The conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

"The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."

Taken from the Russell Kirk Center

I hope you've enjoyed the 10 conservative principles.

Conservatives perceive the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions

"Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty." 

Taken from the Russell Kirk Center

Conservatives uphold voluntary community and oppose involuntary collectivism

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism

"Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity."

Taken from the Russel Kirk Center

Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

"Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: 'the ceremony of innocence is drowned.' The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell." 

Taken from the Russell Kirk Center.  

Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

"They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality." 

Taken from the Russel Kirk Center. 

conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription

Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription

"Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality." 

Taken from the Russel Kirk Center

The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity

The second principle is adherence to custom, convention, and continuity. 

Kirk writes:

"It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once."

Taken from the Russel Kirk Center. 

The Conservative Believes In An Enduring Moral Order

For the next 10 days, I'm going to post about the ten conservative principles by Russel Kirk. I think these principles are important for conservatives to remember and reflect on. This will be especially important for the new conservative wanting to deepen or solidify his beliefs. Kirk starts his essay with principle number one about the existence of an enduring moral order. 

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.

"That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be." 1 

To deny the existence of a moral order or the objectivity of moral duties and values is to deny what many people cherish and take for granted: human dignity, which is strong evidence for the existence of unchanging moral truths. Most naturalists will tell you there isn't a Darwinian explanation for human dignity or for "disinterested altruism." The lack of a natural explanation for a moral order does not destroy the existence of a moral order. You and I both know there is good and evil in the world, which is defined by the moral standard of the universe. Often people suppress that truth to gratify certain appetites, but it's only a matter of time before you will hear that person say, "Well, that's wrong!" or "You shouldn't have done that."

Conservatives know a good society is governed by acknowledgement of objective moral values and duties, a.k.a, the moral order. Do people fall short of the standard? Of course! Failure to live up to the standard is not evidence for the non-existence of the standard. Denial of the standard leads to nihilism and/or moral chaos and neither produce a good society.

Tomorrow will be principle number 2.

Source

1. Taken from the Russel Kirk Center.

Progressive Revolutions Revealed

Dinesh D'Souza gives a 3 part talk titled, "Progressive Revolutions Revealed."

Enjoy!

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

You're a conservative?

Yes, I am. In fact, I am a conservative Republican, which makes me worse right? Scary as it seems, my values and thinking line up with the Republican party, particularly of the conservative ideology. There are three ideologies or "flavors" of the Republican party: conservative, moderate, and libertarian; I align myself with the conservative flavor. Why would I be a conservative?

Aren't conservatives rednecks?

Depends on what you mean by redneck. If your definition of redneck is a person that lives in the southern United States, then I hate to alarm you, but there are liberals in the good ole south. If your definition of redneck is an intolerant, acid tongued, white male; hey, liberals meet that criteria too. However, if you intend redneck to mean a person that holds the government should have fiscal and social conservative responsibility, then yes, all conservatives are rednecks.

The "conservatives are rednecks" argument is nothing more than an ad-hominem, when the liberal is depleted of good arguments for their position. I say that because there are actual "rednecks" that are liberal democrats and conservative republicans; they're on both sides because the word redneck does not define a political position.

Aren't conservatives racist?

This is a terrible, terrible, terrible, spear that is thrown at conservatives. However, I won't say it's a stupid question because there aren't any stupid questions, just stupid answers. Conservatives are not guilty of this accusation at all because conservatives are for equal-opportunity and anti-welfare, irregardless of a person's ethnicity. Liberals, on the other hand, could be easily hit with the "racist spear," just look at affirmative action. Not that affirmative action is totally worthless, but it does discourage working hard and personal responsibility.

Aren't conservatives intolerant?

I think this is just another ad-hominem disguised as an argument. Look, a person can be intolerant regardless of party affiliation in my opinion. What we must do with this question is ask what tolerant means. Tolerant means showing respect for opinions of others, correct? Well, how come the conservative is blasted with the intolerant insult when the liberal isn't tolerant of the conservative's opinion? Could we be fair here? The conservative should not be labeled intolerant when the liberal is guilty of the same thing. Take the plank out of your eye before you try and pick the twig out of your opponent's eye.

Why do conservatives push their morals on me?

This is a fair question. People do not want morality shoved in their face, especially when they are guilty of committing an immoral action. This is a sensitive issue, but I'm willing to answer the question. Conservatives, for the most part, believe there is a moral standard in the universe and that living up to it is the best way to live a happy and full life. Now, we also recognize that people fall short of this moral standard, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a moral standard at all. Conservatives aren't unaware of man's shortcomings! Denial of the standard because man cannot live up to the standard just results in moral chaos or nihilism and neither are good for society.

Dinesh D'Souza sums up conservatism:

"Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature—good and evil—and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps to bring out the best in human nature and suppress man’s lower or base impulses. Conservatives support capitalism because it is a way of steering our natural pursuit of self-interest toward the material betterment of society at large. Conservatives insist that there are evil regimes and destructive forces in the world that cannot be talked out of their nefarious objectives; force is an indispensable element of international relations. Finally conservatives support autonomy when it is attached to personal responsibility—when people are held accountable for their actions—but they also believe in the indispensability of moral incubators (the family, the church, civic institutions) that are aimed at instructing people to choose virtue over vice."1

That's why conservatives "push" their moral standard on others. However, it's not the conservative's moral standard, it's an objective moral standard recognized by everyone.

So, why am I conservative? I believe conservatives have an accurate understanding of the human nature. One's understanding of human nature constructs one's worldview. In my opinion, conservatives have it right (no pun intended), not only for me, but for America. When following the evidence, you can see that conservative policies can not only produce a good society, but also reach liberal goals of peace and social justice.

Sources:

1. Dinesh D'Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative (Basic Books, 2002), pg.

How Mark C's It...Know What You Believe

DISCLAMER: The following viewpoints are not those of the blogger, but a friend of his. If this point of view upsets you, you may vent, but don’t yell at the person who posted them. Start a discussion, express and opinion, but don’t yell at the person who didn’t write it, that is just senseless…

Today’s thought: KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE, BELIEVE WHAT YOU KNOW

A little about me, I am a native born Californian, who has spent most of his life there, except for a childhood in the Midwest, and the past few years here below the Mason-Dixon Line. I have a high school diploma with a technical degree in Programming, and many years of college, but no sheepskin to show for it.

An old adage says never talk about Politics or Religion, and I love to talk about both, and that brings me to the point of my addition to Seth… Knowing what you believe in, politically.

I had a job in a factory here, and was in a discussion with a co-worker about politics. He was taken back by the fact I am a Republican, and thought I was just joking. How could someone as intelligent as I am, as well read as I am, and well spoken as I am, be a Republican. You would have thought I had peed on his mother’s grave, of which I am sure she is still alive…

So I questioned him and his beliefs. Having lived his whole life below the Mason-Dixon Line, I asked if he believed in a Welfare State, he said NO. Did he believe in Homosexual Marriage, NO. Did he believe in Interracial Marriage, NO. Did he believe in Abortion on Demand, even as a form of Birth Control, he said NO, and a few other things along with that I won’t repeat. I asked if he believed in allowing Illegal Immigrants the rights to free medical care, free money, free education, knowing they got here by breaking the law. I’ll just say, he said NO. Congratulations I told him, YOU’RE A REPUBLICAN!

I wasn’t talked to for two days.

And there lies the rub. People seem to take to what their fathers were. His father was a Democrat, his Grandfather was a Democrat, his GREAT-Grandfather was a Democrat, and he was a Democrat, but not for what they believed, but because he came from a long line of Democrats.

The same happened to a table set up at a fireworks show. The local Democratic Party had a table set up to get people to sign up to be a Member of the Democrats. I asked the same 5 questions, got the same 5 answers, and was told to leave when I said, YOU’RE A REPUBLICAN. But as I was leaving I was told, they were Democrats who don’t follow the NATIONAL Democratic Platform.

They couldn’t tell me why they were Democrats; just they were in a long line of them. And that just concerns me. It is akin to being in the KKK and not hating Blacks, Jews, Homosexuals, because that is what is expected of you. MAKES NO SENSE.

I recently had to defend my being a Republican to some friends from High School, back in California. I have spoken openly about how there are things that I don’t agree with on the National Platform, like the invasion of Iraq, was a mistake, not enough support, thought or logic was involved before the war was started. I don’t believe in tax breaks for the wealthiest American’s, including those in Congress, as they have a lot of millionaires there, but they make less, in base salary, then the 250,000 dollar Obama limit. I don’t agree with the limit on stem cell research, as they have found ways to harvest ADULT stem cells that are just as useful. But I do agree with most of what the Republican Platform is supposed to be. Lower Taxes for Middle Class, Smaller Government, Strong Military, Abortion only in the case of Rape, Incest, or the Mother’s life is in danger, and that we need stronger laws to enforce those who have been raped, and molested. I don’t agree with Homosexual Marriage, as Psychologist agree, Homosexuality is for the most part a choice, and as a Christian, I don’t agree with the lifestyle or choice. I don’t agree with the Welfare State, because I have seen it abused, and nothing happen to those who abuse it.

So, I know what I believe, and WHY I believe, which is more than can be said for a lot of those I have talked to around here.

So, I encourage you to have beliefs, and be able to defend those beliefs to those who give you questions as to why.

These are my thoughts, and how Mark C’s it.