En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/05/11/1534

From Issuepedia
< En Tequila Es Verdad‎ | progressive conservatism‎ | post‎ | 2009
Revision as of 23:11, 29 July 2010 by Woozle (talk | contribs) (Created page with '==May 11, 2009 3:34 PM - Woozle== {{subpage}}[http://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080 Woozle] said... So... at the risk of stating the obvious... from what you said,…')
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

May 11, 2009 3:34 PM - Woozle

Woozle said...

So... at the risk of stating the obvious... from what you said, I draw the following conclusions:

1. There have been few, if any, recent (within, say, the past 20-40 years) political expressions of ideal conservatism.

2. Ideal conservatism would *not* go against long-held American traditions by supporting torture, claiming that the US is "a Christian nation", favoring ideology over science, favoring big business over individual welfare, shutting the doors on the "huddled masses", distorting the truth in order to get what it wants, or being comfortable with allowing powerful people to get away with absolutely anything as long as they're in your party?

Also: earlier, you said that Conservatism isn't about trying to stop change (since change is inevitable), but merely about respecting custom and tradition rather than abstract principles when deciding how to go about dealing with change.

Are you saying, then, that it's better to make the same mistakes over and over again, just because that's how things have always been done, than to attempt to rectify them?

And finally: your description of traditions and customs as "wisdom" and "knowledge" implies that we understand something about those customs -- that we know why we follow those traditions and customs, why they are a benefit, rather than just having rote-memorized them.

In that case, you should be able to take any arbitrary "controversial" liberal cause and explain why the conservative tenet which opposes it is superior, right? That is, you should be able to tell me why following the tradition will lead to a better outcome than would being guided by a rational analysis of the situation. Yes?