"Conservative" is so popular that many people who share very few of the underlying principles flock to the label. "Liberal," on the other hand, has become an insult. Even liberals don't like being called "liberal." Today, liberals prefer "progressive"; tomorrow, they will recycle some other label once the current one, too, becomes an insult. Read my article at FrontPageMag on how liberalism became a political 4-letter word.

Conservatives have an easier time marketing their ideology; appealing to selfishness will always be more popular than the opposite.

The term "progressive" annoys me. It's too uninformative. Sure, you're "progressive", but toward what end? George W. Bush and the 1994-2006 Republican Congress were able to achieve incredible progress implementing their agenda. In that sense they too were "progressive".

This is how I would assign the labels - KIDS (liberals), ADULTS (conservatives).

No matter what you want to call them, every time the American people get a good dose of them, they become ever less popular and weakened.

Telltale that the current census has dictated that Blue States are losing population and Red States are picking it up. So in very real terms the subtraction and addition of Congressional seats will show again that Conservatives/Republicans will get stronger.

It seems to me that if one tried to sum up the values of western conservatism as quickly as possible they could probably do it in three words: Family, Property, Christianity.

It also seems to me that the former of these two, owning property in the context of a stable family, as the general effect of making men geographically stable, financially responsible, morally concerned, and politically active. It is true, PMA, that this would generally strike liberals as selfish - since it relies, for teaching personal and political virtues on appealing to the ground on which people put their feet, rather than the clouds in which they stick their heads. It is certainly true that it is more popular. I think it more effective for governing a nation. I'd also argue that tending to your property and your family, and seeing politics as a means to that end, is more morally praiseworthy than seeing politics as a means to the end of crusading to correct every perceived social wrong.

Ben7735:

All I've got to say is, "Amen to that." Great summation of Conservatism.

All this rebranding, or flip flopping, between the terms "Progressive" and "Liberal" to me seems kind of silly. Call it what you will, it doesn't change the core beliefs of those using either name.

After all (in my view) a classical liberal and a conservative are the same thing, whatever moniker you'd like to use.

If you want an interesting book to read on the histtory of liberalism/progressivism, you should try Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism". The title is tongue in cheek (and incendiary) but he makes a persuasive argument regarding the chequered history of the movement and why it's not nearly as "progressive" as claimed.

Merry Christmas to all, Happy Holidays to some!

Thanks everyone for interesting thoughts, arguments and amusing slurs this past year. Look forward to hearing from you all in the new year!

For some reason the comments thread where Fexpat and I were debating Arizona's illegal immigration law seems to be closed...or at least I can't seem to post on it.

Anyway, as to PMA's assertion that "I'm wrong" when I say that the law is not an example of soft fascism...let me reply to your witty rejoinder with something equally so.

"No, you're wrong."

:)

Talk to you all in the new year!

There was a time in world history when Family, Property, and Church reigned supreme, and that was the era of feudal Europe, and it was hell on earth for everyone except a select few at the top. The "commons", or the Commonweal or Common Wealth, used to be administered by the Church, what was left over was controlled by brutal oligarchs. This is in fact what postmodern conservatives advocate, as you rightly and correctly pointed out when you wrote,

I'd also argue that tending to your property and your family, and seeing politics as a means to that end, is more morally praiseworthy.

In fact, JK Galbraith said as much when he said

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

When leveraging the arm of government to enrich wealthy sectors at the top is considered good governance, when elected representatives like Joe Barton apologize to BP instead of holding them accountable, when "free"-market idiots from the Reagan revolution liquidate the greatest industrial apparatus in the history of the world for short-term individual gain, when for-profit, overpaid mercenary doctors are given lavish wages on the public dole and when wasteful, inefficient, patent protections leech money from the people to enrich wealthy individuals, and conservatives argue for more of this type of cooperation between government and property, our nation and perhaps the fate of the world is in extreme danger.

Well, I was hoping someone would step up to refute PMA's rubbish about the "inherint" selfishness of conservatism, but no one did, so let me challenge him a bit.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”--J. K. Galbraith.

"Many reformers – Galbraith is not alone in this – have as their basic objection to a free market that it frustrates them in achieving their reforms, because it enables people to have what they want, not what the reformers want. Hence every reformer has a strong tendency to be averse to a free market." --Milton Friedman.

Here's the essential difference between conservatism and socialism:

A conservative viewpoint would be that what you produce is yours to do with as you would. There is the choice to be selfish (or not). At the end of the day, I can be as altruistic as I want.

A socialist viewpoint would be that what you produce is theirs to do with as they want. There is no choice but what the socialist oligarchy wants. Put more simply:

What's mine (as a socialist) is mine and what's yours is mine (as a socialist).

So, with conservatism, there is the choice to be selfish or not. With what PMA believes, there is no choice, simply the selfish wishes of the "enlightened".

NR wrote,

A conservative viewpoint would be that what you produce is yours to do with as you would.

This is 100% inaccurate. If you work all day in a factory producing consumer goods, a conservative would say that you have absolutely no right to the product of your labor. The factory owner is the only person entitled to that product. In fact, most conservatives would argue that the producer should not even be guaranteed a minimum wage, let alone a living wage. Why do you feel the need to spread disgusting lies like this? Please refer back to my previous post about property, family, and Christianity.

NR wrote,

A socialist viewpoint would be that what you produce is theirs to do with as they want. There is no choice but what the socialist oligarchy wants. Put more simply: What's mine (as a socialist) is mine and what's yours is mine (as a socialist).

What you're describing here is top-down tyranny, not socialism. I fully support the idea that a productive laborer is fully entitled to the product of their labor. I do not support wasteful, inefficient patent protections which funnel wealth upward, and I do not support wage exploitation at the hands of property managers and owners.

Once again, conservative bunglers cannot seem to make the simple, basic conceptual distinction that decent regulation which guarantees that producers are fully entitled to the product of their labor does not equal unjustifiable coercion and domination.

Well PMA, what you're saying is exactly right:

A socialist viewpoint is top down tyranny, the tyranny of a command economy.

As to your viewpoint with regards to conservatives, you are entirely wrong.

Yes, a business owner is entitled to do what they want with the fruits of their labour, just as the worker within the business is entitled to the fruits of their labour.

Socialists would take both the fruits of the worker and the owner for "the good of the state."

But then again, the state is God to a socialist.

There's really no need to refer back to your post on property, family and Christianity. Your world view denies the concept of property and family, and replaces the religion of God with that of the secular state.

The only disgusting lie is your denial.

NR wrote,

Socialists would take both the fruits of the worker and the owner for "the good of the state."

Again, this is a distortion if not an outright lie. The decent regulation being advocated would guarantee that a laborer receives the fruits of his or her labor, instead of being appropriated by the management and ownership class, and public enterprise simply guarantees that working people aren't the victims of theft. But have some milk and cookies and keep repeating those lies until you're blue in the face.

Oh, what a wit.

You mean that cookie that I bought with the fruits of my labour rather than having it appropriated and then redistributed to me?

A Free Market economy does not mean no regulation whatsoever, as has been the case throughout history. (Can't wait for your cut and paste of that one)

It does mean, however, that I can choose to do what I would with what I create or with the money that i reap from my labour.

And, "decent regulation" is not what you're advocating. Community ownership where everyone is not allowed to make their own choices with "the fruit of their labours" is not community ownership...it's simply you being selfish and taking from others for "the common good" as decided by you.

Enjoy my cookie.

p.s. I see you're still in denial about your religion. I would be too if Marx was the face of my God.