CDZ Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic

[JimBowie1958]

Lots of talk about what conservatives are in this election, so I thought I would toss a couple of thoughts in here.

A Reflective Conservative is an ideologue most often in the mold of William F. Buckley Jr, or at least they think they are. More of them are Libertarians these days, but Buckley was not a libertarian because as a Catholic, he abhorred the notion that the poor should go unhelped. He simply felt that the government was not the best helper for the poor if it gave them fish, and he advocated the government teaching the poor how to fish instead. The conservative principles of prudence, prescription, institutional variety, freedom being linked to property rights, etc are detailed here, but most conservatives are not familiar with them any more and more quickly speak of Ayn Rand, who is not a conservative.

The critique of reflective Conservatism is that it is only half of the apple, and there has long existed a flip side to conservatism, Liberalism, and the two worked quite well together, but both spiral into wreckage when separated and unlinked. Reflective Conservatism and Liberalism are two broad perspectives on Judeo-Christian society and norms over the centuries, and while liberals have brought many changes to Western Civilization, that these institutions have endured at all till 1970 testifies to its effectiveness as well. Liberals like to see what can be done to right wrongs and perfect our society and Reflective Conservatives are the tapping brake, saying 'Not so fast; let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.'

The Reflexive Conservative is far more common than the Reflective sort. It is typically the liberal youth who sees everything to be going to hell in a hand basket in his old age. He sees many of the flawed assumptions of Liberal change and reflexively denounces it for unnecessary change of things he is familiar with and loves. Where the Liberal sees evil segregation, the Reflexive Conservative sees people having the freedom to live in the kind of neighborhoods they want to. Where the Liberal sees churches that need to be denounced and attacked for opposing social change, the Reflexive Conservative sees ancient institutions that harbor Eternal Truths that bubble Gum philosophers cant even comprehend, let alone validate. The Reflexive Conservative is at eternal war with change in society which he tends to see as another manifestation of Entropy rather than evolution. And he has no use for Liberalism in any of its forms, the Destroyer of the way of life the Reflexive Conservative has come to love and hold dear. Many of the Reflexive conservatives of today are reformed liberals of 20 years ago and are identifiable by what year they thought things were best and want things to be restored to.

The 'new conservatives' or Neocons are ideological refugees from the Democratic Party, the Scoop Jackson wing, that fled, with their money and connections, to the Republican Party. Welcomed as allies by the long standing conservatives, the neocons first befriended them and then betrayed them by buying out the conservative publications then purging them of their old Conservative authors like Schlafley, Roberts, Sobran and Novak. They are strong central statists who value religion and tradition for their roles in strengthening the state, and see no genuine independent Truth to any of it. They believe that Truth is merely a lie well told, and consider the previous two types of conservatives as useful relics, but nonetheless still relics of a bygone age of Enlightenment thinking. They are only concerned with attaining and using power to advance their Pax Americana as the last hope of saving Planet Earth from the Marxism that surrounds us all, and so they undermine all other resistance to Marxism as not ideologically pure enough. They are a form of what I think of as 'Fascism Light', having a strong central government regulating the economy instead of outright Socialism, Nationalistic, Militaristic, Amoral and Elitist.

The 'Real Conservative' is a figure of speech, and nothing more. He is what a speakers opponents are not. Undefined, ambiguous and malleable to the need of the moment, 'Real Conservatism' implies that there is only one way to be a conservative, which has to be the biggest crock of bullshit since Das Kapital.

Then, finally, there is the Classic Conservative who wants to preserve eternal values and Truths, independent of local and transitional ideology. He is both Liberal and Conservative by today's jargon. He wants to feed the poor and evaluate our root assumptions and knows that every nation is only here for a moment, while at the same time he deeply loves the variety of humanity and beliefs, loves our institutions that he has seen so much good come from and that in his heart he knows but One thing; the Creator will weigh and measure his life and how he spent it. He is the Timeless Conservative who tries to take the Heavenly perspective and is not going to trade any of it for temporal political advantage.

He is the Defender of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization.

 

[320 Years of History]

And thus is shown why I can't stand labels...conservative, liberal, X kind of conservative, Y kind of libertarian, etc.

I'm happy to share my thoughts about most things. I'm never going to label them as "this or that." They need to be evaluated on their own, not in the context of how closely or distantly they align with anything else. I feel the same way about others' ideas. I don't care whether one thinks one is a "classic conservative" or "neocon" or whatever.

I do care what they have to say, whether it has merit, whether it is scaleable, what are its limits, etc. Merely branding the speaker of an idea with a label doesn't at all indicate precisely what he thinks on a matter. At best it gives me a general idea, but when discussing policy, one needs to know precisely what one thinks, not merely that s/he has conservative views.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And thus is shown why I can't stand labels...conservative, liberal, X kind of conservative, Y kind of libertarian, etc.

I'm happy to share my thoughts about most things. I'm never going to label them as "this or that." They need to be evaluated on their own, not in the context of how closely or distantly they align with anything else. I feel the same way about others' ideas. I don't care whether one thinks one is a "classic conservative" or "neocon" or whatever.

I do care what they have to say, whether it has merit, whether it is scaleable, what are its limits, etc. Merely branding the speaker of an idea with a label doesn't at all indicate precisely what he thinks on a matter. At best it gives me a general idea, but when discussing policy, one needs to know precisely what one thinks, not merely that s/he has conservative views.

And yet one well tested and verified system of thought comes in the form of categorization of things, ideas and processes.

I am not sure how one can argue against categorization as a whole and its attendant labeling that is required by it and at the same time respect how the human mind has evolved and what it has evolved into.

But categories should not be the sole criteria in any verification of systems of thought. For example just because something is 'socialism' does not mean it is Marxism, or that it is inherently evil.

Systems of thought, ideas and concepts need to be evaluated individually on their own merits, if one can find the time in our hectic electronically interconnected world.

 

[320 Years of History]

Systems of thought, ideas and concepts need to be evaluated individually on their own merits, if one can find the time in our hectic electronically interconnected world.

And what must/should one do absent time? For some matters, such as USMB discussions, making time and later a decision about what one thinks is hardly crucial. But there are many matters, among them evaluating political candidates, assessing policy choices, absolutely that men and women of integrity make time to critically (dialectically) examine the issues on their own merits.

For instance, take voting in a general Presidential election. My position is that if one hasn't critically examined the positions of a given candidate, one has a duty to abstain from voting "yea" or "nay." Obviously, not everyone agrees with me; there are plenty of "ticket voters," folks who pick whomever is designated with a label, be it Republican or Democrat. Applying a label to oneself and then blindly just picking the nominee who has the same label strikes me as flat out irresponsible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic"

And each equally wrong on the issues.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Five Types of Conservative: Reactionary, religious, social, neo, and the TPM - all intolerant and authoritarian.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Systems of thought, ideas and concepts need to be evaluated individually on their own merits, if one can find the time in our hectic electronically interconnected world.

And what must/should one do absent time? For some matters, such as USMB discussions, making time and later a decision about what one thinks is hardly crucial. But there are many matters, among them evaluating political candidates, assessing policy choices, absolutely that men and women of integrity make time to critically (dialectically) examine the issues on their own merits.

For instance, take voting in a general Presidential election. My position is that if one hasn't critically examined the positions of a given candidate, one has a duty to abstain from voting "yea" or "nay." Obviously, not everyone agrees with me; there are plenty of "ticket voters," folks who pick whomever is designated with a label, be it Republican or Democrat. Applying a label to oneself and then blindly just picking the nominee who has the same label strikes me as flat out irresponsible.

In an ideal world perhaps the less informed should refrain, but then, I like the idea of the less informed counter voting the truly completely uninformed. ITs a wash.

As to critical thought requiring dialectical analysis, you are joking, right? Observing thesis, antithesis and synthesis is hardly a logical way to evaluate Truth. It just deals in categorical reasoning, which is a fallacy. Perhaps the thesis as originally formed from a prior synthesis was in fact the best and most accurate concept reflecting Reality?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bruce_T_Lanely does a drive-by lol

 

[Agit8r]

Where do the Birchers fit into this?

 

[Elvis Obama]

And thus is shown why I can't stand labels...conservative, liberal, X kind of conservative, Y kind of libertarian, etc.

I'm happy to share my thoughts about most things. I'm never going to label them as "this or that." They need to be evaluated on their own, not in the context of how closely or distantly they align with anything else. I feel the same way about others' ideas. I don't care whether one thinks one is a "classic conservative" or "neocon" or whatever.

I do care what they have to say, whether it has merit, whether it is scaleable, what are its limits, etc. Merely branding the speaker of an idea with a label doesn't at all indicate precisely what he thinks on a matter. At best it gives me a general idea, but when discussing policy, one needs to know precisely what one thinks, not merely that s/he has conservative views.

I think you can go overboard with these labels (as I think the OP has done), but liberal/conservative are divisions which manifest themselves in all political systems, whether in our binary system or a parliamentary system.

Where these kinds of divisions really fall apart though is on the street. Real people don't fall neatly into these categories. They are either too ill informed to understand these ideologies, or they are in the rational center, leaning a bit liberal on some issues and conservative on others. It's only in twisted gas bubbles like forum boards or inside the beltway that litmus tests and ideological purity seem real. Political extremists are dangerous. They are destructive to both compromise and conversation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where do the Birchers fit into this?

The Birchers would fit into the Reflexive Conservative category, circa 1950. Their principles vary from one to the next and you dont often hear them appeal to anything consistently other other than their interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think you can go overboard with these labels (as I think the OP has done), but liberal/conservative are divisions which manifest themselves in all political systems, whether in our binary system or a parliamentary system.

Where these kinds of divisions really fall apart though is on the street. Real people don't fall neatly into these categories. They are either too ill informed to understand these ideologies, or they are in the rational center, leaning a bit liberal on some issues and conservative on others. It's only in twisted gas bubbles like forum boards or inside the beltway that litmus tests and ideological purity seem real. Political extremists are dangerous. They are destructive to both compromise and conversation.

I never attempted to classify all political ideologies, only those of self described conservatives.

Beyond that is liberalism, Marxism, the mood voters and the triangulating voters.

Those are fairly well explored topics, and I was simply wanting to clarify some of the usage of the term 'conservative'.

 

[Agit8r]

Where do the Birchers fit into this?

The Birchers would fit into the Reflexive Conservative category, circa 1950. Their principles vary from one to the next and you dont often hear them appeal to anything consistently other other than their interpretation of the Constitution.

And the odd commie negro conspiracy

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where do the Birchers fit into this?

The Birchers would fit into the Reflexive Conservative category, circa 1950. Their principles vary from one to the next and you dont often hear them appeal to anything consistently other other than their interpretation of the Constitution.

And the odd commie negro conspiracy

Look, there are odd balls in every group, no?

 

[320 Years of History]

As to critical thought requiring dialectical analysis, you are joking, right? Observing thesis, antithesis and synthesis is hardly a logical way to evaluate Truth.

I didn't mean to imply that one must use the Hegelian Dialectic, although the substance of that approach is acceptable to me insofar as if it's the approach one applies rigorously, it will get one to the point of having a comprehensive understanding of a matter. The Socratic dialogue approach to dialectics is more what I had in mind...One need not have a physical other to rigorously examine a matter from multiple angles.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As to critical thought requiring dialectical analysis, you are joking, right? Observing thesis, antithesis and synthesis is hardly a logical way to evaluate Truth.

I didn't mean to imply that one must use the Hegelian Dialectic, although the substance of that approach is acceptable to me insofar as if it's the approach one applies rigorously, it will get one to the point of having a comprehensive understanding of a matter. The Socratic dialogue approach to dialectics is more what I had in mind...One need not have a physical other to rigorously examine a matter from multiple angles.

I am not trying to be a smart ass, but would you mind starting a thread on the Hegelian dialectic, what it is and why you accept it? I find it an interesting discussion, though I have not yet been convinced of it as a rational means to truth or stand alone concepts that reflect the Reality we live in. I cannot get past the reduction of the events of History to being the result of merely a mass of conflicting movements and eras. It seems to have both individualist elements as well as historical trends that are neither deterministic nor inevitable. While dialectical analysis has some merit, it is not a fully comprehensive view of history in all its aspects.


If you dont want, we can discuss it in this thread.

Do you have the time to take a shot at it?

 

[320 Years of History]

As to critical thought requiring dialectical analysis, you are joking, right? Observing thesis, antithesis and synthesis is hardly a logical way to evaluate Truth.

I didn't mean to imply that one must use the Hegelian Dialectic, although the substance of that approach is acceptable to me insofar as if it's the approach one applies rigorously, it will get one to the point of having a comprehensive understanding of a matter. The Socratic dialogue approach to dialectics is more what I had in mind...One need not have a physical other to rigorously examine a matter from multiple angles.

I am not trying to be a smart ass, but would you mind starting a thread on Hegelian dialectic, what it is and why you accept it? I find it an interesting discussion, though I have not yet been convinced of it as a rational means to truth or stand alone concepts that reflect the Reality we live in.

If you dont want, we can discuss it in this thread.

Do you have the time to take a shot at it?

Red:
I have no interest in doing that. You can start such a thread.

Pink:
I accept that it's an approach to investigating and considering a matter that leads to one aggregating and considering the pros and cons applicable to a given topic. Broadly speaking, the Hegelian Dialectic is more something that was formalized, given an "official" structure, and that has a fancy sounding name, all of which are not recognized by many people but that damn near everyone has used at one point or another.

For example, who hasn't begun with an idea or opinion, examined it, learned new information, revised/refined their opinion, and proceded onwards in their quest to arrive at a final conclusion? Such is the Hegelian Dialectic. What is there to reject or accept about that? IMO, little other than that whether the final conclusion indeed holds truth. It certainly may or may not, but whether it does or not has less to do with Hegel's process and more it does with the person conducting the investigation. Of course, there are matters for which there exists no absolute truth that humanity can currently find, but that doesn't mean there is no absolute truth in existence.

Blue:
I'd rather we didn't, but if you feel obliged to do so and are willing to relate your discussion of it to the thread topic, I don't see why you should not.

Green:
Even having time, I have no interest or desire to take a shot at it. Not because I don't find the topic one worth discussing, but because it's a "been there; done that" thing I did in college. The value of what I learned then is in my opting to apply Hegel's technique if and when I see a reason to do so, or maybe for recognizing when others do so.

If you want to examine the idea, you may find this helpful.

 

[MisterBeale]

Where do the Birchers fit into this?

The Birchers would fit into the Reflexive Conservative category, circa 1950. Their principles vary from one to the next and you dont often hear them appeal to anything consistently other other than their interpretation of the Constitution.

And the odd commie negro conspiracy

Look, there are odd balls in every group, no?

Actually, I think this is where you are going off the mark here.

Especially in your debate with 320 years of History.

The thing is, yes, labels are useful, but their weakness is the risk in that they don't encapsulate in a nice tidy way every POV. They don't give you a big picture of what is going on, and threaten to leave out very salient facts.

For instance, in America, for so long, the JBS society has been shut out of the political conversation for a reason, they stand opposed to the goals of the CFR. That does not mean they are "odd balls," nor does it mean they are "conspiracy theorists."

What it means is that they are anti-globalists, and think the interests of the nation should come before the interests of the international community. Your labels do not apply to them, because there are all manner of conservatives in their ranks. There are even liberals that go to their resources for information.

They stand with the LaRouche PAC in their common views on this issue.

In like manner, many Americans view the LaRouche PAC the same way. These two organizations have been fighting the internationalist cable that has been working to destroy the fabric of local American communities in favor of the internationalists looting the value of our currency, our companies and our land for decades.

As most folks that know me, I don't hold a partisan bias, neither left or right. What I do care about are the conditions in my local community and my state. These two organizations will watch the corporate media which is controlled by the CFR. The Council on Foreign Relations is just a satellite of The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London controlled by the international Banking Cabal.

The JBS and LaRouche PAC know this, they are honest with us, and they will tell us what is going on. This is why CFR controlled media slanders them. If you are conservative, no matter what kind of conservative you are, go to them for truth. If you are liberal, seek out the LaRouche PAC for your info.



Trump, Cruz, and the Establishment
Trump, Cruz, and the Establishment

The LaRouch PAC needs to learn how to edit their vids after they go out live. . . it doesn't get interesting till the 4:00 minute mark. The point here? Their POV is pretty much the same as the Birchers.

You can even watch their PAC meet live, how many establishment PAC's would let you do that?



Our Job is to Keep Fighting, and Build Up Things We Can Build Up
Our Job is to Keep Fighting, and Build Up Things We Can Build Up


The point here, is the internationalists and globalists are dividing and destroying the good people of this land, both conservative and liberal. The labels will hide the truth. This works well for the international cabal.

 

[Agit8r]

Where do the Birchers fit into this?

The Birchers would fit into the Reflexive Conservative category, circa 1950. Their principles vary from one to the next and you dont often hear them appeal to anything consistently other other than their interpretation of the Constitution.

And the odd commie negro conspiracy

Look, there are odd balls in every group, no?

I grew up in a Bircher household. That film-strip was standard issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where do the Birchers fit into this?

Reactionary.