Well now, Beccy; poke your stick into the old hornet's nest and give 'er a good stir, and see what happens!

Looks like we've got a live one going here; well done!

As previously mentioned, we used to have these jolly go-rounds pretty regularly on Mudcat. I'm talking , oh, 2 or 3 years ago.
They could be a lot of fun, but tend to become rather intensive in terms of intellectual energy and time.

The payoff is in this sort of discussion - at least for me - that I get to sample alternative viewpoints, experiences and perspectives from my own, as well as to be stimulated to examine and research the foundational structure of my own chosen values and ideaology. If those moral and idealogical tenets are consistantly and demonstrably practical, efficacious, and generally conducive to Life, development, and positive interaction, then my anchor points of belief are affirmed. On the other hand, if it can be rationally demonstrated that one or more of them is not, or may in fact be counterproductive, I remain open to the possibility of attitudinal modification as a function of personal growth.

Us "Conservatives", you see, may at times be a bit more open-minded than we tend to be given credit for.   

And while I'm throwing that "C"-term around, I think it's important to clarify that a "Conservative" in America may not mean the same thing that it might in Europe or other parts of the World.

One of the reasons, I suppose, that a lot of American Jews support the traditionally Liberal democratic Party, is that perhaps they equate or identify "Conservatism" with the Nazi Facists who persecuted and tried to exterminate them in the '30s and '40s in Europe. I can see where an ethnic Community could take that sort of personally.
At least that is the best rationalle I can come up with in contemplating the apparent paradox of why American Jews would predominantly support a Party which, over the past 20 years or so at least, has not been nearly as supportive of Israel's right to exist as has been Republican Administrations. And I would not carachterize all of those as being particularly "conservative" as I define the idealogy.

So when Beccy or I express the term, the mental image in our minds which we are trying to project may bear marginal, if any, relationship to that percieved in the mind of the reicpient. This sort of dialouge, hopefully, might help us to clear the air we all share of some misunderstandings and unsupported assumptions. At least I have found that to be the case in some of my personal interactions, and confess that a great deal of my agenda in here in strapping on my nomex Haines'giving the hornet's nest an occasional stir, is not so much to just create a little excitement, as it is to facilitate such dialouge.

Another observations from controversial threads past, is that all too often we just get some positive interaction going between ideological camps when some disgrundled and usually anonymous "GUEST" piles in starts spewing venom in all directions, and often succeeds in reducing a rational, intellectual discourse into an infantile, emotional flaming contest which can quickly break down the tenuous matrix of relationship that is being built between participants, and ultimately terminate the discussion. I get the impression that many of these "Guests" are not even Americans, have a distinct agenda to promote, and seem to hate nothing worse than to see people getting along together.

At one point it was mutually agreed that anonymous "guests" were to be summarily ignored, and that practice seemed to go a long way towards restoring civility to our discussions.
I'm not sure how far back our Archives go, but feel free to click on my "Handle" and trace my postings as far back as they go; perhaps you may find some examples.

So it is no surprise to Mudcat Veterans of many a "political" debate when our recent ghost/guest lurking in the shadows begins sowing hatred and discord from out the cover of darkness, to include a plethora of those "terms of dehumanization" earlier mentioned in this thread.
As far as I am concerned, such behavior is tantimount to self-impeachment.
Please respond to his dubious "contributions" accordingly, if at all.

Another connotation of the term "conservative/ism" previously speculated, is to keep or "conserve" all of the practices and ideas of the past, while resisting "progress" or innovation.
Correct me if I'm missing this, fellow Conservatives, but I see this as another popular myth about Conservatism.

Perhaps we need distinguish between "Absolute Conservatism" vs. Selective Conservatism" here; The kind of "Conservatism" that clings to a formerly accepted or practiced paradigm or standard, resisting any and all pressures induced by time or circumstance is seen not only in the political realm, but the religious as well. I think it would be safe to equate it with "Fundamentalism". Perhaps these neo-nazi whackkos might be somewhat "conservative" in that sense, although the very thought of such a connection to any of the "Conservatives" I relate with is utterly appalling. This myth alone may contribute significantly to much of the vitriol held by generally moral and decent people towards "Conservatives".   In some cases, true enough, it might be justified; but they are, I submit to you, the minority.

In "Selective Conservatism", which I see as the more humane and pragmatic approach, there must be a generally common or shared set of values or principles. Perhaps this is where the line between "religion" and "politics" becomes even more indistinct than it normaly tends to be, for in order to be consistantly selective, we must begin with a faily absolute structure of criterion. Am I making any sense, here?

All right then; let me endeavor to illustrate; a common term we hear in these ideological discussions is the term "fair".

Thus, a statement like;
"It is not FAIR for Executives of big corporations to take millions of dollars in profits from a failed company (like Enron, for example), while millions of Children starve in Biafra."
assumes some commonly held values.

Value #1: "Fairness" is a good thing; a positive state of affairs to be striven for and maintained by all of Humanity.

Value #2: "Executives" are bad, because they exploit people and have way too much power and money, which they do not share (sharing is a good thing of course)with those less fortunate.
Even that term "fortunate" implies that the access to or control of resourses has everything to do with "Fortune"; luck of the draw, capricious favor of some Diety, etc..

When we tug on one assumption, isn't it funny how it often telescopes out to include a host of sub-assumptions?
Perhaps we can call that one "Value 2-a.".

Value #3: Starving Children, in Biafra or anywhere else, is a bad thing. I think we pretty much aggree on that!

Now wait a minute!: One dear acquaintance of ours happens to be not only a devoted Environmentalist, but a competent and professional Biologist as well. When confronted with these pathetic images of famine and starvation, pestilence and war, she responds quite matter-of-factly that these are all indications that Planet Earth has reached "Carrying Capacity", and this is Nature's mechanism for self-correction. When the population exceeds the capacity of the environment to provide sufficient resources to sustain it, there is a phenomenon known as a "Die-Off". It happens with shrimp, rabbitts, and alas, people too. It's a natural thing. "Natural" is "good", right?

Whoah, now!!

Just what gives Miss Biologist the "right" to "impose" her values on you?

What gives you, or me, or anyone else for that matter, the "right" to impose OUR values on her? "Rights" are "Good",... right?

Do you see what I'm getting at, here, or do I have to confuse you even more?

So it seems from where I sit, that in order to have any sense of permanance, continuity, or cohesion in a civilized Community, be it a Family or a Nation, that there have to be some foundational, commonly shared values and beliefs with which to evaluate and guage that which is in the common interest. And when one is out shopping for commonly held values and standards, about the only place I know of to start looking for it is in the Religion store.

It is no accident or function of simplistic, superstitious thinking on the part of the Founding Fathers of Democracy that it was assumed, and accordingly documented that natural Human Rights were not the gift of a benevolent Dictator, King, or Government, but were bestowed upon Humankind by it's "CREATOR". Now THERE's an assumption for you... or could it be "Faith"?

Although not nearly the Constitutional Scholar that many other Mudcatters have aquitted themselves to be, I get the distinct impression that not all of the Founders were particularly "Christian" by any means; Jefferson, I think, was Agnostic, and I seem to recall reading that a few were even Athiests.
Yet in their collective scholarly and moral wisdom, it seems that they aggreed on at least one thing; if a free Nation or a Free individual in good conscience and free agency chose not to beleive in "God", then it would behoove him/them/us to PRETEND in one!

Civilization assumes a certain commanality of language (remember the Tower of Babel story? No common language: no community) as well as basic shared values. "Diversity" can be a wonderful thing, I conceed... up to a certain point.

Surely we all are familiar with the term "Judeo-Christian Ethic"; see the religious/political connection, here?

Despite what happened in Europe in the '30s and '40s, I think that "Jews" and "Christians" (both terms subject to alternative interpretations, of course) by and large get along, generally speaking. We both recognize a major portion of "The Bible" as well as certain common ethical standards, such as those mentioned in the "Ten Commandments".

Our Laws tend to be a reflection of those standards; they become the standard of acceptable behaviour in the context of our respective communities, and thus become a reflection of our Culture.

So in a nutshell, we are not only what we eat, but what we beleive.

Hopefully, this might explain my advocacy of "Selective Conservatism" while expressing a rather "Absolute" conservancy in regards to the Constitution. I get a little nervous when people take rather speculative license with Scripture, too; let the lobsters grow as they will, but meddle not with the guage. Mainers will be able to pick up on that metaphor!

To be honestly "Conservative", then, in my humble opinion, implies that we honestly evaluate all available options, then retain that which is "good"; ie. consistent with the "standard" of goodness as defined by our culturally established benchmark standards of goodness, and reject or modify that which is not, or is contrary to the common good.   Change the shutters and repaint as we will, or must; but frig not with the foundation, and remove not the Cornerstone.   

So, as I see it, one may be both a "Conservative" and a "Progressive" at the same time, as long as we have a proper understanding of what our sails are for, what our anchor is for, and apply them appropriately, and with Wisdom.

May your Sails be full, and your Anchors hold, all in due season;
May the star of Eternal Light shine clear before ye, by which to steer along the Journey;
And may yer holds be filled with Joy, the scuppers running over with Peace.

Amen.