Ah, . . all you're doing is capitalizing off the terms "conservative" and "liberal" with no actual insight about their history and development.
The point of my examples was that one can construct caricatures and definitions many different ways, and speak of essences, as if one has some grapple on history which grants some essence into the essence of a movement, but that is problematic on many levels. Movements morph and are very complex.
You are right that historical insight into development of a movement leads to some insights. My point, however, is that certain notions like 'liberal' have morphed over time across movements. You seem to acknowledge that. Perhaps we are just mis-communicating since the subject is complicated.
Liberalism historically has been associated with free markets, various movements of bourgeois democracy, expansion of voting rights, civil rights and human rights advocacy, anti-communism, intervention to remove tyrannical dictators, movements to foster diplomacy and condemn war crimes, etc. All of that more or less consistently forms a picture of 'liberalism', and those who call themselves 'conservative' may in fact be liberal to some degree on various of these issues, of course.
Conservatism has historically been associated with opposition to free market capitalism and bourgeois republicanism, but lately those who identify as conservatives have turned full circle, conservatism has not been absolutist on state rights (see Civil War) or on slavery (on both sides), and does have historic associations with state churches, etc. I don't see how you can say any of these things, or civil rights, etc., are essential to conservatism.
Looking at the history of the term, it's use, the movements, the trends, one may identify a few patterns, however -- generally a caution about new movements, a desire to preserve/acknowledge/privilege what is traditional/religious, carefulness with resources, concern for law and order. Of course those who identify as liberal may be conservative to some degree or other on these things, may in fact be conservative on these things.
Conservatives don't always want to conserve. They happen to be called conservatives because their philosophy was the same or similar to the philosophy of our founding fathers -- that's about it. If the philosophy of our founding fathers just happened to be socialist or welfare liberal, then they wouldn't be called conservatives.
That is false. Conservatives really aren't that informed about separation of powers, checks and balances, deism, enlightenment philosophy, or any number of other things which were part of the founding father's philosophy. Most liberals aren't that informed either.
Liberalism can make this claim in many ways, also.
Those who call themselves conservatives, like those who call themselves liberals, do look to the founding fathers from time to time, and emphasize some key thoughts/points/views/attitudes which they resonate with and wish to preserve.
I asked: What is a conservative conception of government? Monarchy? Aristocracy? Oligarchy? A Republic? A Puritan Common-Wealth? A Church community? There is no single conservative conception of government.Wrong. The conservative conception of government is obviously a democracy, since our principles of freedom require minimal government interference in our daily lives.
Our country is a Constitutional Republic. A conservative as well as a liberal in our country both conceive of government as a Constitutional Republic.
The founding fathers were well versed in the political philosophical traditions springing from Plato and Aristotle (and Machiavelli) which point out the problem of Democracy as Mob Tyranny, and so they sought to avoid a Democracy. Unfortunately, too many Democrats and Republicans do foster Democratic Tyranny.
Not so quick, Sqwirrly. Those conservatives who promote faith-based initiatives aren't hard-core conservatives.
Agreed.
I'm sure you would agree there is a spectrum from liberal to conservative.
Yes, and also on different issues/aspects of conservatism/liberalism.
The hard-core conservatives don't want the government providing for us one bit. Those conservatives who compromise on this issue belong either into the neo-conservative camp or the religious right. So, my distinction is not false as you suppose.
You seem to be speaking of either economic conservatives or libertarians, or both, when you say 'hard-core conservatives'.
I said: But historically and also in recent times, conservatives do seem to have something to do with trying to preserve what is seen as the best of tradition, of resources, the stability and order of society; and liberals do seem to have something to do with expanding liberties and experimenting to try to solve problems.That has nothing to do with it.
On what basis? What you identify as 'liberal' or 'conservative' seem to me to have derived out of the general picture I presented, above. And both of our criticisms of 'liberals' and 'conservatives' seem to be about calling either/both to remember the best of their principles and to avoid certain problematic aspects of their movement's later development in more recent times.
