Edward Mills wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:33:26 GMT, necoandjeff wrote:
>
>> Edward Mills wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:15:13 GMT, necoandjeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, define your conservatism (it can mean so many things these
>>>> days), so we can see how much we have in common.
>>>
>>> Conservativism is a political philosophy which holds dear the values
>>> that have withstood the test of time.
>>
>> Wow. That's it huh? You're entire political philosophy in a nutshell.
>
> That's it. Most philosophies can be reduced to simple maxims, and
> those that can't generally don't survive Occam's razor.

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.

>> So
>> what is to guide a conservative  when those values are challenged?
>> For example, place yourself in the 1850s. Someone suggests (brace
>> yourself) that salvery is an amoral institution that should be
>> abolished. How would your conservative forefathers have reacted to
>> that?
>
> 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.

> 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.

>> (Note that, although Lincoln
>> was, as the Republicans never tire of informing us, a Republican, he
>> was, at least by your definition, a liberal of his day, at least
>> with respect to that particular issue.)
>
> I have not defined "liberal"so how could he be a liberal due to my
> definition?

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.

>> Or how about the suggestion that women be given the
>> right to vote half a century later, or that blacks not be deprived
>> of equal protection another approximately half century later?
>> Couldn't one argue that, while conservatives (by your definition)
>> always have a defensible position to rest their laurels on at any
>> given point in time, when seen in hindsight, through the eyes of
>> history, they are simply the ones who are always (by definition,
>> according to your definition) on the losing side of progress?
>
> 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.

>> Please note that I'm not quarreling with conservatism per se, just
>> your rather simplistic definition of it, so no need to break out
>> that trusty hammer just yet.
>
> Hows about I break out my razor?

Sure, just be careful you don't cut yourself...

Jeff