I've not read more than the first few paragraphs, but he's barking up completely the wrong tree, isn't he?
While most of the things he describes are bad, they're not conservatism. He may be getting confused because of what is done in the USA by some of the people who say they're conservatives. Perhaps they are, but their espousal of those views has nothing to do with their conservatism.
Conservatism in the most absolute sense is a desire that nothing should change. That's only tantamount to preserving aristocratic or élitist privilege if those happen to be the status quo.
But conservatism doesn't have to be an absolute; it can be a tendency. I have conservative leanings, and feel they're both thoroughly defensible and independent of my other political beliefs. I hold that while change is necessary, it should be conducted cautiously and gradually wherever possible. Political rhetoric such as "an example to the world", "in the forefront of progress", "quantum leap" (ugh!) and "radical new initiative" worries rather than excites me. I'm with the peer who commented on Lord Addington's government "Well, thank God, at least we have got a ministry without one of those men of genius in it."
I am an anti-revolutionary, no matter what the objectives of the revolution might be. I'm a conservative liberal. This is not a contradiction: the opposite of conservative is radical/revolutionary, and the opposite of liberal is authoritarian/fascist.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 02:45 pm (UTC)While most of the things he describes are bad, they're not conservatism. He may be getting confused because of what is done in the USA by some of the people who say they're conservatives. Perhaps they are, but their espousal of those views has nothing to do with their conservatism.
Conservatism in the most absolute sense is a desire that nothing should change. That's only tantamount to preserving aristocratic or élitist privilege if those happen to be the status quo.
But conservatism doesn't have to be an absolute; it can be a tendency. I have conservative leanings, and feel they're both thoroughly defensible and independent of my other political beliefs. I hold that while change is necessary, it should be conducted cautiously and gradually wherever possible. Political rhetoric such as "an example to the world", "in the forefront of progress", "quantum leap" (ugh!) and "radical new initiative" worries rather than excites me. I'm with the peer who commented on Lord Addington's government "Well, thank God, at least we have got a ministry without one of those men of genius in it."
I am an anti-revolutionary, no matter what the objectives of the revolution might be. I'm a conservative liberal. This is not a contradiction: the opposite of conservative is radical/revolutionary, and the opposite of liberal is authoritarian/fascist.