BS: Conservatism in the United States

Subject: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 10:42 PM

There is no doubt that the strongest facets of the conservative movement in this country are polemical, combative, and often loud. Buckley was the best they had, and his Eminence Grise of the Conservative movement role has been taken up as much by Rush Limbaugh as anyone -- a brilliant man, but one full of bile and anger, and one who thinks with more heat than light. Hannity is a wannabe, but as far as I can see he is just a mob-lasher whose highest qualifications are (1)sound and (2)fury.

But behind the clouds generated by the loud polemical arm-wavers, it cannot be doubted that there are many more quiet, perhaps even thoughtful souls, whose commitment is genuinely based on a dislike of government, a powerful belief in individual responsibility, a strong dislike of progressive taxation, and a conviction that America is the best nation in the world despite its flaws. A belief that I once shared, actually, prior to the neocon invasion. Oddly enough, Rush Limbaugh does not consider either Bush OR MCCain as a true conservative, which immediately tells you he has a more refined meaning in mind for the word.

Here at the Cat, of course, we tend to gravitate strongly toward democratic ideals of a liberal stamp, being attuned to the long history of labor, low-rent livin', desperate high-jinks, hard traveling and heartbreak that our musical tradition centers around. But individually, many of us are not pure pinko tree-hugging commie hippie beatnik bastards (a phrase that was taught to me by a Philadelphia police gentleman). We have some kind and reasonable folks who are distinctly right of center, and are much dismayed by some of the Republican Party's highjinks of the last few years.

ANd on specific philosophical issues, many of us also believe, for example, in the rock-bottom resource of individual responsibility, initiative, the entrepreneurial spirit, the incomparable importance of the American Experiment begun in 1776, and the value of preserving some aspects of the American Heritage.

I was particularly interested in a recent article in the TImes Magazine, a closeup of Rush Limbaugh himself.

SO I thought it might be worthwhile to ask what you see or know about the Conservative philosophy as she is spoke and as she is practiced , what it means to those who ally themselves with its banner. What is the belief system that informs a "conservative"?

My suspicion, FWIW, is that under the sturm und drang of the polarized beliefs of some, there is a core set of almost axiomatic agreements that form a more important common ground.

What do you know about the actual thoughts and practices of Conservatism?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Conservative...YES!!
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:08 AM

Amos,

Another point to be brought out is that while we call ourselves "Conservative" that doesn't automatically equate to voting republican.

Even though I agree with a lot of what Bush has done, there are some things that he has done and said that make me want to tie him to the oak tree and whip him with a wet noodle.

I do believe in less government interference and less taxes. I do believe in greater personal responsibility. I believe we need to do more about illegal aliens and of course the sanctity of life. We need to become energy independent but not at the cost of people such as you and me. If oil is the product which gets us to the future faster then let's drill for it wherever we can find it. Along the way, if a viable alternate solution is found then great!

Security is non-negotiable. We must do what is needed and sometimes use questionable means if it means that we can go into skyscrapers without the fear of getting up close and personal with a 767. I believe that it can be done while, at the same time, preserving the constitutional rights afforded to us.

The only difference is that how far are we willing to take these beliefs?

That is, as I see it, where our paths diverge.

But are our viewpoints really too far apart to try and discover any middle ground?

I'm sure that there is middle ground that can be found but the climate in D.C. is so polarized at this point that no one can seem to resist offering a soundbite to take a dig at their rival or rivals.

I think that being a true conservative means trying to win people to my way of thinking using logic and sensibility. (That's not saying that anybody that calls themself anything other than conservative isn't logical or sensible.) It's just that we hold strong to our convictions and are convinced that our ideas are the way to a better life.

Do I support McCain? No! I see McCain as a middle of the road pacifier. But who will I vote for? Probably McCain. People will undoubtedly point out that I pointed out in the above paragraph about holding strong to my convictions but I feel that a vote for an alternate to McCain is as good as a vote for Obama.

An Obama administration is something that I feel this country cannot afford. Not only fiscally but also socially and security wise.

But that's just my opinion.

Yes!!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:26 AM

Thanks, yes.

When you say "security is non-negotiable", is there some level of security you felt we once had at some point in the past which we do not have now? Islam extremism is definitely a more coherent face to what must have been a long simmering hatred. And I am not sure, if there is such a risk that wasn't present earlier, where it can be considered to be from. Osama bin Laden? All mullahs? All Muslims? What is the right target?

As to skyscrapers, I go into the local variety fairly often and the idea of a 747 coming through doesn't even cross my mind, in spite of the weird local flight path approaching Lindbergh Field. But I guess it is understandable if some folks still get the heeby-jeebies thinking about it. I do remember there was a time in the past when it didn't occur to m e to think of a fully-fueled aircraft as a weapon.

In tradiional political terms, these issues were not part of the word "conservative", as it applied to people in the EIsenhower administration, for example, so it also strikes me that these two words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have been grossly re-defined in recent times in order to make two entirely different sets or clumps than they ever denoted before.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Skivee
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:55 AM

""Conservative" and "Liberal" have been grossly re-defined in recent times in order to make two entirely different sets or clumps than they ever denoted before."
Right. It drives me nuts that political wonks and snipers distort their rivals positions so outragiously.
I just heard a Republican spokesman characterize Obama as having left no notable voting record except to support only the most extreme left wing positions.
We recently heard John MacCain's years of misery in a Vietnamese prison camp being mocked as an unnoteworthy thing.
The parties are gearing up to pitch a victory on either side as the beginning of a new dark age...gotta stir up the voters, right.
Either man will be an improvement over the unprincipled scoundrels in office now.
It's just this kind of polemic crap that makes folks LESS likely to vote.
Liberals and Conservatives should decry this crap at every turn. Let's take back the center.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:52 AM

Inherently, conservatism is about the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 04:22 AM

Richard:

I think some conservatives would say that liberals are about the reverse of that. But that;s part of the question. Does conservatism actually espouse such a thing in theory, or as an unintended consequence of other policies? Or not at all?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:14 AM

The isolationalist US oft loufly mouthed concepts of - left, right, conservative, liberal, etc often make the rest of the world fall over with laughter.

Subject: RE: Conservatism in the United States
From: Genie
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:34 AM

Unfortunately, today's US media tend to label anything done by Republicans, or by the likes of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Dubya, Reagan, etc., as "conservative" and just about anything espoused by the Democratic Party as "liberal" -- even though the terms often make no sense.

What is "conservative" about the Rehnquist SCOTUS agreeing to hear Bush v. Gore -- clearly a matter reserved in the Constitution for the states to decide -- and then deciding, on a this-time-only basis, in favor of halting the counting of votes?   

What is "conservative" about the Bush administration tossing out habeas corpus -- a right that goes back to the Magna Carta and is enshrined in the body of the US Constitution (not the Bill Of Rights) -- and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts crying "Foul!" when the other 5 Justices ruled that he can't do that?

What is "conservative" about selling off major portions of our national resources and infrastructure to foreign or non-national corporations?

What is "conservative" about violating international treaties (e.g., the Geneva Conventions) and callously disregarding such Constitutional protections as the 1st, 4th, and other Amendments?

I do not shrink from the word "liberal." In fact, I proudly embrace it. But I also proudly acknowledge that I am "conservative" -- especially in that I am not eager to disregard the US Constitution or other aspects of long-established law just because it may be financially or politically expedient at the moment.   I recognize, for instance, that Congress was deliberately designed to move rather slowly when it comes to making radical changes, that our tripartite Federal governmental structure with its checks and balances is there for very good reason.   I am just pissed at seeing an administration (and its stacked courts) running roughshod over long-established American traditions and rights and being labelled "conservative" by the media for doing so.

If "conservatism" means "smaller government," then the Bush 43 administration has failed that test in many ways. New, big-government agencies -- such as Dept. Of Homeland Security (largely bent on violating Constitutional prohibitions about unreasonable search and seizure, or protections of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaeable assemby for redress of grievances, etc.), Dept. of Faith-Based Initiatives (apparently undermining the separation of church and state), No Child Left Behind (What happened to states' rights and local control?) -- have mushroomed since 2001, grossly increasing the power of not only the Federal government but the Executive branch.

This new brand of "conservatives" honors "states rights" -- except when they don't. Oregon, California, and some other states passed laws permitting medical use of marijuana, by Dr.s' prescription. Oregon low now permits doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients in great pain.   California passed auto emission control laws more stringent than federal standards.   The Bush 43 administration has sought (mostly successfully) to override these state laws and pretty much any others they disagree with.

I blame the public at large, including most of the Democratic politicians, commentators, columnists, etc. -- for perpetuating this distorted perception. We have got to stop calling judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas "conservatives" or "strict constructionists" when their stated opinions give the lie to such labels. We must stop calling politicians or their positions "conservative" or "liberal" based on party affiliation and start paying attention to what those positions really represent.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Genie
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:38 AM

ETA: George W Bush may be a lot of things, but if Barry Goldwater knows we're still calling him a "conservative," he must be rolling over in agony and/or laughter in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Ref
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:14 AM

Limbaugh is less a conservative than an opportunist who uses jingoism, racism, and hyper-nationalism to sell whatever his sponsors are offering. The remnants at the National Review are callow prats compared to Buckley, who was himself a genteel racist and knee-jerk protector of the hereditarily wealthy and privileged.

I believe that there are respectable conservatives around. I am one myself on a slim few issues. The problem is that we're mostly really political eclectics, and those who want to make us subscribe to one narrow set of beliefs are snake-oil salesmen (or women!)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:23 AM

I will admit to having "conservative" thoughts now and then. At least my liberal friends would consider these conservative:

Like, maybe NAFTA isn't such a bad thing. Like, maybe giving jobs to Mexicans isn't such a bad thing. Don't they deserve to have jobs as much as we do?

Like, maybe Wal-Mart isn't the devil incarnate. Like, maybe providing cheap goods isn't such a bad thing.

Like, maybe buying books online (or at a superstore like Barnes & Noble) isn't such a bad thing, even if it means some independent bookstores are going out of business. Shouldn't new technologies, new distribution systems replace the old? Suppose our great-grandparents had opposed the development of the internal-combustion engine, on the grounds that it was putting independent horse-breeders out of business. Wouldn't they look pretty silly today?

Like maybe the progressive income-tax isn't all it's cracked up to be. Don't the rich have hundreds of ways of making their income tax-exempt anyway? How do we know we wouldn't be better off wiping the slate clean and starting over with a flat tax? You could meliorate its impact on the poor by having a large standard personal exemption and abolishing all other exemptions, deductions, shelters, subsidies, deferments, rebates, vouchers, whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if the rich would end up paying more under such a system than the one we have today. (Of course, such a system would have to go hand-in-hand with other reforms such as universal free health care.)

Like maybe nuclear power can be used in a safe way.

As I say, these are all "thoughts", not dogmatic opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:52 AM

I will get back to this when I don't have a day's worth of work to do but here is a quick thought...

Conservatives used to believe in fiscal responsibility yet most have been willing participants in voting for the wreckless Republicans since the days of Ronald Reagan, who for the record, was no hero in the dapartment of balenced budgets...

(But Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, Bobert, with his deficit spending for the military, didn't he???)

No, he didn't... He just happened to be at the right place at the right time as the USSR started to unravel... That was going to happen because of internal problems within the USSR and nothing to do with Reagan's "Just Say Charge It" fiscal policy...

For the life of me, I can't beleive that conservatives sit idly by as one Repub after another thinks that running up big deficits is sound policy???

These days, y6ou'll find more "liberals" that understand fiscal responsibilty that so-called conservative???

More later... The boss lady (the P-Vine) says that if I don't get my butt in gear then she gonna find a new place for this computer... Speaking of "butts", that is... Ouch...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 09:18 AM

"Conservative", of course, is as much a finger-pointing label as "Liberal"...except that those doing the pointing tend to use the one in a positive context and the other negatively - i.e., "Me Conservative, I good - you Liberal, you bad". I rarely hear people who would self-describe as "Liberal" saying, "You Conservative shit-bird, you". Whether or not either word can be restored to its former place is unfortunately as likely as "gay" ever meaning happy and cheerful again.

To me, small-c conservative has connotations of introspection and a purposely restricted outlook. I don't mean that in a negative sense. This is the sort of person who cares more for his own family and community than for someone else that he will never meet; he is environmentally conscious, but may be less concerned with the impacts upon environment that are far away. His concern over illegal migration is more focused on how that will change the local community than anything else and his basic objection to the welfare system as it currently exists in the US is more that his taxes are being used to maintain someone else someplace else than anything else.

On the third hand, Amos asked what do you know about the actual thoughts and practices of Conservatism? The Limbaughs, Colters, Imuses and the other shock jocks have defined the term, just as they have redefined "Liberal". I suspect that there are about as many true believers in that kind of Conservatism (as opposed to those individuals who believe whatever the tube told them most recently) as there are in their definition of Liberalism - and they could all be fit into a school bus to fight it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 09:45 AM

Foolestroupe .... I agree, well said, and so true !

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 09:49 AM

'i.e., "Me Conservative, I good - you Liberal, you bad". I rarely hear people who would self-describe as "Liberal" saying, "You Conservative shit-bird, you".'

You've never listened to Randi Rhodes or Ed Schultz or Al Franken have you? You've never even read posts here at Mudcat about Ann Coulter or the Dick Cheney or conservatives generally. But you're correct, I have never heard Liberals (L or l) use the word "shit-bird".

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:43 AM

conservo

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,I Was Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:20 AM

Inherently,liberalism is about the freedom of the weak to exploit the strong, and to reward the inept.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:40 AM

Well, LKH, that is not in in keeping with any definition Ihave ever heard of the word "liberal", which as you probably know derives from the word "liber", and implies a respect for the freedom of others.

The problem is that your use of the word seems to have been infected witht he plague of political redefinition as launched by Coulter, Limbaugh and Hannity. The word has no such meaning.

Let me pose the question another way. Is it a valid tenet of Conservative philosophy that misery is always and solely the result of ineptitude on the part of the miserable? What are the conservative guidelines for compassion toward people who are in misery because they are poor, hungry, homeless, wounded in war, or otherwise squashed by their encounters with the world? Is there something besides blame or "personal responsibility" to offer?

How does the Conservative Manifesto guide you in regard to extreme imbalances in economic profiles such as presently occurs in our economy?

ANd a related question -- is ruthlessness in pursuit of profit an enlightened precept? And if so, is absolute ruthelssness in pursuit of unlimited profit moreso?

ANother face of the same question: is "the whole and only purpose of busienss is to make money" actually a true statement (regardless of its popularity as an MBA mantra), or does it need a qualifier with respect to the quality of what business does to make money? (Another way to ask this is whether there are any other "goodness" indexes for business besides profits for one month, or one quarter).

THese are all underlying mysteries in my mind with respect to how the conservative philosophy (if there is one thing that coudl be called that) actually goes.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:57 AM

"We need to become energy independent but not at the cost of people such as you and me. " Conservative Yes

I have to ask: What in the world does "people such as you and me" mean?

I agree most fully with Genie; I think her essay was/is thoughtful, coherent and above all, correct.

i have some good friends who describe themselves as conservative and yes, Republican. However, in no way do they recognize the current administration as either of those things. They feel that the Republican party has been hijacked and distorted into something it never was nor was ever meant to be.

Thank you, Amos, for this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: MarkS
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:09 PM

Interesting post. By current standards, somebody whose position today would be defined as conservative would be JFK. Look at his speeches and actions on taxation and military strength.

My point is that conservatism is a moving target as far as definition is concerned. I also have no doubt that many members here quite proudly consider themselves liberal, but if asked about a given issue affecting their personal lives, I bet most would want to take the "conservative" path!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:23 PM

Thank you for that assessment Marks; it's right-on (to use an old vernacular) as far as it goes. 'Liberal' is a moving target also--inexorably to the left.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:29 PM

IMO, what folks have to do on a National scale is decide what KIND of country you wish to have. It would be a good study for people to undertake. Cost millions, but imo worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Goose Gander
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:49 PM

The term is too broad to have any useful meaning anymore. Most American so-called 'conservatives' believe in free trade, lassiez faire capitalism, etc. This point of view in nineteenth-century Europe, however, was called Liberalism. Conservatism, defined by Edmund Burke and others, refers to a belief in the advantages of a stable society, hierarchies of rank, maintenance of custom over innovation, etc. I suppose you might find a few such individuals yet in Europe. In the United States, someone who calls himself a conservative may espouse such ideas (Pat Buchanan, for example). Or he might argue for the exact opposite (Michael Ledeen). These two men have nothing in common, yet both are called conservatives (OK, Ledeen sometimes is called a 'neo-conservative' but I think he rejects this label).

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:03 PM

An interesting dialogue with Noam Chomsky.


Anyway, this raises an interesting point. If, as we seem to be saying here, th elabels Liberal and Conservative in modern paralnce have lost their traditional meaning and been cast adrift from any specific revised meaning, then we have to ask "what is the actual target of the anger expressed by people against "liberals" or against "conservatives"? Two possibilities present themselves as first approximations: one, that the actual target is a set of attributes (not yet defined) which the peson associates with the term--for example, Ann COulter associates the word liberal with socialistic irresponsibility or some such attribute. Two, that the polarity which is being so vehemently and vociferously articulated by the polemicists is not in fact about anything, but is an artifice generated for some other reason. For example, it may serve one group A to create the apparancy that two other groups B and C should hate each other, because that allows the original group A to avoid attention.

I am inclined toward the latter explanation, except that I can't quite identify group A. ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Bee
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:11 PM

"Let me pose the question another way. Is it a valid tenet of Conservative philosophy that misery is always and solely the result of ineptitude on the part of the miserable? What are the conservative guidelines for compassion toward people who are in misery because they are poor, hungry, homeless, wounded in war, or otherwise squashed by their encounters with the world? Is there something besides blame or "personal responsibility" to offer?" - Amos

I'd like to see an answer to this question as well. Every self-identified strong Conservative or Libertarian I've debated seems convinced that the poor are poor because they are lazy, inept, or immoral, and if that is astoundingly not the case, then they should go ask for help from the nearest church, as nobody else owes them a living, though their children rot by the roadside, it is no concern of the conservative whose children have been morally provided for by their responsible parents.

Yet they conversely seem to have no desire to see the wealthy who are immoral, lazy or inept suffer the same fate, and will cry out at the idea of taxes being heaped on these same, who often are wealthy only because of birth with silver spoon in gob.

Libertarians, in fact, at least the ones I have debated, and who frankly appear to be exaggerated economic conservatives, seem to hold views which if actually implemented would lead to modern feudalism, with privately hired local work-gangs of the poor toiling over road repair and working, with no collective protection from employer excess or failure to provide safe conditions, the harvests for the local lords of lucre.

I find it an appalling vision, and exaggerated as it may be, it is an endpoint of the direction most self-described conservatives of the American breed seem willing and eager to follow. It is an every man for himself philosophy, let the women and children fall behind where they may, and damn the poor as evil fools.

I would really like to see some conservative philosophy that addresses this perception of conservatism as cruel, cold, and selfish. "I give to charity" is not an answer: most charities are not actually very good at helping the poor outside providing a meal and a suit of second-hand clothes, and then only within the narrow realm of their own belief system.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:47 PM

I think most people who call themselves "Conservatives" are not at all conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 02:27 PM

"For example, it may serve one group A to create the apparancy that two other groups B and C should hate each other, because that allows the original group A to avoid attention.

I am inclined toward the latter explanation, except that I can't quite identify group A. ;>)

Dwight D Eisenhower, in his farewell address at the end of his two-term Presidency, coined a phrase to name "group A" way back when it was just beginnning to form up and solidify its economic and political power: the Military-Industrial Complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:20 PM

"Let me pose the question another way. Is it a valid tenet of Conservative philosophy that misery is always and solely the result of ineptitude on the part of the miserable?

no

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Bee
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:25 PM

John H, that is not very forthcoming. If you consider yourself a 'classic' conservative, then what do you think about the problem of have-nots, and what solutions does conservative philosophy offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:52 PM

Bee,

Conservative philosophy can't be distilled to bumper sticker length.

In the past I've written extensively (on the mudcat) about how I see things. I'm not a terribly concise writer. Sometimes that's okay. In this case it's not, as I've learned that my posts fall into two categories -- 1. not read, or 2. purposely misunderstood. Thus, I've been trained not to waste lots of keypad time here.

I've read many, many of your posts. Many I've enjoyed. Many I've disagreed with. But I'm pretty sure you know all you want to know of conservative philosophy.

"...still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM

The major drawback of what is now called "conservatism" in the United States is that it dates back to Ronald Reagan's shell game. The major tenet of the current religion of conservatism, taxes are bad, spending is bad, is based upon a lie. A lie that George H. W. Bush called "Voodoo Economics" and he was quite right to do so. There is no evidence that tax cuts to the rich are an economic engine. There is long standing evidence that deficit spending is a growth engine. The people that laud Reagan's ideas forget that he did both. He spent billions on military boondogles at the same time he cut taxes. Bush II did the same thing and the actions of both lead to hard times for the economy near the end of their terms.

Good Government is necessary in a society this size. A real conservative realizes that and is against bad government.

A real conservative is against corporate welfare and subsidies more that personal welfare because corporate welfare leads to corruption.   

A real conservative is against corruption.

A real conservative, believes in conservation and does not commute in a hummer. There is an old and perfectly good description for someone who conspicuously hordes and wastes resources like that. It is "selfishness", not conservatism. People who point that out are often called "liberals" when they in fact are more conservative and simply brutally honest and outspoken.

A "Conservative talk show host" such as Limbaugh is someone with a mass audience who tells selfish people what they want to hear.

Most people in this country, who think that they are conservatives simply selfish or are people who have been hoodwinked by the Republicans and by corporate media.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:19 PM

"...it cannot be doubted that there are many more quiet, perhaps even thoughtful (conservatives) whose commitment is genuinely based on a dislike of government, a powerful belief in individual responsibility..."


                         This is the part I find so laughable. They profess to dislike government, and they profess to be individualistic, but then they band together in churches and armies and run around like sheep!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:26 PM

To "hate government" and to "support the troops" are mutually exclusive. Obviously not all government is hated.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:00 PM

The term "conservative" means to me a cautious approach to economics, government and society in general. This reactionary radical-right Administration is anything but conservative but profligate and greedy.

I think the "liberal" world view is different from the traditional "conservative" in that (as George Lakoff has ably pointed out) the "liberal" is more given to a "nurturing" approach and the "conservative" tends toward the "authoritarian".

A nurturing view would place value on helping society and those less fortunate by assigning some of the help to government.

An authoritarian view would emphasize less independent thought and more reliance on leadership. It would place a value on individual gain at the expense of society rather than a contributor to it.

We have seen the fruits of "authoritarianism" and it hasn't worked very well in the last decade. The "me first" at the expense of the "law of the commons" has reduced our government to corrupting influences and the privatization of corporations who tend to be insular and protective of their resources. We have street people, crime, fraud in the home mortgage industry, the deterioration of our public schools, needless wars, gas price gouging by oil companies, mercenary armies that do damage to our image abroad and aggravate international problems, elimination of important government programs to aid the shrinking middle class and the new emerging class of the "working poor". We see unreasonable opulence at the top of our economic ladder which robs the American people through taxation as the money travels upward. A lot of these policies can be attributed to the new Leo Strauss definition of "conservatism" or "neo-cons".

Wal-Mart is an example of selling shoddy material from China (with lead-based product) that panders to the less affluent Americans while their corporation reaps the money. Trade unionism which used to protect the working American has been gutted by the "authoritarians" in government and private enterprise. "Authoritarianism" has led the US to the new "Gilded Age" of robber barons and Wall Street con men. In short, the "conservative" agenda as "authoritarian" is not good for our country. Unfortunately men like McCain reflect this world view.

I don't know where Obama will go. Will he run to the "right" and embrace the authoritarian viewpoint? I worry about his Faith-based initiatives and the problems it sets for the First Amendment of the Constitution. I worry that he is pro-military and wants more soldiers in the Mid-east. (This is definitely an authoritarian approach).

Both John Dean and George Lakoff have addressed this issue of world view in detail. I recommend those who are interested to check these men on the internet.

What is called "conservatism" today in the US is harmful for our country. I don't think this is what was originally meant by the term.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:54 PM

Please remember, this is meant to be philosophical in nature. In my opinion, liberals have as much trouble as conservatives in "fleshing out" their beliefs in the current political atmosphere of professional politicians whose first interest is their own political status and power. Though I do believe there are more true liberal politicians than conservative ones (philosophically speaking. For one thing, if they didn't already lean toward a strong belief in governmental solutions to life's problems they probably wouldn't have been as likely to make gov't their life's work), they can no more act on their liberal impulses than can the conservative ones. Often this is because *what they believe* needs to be couched in rhetoric that ultimately ends up being self-defeating.

I think that, first and foremost, Liberalism is about righting inequities in the world. In its current form, Liberalism focuses most of its energy in this regard in trying to use or structure government to serve this purpose.

Economically….

If there is a phrase that might sum up the driving force behind liberalism as it philosophically approaches economics it would be – It is morally (more on "morally" later) unacceptable for anyone to have what he wants if there is one person who does not have what he needs.

In reality though (when facing the practical application of that desire), liberals understand that (for instance) if you were able to one day liquidate all assets in the country, and redistribute the "wealth" absolutely evenly, there would really be no equalization at all (that's why they're "liberals" not "socialists" *BG*). The resultant "wealth" distributed would be essentially worthless, and those with the skills and knowledge would almost instantly rise above again.

Sure, there might be some short term satisfaction in the financial undoing of those who had to forfeit wealth that had long-since lost any recognizable connection between the possessors of it, and the productivity required to earn it – but the resultant escalation of the poverty of the lowest brackets would make this solution ultimately untenable.

But, though liberals understand that economies are more truly based on productivity, not money, they differ from conservatives in the degree to which they believe it possible for a nation's economy to grow. Specifically, liberals tend to believe that (though liberals vary on where they think the limit is) growth is finite. It is finite if for no other reason than dwindling resources.

As with any philosophy, concepts interact, fold in on each other, and/or build on each other as one assumption necessarily shades the view of anything to which it relates. Because of this, from here on this essay will begin to spiral round and round as one assumption causes me to address other issues it touches.


The dwindling resources thingy – because liberals believe that resources are limited, this assumption is at least one (if a minor one) that the liberal is usually perceived as more ecologically concerned. There's only one Earth......we don't know how long mankind is going to have to make its resources stretch in order to ensure our ability to survive.

Further, as the resources of the planet dwindle – EVEN IF liberals granted conservatives the naive notion that market demands are the only limitation on economic growth – that economic growth is not in mankind's best interest. Try selling that notion as a means of getting elected to public office...

..."Yes, and if elected, I promise to ensure economic slowdown in order to preserve precious resources for humankind yet to be born!"

The dwindling resources thingy also informs their POV as regards abortion – its continuing availability, as well as who has access to it. This is one of the stickiest wickets in the whole liberal mind. It is so very unlikely to have political success while at the same time trying to express that, if the world keeps expanding in human NEED, the dwindling available resources are; 1. Going to cause a very painful demise of the human race, and 2. Going to dwindle in a very inefficient manner as the least contributing, least productive segments of the population are also the most indiscriminate or irresponsible about reproducing. That very thought is too close to being able to be demagogued as a form of genocide, rather than a cold, hard reality that is eventually going to have to be dealt with – if not with unborn children (who are, beyond argument, not "personalities" yet), then with living, walkin' 'round folks like you and me.

...back to economically....

another reason liberals believe in a finite economy is that, for the conservative model of continuing productivity to actually work in the real world, there would have to be so many fewer irregularities in the ratio of productivity to wealth-earnings. The conservative model is, after all, a behaviorist notion – that a freer market will necessarily reward behaviors that are valuable to the community of man.

In reality, though liberals know there may be a slight corollary between ambition and wealth, it doesn't take a real astute observer to note that the wealthy folks we know don't work any harder that we.

Liberals may also admit that, though there is also a slight corollary between sloth and other self-destructive lifestyles and poverty, this too is too irregular to draw any conclusions. Furthermore, most of the life-style choices that may have a limiting effect on one's productivity, or ability to contribute to society, are not really "choices". They are instead, far more tied to one's economic status from birth – thus, it is doubly cruel to ask of these underpriviledged to pay the price of society's inability to help them rise above the circumstances that were society's fault in the first place...

...and if forced to choose between easing the pain of the poor in his undeserving circumstances, and the unearned wealthy, the liberal will choose to err on the side of making the poor's plight less uncomfortable -- and gamble that the economy, though limited, will always have enough selfish, solipsistic, money grubbing capitalists who won't be discouraged in their aggressive ambition to have more, to be able to produce enough for both themselves and the poor.

If just the upper 5% of income earners would be willing to give up a few year's earnings to the needy – they'd still be wealthy, and the poor would have no need.

Liberals have a very realistic view of a world that necessitates an ever-changing "morality". Right and wrong are necessarily subjective, and must be agreed upon by each culture – and even then they don't really define "right and wrong" – not in and objective way. Instead, what they do define is what a culture can be made to believe is, 1. perhaps in their collective self-interest, 2. A workable model to create a culture in which the right people can fulfill what they believe to be worthwhile objectives.

This is one reason why there is a sort of natural enmity between liberalism and any religion which may be; 1. A visible presence in their society, and 2. revelatory in its foundations. As long as a religion understands that it has no basis for belief that its tenets are objective truth, a society can tolerate their presence. In fact, religions that understand that all religions (including their own) are equally "*objective truth* and *objective reality* challenged", they are welcome to participate in society as a positive contributor – after all, the myths (thank you Moyers) of religions have a pretty tolerable historical track record for driving the religious toward doing what may actually, at times, be positive contributions to society.

The pro choice aspect of liberalism is based on righting inequities too. It is an inequity of nature that only one half of the species is saddled with the birth of the children when, in fact, both are complicit in its conception. The reason that liberals bristle at the pro-life assertion that a woman does have choice – the choice to have or not have sex – is fairly complicated.

In part the notion of choosing or not choosing sex as a starting point for the argument is problematic because, as animals, man is not capable of that choice. Man is a sexual being. Any restrictions on this behavior generally stems from vestigal notions imposed on society at a time when religion DID overstep its bounds and forced society to these restrictions when they didn't understand they were based on a subjective reality. We don't need to go back to that.

Furthermore, the sexual activity is going to continue. That is a practical, pragmatic reality, and it demands a like solution.

The older liberal argument that nobody should be able to tell a woman what she can do with her body is somewhat losing ground among many of the more thoughtful liberals I know. It is still a useful rhetorical argument but the woman's body is not really the issue and it sort of embarrasses some of the liberals I know when it's used.

Another argument that has fallen into disuse by liberals (at least ones I've discussed the issue with) is the notion that, because the fetus cannot survive on its own, it has no rights to protect. It was too easily demagogued to point out that babies cannot survive on their own either.

As to the partial birth abortion issue – there are fewer liberals who agree with this practice (I mean among otherwise pro-choice folk). This is another political hot potato because, in reality the main issue is a quality of life issue for the fetus. When the AMA came out with the official statement that there was no case where this procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother (that was a hard sell anyway – the mother goes through the entirety of the birthing process in the procedure). The "Right" wants to characterize this as an abortion of "convenience" but let them accept the "inconvenience" of the severely malformed. Is total financial ruin merely "inconvenience"?

Philosophically, the abortion issue is one that must be decided, as with other "moral" issues, on an individual basis. Religious notions of "personhood" of the fetus are subjective figments of their mythology and cannot be impressed on one who does not share that view.
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888


Conservatives believe (to a greater degree than "liberals") that economic health is based on productivity, not money -- and that, therefore the possible size of the economy is not as strictly limited (in other words, more simply, the economy is not a "pie" to be divided. It is a growing thing of indeterminate size)...
...and in a related manner, believe that when economies are tied down by people with the intent (however honorable) to make sure that some don't have too much -- the poor are the first to suffer.

Conservatives believe in constitutionally limited Government -- that's what the constitution does -- limits government.

Conservatives don't think there is anything inherently wrong with allowing market forces to reward ambition and worthy pursuits -- for instance, the fact that a man can increase his personal wealth by inventing something of value to society, that is seen by a conservative as a good thing -- not exploitation. It doesn't mean that conservatives don't believe that law is necessary to make sure immoral business practices don't occur.

Conservatives believe (to a greater extent than "liberals") that the federal government is too wieldy to be an effective tool to address local concerns as well as more local governments might...

...in a related vein -- they also believe that federal government, when too expansive, is too hard to police/keep tabs on/keep from corrupting....

...and in another related manner, conservatives believe (TAGET"L") that the odds are that the more centralized Government becomes, the more likely the "Peter Principle" is to take effect (people are promoted to the level of their incompetence) -- thus the country is left governed by the few -- and the few that are not necessarily competent...

...and in yet another related manner, you may be surprised at how many that are conservative regarding federal programs are considerably liberal concerning more local social programs (where they can actually participate).

Conservatives tend to see inherent, unintended unfairnesses in well-meaning federal programs, and don't, therefore, judge the value of a program on its intent, rather, they tend to judge a program on its success.

Conservatives are against affirmative action as a fix, not because they are racist -- rather because affirmative action is repugnantly racist in its assertion that a class or race of people is inherently ill-equipped to compete in an open market...
...and in a related manner, conservatives are willing to suggest that, while many (regardless of race) are in need of assistance, that assistance is given at some risk -- that what is supported (a non-productive lifestyle) will remain static when institutionalized, or even multiply in need.

Conservatives believe (TAGET"L") that the major role of FEDERAL government is national security -- a military. But the conservatives I know are more likely to shade to an isolationist view internationally. If they are inclined to engage militarily it is philosophically tied to security/defense.

"Social" Conservatives (and this now would tend to exclude the more libertarian-leaning) believe in the absolute right of a woman to choose -- to have or not have sex. That, among other reasons, is why a social conservative will tend to believe in stronger punishments for crimes like rape. But once there is a pregnancy involved the social conservative tends to believe that the burden of proof (of whether or not the baby is a human or not) for the right to kill the life is on the one wishing to do the killing, not on the baby to make its own defense.

Most "social" conservatives still make allowances for abortion in cases of rape or incest and allow as how this is not philosophically inconsistant because the woman did not comply in the choice to concieve, and so therefore should not be forced to bear the risk and liability incurred by what was not her choice.

Social conservatives are generally, philosophically for capital punishment with due process. This is not inconsistent with a pro-life stance because they assume a difference between the innocent life of a baby (who has made no choices legal or ill, made no judgements wise or un, made no social missteps calculated or non) and a criminal, judged by a jury of his peers, who has shown an unwillingness to live within a social norm that does value life.

Oh, and the conservatives I know don't believe in capital punishment because we are superior (intellectually, genetically, or any other way) to the criminal -- it is because we understand ourselves to be the same as any criminal and wish to make it less likely that we would act upon our baser instincts.

Many social conservatives are changing their minds on the capital punishment issue, not philosophically, but pragmatically, as it becomes increasingly more appearent that the pool of jurors avaiable for trials is incable of the logical thought process necessary to pass such a grave judgement (think OJ or Menendez).

Many conservatives are leading a movement away from the incarceration of non-violent criminals and, if it were possible to enact a viable program to work out having criminals repay their victims rather than serve time (which does nobody any good and only "trains" a better, smarter criminal), would vote for it tomorrow.

Finally, this is meant to be a philosophical discussion. Pragmatically, finding ways of politically expessing a "conservative" philosophy in a political atmosphere of few, if any, purely conservative politicians to vote for, leads to compromises through a maze that rarely ends up anywhere near purity.

just my humble opinions and observations

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Genie
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:12 PM

Bobert, you said, "Conservatives used to believe in fiscal responsibility yet most have been willing participants in voting for the wreckless Republicans since the days of Ronald Reagan, who for the record, was no hero in the dapartment of balenced budgets..."

The fiscal policies of the Bush administration have been reckless, not wreckless. ; )

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Genie
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:33 PM

"Liberal is a moving target -- inexorably to the left."

Seems rather circular, and basically meaningless, since the terms "left" and "right" came from the seating positions of "liberal" and "conservative" parties in an erstwhile Parliament, didn't they?   

In my H. S. and college civics and political science classes, I remember "liberals" being described as favoring little governmental intrusion into areas of personal behavior (e.g., "personal morality," expression, association, sexual behavior) but a substantial governnmental (collective democratic) role in regulating "the commons" -- including protecting citizens from being abused or exploited by others. "Conservatives" were said, basically, to favor the opposite: governmental (community standards) regulation of private individual behavior (e.g., "vice" laws) but little or no governmental regulation of business or commerce.   "Libertarians" were described as those who favored little governmental intrustion into either private or public affairs.   
But "conservative" also means holding onto tradition and established law and principles. It's this latter aspect that I find absent in the views of some highly visible media bigshots today who call themselves "conservatives."

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Genie
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:42 PM

John on the Sunset Coast, it's true that a few "progressives" in the media sometimes use the term "conservative" as a pejorative -- and I wish they would not.   But they are not the only ones perpetuating the misuse of terms.   The "mainstream media" also often say things like "John McCain says he would appoint judges like Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, but Democrats would oppose conservative judges such as those."    What "progressives" usually mean when they express contempt for people like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, etc., is that they totally detest the policies espoused by such people -- people we've become accustomed, by laziness and habit, to calling "conservative."    Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, and many other liberal talk show hosts express a good deal of respect for true conservatives such as Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley, and even, in some cases, Pat Buchanan.    What they truly detest is something quite different from true "conservatism."

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:46 PM

Your thoughtful views are greatly appreciated. I will add some more in a while. Thanks for contiributing to an interesting thread on a deep puzzle.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 09:17 PM

There are precious few self identified "liberals" in this country. The people at the left end of the spectrum call themselves progressives. The people that the greed mongers call "liberals" is anyone who tries to insert come common sense into the discussion or to further any interest that isn't friendly to the hegemony of the corporate and monied elites. A teacher would be a fool if he or she would not be in a union if they could. That doesn't make them liberal. They are just looking out for their own interests. Yet a Limbaugh would call them liberal. Please also note that for years the word liberal has been exploited by empty headed echo chambers like Limbaugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:11 PM

"The fiscal policies of the Bush administration have been reckless, not wreckless"

Ah - And I thought it was not a typo... makes more sense that way anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:15 PM

I became one of something of a captive audience for a local self-proclaimed conservative businessman for a while a few days ago. He explained how the communists couldn't destroy America by force from the outside, so they succeeded in doing so from within, by unionism. I was so glad to learn this basic truth; now I can at least understand the root of all our problems....

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:40 PM

It seems to me like one of the things that has happened works like this: The Republicans, for some short term political gain, will take a position on an issue, then the Democrats will take the opposite position, for no rational reason. Some time later, the Democrats will take a position on an issue, and the Republicans will react in kind. So, over a period of time, nothing either party does makes any sense to a rational observer.

                Nothing points this out like the issue of illegal immigration. The Democrats should be opposed to illegal immigration because it drives down the value of the wages of working Americans. The Republicans should be in favor of illegal immigration for the very same reason. But Democrats seem to encourage illegal immigration, while Republicans are finally beginning to take a stand against it.

                There are number of issues like this, many of which could certainly be straightened out if America simply had a strong third party.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:42 PM

With all due respect Genie, what you have said to me is a "some of my best friends are..." type of argument. Sure, and I like old dead liberals, Truman and Kennedy, you say today's liberals like Barry Goldwater--in fact,I missed by three days being able to vote for JFK. What does that prove or even mean? Conservatives should be old-type conservatives, and liberals should be old-type liberals. Well, I believe, that when all is said and done, if the latter were the case, so would the former.

BTW, if I were a Democrat. I would like a Goldwater-type. He suffered the largest Republican presidential defeat of my memory. An old joke comes back to me from the Viet-Nam era, altho' I don't remember the source. ---They told me if I voted for Goldwater that we'd expand the war in Viet-Nam. Well I did vote for Barry, and we did expand the war in Viet-Nam.---

Nobody I've heard on the liberal side has ever said a positive word about Buchanan. If they have, it does them no credit that they admire a man that William F. Buckley, in print, said, in effect, that it was hard not to consider Buchanan (or his views) anti-Semitic. He is the most right wing of conservatives I can think on nearly every issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:56 PM

John ardly:

A thoughtful dissertation on what may be the core undersanding of genuine conservatism. But what is "TAGET "L", which is sprinkled here and there in your piece?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Janie
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 01:06 AM

Some illuminating posts here so far, the vast majority very thoughtful.

John Hardly, I just want to say that I usually find your writing to be particularly clear and articulate., and I appreciate that you have decided to post here.    You nearly always provide substantial "food for thought."    Your thinking generally strikes me as leaning toward the libertarian direction of conservative philosophy.

Thanks for starting this thread, Amos. I look forward to reading more as it develops, and hope that it remains thoughtful and erudite.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 02:29 AM

Amos...Read your first two post....I agree as well!...I just don't believe, as you know, that the two parties themselves, are in touch with the consensus of the American people, and they suck us into, the disputes between themselves, that have brought us to where we are now, and their agendas are what brought us here!!!...and mostly due to their corruption!!

    I don't see either of the candidates are, either trustworthy, nor competent to get my vote, or support,.....that's all. The way I see it, I don't think that is so wrong. You are saying pretty much the same thing, in your first two posts, just arrive to a little difference,as to thinking either side is going to do it. Nor due I think being a good American, is to think soley on the junk they are shoving down our throats, to think about....when it is, neither patriotic, nor constitutional.

    I'm just a little wary, of what they're going to 'sell' us to remedy, the trouble they bought to us, in the first place. I just don't trust them!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 02:43 AM

"A srong 3rd party"

Anything other than 2 is pointless in a first past the post non-preferential system.

And those who want The Circus to keep distracting the populace know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 08:25 AM

Thanks, Janie.

Amos, (TAGET"L") was my acronym to shorten "(to a greater extent than liberals)". It was lazy of me, but...

1. I didn't want to write it out with each point, and

2. I didn't want to leave it out because, as I see it, nobody is entirely conservative or liberal -- we merely fit somewhere on that scale. Liberals, even if begrudgingly, have to admit the reality of market forces. They may draw different conclusions, but they know that if there is no productivity, there will be no funds to grow the government with which they hope to engineer society.

And conservatives, even if begrudgingly, have to admit that once a principle is forfeited and a government program makes people dependent upon it, they must, henceforth, figure out some way to sustain that program (for humanitarian reasons).

Nobody gets to have it their way. Nobody in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatism in the United States
From: Bee
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 11:05 AM

John H, I enjoy quite a few of your posts as well, and that long conservative/liberal philosophy post is extremely interesting and does answer some puzzling questions.

You might consider, when reading my more political posts, that I live in Canada. Conservative and Liberal here, as well as philosophies, are mainstream political parties. Our present Conservative government is more 'conservative' than were the old Progressive Conservatives whose party imploded a few years back. The Liberal party here is almost as 'conservative' as the so-called Conservative government party.

However, both parties are far more 'liberal' than the US Democratic party, certainly by the standards of your post, and certainly by the results we see south of the border. This is why some Canadians, particularly those of us with even more socialist philosophies than our Liberals and Conservatives, and I am one of them, really do find it confusing to sort out the American political philosophy behind the great piles of bombastic flag-waving rhetoric of your politicians and media figures.

I think it is a mistake for either Canadians or Americans to think that we are really philosophically similar. Certainly there is some overlap, in that we (Canadians) have a conservative minority in our population that would support anti-abortion legislation, a return to the death penalty, banning of ss marriage, more health care privatization, and less red tape wrt gun ownership. But that minority is far too small to take a federal party to power, and in fact has proved to be a liability for the present government, which having some of these types in party ranks, has had to continually put out small fires when one of its members has been outspoken about such views.

None of our parties in reality support a smaller federal government with less control over provinces and territories. Nevertheless, provinces do have considerable independence in certain areas. Health care, for example, must meet federal standards, but the system is administrated by individual provinces, and social services are almost entirely handled provincially and to some extent by municipalities, as is infrastructure.

All this just to try to explain why American conservatism has been difficult for me to grasp, as the philosophy behind it is mostly alien to the political system I've spent my life with.