This is considered by scholars to be the founding document of modern Anglo-American conservatism, but it is not the only thing Burke wrote and it is not the only place Burke expressed the ideas that go into modern conservatism.

You can get Burke’s collected works from Project Gutenberg. I have downloaded them and go through them when I have a spare moment.

Then perhaps I am the true conservative and the paleos and neos are the adulterations?

I don’t think so. If conservatism can be adapted to the times, then it doesn’t really exist. If every man has his own view of what conservatism is, then conservatism can be made to be all things to all people; there would be no independent authority to say what conservatism is. You may call yourself a conservative, but the further away you get from Burke, the less of a conservative you are.

BTW: Did you happen to see George Will’s column Sunday before last? He reviewed a book by a New York professor that traces the origin of conservative thought, and based on Will’s description of the book, Ronald Reagan had an optimistic view of human nature that pretty much put him into the libertarian camp, i.e. Reagan really was not a conservative.

You can think of yourself as a "true conservative" all you want, but if you're way out of step with what conservatism is today (and you are), calling yourself a conservative confuses people rather than clarifies.

The paleocons and neocons are likewise out of step, which is why they have their own labels. Me too of course: I'm no regular conservative either, but a neolibertarian. That I've worked with conservatives so much means I know them well, but it doesn't make me one.

Political ideologies have to adapt to the times. They're all about the current times and how we manage in them. It's good to have some timeless principles so you're not rudderless, but if you're not dealing with today's problems and today's thinking, you're off in some Ivory Tower somewhere.

But thanks for reminding me about Project Gutenberg; they've got some great stuff.

Yes, I read it. I enjoy reading Will (who IMO is more like an English Tory than an American conservative). I'm not sure I'd agree with that analysis of Reagan. Yes, he had a very optimistic attitude, but you don't have to be dour to be a conservative. Reagan had no illusions about the evils humans are capable of. But if you convinced me Reagan was more libertarian than conservative, that'd make me like him all the more!

__________________
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams.

I am the legitimate conservative. The paleos and neos are the imposters.

Why? Why must old labels be mis-applied instead of new labels being created?

Isn’t this what the paleos and neos were doing when they were creating their labels in their internal literature before the news media made the terms common political currency? Did they not take concrete concepts (what had been previously accepted as “conservative”) and manipulate these concepts to fit their own agenda? I gather they were trying to associate themselves with a popular political faction hoping that the prestige of that faction would rub off on them.

Note what Will said about Reagan’s quoting Thomas Paine. Paine was very much a radical for his day and time. No legitimate conservative would accept Paine as a hero. Also note what Will said about Reagan’s liberal religious up-bringing. Legitimate Christianity starts with the premise that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. You cannot believe that humans, in their natural, i.e., non-Christian, state are good at heart. This is the libertarian illusion rather than the conservative reality.

Both you and they are conservative heretics of different sorts. Buckley and the old National Review crew (several of whom I mentioned above) are the orthodox conservatives.

Will was wrong about Reagan's religious background. He wasn't raised Unitarian, but Disciples of Christ, a mainstream Chistian church that I used to attend myself. As an adult he was a Presbyterian. But the main point was right, that he had a sunny view of human nature. I can disagree with him on that, while still admiring his ideals and what he was able to accomplish.

__________________
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams.

My understanding is that Buckley is a libertarian and I stopped reading NR because of its libertarian leanings.

If Burke is the defining authority for conservatism, and I follow Burke, how can I be a conservative heretic? If Burke is not your authority, who is?

I am well aware of Reagan’s biography. His father was Irish Roman Catholic and his mother Disciples of Christ. Based on what I know of this denomination, Will’s description of it does not surprise me. The Disciples are extremely liberal- they follow the doctrine that anyone is a Christian simply because they claim to be- meaning the Disciples are not Christian themselves.

Only once he was out of the White House. Every reference book I have ever seen says Reagan was Disciples of Christ.

He also did a lot of damage in the process. His kow-towing to the corporate interests and his failure to enforce anti-trust laws while allowing merger after merger likely paved the way for companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot. He also allowed the solar/alternative energy policies that Carter put in place to lapse- which paved the way for today’s gas crunch.

Buckley is not a libertarian by anybody's definition but yours. He does take mild libertarian positions on a few issues, such as favoring the decriminalization of marijuana, but primarily he's a well-balanced traditional conservative.

If I had to name just one person as today's Mr. Conservative, and if it couldn't be Buckley or anyone affiliated with NR... Sean Hannity perhaps, or maybe Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

I couldn't go too deep in the past for it because modern American conservatism as a distinct political movement didn't really exist until 1960 or so, when the first Goldwater campaign catalyzed it.

Burke paved the way, true enough, but he was one of many. John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville and Adam Smith figured in also, as did many of America's Founders including Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and John Adams. Of course Jefferson and Madison were more properly classical liberals, but there's a lot of that in modern conservatism.

They're not all that liberal. They require belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and they affirm that He is the Son of God. True that they allow doctrinal freedom on most other issues, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...s_of_Christ%29

From Reagan's official biography (his presidential library site):

http://www.adherents.com/people/pr/Ronald_Reagan.html

Those may possibly have been wrong decisions but they're not un-conservative. Overall, he left the country and the world in better shape than he found it, and even Diggins (the historian Will reviewed) rated him as one of America's greatest presidents.

Another review of Diggins by NR's Rich Lowry: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/bo...tml?ref=review

__________________
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

“Buckley refers to himself ‘on and off’ as either libertarian or Conservative.”

Buckely admits he is a libertarian. He is not a libertarian by my definiton alone.

That makes him a full-blown lib. During my 1st year in college my mother lost her business (a neighborhood grocery store) after she shot and killed a crack addict that came after her with a butcher knife. I have no tolerance for anyone who wishes to legalize drugs.

I haven’t listened to Hannity much so I don’t what his views are.

However, there are certain criteria that I use to judge whether or not someone is a libertarian.

1. Do they wish to legalize drugs?
2. Do they wish to legalize immoral behavior such as prostitution?
3. Do they favor big business, i.e., how much regulation of big business are they willing to accept/impose?
4. Do they favor the conservation of natural resources?
5. Do they support strong consumer protection laws?
6. Do they realize that man is naturally evil?

Then why not give it a unique name instead of adulterating the term conservatism?

They practice open communion- meaning they don’t question the Christian status of anyone who claims to be a Christian. As I have said in other threads, Christianity does not work this way.

II Corinthians 6:14-15 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?


You cannot have fellowship with anyone that does not follow true Christian doctrine and if you do have such fellowship, you cannot be a Christian yourself.

Yes they were unconservative. Remember that Burke did not favor pure laissez faire capitalism. He would not have accepted any government decision that encouraged monopolies. A true conservative is always concerned with the threat of social upheaval. A true conservative would not accept things that broaden the gulf between rich and poor because a true conservative does not want the rich to oppress the poor through their power, or the poor to rob the rich due to their number.

Odd then that you'd so vehemently oppose the only reform that could realistically prevent such incidents from happening.

I'm sorry you have no tolerance for me ; but it isn't astonishing. You seem to have very little tolerance for anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do on anything. That mindset strikes me as very Taliban-like.

I'll answer these for you. For me, not for Hannity; he and I would disagree on several of them.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. I favor small business over big business, but no, I'm not for very much regulation of any business. Part of the reason is that big business likes regulation as a means of hampering smaller businesses, who are damaged by it more than they are.
4. Yes, but where possible only through free market means. And I place energy independence as a higher priority.
5. To a limited extent: I favor full disclosure and truth in everything, including plain language contracts, and I'm not shy about requiring it. Beyond that, mostly not.
6. Yes, in a theological sense. We are necessarily imperfect and cannot begin to become perfect without help from God.

Ok, I'll answer them for Hannity too. I think I'm familiar enough with his views that I can do that accurately.

1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. No
5. No
6. Yes

Oh, and your other points that I'm not addressing? I mostly disagree, but I've concluded that's more or less a permanent condition and there's little use arguing them with you.

__________________
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams.

So you are a drug addict? No wonder your thinking has been so muddled.

No, I've never been a drug user, much less an addict. I never had any interest in that kind of stuff.

But I believe they should be legalized. Not because I approve of them -- I don't. But because I think legalizing them is the best way, the only way, to destroy the black market in them.

__________________
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams.