www.lp.org/platform
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Definition of conservative to me deals with personal responsibility and accountability.
Liberals look to be taken care of, conservatives look to take care of themselves. Liberals blame tools (guns) and try to ban them when something bad happens. Conservatives blame the person (back to personal accountability). Conservatives look for everyone to be equal at the start. Liberals look for everyone to be equal at the finish. I could keep going on, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Liberals look to be taken care of, conservatives look to take care of themselves. Liberals blame tools (guns) and try to ban them when something bad happens. Conservatives blame the person (back to personal accountability). Conservatives look for everyone to be equal at the start. Liberals look for everyone to be equal at the finish. I could keep going on, but I'll leave it at that for now.
(3)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Trying to blame economic woes on the rich, or on Business is misplaced for history shows us that it is Governmental policies, and interference in the marketplace that dramatically affect the economics of the individual, and of whole nations alike.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Maj. Dews, the article you cite states that nearly 10% of those born into the lowest quintile AND 20% of those born in the middle quintiles make it to the top quintile. when compared to the rest of the industrialized world, we are highly mobile.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MAJ (Join to see) - Yet if you look at people who do not come from affluent upbringing, on a per capita basis 1st generation immigrants are more likely to become millionaires than any other group. And that statistic like all these others, proves nothing. You cannot accurately apply scientific reasoning when you cannot isolate and control the variables.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SSG Seidel, The personal will and capacity to defend by whatever means necessary both the the United States and the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Warmest Regards, Sandy
2
2
0
To me "conservatism" and "liberalism" are merely an approach to making choices. Conservatives more likely to want to maintain the status quo, particularly if it's working (or appears to be working), whereas liberals tend to want to make changes. I am typically a centrist, but on the issues I am a conservative on, it's let's not make changes if there is no need to make changes....or I am leery of the changes that others want to make as I feel the end results may not be the expected outcomes.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
LTC Paul Labrador, Good answer, but I'm curious, if Conservatives just want to keep the status quo.... What is the standard of value for the Status quo? In other words, if the Status quo keeps moving, as it always seems to do, should Conservatives always be happy with, and try to preserve whatever the status quo is, on any given day? Or should the "Conservative" be focused on the broader idea of "conserving" the principles of our founding? I.e. limited government, inherent rights, due process, and freedom, individual, and economic alike?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
^^Just do that.^^
^^Just do that.^^
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Those that want to Conserve our Traditions, Constitution, and way of life.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Restrained progress, reactionary. One who favors government closest to the people.
(1)
(0)
SrA Daniel Hunter
MSgt (Join to see) - If you mean "one who favors government closest to the people" that is a bit different than just one who favors government.
(0)
(0)
SrA Daniel Hunter
I admit saying one who favors government closest to the people, not the abbreviated version you provided which changes the meaning.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
You either wanna keep things the way they are or return them to the way it was.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I find your philosophical aspect as the most defining of Conservativism. Yes, to conserve means to maintain, or to be resistant to change. Therefore, conservative means to maintain, or preserve the principles of economic freedom, limited government, and individual liberty upon which the US was founded. (clearly there were some issues early on that have been resolved, at least at the Constitutional level).
I don't know what you're trying to say about suppressing everything against your religion, but I would say that there is NOTHING conservative about that idea. In fact, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So any attempt to do so would NOT be preserving, or conserving the intent, the word, or the principle of the Constitution, and is therefore NOT Conservative. Would you agree?
First, let me say that I'm not a tea party "member" nor do I financially support them. I think there is little doubt that you are correct regarding the Tea Party's quest for cash, but a reading of their "platform" ( just looked it up) shows that they ARE based on Conservative principles i.e. to maintain the Federal government within the bounds prescribed in the Constitution and it's amendments.
Interested in your thoughts.
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
I don't know what you're trying to say about suppressing everything against your religion, but I would say that there is NOTHING conservative about that idea. In fact, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So any attempt to do so would NOT be preserving, or conserving the intent, the word, or the principle of the Constitution, and is therefore NOT Conservative. Would you agree?
First, let me say that I'm not a tea party "member" nor do I financially support them. I think there is little doubt that you are correct regarding the Tea Party's quest for cash, but a reading of their "platform" ( just looked it up) shows that they ARE based on Conservative principles i.e. to maintain the Federal government within the bounds prescribed in the Constitution and it's amendments.
Interested in your thoughts.
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
By combining science with nature, we offer you the best anti-aging results that you can get. The clinically tested ingredients, are formulated to act quickly, leaving your skin smoother, toned, and supple.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Well said,
Someone has been watching too much MSNBC if you believe the Tea Party is about conserving cash flows, it's all about conserving liberty, enforcing the 10th amendment by pushing power and control from a centralized Federal Government to the lowest level possible.
Someone has been watching too much MSNBC if you believe the Tea Party is about conserving cash flows, it's all about conserving liberty, enforcing the 10th amendment by pushing power and control from a centralized Federal Government to the lowest level possible.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Randy Saulsberry
Not all of these replies refer to the tea party alone:
I read that tea party platform letter. Some of the stuff there is just ridiculous, to me, that it would be there. Like eliminating excessive tax. The topic of tax reform eliminating corporate tax loopholes, as well as tax breaks for the rich has been brought up by the President every year. There has been much push back on that. The elimination of the debt is misleading. As long as the country has bills it has debt. The country will always have debt, the focus is to make more money than you spend and the country will always spend money. Deficit spending - this makes no sense. All a deficit is is the difference between how much you spend and how much you make. It's just the difference between those two. You can't spend deficit. Abiding by the constitution? didn't the hobby lobby decision come from conservatives? Didn't the new Indiana law making it legal to discriminate against people on the basis of religion? Both of these violate the constitution. Avoiding the pitfalls of politics - don't take money from lobbyists. There's no need to even give an example. And local independence - isn't it the conservatives that are taking prewritten legislation from ALEC and having themost run through theit state governments aka governor Scott Walker. He was just the most recent one there have been plenty other "conservatives" that have done the same.
But the tea party is against women's rights, gay rights, marriage equality (these three are solely because of religious beliefs. So they are trying impose their religion on everyone else) climate change, green energy (can be because of religion but they have major donors from the oil industry who don't want them to pursue these).
And last, in the tea party brain housing group, how was inviting a foreign leader to address congress to trash talk the president beneficial to the United States? Or sabotaging peace negotiations by sending a letter to Iran to tell him you won't honor an agreement made by the President. Which proved they don't have an understanding of the Constitution or international law.
Actions speak louder than words. And the tea party / republican actions I want no part of it.
I read that tea party platform letter. Some of the stuff there is just ridiculous, to me, that it would be there. Like eliminating excessive tax. The topic of tax reform eliminating corporate tax loopholes, as well as tax breaks for the rich has been brought up by the President every year. There has been much push back on that. The elimination of the debt is misleading. As long as the country has bills it has debt. The country will always have debt, the focus is to make more money than you spend and the country will always spend money. Deficit spending - this makes no sense. All a deficit is is the difference between how much you spend and how much you make. It's just the difference between those two. You can't spend deficit. Abiding by the constitution? didn't the hobby lobby decision come from conservatives? Didn't the new Indiana law making it legal to discriminate against people on the basis of religion? Both of these violate the constitution. Avoiding the pitfalls of politics - don't take money from lobbyists. There's no need to even give an example. And local independence - isn't it the conservatives that are taking prewritten legislation from ALEC and having themost run through theit state governments aka governor Scott Walker. He was just the most recent one there have been plenty other "conservatives" that have done the same.
But the tea party is against women's rights, gay rights, marriage equality (these three are solely because of religious beliefs. So they are trying impose their religion on everyone else) climate change, green energy (can be because of religion but they have major donors from the oil industry who don't want them to pursue these).
And last, in the tea party brain housing group, how was inviting a foreign leader to address congress to trash talk the president beneficial to the United States? Or sabotaging peace negotiations by sending a letter to Iran to tell him you won't honor an agreement made by the President. Which proved they don't have an understanding of the Constitution or international law.
Actions speak louder than words. And the tea party / republican actions I want no part of it.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SSgt Randy Saulsberry - Evidence of that assertion? I have bills, I have no debt. When my electric bill comes I have not had a balance due in excess of $2.00 for over 18 years. More often than not hey owe me money. I know about what I will use. I know the rate. I send cash based on what I will use before the next billing period.
I consider myself well lined up behind the tea party and have attended many meetings. The position I heard was a flat tax for all individuals above a certain amount. A flat tax on corporate gross profit, with no deductions or loopholes. I have never heard any discussion one way or the other about women's rights, gay marriage, I don't even know what "marriage equality" that you speak of is. You are against corporate welfare and tax breaks but you want them for green energy corporations. And any President that does not know that treaties must be ratified by the senate (as enumerated in the Constitution) needs to know that any agreement he makes is not binding on the next administration.
Larger government, imperial presidency, I want no part of that.
I consider myself well lined up behind the tea party and have attended many meetings. The position I heard was a flat tax for all individuals above a certain amount. A flat tax on corporate gross profit, with no deductions or loopholes. I have never heard any discussion one way or the other about women's rights, gay marriage, I don't even know what "marriage equality" that you speak of is. You are against corporate welfare and tax breaks but you want them for green energy corporations. And any President that does not know that treaties must be ratified by the senate (as enumerated in the Constitution) needs to know that any agreement he makes is not binding on the next administration.
Larger government, imperial presidency, I want no part of that.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google