I’ve been trying to get to the sine qua non of being a conservative — part of which is not using snooty language like that but I am what I am — and I saw a post in a National Review blog that referenced a column which led me back to National Review to an article Ronald Reagan wrote on December 1st, 1964 reacting to the loss of Goldwater. Quote Reagan on conservatives:
We represent the forgotten American — that simple soul who goes to work, bucks for a raise, takes out insurance, pays for his kids’ schooling, contributes to his church and charity and knows there just “ain’t no such thing as free lunch.”
I like the TANSTAAFL thrown in at the end (for the record, I believe this was a couple years before The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress was published). That’s going to be an important principle in the years ahead as the Democratic Congress and President Obama try to play Santa Claus. Don’t even let them start talking about “free” health care.
So, you’re probably asking, “Where does space lasers and dinosaurs with rocket launchers fit into Reagan’s vision of a conservative?”
Good question. A big part of conservatism is making government stand out of the way of human potential. Without that weight, there is no limit to what we can achieve. That leads to the pure awesomeness of things like dinosaurs with rocket launchers. This will also be an important principle in the years ahead. While the Democrats talk about old tired socialist crap, we need to talk pure awesomeness and kick-assery. We need to give the American people a vision of America surrounded by awesome explosions in other countries. When you lead with a vision of awesomeness, people will follow. Just ask Reagan.
Moon was published in 66 i think, I wonder if the Godfather of SciFi got it from Reagan. Moon is one of my fav’s from Heinlein.
TANSTAAFL is a big part of conservatism. But I think you’re missing a concept, Frank, and that is that conservatism and libertarianism are intermixed and overlapped.
– Minimal government
– Personal virtue
– Individual rights
– If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
Conservatives would rather keep a flawed system in place because it’s mostly OK, while liberals see only the flaws and want to throw out the whole system and try something else, regardless of whether it will be better or not.
The logic of the bailout bill is a perfect example:
Also, conservatives recognize that there is injustice in the world, but don’t believe that one person having more than another is evidence of it.
That was incoherent. The libertarian vs conservative point is that a many of us are mostly libertarians like RAH, but we have no stomach for the stupid lunactivism on the left and we think life begins at conception. The lunactivism repels us from most of the liberal causes. There is a conflict over abortion, because we believe the individual owns his or her own body, and the right to life is fundamental. For me, the belief that life begins at conception means that I want to defend the right to life more than a woman’s right to control the inner workings of her own body.
So there is often a conflict for me between the libertarian way of looking at things, in terms of personal liberty, and the conservative way of looking at things, and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To throw all of this into contrast, note that Barack Obama was so intent and wearing such liberal blinders that to preserve abortion rights he was willing to vote for infanticide. When your ideology leads you to a logical contradiction, it’s probably time to reevaluate it.
This is a question I’ve been trying to nail down myself, as well as the corollary, “What is a Liberal?” So far, one of the best articles I’ve found on the subject is a rather long one by Walter Russel Mead: http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html
This website is pure Jacksonian. Maybe even, like, hyper-Jacksonian. Ol’ Hickory would definitely approve of dinosaurs with rocket launchers.
The main difference between Conservatives and Ron Paul style Libertarians (ie, Jacksonians and Jeffersonians) is that Libertarians/Jeffersonians have no honour. When enemies kill or capture their countrymen, they don’t care, as long as they can still smoke their weed and make up crazy conspiracy theories in peace. Conservatives/Jacksonians know that their honour must be defended, and will fight duels and/or wars to defend it. Therefore, Conservatives/Jacksonians can see the need for dinosaurs with rocket launchers, and Libertarians/Jeffersonians can not.
Adding a bit to #2’s “incoherence”:
– Minimal government (to obtain maximum liberty)
– Personal virtue (based on rational view of man)
– Individual rights (resulting in minimal coercion)
– If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it (conserve/preserve what works)
plus:
– ‘Republic’ form of government (cast in concrete on self-evident truths)
– rule of law (based on self-evident truths)
The only use for “democracy” in my mind is to preserve the simple mechanics of running the Republic.
On foreign policy, I’m a Jacksonian minimalist. But screw with us or our allies and you’re dead meat. All of which makes me squarely “Conservative.”
I miss Ronnie. *sigh*
The “sine qua non” of being a conservative? I’d say it’s a couple of things. First, and most importantly, a conservative supports the Unfairness Doctrine: that inequality is normal and, in fact, a preferable state. Smart and industrious people will make more money than stupid, lazy people — it’s not unfair, it’s right. That conservatives dominate talk radio is normal (seeing that the left dominates almost all other media), not unfair. And any attempts to disturb this natural state of unfairness must be resisted — perhaps by means of dinosaurs with rocket launchers. Second, it’s believing that we ought to teach Latin in the schools (instead of Sally Has Two Mommies) so that people would actually know what “sine qua non” means.
#3: Shouldn’t a person’s rights over their own body start with considering the many possible consequences of indulging in sex without the use of any one of a number of birth control methods? The time to consider one’s choices is beforehand, not after the fact, when suddenly it’s no longer just your own life at stake.
Great job by The Gipper on solidifying Conservatism into a few good words. If you’re looking for the definition of a Liberal, I suggest William F. Buckley’s “Up From Liberalism.” Yeah, it’s kinda dated (it was written in 1959, after all), but it offers an interesting look into the mindset of the Liberal in America.
Buckley also has a fine time beating on Eleanor Roosevelt in parts of the book. Despite being a former history major, I never really realized how crazy she was…that is, until I read an excerpt from one of her columns where several students beat up a teacher at some high school, but Ms. Roosevelt cannot bring herself to blame the students themselves. It must be somebody else’s fault.
Yep, that sounds like Liberalism to me.
I just wanna talk about those dinosaurs with rocket launchers.
Not only are they useful for making explosions in the netherland…Send one of them to the subsidized home of an able-bodied person on the dole or a screaming liberal whiney baby, and sit back in awe of the changes in attitude you could inspire.
Dinosaurs with rocket launchers, eh?
But more importantly:
1. Life – Human life, and all that makes it possible
2. Dignity – Art, honor, innovation, and all that makes life worth living
3. Liberty – The freedom to life your life as you please
4. Order – Peace, regularity, and what makes them possible (this includes government)
…in that order. As such, the lower goals serve the higher goals. For instance, our government (4) gives us a safety within our borders (1), and our constitution (4) gives us the right (3) even to voice seditious thoughts.
In America, a woman has the freedom to do with her body as she pleases (3) as long as it serves 2 and 1.
Misplaced values: A evil dictator (4) is slaughtering a thousand people a day (1), and the people who aren’t being slaughtered are complacent because at least the trains run on time (4).
I don’t have a lot of respect for Heinlein because, irrespective of the other things he wrote, he had a real contempt for women. He actually had a female character state, apparently straightforwardly, “Birth control is the woman’s responsibility.” He believed all women should be sexually available to all men at all times, and his “Stranger in a Strange Land” was the bible of the promiscuity movement in the sixties. Unfortunately, they never gleaned any other idea from the work, which did have some good ideas to offer.
The fact that David Crosby referenced that novel in one of his songs should give you an idea of how much was really communicated.
#12 Zordran – I do appreciate the anime reference, but Frank was talking about a previous post.
http://www.imao.us/archives/008528.html
Yeah, I know, but I didn’t comment on that one.