True conservatism

[editec]

Read this and ask yourself if you are REALLY a conservative, neo liberal, or neo conservative.

I know damned well I'm not a label.

 

[mdn2000]

basic great guy is lost. A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. ...

True conservatism, or classic liberalism, posits a belief based on inalienable rights that are ours "naturally", or not dependent on government. Thus Obama is the true conservative, for he is protecting the poor and working classes from the rapacity of the pretend "conservatives" and corporatists.

You mean, "Obama is the true Marxist, for he is protecting the poor and working classes from the rapacity of the bourgeoisie."

 

[code1211]

It wasnt a bad article, although tough to take seriously when there's an egregious misspelling in the heading.
Were the Founders classical liberals? Most would say yes. And yet they had no problem allowing states to set religious qualifications, to own slaves, to set community standards for censorship and behavior etc.
And they justified this by appeals to the idea of a society that was somehow different from the collection of individuals. They were not libertarians (I didnt read far enough to see if he mentioned libertarians).

I read it to the end. It was an interesting thesis and I don't recall seeing the word "Libertarian" in it. He did use the word "Progressive" several times.

The founders were, I think, above all, Pragmatists. Jefferson's soaring rhetoric regarding unalienable rights and his ownership of slaves is just one of many contradictive dichotomies that define the pragmatic nature of our Founders.

Sacrificing one ideal to promote the greater goal seems to be what they did time and again and it goes on today. It's painful to listen to some who say they were not great men because they said one thing and did another. That they said those things at all with their lives as the stake in the bet is the measure of how courageous and revolutionary, in all senses of the word, their beliefs were.

The "Liberals" of today would not find many soul mates in our Founders. Work or starve was a pretty prevalant notion at that time. "Conservatives" of today would be more likely in tune with the Royalists of that day. It's a different world now than it was then.

What might a Pragmatist do?

 

[JakeStarkey]

basic great guy is lost. A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. ...

True conservatism, or classic liberalism, posits a belief based on inalienable rights that are ours "naturally", or not dependent on government. Thus Obama is the true conservative, for he is protecting the poor and working classes from the rapacity of the pretend "conservatives" and corporatists.

You mean, "Obama is the true Marxist, for he is protecting the poor and working classes from the rapacity of the bourgeoisie."

mdn2000, apparently you do not understand the philosophies of marxism or natural rights. Your mindset places you much closer to Marx than to Reagan, because seem to be of a party that intends to tell the masses what to think and believe.

 

[JW Frogen]

I am a Zen conservative.

Allright, no more change from.........right now!

That is it.

 

[JBeukema]

i found that i'm a true conservative, or a "classic" liberal!
quote]

 

[JBeukema]

'American Conservatism' ~ classical liberalism

 

[mdn2000]

basic great guy is lost. A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. ...

True conservatism, or classic liberalism, posits a belief based on inalienable rights that are ours "naturally", or not dependent on government. Thus Obama is the true conservative, for he is protecting the poor and working classes from the rapacity of the pretend "conservatives" and corporatists.

You mean, "Obama is the true Marxist, for he is protecting the poor and working classes from the rapacity of the bourgeoisie."

mdn2000, apparently you do not understand the philosophies of marxism or natural rights. Your mindset places you much closer to Marx than to Reagan, because seem to be of a party that intends to tell the masses what to think and believe.

That was pretty poorly written. So your saying that your ignorant to the fact that you literally quoted Marx.

That stuff you wrote after "Reagan," needs a good edit, it reads like a guy that is struggling with an answer let his emotion dictate his response.