I found a very good definition of Conservatism and thought many of you might like to read this...even if you happen to be a liberal.
Conservatism is not a narrow philosophy……it is the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It is the philosophy of liberty, opportunity, private property, national security.
It is a philosophy that promotes the liberation of the individual, that nurtures competition, and that embraces all people regardless of who they are, or where they have been.
It is a philosophy that rejects the authoritarianism of the few, of the politician, of the bureaucrat; and promotes limited, stable and predictable government authority.
It is a philosophy that rejects the bankrupting of future generations to pay for the benefits of the current generation.
It is a philosophy that expects its citizens to abide by a just and righteous and predictable law and demands the same from aliens who cross our borders illegally.
It is a philosophy which emphasizes the family and faith, over government.
Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny. It’s the only one. It’s based on thousands of years of human experience. There is nothing narrow about the conservative philosophy. It’s a liberating philosophy.
It is a magnificent philosophy.
It is a philosophy for the ages, for all times.
(Author's name withheld for the time being, since many liberals attack the author vs. waging constructive criticism about the message.)
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2009 at 11:17 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
This is a prime example of changing definitions. Waaay back when, a person who espoused these views was a LIBERAL. A "conservative" at that time was someone who submitted to the authority of the monarch. The name of the philosophy held by many of the Founding Fathers was called Enlightenment.
This is similar to how a "conservative" these days, or rather a neo-conservative, just 30 years ago was a liberal.
Posted by resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 6, 2009 at 9:28 am
On the surface, broad definitions of idealistic tranquility always provide a warm fuzzy feeling. So, at first blush, Stephanie’s definition sounds quaint, inviting, almost alluring. But, look at the racial slurs, the hate speech of conservatives. The Limbaugh’s, the Hannity’s, the Ann Coulter’s, the Sarah Palin’s of the right. Right now the right is a party of hate disguised as soft cuddly bunnies wanting nothing but good ... on their terms. No Stephanie, the extreme left is no better, but your attempt at baking a hot apple pie and calling it conservatism is ... well ... it’s a lie!
Posted by Alison, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 6, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I think you found a good quote from the "Great One". :)
Conservative principles, no matter what people think of those who believe in them, are what founded this nation and what a magnificent country we have! You can't say that the "bar was too high" then since it is still working 233 years later, and you can't flit away those that pursue these ideals - no matter how much you don't like them.
You can always find something wrong with someone and their actions, but principles are principles. They are either right or wrong. Conservatism is always the way to go.
Thanks, Stephanie for the great quote. It's a terrific one about a terrific way to live!
Posted by J, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Political parties did not exist in 1789. Washington despised the idea of political associations, formed in such a way as to pit one group of citizens against another. In his farewell speech in 1796 he said:
[While speaking on the subject -- The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.]
"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."