On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:04:45 GMT, necoandjeff wrote:

> Occam's razor is a great principal for those attempting to explain
> something, like a phenomenon. Not so great when trying to build a value
> system or deal with something as complex as politics. That's my biggest beef
> with conservatives and liberals alike. It's as if all value questions can be
> broken down into black or white, and if you have a black value regarding a,
> you must also hold a black value regarding b through z. Sound bites are easy
> to understand, but life can't be broken down into one soundbite.

Actually, Occam's razor has proven itself to be most useful when dealing
with any overly-obfuscatory meanderings. I employ it here because you are
attempting to say that complexity, in this instance, is necessary. If it
is, then it is up to you to explain why. 

>> Slavery was often seen as immoral then as it is now. Perhaps even
>> moreso since those who lived through it were able to witness it
>> firsthand.
> 
> Ahhh. I see. So you would have been one of those rare conservatives who,
> despite the soundbite philosophy, would have had the foresight and wisdom to
> know that we weren't dealing with a conservative issue at all, even though
> slavery had been practiced for hundreds of years in the new world and was an
> integral part of the economic makeup of the nation at the time.

Conservative philosophy demands that moral values of today are the result
of a Darwinian nature. If we find slavery today somewhat less than moral,
then that normative value has earned its place in conservative politics.
Surely you would agree that history has shown slavery to be a morally
bankrupt form of business, thus you would also be forced to conclude that
conservativism has triumphed in this regard. 

Or maybe not... 

>> But regardless, conservativism also places a value on
>> change - just let's not be too fast.
> 
> Now you're inching toward a definition of conservative that I can accept.

That's only because you never thought of it before now.

 > Fair enough. Let me phrase it in the negative: Lincoln wouldn't have been a
> conservative by your definition with respect to that particular issue. But I
> thought the whole occam's razor, soundbite political philosophy thing
> basically only divides the world into conservative and liberal. Haven't you
> assumed that I'm a liberal by process of elimination, after hearing me crack
> a few jokes about conservatives? You'll have to forgive me if I assumed that
> you saw the world in a simplistic way.

No. Your problem is that you think conservatives can be put into slots like
liberal, conservative, anarchist, libertarian, but the fact that you don't
understand conservativism (or maybe some of those others) forces me to
conclude that your slots are perhaps less than well-conceived.


>> Progress is also a conservative value according to my definition.
> 
> But I have no interest in a political philosophy that argues against
> progress at first, and then only accepts it as progress (and hence,
> something good) after losing the argument and having the new value around
> long enough that it can be considered a conservative value. It's a lazy
> approach to politics if you ask me.

Would you prefer a more logical approach to politics? Perhaps some
political philosophy that transcends the belief that what meagre successes
we have achieved is the result of previous successes and failures? 

Conservativism isn't the be-all and end-all of political philosophies, but
its strength lies in accomodating this imperfection by allowing for further
development of the values that conservatives cherish, and this includes a,
perhaps overly long, period of adjustment of normative values.