Conservatism: Correcting the Ignorant

[PoliticalChic]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalism/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

 

[tooAlive]

Excellent post.

 

[Oldguy]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

1. '"modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties.'
I recognize this as the Liberal's pejorative description of conservatism, based on your hatred of capitalism.

a. As a result of an inordinate obsession with material equality, rather than equality before the law, the view of our (conservative) Founders, Liberals despise free market capitalism because it produces winners and loser.

b. Try to recognize that people not all the same; nor will results be.



2. "In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally."
Now, you've become irrational.

But it certainly burnished your Liberal credentials and validates the efficacy of government schooling.

Some are able to break free of the indoctrination....but you?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Conservatism: Correcting the Ignorant

And, so...a primer on conservatism:

Webster says:​

Conservatism:

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established

b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

*

Liberalism:

2 a : often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard

c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

'Nuff said.....​

 

[there4eyeM]

"It relies on individual liberty,..."

Exactly! And just as there are obligations both to the constitution and to liberty, both must be understood. The constitution itself was saying, "We're doing things another way, a new way we think is better."

Liberty has its responsibilities, also. For it to be genuinely present, it requires educated, informed citizens.

Liberty, equality, brotherhood. We say this all the time, but how many practice liberty? What does the concept mean and entail?

We could include not infringing on others, developing liberty everywhere and with everyone, reasoning with reflection and wisdom, executing the equality and brotherhood necessary for a peaceful, happy community, living a life of wonder at the universe and how free we can be.

 

[Oldguy]

Liberty has its responsibilities, also. For it to be genuinely present, it requires educated, informed citizens.

Apparently, modern day "conservatism" does not. All it requires is gullibility based upon fear and an absolute lack of critical thinking.

 

[there4eyeM]

"This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous."

While this type of 'primacy' by the 'collective' may be 'false', it is and always has been the case. We may not like it, but when has it not been thus? It is not an 'evolution'.

Families are a collective effort. Making war is a collective effort. A young soldier surrenders personal safety and even liberty And remember that WWII was won by highly centralized planning. That doesn't make it the best way to operate all the time, but it can be appropriate.

Systems and isms exist for us, not we for them. True liberty allows us to choose what works not matter who calls it what.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous."

While this type of 'primacy' by the 'collective' may be 'false', it is and always has been the case. We may not like it, but when has it not been thus? It is not an 'evolution'.

Families are a collective effort. Making war is a collective effort. A young soldier surrenders personal safety and even liberty And remember that WWII was won by highly centralized planning. That doesn't make it the best way to operate all the time, but it can be appropriate.

Systems and isms exist for us, not we for them. True liberty allows us to choose what works not matter who calls it what.

1. "While this type of 'primacy' by the 'collective' may be 'false', it is and always has been the case."
No, it hasn't.
At least, not in this nation.

Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.




2. "A young soldier surrenders personal safety and even liberty And remember that WWII was won by highly centralized planning. That doesn't make it the best way to operate all the time, but it can be appropriate."

Interesting, because this is exactly the rationale used by the Progressives, to undermine the Constitution.



a. Herbert Croly wrote “The Promise of American Life,” about which TR wrote “I do not know when I have read a book that profited me so much. All I wish is hat I were better able to get my advice to my fellow-countrymen in practical shape according to the principles you set forth.” Charles Forcey, “The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, Wehl, Lippmann, and the Progressive Era, 1900-1925,” p. 124-125

b. “…almost every single item on a checklist of fascist characteristics can be found in ‘The Promise of American Life.’ The need to mobilize society like an army…spiritual rebirth…the need for ‘great’ revolutionary leaders…Reliance on manufactured, unifying, national ‘myths’…contempt for parliamentary democracy…non-Marxist socialism…Nationalism…A spiritual calling for military expansion…the need to make politics into a religion…hostility to individualism…”
Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p. 98.


And, this....their hope for America:

c. “Once the war is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.”
From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”

Is this your view, as well?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberty has its responsibilities, also. For it to be genuinely present, it requires educated, informed citizens.

Apparently, modern day "conservatism" does not. All it requires is gullibility based upon fear and an absolute lack of critical thinking.

Ah, yes...the view of the ignorant.
Proof of government schooling.

 

[DiamondDave]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

And you would be wrong on both

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

1. '"modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties.'
I recognize this as the Liberal's pejorative description of conservatism, based on your hatred of capitalism.

a. As a result of an inordinate obsession with material equality, rather than equality before the law, the vies of our (conservative) Founders, Liberals despise free market capitalism because it produces winners and loser.

b. Try to recognize that people not all the same; nor will results be.



2. "In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally."
Now, you've become irrational.

But it certainly burnished your Liberal credentials and validates the efficacy of government schooling.

Some are able to break free of the indoctrination....but you?

Psychobabble Coulterisms. No wonder you have Anorexic Ann in your signature.

 

[BlindBoo]

In defining Conservatism you first create and define Leftist/Progressives?

 

[Erand7899]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

What nonsense! Individual liberty is not in danger from global corporations, and never has been. The danger is in government being in league with global corporations, and forgetting where one leaves off and the other begins.

And, it is the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum that continually supports this interaction between government and corporations. As long, of course, those corporations are working in conjunction with left wing goals of green energy, unionization, and the like.

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberty has its responsibilities, also. For it to be genuinely present, it requires educated, informed citizens.

Apparently, modern day "conservatism" does not. All it requires is gullibility based upon fear and an absolute lack of critical thinking.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

What nonsense! Individual liberty is not in danger from global corporations, and never has been. The danger is in government being in league with global corporations, and forgetting where one leaves off and the other begins.

And, it is the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum that continually supports this interaction between government and corporations. As long, of course, those corporations are working in conjunction with left wing goals of green energy, unionization, and the like.

Yea right! Like the left has a monopoly on corporate welfare and corporate donations to their parties and candidate races.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

What nonsense! Individual liberty is not in danger from global corporations, and never has been. The danger is in government being in league with global corporations, and forgetting where one leaves off and the other begins.

And, it is the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum that continually supports this interaction between government and corporations. As long, of course, those corporations are working in conjunction with left wing goals of green energy, unionization, and the like.

Yea right! Like the left has a monopoly on corporate welfare and corporate donations to their parties and candidate races.

"Yea right! Like the left has a monopoly on corporate welfare and corporate donations to their parties and candidate races."

1. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com



2. BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING - LABOR - Union Is Accused of Violations - Brief - NYTimes.com)


3. In 2008, unions spent over $400 million for Obama's election.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

What nonsense! Individual liberty is not in danger from global corporations, and never has been. The danger is in government being in league with global corporations, and forgetting where one leaves off and the other begins.

And, it is the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum that continually supports this interaction between government and corporations. As long, of course, those corporations are working in conjunction with left wing goals of green energy, unionization, and the like.

Yea right! Like the left has a monopoly on corporate welfare and corporate donations to their parties and candidate races.

"Yea right! Like the left has a monopoly on corporate welfare and corporate donations to their parties and candidate races."

1. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com



2. BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING - LABOR - Union Is Accused of Violations - Brief - NYTimes.com)


3. In 2008, unions spent over $400 million for Obama's election.

That's a monopoly? And now we see why the likes of Kasich and Walker want to destroy the unions - cripples the Democrat's top (or close to the top) donor. They "say" it's to do this that and the other for the economy, but those are fuckin' lies. Nothing but sillyass politics.

 

[Agit8r]

"whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply"

fallacy

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power

 

[there4eyeM]

"This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous."

While this type of 'primacy' by the 'collective' may be 'false', it is and always has been the case. We may not like it, but when has it not been thus? It is not an 'evolution'.

Families are a collective effort. Making war is a collective effort. A young soldier surrenders personal safety and even liberty And remember that WWII was won by highly centralized planning. That doesn't make it the best way to operate all the time, but it can be appropriate.

Systems and isms exist for us, not we for them. True liberty allows us to choose what works not matter who calls it what.

1. "While this type of 'primacy' by the 'collective' may be 'false', it is and always has been the case."
No, it hasn't.
At least, not in this nation.

Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.




2. "A young soldier surrenders personal safety and even liberty And remember that WWII was won by highly centralized planning. That doesn't make it the best way to operate all the time, but it can be appropriate."

Interesting, because this is exactly the rationale used by the Progressives, to undermine the Constitution.



a. Herbert Croly wrote “The Promise of American Life,” about which TR wrote “I do not know when I have read a book that profited me so much. All I wish is hat I were better able to get my advice to my fellow-countrymen in practical shape according to the principles you set forth.” Charles Forcey, “The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, Wehl, Lippmann, and the Progressive Era, 1900-1925,” p. 124-125

b. “…almost every single item on a checklist of fascist characteristics can be found in ‘The Promise of American Life.’ The need to mobilize society like an army…spiritual rebirth…the need for ‘great’ revolutionary leaders…Reliance on manufactured, unifying, national ‘myths’…contempt for parliamentary democracy…non-Marxist socialism…Nationalism…A spiritual calling for military expansion…the need to make politics into a religion…hostility to individualism…”
Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p. 98.


And, this....their hope for America:

c. “Once the war is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.”
From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”

Is this your view, as well?

Society has always imposed this 'Primacy'.

It is the stress on individual liberty that is glossed over and under rated. Controlling government is only done by exercising individual responsibility. When the people do things themselves, government is not needed to do them. When there is fairness and justice, laws are less necessary.

Do remember, Moses did not descend the mountain with the constitution.