jump to navigation

“Conservative” vs. “Republican” March 29, 2007

Posted by Administrator in Politics, Stupid Party vs Evil Party.

Dana over at Principled Discovery has a fine post up on this disctinction. It distills quite nicely for me why I am so vociferously opposed to the Party of the Asses, while simultaneously unattracted to the Party of the Pachyderms.

She checks herself against Russell Kirk’s “Conservative Principles.” Check yourself, and read her post to check hers:

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

Um, yeah. No question.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

Generally speaking. Though one does need to question convention to make sure it’s working for you.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.

I would say I generally subscribe to this. As Dana says, check the article for a definition. I may sum up in a brutally simple way by stating that all the really good ideas were cooked up a long time ago, and we still follow those ideas not because our parents and forefathers did, but because they worked, and they still do.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Check. Though I do have a nasty instinct that makes me sometimes leap before I think.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

Not for it’s own sake.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Oh wow. Serious conservatives, serious Christians cannot avoid this. And I see a breathtaking lack of this humility on the Left.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

Boom yeah. Self-evident.

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

Another “Boom yeah.”

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

Yet again, “Boom yeah.” Less government the better.

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

So long as change does not get adopted for its own sake, but rather to adopt the genuine needs of an evolving society, I would agree. Besides, a good conservative by definition is wary of (but not opposed to) change.

So, thanks Dana, for allowing me to finally comprehend why I am an Independent that is so nauseated by the Democratic Party.

BTW Dana, fine picture of Russell Kirk. My in-laws have one on their wall, where Kirk is talking to my brother-in-law, trademark “goofy tie” fully visible in its debatable splendor. I noticed that in your picutre Kirk buttoned his jacket so that Reagan wouldn’t ask, “Why is your tie stopped 8 inches above your belt?”



1. Dana - March 29, 2007

Thanks! And I agree. Good post. I liked how Kirk put his principle of variety. It made me think of a good deal of discussions I have had on the subject of homeschooling and liberalism in general.

While serving with Teach For America, we had numerous surveys to rate the program, and “diversity” was always a major issue. I rated them very low. I noted that everyone looked different, and sure they were accepting of homosexuals, but there was no diversity of thought.

And big on the social agenda of the left is “socialization” through the medium of the public schools. And centralization through federal programs. This takes away all our variety by not allowing children to be raised in their own communities and not allowing individual states to tackle their problems in unique ways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: