Why are conservatives conservative?

[Beet]

This may seem a silly question, but to me it is an obvious one and a central one. I am genuinely perplexed at what drives and motivates conservatives.

Traditional conservative political theory--Edmund Burke, for example, was a reaction to revolutionary, sudden and violent change. Burke criticized the French Revolution for throwing aside thousands of years of social tradition for what he considered to be poorly considered artificial constructs. Yet modern liberals are hardly clamoring for violent, revolutionary changes. We seek a gradual move towards a more just society and a nation in harmony with the world. Burke, who railed against unrestrained royal power in favor of a balance of power in government, would hardly approve of today's overpowering Executive Branch.

Religion is not a reason to be a modern conservative. While having a strong religion will virtually certainly influence one's political views-- as it should, at least in Christianity, the messenger of God, Jesus, did not call for his Word to be implemented into law directly. What Christians ought to aim for is tolerance of Christianity in society, and emphasis among ourselves of Christian virtues, so that it will draw people toward the attractive and life-giving aspects of our faith, not the ugly and intolerant ones. This means having faith inform our political views, but not seeking to move words from the Bible to the U.S. Code directly. The Bible tells us that the powers that be are the will of God, and the powers that be in the United States is a nation that tolerates many different sects, denominations, religions, and even atheism. Without such toleration we would have persecution and strife. Is toleration not an ultimate good for believers, then?

Finally, it is silly to think that only one party wants to keep America safe and that the other is allied with terrorists. That presents us Americans with the choice of either indefinite one-party rule, an end of our two-party democracy, or terrorist victory. Neither of these choices is acceptable.

I leave this open ended and ask conservatives to reply. I'm very curious.

[Gustaf]

While not really a pure conservative myself, there are a number of obvious threats to a stable social order. Individualism and materialism are prime examples of this. Patriotism and religion is also under attack from left-liberals. And finally, there are natural mechanisms that constantly work to expand the powers of the state. All of these currents go against central parts of the conservative philosophy. So there seems to me that there are plenty of reasons for conservatives to struggle with politics, trying to push through policies beneficial to their goals.

[MaC]

For me:
1.Appreciation for Western Culture
2.I support capitalism
3.I was raised in somewhat culturally conservative.  (hard to say what it is, but neighborhood, parents, status, other influences)

[platypeanArchcow]

Patriotism and religion is also under attack from left-liberals.

*throws a brick at patriotism and religion, who are standing peacefully side by side and singing annoying songs*

[dazzleman]

Beet, I see this question as somewhat naive.

Clearly, conservatives don't see liberals the way you see them.  You see liberals moving us gradually toward a more just society.  That is a very benign view of the results of many liberal policies.

Being asked to tolerate high rates of crime, and having your kids forcibly moved from a safe school to an unsafe one, doesn't meet most people's definition of a more just society.  Neither does having ever increasing amounts of your hard-earned money taken to redistribute to people who don't work, don't marry, and pop out one baby after another that they don't make any attempt to raise properly.

Your implication that liberals want peace, and conservatives don't, is also highly naive and presumptuous.  Conservatives want peace, but don't want us to lose our freedom as the price of peace.  Conservatives and liberals have different ideas about the sort of people with whom we can expect to live in harmony, but conservatives are no less desirous of peace than liberals.

Your implication that conservatives are motivated by wanting to impose Christian beliefs into law is naive also.  To the extent that the law mirrors Christian beliefs, it is generally because this has been found to benefit society.  Both conservatives and liberals seek to have their beliefs enshrined as public policy; liberals just seek to do it under the guise of a false impartiality and denial of religion, and use that to try to disarm conservatives while ramming their own often unpopular views down people's throats.

[Citizen James]

Well, there's the short and the long of it.

The short of it is that it is a part of human nature to be wary of things which are different.  At times that can serve us well (Gee, that large overgrown cat is  called a tiger.  I wonder if it's friendly and if I can pet it?  Let try it - aauurgh...), other times less so (gee, that guy has a different skin color.  I bet he's dangerous).

The long of it is that people tend to group things and ideas together.  It's a sensible trait, as otherwise we would be utterly overwhelmed with all the information we come across.  However, it is not without it's flaws as the more we generalize the less accurate our collective information becomes.   'Conservative' and 'liberal' are at best vague terms about a person's tendencies, not concrete listings of ideologies.  In addition, connected terms sometimes have a downright contrary meaning - I see little to nothing from 'neo-conservatives' which is particularly conservative.  They actually strike me as quite radical, desireng to implement social and political change through force of arms in a manner similar to Mao's infamous "political power flows from the barell of a gun" mantra.

My somewhat tounge in cheek classifications for liberals, conservatives, progressives, and reactionaries is as follows:

Conservatives believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Liberals believe "some things are broke, and need fixing"

Progressives believe "lets tinker with things and see if we can make them work better"

and reactionaries think "I liked it better broken".

But because of this human tendency to generalize, we end up trying to classify people with widely varying beliefs (Say, an NRA blue collar unionist with a gay stockbroker, or a reporter who believes in open government and low taxes with a welfare recipent who opposes abortion) all in the same tiny classifications.

I find Dazzlemans perspective facinating, as he notices flaws in your questions, while committing the exact same sins.

I have never met anyone who wanted high rates of crime, though there are some who want a more reform minded system.  The crime rate (both violent and property) did drop signifigantly under Clinton after all.  Bussing is controversial, but what about bussing some students from an "unsafe" school to yours, of just claiming that the "lesser" elements of society deserve to be forced into the poorest and worst funded/supported schools.  Granted, the work I've done with rural poor students has shown me a lot of kids with a solid work ethic and a desire to succeed, despite their disadvantaged backgrounds, while some of the kids in the more "well-to-do" places get stuck with an entitlement attitude that they don't have to work and should get everything on a silver platter. (think Opebo lite).

Do you really believe the old propiganda that welfare recipients are a bunch of inner city blacks popping out kid after kid (rather than rural poor whites with multiple children - often based on their religious beliefs), and individuals who work multiple jobs but still can't make ends meet.
Even if that were the case, do you believe that children should be punished for who their parents were?

I have to admit I chuckled at your claim that "Your implication that liberals want peace, and conservatives don't, is also highly naive and presumptuous.  Conservatives want peace, but don't want us to lose our freedom as the price of peace. " made me chuckle.  I have to wonder if you were able to keep a straight face in the "lose our freedom" part, unless your are implying (as I have) that Bush is actually a radical rather than a conservative.

As for religious conservatives, that is only one subsection of what is called "conservatives".  They have a dispropotionate influence right now, but that tends to ebb and wane over the years and will likely do so again.

[Beet]

Much to respond to.

While not really a pure conservative myself, there are a number of obvious threats to a stable social order. Individualism and materialism are prime examples of this.

How come the most unstable social upheavals in modern history weren't caused by individualism or materialism? They were caused by political zealotry, particularly for some ideology or religious/nationalist cause. The U.S. has been one of the most individualist and materialist places, and it has been quite stable overall.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even the most extreme liberals vis-a-vis religion, such as the ACLU, only target religion where they think it violates the first amendment's establishment clause. There is no attack on private churches' coequal right to do what they do. Many liberals are actually religious. I don't see patriotism coming under attack from anyone. I was at a Howard Dean rally in 2003 and the first thing we did was sing the national anthem. He never attacked America, only Bush's policies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The state's share of the U.S. economy has been the same for the past fifty years, with variance of a few percent in either direction. It has really only increased in times of war.

For me:
1.Appreciation for Western Culture
2.I support capitalism
3.I was raised in somewhat culturally conservative.  (hard to say what it is, but neighborhood, parents, status, other influences)

"Western Culture" is an amorphous term beyond certain things such as awareness of Greek philosophical traditions and early Judeo-Christian ones, and the heritage of the Enlightenment. Conservatives and liberals merely emphasize different aspects of that. Neither is more Western. Western European culture is very different from American, for example. Also, the culture in the West has changed over the centuries, with the latter manifestations no less 'Western' than the former. Both 19th century Victorian culture and 1960's counterculture were very Western. However, with the advent of globalization, all cultures are being intermixed to a larger degree than before. A hip-hop style of music that originated in New York City in the 1970s twenty years later makes it to South Korea. Or an style of animation that originated in Japan becomes a hit in the United States. No one is forced into accepting these things, but greater cultural exchange does help spread ideas that people like.

Only a small minority of extremists don't support 'capitalism'.

Being asked to tolerate high rates of crime, and having your kids forcibly moved from a safe school to an unsafe one, doesn't meet most people's definition of a more just society.  Neither does having ever increasing amounts of your hard-earned money taken to redistribute to people who don't work, don't marry, and pop out one baby after another that they don't make any attempt to raise properly.

I got my new Apple IIE today. Apparently it comes with some new program called "Lotus 1-2-3". I'm going to use it to write my essay comparing Van Halen and Motley Crue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you see the quotations from "Senior U.S. officials" in the Washington Post after North Korea's nuclear test? The Post reported that these officials "welcomed" the North Korean test because it would allow them to "clarify" North Korea policy. In other words they don't care whether North Korea has nukes or not-- their sole objective was to prevent a peace deal. And you can't say the war in Iraq was unavoidable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're the one being naive, Dazzleman. The religious right's obsession with gay marriage and abortion isn't because they think it will "benefit society." It's because they think the Bible forbids those things and therefore they want the government to ban it. Whether it benefits society or not is completely irrelevant to them. 

[Beet]

'Conservative' and 'liberal' are at best vague terms about a person's tendencies, not concrete listings of ideologies.  In addition, connected terms sometimes have a downright contrary meaning - I see little to nothing from 'neo-conservatives' which is particularly conservative.  They actually strike me as quite radical, desireng to implement social and political change through force of arms in a manner similar to Mao's infamous "political power flows from the barell of a gun" mantra.

My somewhat tounge in cheek classifications for liberals, conservatives, progressives, and reactionaries is as follows:

Conservatives believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Liberals believe "some things are broke, and need fixing"

Progressives believe "lets tinker with things and see if we can make them work better"

and reactionaries think "I liked it better broken".

But because of this human tendency to generalize, we end up trying to classify people with widely varying beliefs (Say, an NRA blue collar unionist with a gay stockbroker, or a reporter who believes in open government and low taxes with a welfare recipent who opposes abortion) all in the same tiny classifications.

Fascinating. Your conservative mantra is opposed to your progressive one, and your liberal one is opposed to your reactionary one. Ironically, an entrepreneur with any mindset but the progressive mindset would soon fail and probably lose his business.

[dazzleman]

Much to respond to.

Being asked to tolerate high rates of crime, and having your kids forcibly moved from a safe school to an unsafe one, doesn't meet most people's definition of a more just society.  Neither does having ever increasing amounts of your hard-earned money taken to redistribute to people who don't work, don't marry, and pop out one baby after another that they don't make any attempt to raise properly.

I got my new Apple IIE today. Apparently it comes with some new program called "Lotus 1-2-3". I'm going to use it to write my essay comparing Van Halen and Motley Crue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you see the quotations from "Senior U.S. officials" in the Washington Post after North Korea's nuclear test? The Post reported that these officials "welcomed" the North Korean test because it would allow them to "clarify" North Korea policy. In other words they don't care whether North Korea has nukes or not-- their sole objective was to prevent a peace deal. And you can't say the war in Iraq was unavoidable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're the one being naive, Dazzleman. The religious right's obsession with gay marriage and abortion isn't because they think it will "benefit society." It's because they think the Bible forbids those things and therefore they want the government to ban it. Whether it benefits society or not is completely irrelevant to them. 

So you think we should just forget the horrors liberals have perpetrated on society by saying they happened a while back?  Nothing has been done to reverse them, so all is not forgiven as far as I'm concerned.  And if they come back into power, I could only expect them to pick up where they left off.

I don't agree with your last comment.  I also think that liberals want to impose their beliefs on society.  Why is that wrong for conservatives but not liberals?

Your view of liberalism is very presumptuous.  You seem to be saying, "We just want to do good things; why would anybody oppose us?"  The reason is that we've seen what you have done, and don't think a lot of it is good.

[Beet]

So you think we should just forget the horrors liberals have perpetrated on society by saying they happened a while back?  Nothing has been done to reverse them, so all is not forgiven as far as I'm concerned.  And if they come back into power, I could only expect them to pick up where they left off.

No, I doubt it. Societies change, and so does liberalism. To me, the lessons of the 1970s and 80s is that society needs a moral grounding. You can't have a political philosophy based on moral relativism. And you can't obviously design a welfare system without mechanisms to get recipients the skills they need to enter the job market.

James did bring up some good points in response to the issues you brought up. But in 2006, the issues of importance (Iraq, foreign policy, health care and social security, religion and government, accountability, the Executive Branch governing philosophy) are not the same today as they were 20 or 30 years ago, and it's stupid to keep pretending like they are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because liberals, (like you did) frame our appeals in terms of what is good for society. We make a secular appeal that you can argue with, and theoretically show us why our ideas are not good for society. Conservatives point to a book and say "That's what I believe out of faith, there's nothing you can do to argue me out of it, and I want to impose this belief no matter what."

[dazzleman]

So you think we should just forget the horrors liberals have perpetrated on society by saying they happened a while back?  Nothing has been done to reverse them, so all is not forgiven as far as I'm concerned.  And if they come back into power, I could only expect them to pick up where they left off.

No, I doubt it. Societies change, and so does liberalism. To me, the lessons of the 1970s and 80s is that society needs a moral grounding. You can't have a political philosophy based on moral relativism. And you can't obviously design a welfare system without mechanisms to get recipients the skills they need to enter the job market.

James did bring up some good points in response to the issues you brought up. But in 2006, the issues of importance (Iraq, foreign policy, health care and social security, religion and government, accountability, the Executive Branch governing philosophy) are not the same today as they were 20 or 30 years ago, and it's stupid to keep pretending like they are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because liberals, (like you did) frame our appeals in terms of what is good for society. We make a secular appeal that you can argue with, and theoretically show us why our ideas are not good for society. Conservatives point to a book and say "That's what I believe out of faith, there's nothing you can do to argue me out of it, and I want to impose this belief no matter what."

Beet, I just don't agree with you last statement at all.

I can make and have made all sorts of secular arguments about why liberal policies aren't good.  You're simply stereotyping conservatives, not that some conservatives haven't made it easy for you.  But most conservatives I know don't rely on biblical rationale for the policies they support.

I disagree that we don't have any of the same issues from the past, and I also don't agree that liberals have good views on today's issues.  Social security -- keep promising it out until it goes bankrupt, then raise taxes, presumably.  That's the only liberal idea there.  Iraq -- who knows?  One thing's for sure -- it involves losing the war.  Taxes -- increase them, and increase spending.  Health care -- have the government take it over, and work the magic that they have worked in other areas, like say, urban education.

I don't see credible liberal solutions to today's problems.  I just see more of the same that hasn't worked out in the past.  The issues have not changed as much as you think they have, and liberals apply the same failed philosophies to today's issues that they did to yesterday's, as far as I can tell.

[Beet]

Beet, I just don't agree with you last statement at all.

I can make and have made all sorts of secular arguments about why liberal policies aren't good.  You're simply stereotyping conservatives, not that some conservatives haven't made it easy for you.  But most conservatives I know don't rely on biblical rationale for the policies they support.

Not for all the policies they support, but they do for some important ones, notably in the area of "hot button social issues," and increasingly education, fiscal, and scientific decisions are being made too with a religious angle, giving the religious right a veto power of them. It's not stereotyping, it's just a frank assessment of what's really going on in those issue areas, and more and more each year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans had a chance to reform Social Security throughout Bush's first term and especially after their historic victory in 2004. They failed. They have had a chance to do something to improve our fortunes in Iraq for the past three years. They failed. They have failed to staunch the rise in projected health care costs and we still, unique among the developed world, have nearly 50 million people without medical insurance. I see no reason to keep re-electing a party that seems to have no political will to do the so called great solutions that you seem to think they have.

[opebo]

Poor or no critical thinking ability plus emotilonal problems.

[MaC]

Much to respond to.

For me:
1.Appreciation for Western Culture
2.I support capitalism
3.I was raised in somewhat culturally conservative.  (hard to say what it is, but neighborhood, parents, status, other influences)

"Western Culture" is an amorphous term beyond certain things such as awareness of Greek philosophical traditions and early Judeo-Christian ones, and the heritage of the Enlightenment. Conservatives and liberals merely emphasize different aspects of that. Neither is more Western. Western European culture is very different from American, for example. Also, the culture in the West has changed over the centuries, with the latter manifestations no less 'Western' than the former. Both 19th century Victorian culture and 1960's counterculture were very Western. However, with the advent of globalization, all cultures are being intermixed to a larger degree than before. A hip-hop style of music that originated in New York City in the 1970s twenty years later makes it to South Korea. Or an style of animation that originated in Japan becomes a hit in the United States. No one is forced into accepting these things, but greater cultural exchange does help spread ideas that people like.

Only a small minority of extremists don't support 'capitalism'.   

I don't like how Eastern philosophy, gray morality, and the like infiltrate this country.  I don't like the concept that because I was born in America with male genitalia and white skin and the fortune of having loving middle-upper class parents means automatically that I should automatically be ashamed of who I am-as so much of what I hear seems to insinuate that.  I don't owe anything to society-as society doesn't owe anything to me. 

I WISH only a small minority of extremists don't support capitalism.  Considering the hundreds of government programs, the 25% income tax for the middle class, in addition to state/city income tax property tax, sales tax, regulations, protective tariffs, social security taxes, and medicare taxes-I do have good reason to gripe with those that undermine ability to make money.  This is not to say we should abolish all taxes, but there was a time in this country that taxes were significantly less.

[Beet]

Much to respond to.

For me:
1.Appreciation for Western Culture
2.I support capitalism
3.I was raised in somewhat culturally conservative.  (hard to say what it is, but neighborhood, parents, status, other influences)

"Western Culture" is an amorphous term beyond certain things such as awareness of Greek philosophical traditions and early Judeo-Christian ones, and the heritage of the Enlightenment. Conservatives and liberals merely emphasize different aspects of that. Neither is more Western. Western European culture is very different from American, for example. Also, the culture in the West has changed over the centuries, with the latter manifestations no less 'Western' than the former. Both 19th century Victorian culture and 1960's counterculture were very Western. However, with the advent of globalization, all cultures are being intermixed to a larger degree than before. A hip-hop style of music that originated in New York City in the 1970s twenty years later makes it to South Korea. Or an style of animation that originated in Japan becomes a hit in the United States. No one is forced into accepting these things, but greater cultural exchange does help spread ideas that people like.

Only a small minority of extremists don't support 'capitalism'.   

I don't like how Eastern philosophy, gray morality, and the like infiltrate this country.  I don't like the concept that because I was born in America with male genitalia and white skin and the fortune of having loving middle-upper class parents means automatically that I should automatically be ashamed of who I am-as so much of what I hear seems to insinuate that.  I don't owe anything to society-as society doesn't owe anything to me.

Who has said you should feel ashamed? Most of us are all in the same boat as you, essentially. That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that some people have a better shot at life starting out than others. I would say society does "owe" you and every person something. It owes everyone the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, for starters. And ideally, each citizen should have a genuine shot at fiscal security, access to medical care, and certain basic things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that these taxes and the services they support help prop up capitalism in a democratic system by spreading its benefits around to more people. Without some government safety net, people wouldn't support capitalism-- they would feel economic insecurity and vote in economic populists who would do even more damage to capitalism than current soft government regulations. That's the inherent tension between a democratic system that guarantees one vote for each person and a capitalist system that tends to concentrate wealth (and if you get rid of democracy altogether, you invite violent revolution). Without some kind of compromise, the system isn't going to be stable. Bringing the benefits of capitalism to society at large through a basic safety net can also be looked at as a good in itself.

[Nym90]

I think you bring up some excellent points, Beet, as usual.

Especially salient is the point that government helps people be better off economically, overall. A mixed market system which combines the best attributes of capitalism and socialism is far better for the country than either of the extremes (total state run economy or totally private economy) would be. Neither of the extreme systems leads to prosperity for the economy at all.

[dazzleman]

Republicans had a chance to reform Social Security throughout Bush's first term and especially after their historic victory in 2004. They failed. They have had a chance to do something to improve our fortunes in Iraq for the past three years. They failed. They have failed to staunch the rise in projected health care costs and we still, unique among the developed world, have nearly 50 million people without medical insurance. I see no reason to keep re-electing a party that seems to have no political will to do the so called great solutions that you seem to think they have.

Tell me what the Democrats have offered that's any better.

If the Democrats offer better solutions, then they should be seriously considered.

But let's remember -- when Nancy Pelosi was asked when the Democrats would come up with a plan for social security, she said, "Never.  Is that soon enough for you?"

[Beet]

Republicans had a chance to reform Social Security throughout Bush's first term and especially after their historic victory in 2004. They failed. They have had a chance to do something to improve our fortunes in Iraq for the past three years. They failed. They have failed to staunch the rise in projected health care costs and we still, unique among the developed world, have nearly 50 million people without medical insurance. I see no reason to keep re-electing a party that seems to have no political will to do the so called great solutions that you seem to think they have.

Tell me what the Democrats have offered that's any better.

If the Democrats offer better solutions, then they should be seriously considered.

But let's remember -- when Nancy Pelosi was asked when the Democrats would come up with a plan for social security, she said, "Never.  Is that soon enough for you?"

Link? I can't seem to find any sources for this. The Republicans have a higher responsibility to find solutions as long as they are the ones in control of the federal government. The Democrats can't even propose amendments to bills right now, let alone sweeping reforms.

As the Congressional Budget Office, as well as many many other economists have projected, the biggest increase in fiscal costs in the future is going to come from health care, not social security.

[dazzleman]

Republicans had a chance to reform Social Security throughout Bush's first term and especially after their historic victory in 2004. They failed. They have had a chance to do something to improve our fortunes in Iraq for the past three years. They failed. They have failed to staunch the rise in projected health care costs and we still, unique among the developed world, have nearly 50 million people without medical insurance. I see no reason to keep re-electing a party that seems to have no political will to do the so called great solutions that you seem to think they have.

Tell me what the Democrats have offered that's any better.

If the Democrats offer better solutions, then they should be seriously considered.

But let's remember -- when Nancy Pelosi was asked when the Democrats would come up with a plan for social security, she said, "Never.  Is that soon enough for you?"

Link? I can't seem to find any sources for this. The Republicans have a higher responsibility to find solutions as long as they are the ones in control of the federal government. The Democrats can't even propose amendments to bills right now, let alone sweeping reforms.

As the Congressional Budget Office, as well as many many other economists have projected, the biggest increase in fiscal costs in the future is going to come from health care, not social security.

It was in an article that I read about Pelosi recently.  I can't remember where.

I think you're just making excuses, but we all do that for the people we favor.   I wonder why, at a time like this, Democrats don't come up with a bold plan.  I really haven't heard anything.

I think traditionally, conservatives have been more reluctant to disturb the status quo, while liberals have been more likely to throw out the status quo in an attempt to solve problems.

Sometimes, the former is the right approach, and sometimes the latter is.  Traditional is not always better, but there are times when throwing away certain past ideas and tradtions, imperfect though they may be, creates more problems than it solves.

I happen to firmly believe that problems are ultimately solved much better by hard-headed realists than by idealists who deny or avoid reality.  That's why I so despise political correctness -- it's often an attempt to prevent the discussion of certain realities and truths, and policies based on political correctness usually fail.  This was the trouble with a lot of the policies that liberals advocated in the 1960s and its aftermath.

If you want me to be bi-partisan, I could say that is true of the Iraq policy, at least so far.  Condi Rice so eloquently describes the yearning for freedom that supposedly exists among all humans, including those in the middle east.  That is what we are supposed to think.  Yet reality seems to be telling us otherwise.

[Beet]

Dazzleman, a lot of what you write consists of vague generalities that are true but don't add much substance. No one disagrees that sometimes traditional is right, soemtimes it is not.

We both agree that policy should be made on realism first, idealism second. I think the Democratic party became more the party of hard-headed realists under Bill Clinton, and it still is today. I think you're emphasizing way too much the issues of past decades and not the problems of today.

[John Dibble]

Well, let me answer your question with a question - why are liberals liberal?

Keep in mind that people have different upbringings, different life experiences, different religious beliefs, different values, and different things that are important to them. Oh, and let's not forget different DNA and other biological factors, just for kicks. Conservatives are conservative for varying reasons, same with liberals or any other political ideology. The reason you might have trouble understanding why they would be conservative is that you don't understand what it would be like to have lived in their shoes, to experience the events and feel the feelings that they have throughout all their days. You might get an idea if you ask enough questions about the lives of some conservatives you know, but it's doubtful you'd ever have a full understanding of why someone would have a different political ideology than yours.

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman, a lot of what you write consists of vague generalities that are true but don't add much substance. No one disagrees that sometimes traditional is right, soemtimes it is not.

We both agree that policy should be made on realism first, idealism second. I think the Democratic party became more the party of hard-headed realists under Bill Clinton, and it still is today. I think you're emphasizing way too much the issues of past decades and not the problems of today.

Beet, I think you lack a sense of history.  I recall that you thought that the Democrats' reputation for weakness on national security had arisen since the Sept. 11th attacks, when in fact that reputation has been around since Vietnam.

You talk about the issues of today versus the issues of the past.  From my perspective (and keep in mind that I've been around longer than you), the major issues and problems really haven't changed a great deal in the past 40 years.  Yes, the context has changed somewhat, but the underlying issues are largely the same.

So are the proposed solutions by both parties, for the most part.  They may be packaged differently, but it's really old wine in a new bottle.  This is especially true of liberals, who have been more concerned with defending the status quo than coming up with new ideas.

So I really don't agree with you contention that my view of liberals is dated.  I have observed them for a long time, and have not discerned a great deal of change, or recognition of where their ideas have gone wrong in the past.

I think you need to recognize that conservatives don't have the benign view of liberals that you hold, and there are good reasons for that.  You have ridiculed me for pointing some of them out, which suggests that you don't really want an honest answer to your question.

And you can't underestimate the role of recent history.  People's political views are formed relatively early in life, and resistant to change.  That's why so many people were still voting for Democrats in the 1970s because of Herbert Hoover.  And many people vote against liberals today because of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, right or wrong (I think it's right).

[Gabu]

Well, let me answer your question with a question - why are liberals liberal?

Because we're smarter.

OMGLOL!11111111

[MaC]

Well, let me answer your question with a question - why are liberals liberal?

Because we're smarter.

OMGLOL!11111111

Funniest thing I've heard all day.

[gorkay]

This is actually an excellent question, although most of the responses haven't taken it seriously enough.
First of all, you have to realize that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" as they are generally used by politicians today don't have much to do with the traditional meanings of the terms. "Conservative" seems to be used as a euphemism for "selfish" in many cases, when obviously there is no necessary connection between the two. "Liberal" is used as an epithet against anyone who proposes any form of taxation or other sacrifice that the self-proclaimed "conservatives" are too selfish to favor, no matter how much good it might do.
The best thing about true conservatism is its skepticism about government as an agent in the perfectibility of the world. True conservatives realize that this is potentially very dangerous, since man is inherently flawed, and thus all his efforts are as well. However, when this skepticism is used as a reason or excuse for government to do nothing to alleviate human suffering, conservatism is at its worst.