Redstate

Well I will not try to divorce you from your progressivism. I will leave that to others and yourself. I can throw in a few ideas on a subject or two that you mentioned.

WORDS MEAN THINGS - This statement means a lot to me. It can be very clarifying when you apply it to your political beliefs. An example is the gay marriage issue you raised. The word marriage has consistently meant the union of a man and woman. You can say that a man and man are "married" but the reality is that if you use the standard deffinition of marriage, then just saying someone is married does not make it so.

If you think of civil unions, and not traditional marriage, then you are basically talking about a tax status, as well as some other civil issues. As far as that goes, I do not have a problem with two adults choosing their preferred tax status.

WORDS MEAN THINGS - In the global warming issue as well. The basic political divide on this issue internationally is the "good" countries signed the Kyoto protocols and the "bad" countries, including the USA have not. The problem here is that the US actually does what it says in most cases. If the USA signed the Kyoto protocols it would have to spend billions of dollars and lower the gross national product of this country to boot. The reality is that no major nation that has signed the Kyoto protocols has implemented them. So it comes back to what matters. Nobody wants global warming, but what are nations willing to do to stop it? And keep in mind it was President Clinton who first said no to Kyoto.

All this left vs right, conservative vs. liberal stuff comes down to having different ideas on how to fix problems. Most people want to live a happy life and want others to live happy lives as well. Some think the government should do more to ensure our lives are happy and others think the government should get out of the way, and then people can do this job themselves.

As far as religion goes, that is a personal thing. Religion is based on faith. Faith is belief in something you can not prove. So it is a total waste of time to try to "prove" existence of God to someone.

Anyway, have a nice holiday

That is what you tell us. And yet you begin by telling us that your positions are entrenched in stone and that you are intrinsically opposed to any change in your belief system.

Doesn't leave a whole lot of room for dialogue does it?

OK to discriminate against BGLT people or deny them the right to marriage and so on.

Exactly how is it discrimination to oppose a complete re-definition of marriage in order to extend "rights" never before recognized in human history? No "religious" retionalization here, but it has been the family unit that has been the cornerstone of civilization throughout history. Like it or not, that family unit has been defined, throughout history, by male/female/children relationships. Among other things, this relationship has defined societal succession of property and fortune. There is nothing in the law preventing BGLT from this succession, without redefining marriage in order to do it.

As for your belief, or non-belief in God or any other creator...it's your loss. You either have beliefs in things greater than self, or you do not. If the extent of your beliefs is that we are all a huge cosmic accident, then all other beliefs are irrelevant. If there is simply no purpose, no higher reason for existence, then there is no real rule of law. After all, virtually all law is rooted in moral authority, and moral authority is rooted in the belief of higher principles. Without that higher principle, there is no reason to obey any law that you disagree with. "Thou shall not steal?" Heck, he has too much already, and he'll never miss it. I need what he has, and I have so little. I'll just take it. And, the fact that he has wealth, and I do not, makes it alright to take it.

As to the global warming theory, I suggest you widen your investigation to include "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years." You will discover that GW is a natural phenomenon that takes place on regular cycles, and man has absolutely nothing to do with it. The very same Sirens who decry man-made global warming today, were screaming aboout global cooling in the 1970s. Think about this rationally for a moment. If man were creating global warming, would there not be a straight graph upwards of world temperature from the beginning of the industrial revolution forward? And yet, climatic temperatures have gone up, and down, and up and down, during that period. It would almost force one to believe that there are outside influences involved. Taken with evidence that is accumulating that Mars appears to be warming, along with other celestial bodies in our solar system, one must begin to question what it is that all of these planets have in common. Man cannot possibly be accounting for warming of other planets, can he? Could it possibly be the influence of the sun? AND, if man-made global warming IS a fact, why is it that the KYOTO accords exempted the most polluting nations, China and India, while punishing the single nation on this planet doing most to reduce its polluting? The United States has cleaner air, water and emmisions today than ten years ago, or twenty years ago. And yet, we are told, global warming is increasing at an alarming rate. I, for one, question the science involved, and the conclusions achieved. Scientist are FAR from agreeing on the subject, although only one side of the debate is being broadcast.

So why is it that I should sacrifice civil rights, religious freedom, tolerance, and acceptance, and my social consciousness to espouse conservative beliefs?

I have never seen a conservative espouse the sacrifice of civil rights or religious freedom. It is the liberal mantra that requires all Christian religious symbolism and celebration be removed from the public view. A prayer before a footballl game is illegal, and yet, schools in California can require children to spend a week acting out Muslim relgious beliefs. Can you really claim that this is somehow intended in the US Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Are we to believe that "under God" is the establishment of a "state religion" such as the Church of England?

Exactly what civil right is it that conservatives require you to give up? The right to address of grievances?

Speech? Wait, that would be Campaign finance reform, a liberal cause.

Right to bear arms? No wait, that is a liberal cause.

Perhaps the right to private property, and just compensation for the taking thereof; No wait, according to Kelo, that is just, and another liberal cause.

I also, however, believe that we should treat other nations morally and not just following our interests

There has never been placed upon this earth a nation which treats other nations more fairly than this nation. At times, we place the interests of OTHER nations above the interests of our own. Our "interventions" on behalf of the downtrodden around the world are legion. What national interest, besides humanitatian, is served by pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Africa to fight aids? What national interests, beside good will, are served by pouring billions of dollars into disaster relief into nations around the world...some of whom are our sworn enemies? Ours is the most benign of Superpowers the world has ever known.

At the end of WWII, the US was the lone superpower, the only nation in the world with the power of the A-bomb. At that time, we could have imposed our will upon the world. We could have demanded the Soviet Union renounce Communism and free its people, adopting our own form of democracy. instead, we aided that nation to regain its feet following the war, allowing it to become a world power, and relegating untold millions of people to slavery and death. Eventually, the (liberal) USSR collapsed under the weight of its own liberalism, adopting a (weak) form of democracy, and allowing its people freedom for the first time in history.

In 1991, the US led a coalition to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. As the sole superpower we could have imposed our will upon that region at that time, taking the oil that the liberals tell us is the only reason we are in Iraq today. We did not. We could certainly take that oil for ourselves today...no other power can prevent us from the taking. Instead, we pour treasure into that country to aid them in achieving a freedom they have never before known. Food for thought.

Merry Christmas!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

You find me in an uncharacteristically generous mood on account of the holiday. Normally a diary like this is not received well: "Please defend conservatism to me", coming from a self-identified liberal. Some might refer to it as a "Conservatives in the Mist" approach.

However, you're obviously young and certain comments you make indicate that you're not beyond redemption. Thus, I offer the following observations cum advice.

Have an open mind and an open heart. Don't dismiss the religious beliefs of others as so much superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Separate in your mind the teachings of a religion and the actions taken in its name by professed believers.

One of the central tenets of Christianity is that we are all sinners; unfortunately, some believers are all too intent on proving the point. That does not detract, though, from the essential wisdom contained in the teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the moral underpinning upon which our (Western) civilization is based. No other system of thought has given the world as much freedom as the Judeo-Christian tradition.

An analogy: I am rereading Huckleberry Finn. To read it as a "just a story", a bunch of invented events strung together, would be to lose the essential humanity and truth that the book contains. To do so, to me, would be foolish. Try, for starters, to appreciate the Bible on the same terms.

Don't be so influenced by your idiot contemporaries. Believe what you believe, and for the right reasons. Do you seriously think it's valid to reject conservatism based on a thoughtless editorial in a college paper that was (literally and figuratively) sophomoric?

Think, listen, observe. Question what you know. If you lurk for a while, you'll find that many on this site found would have shared your outlook in their early twenties, full of the brash confidence of institutionally conveyed Knowledge.

The essential difference between liberals and conservatives is not a disagreement about goals so much but about the means to achieve them. Liberals tend to prefer a governmental approach. Conservatives tend to favor the marketplace and distrust collective solutions. Experience will show you that too often government wields a meat ax when a scalpel is called for. Government lacks common sense and wisdom; it has forsaken them in the name of "fairness" and "equality of outcome". Too often individual liberty is sacrificed.

Well, that's about it. I wish you well on your journey. From all the Vladimirians in Vladimirland, a joyous Merry Christmas.

If there's one thing I really hope to get out of this is a good understanding of the Right, so thank you very much. (:

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."

C.S. Lewis

...and would the words of an established scientists give you pause on your beliefs?

In order to divorce one's self from progressivism, a great deal of knowledge must first be acquired. Notice that I said, "divorce one's self." A lifetime of believing in KnownFacts,™ such as those contained throughout your post and reiterated almost daily by many on the left, cannot be overcome by a few short conversations with conservatives. It is a learned event and often requires an epiphany in order to complete the transformation.

KnownFact™- A lie, endlessly repeated until it is no longer publicly and vigorously challenged, at which point, it becomes a KnownFact.™

Epiphany- A comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization.

May I offer the means by which you can gain the knowledge and begin your transformation from progressive to conservative?

The Conservative Leadership Series, Volumes I-XV
by Collectible

"The Conservative Leadership Series brings you books that define and inspire conservative thought. Many of these timeless works are nearly impossible to find in paperback, let alone in collector’s-quality hardcover. Each book is produced to a bygone standard of excellence -- a standard worth of books meant to be read, re-read, and handed down for generations."

Note: The books in this collection can be purchased individually from your favorite bookstore, collector or online. Some copies may be hard to find, but they are indispensable if you are sincere in your deisire to fully understand conservatism.

Conservative Leadership Series

Volume I: The Best of Burke
Volume II: The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Volume III: The Wealth of Nations
Volume IV: The Federalist
Volume V: The Anti-Federalists
Volume VI: The Political Writings of John Adams
Volume VII: New Views of the Constitution
Volume VIII: The American Democrat
Volume IX: The Political Writings of James Monroe
Volume X: Democracy in America
Volume XI: The Political Writings of Rufus Choate
Volume XII: Calhoun: Selected Writings and Speeches
Volume XIII: The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln
Volume XIV: The American Republic: Its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny
Volume XV: Whigs and Whiggism

Some additional, more contemporary reading to broaden one’s conservative perspective:

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution by Edwin Meese, ed.
Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by Thomas Sowell
Alexander Hamilton, American by Richard Brookhiser

Note: I would be remiss if I didn't mention Regnery Publishing and Right Shelf as additional authoritative sources for contemporary conservative publications and insightful reviews.

By no means is this “the definitive list” of conservative literature. The list of volumes and writings contained in my library alone would fill many pages, and my “wish list” continues to grow exponentially. That said, The Conservative Leadership Series is a very good beginning. This collection will afford you the opportunity to replace KnownFacts™ with verifiable and well-documented facts and will aid in your transformation.

Merry Christmas!

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Witness by Whittaker Chambers
Reagan's War
Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah
How Ronald Reagan Changed my Life
Reagan's Life of Letters
The Tempting of America
Reagan in his own Hand
The Holy Bible
Mere Christianty by CS Lewis

http://gamecock.townhall.com - www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority."- Andrew Jackson
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com
Gamecock, now DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer

Some books you really should read, and I'll be happy to comment more later but Christmas is still ongoing at my house:

The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom
The Illusions of Egalitarianism by John Kekes
The Fatal Conceit by F.A. Hayek
Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff-Sommers
Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz

...and, somewhat paradoxically, if you can find it:

My Correct Views On Everything by Leszek Kolakowski.

These books span a very wide range, but if you are a progressive and you have not been exposed to any of them in your formal education, or have heard about them secondhand without at least attempting any of them yourself (and they very widely in their level of difficulty) you have been miseducated at great expense (as I was). At the very least, pick up a few of them and read them for yourself, and you will be the richer for it, even if none of them "change your mind". At the very least, Kekes especially will shake you up as a "progressive" -- in a good way.

More later...

..for a non-academic and readable skewering of All Things Democrat (and Republican). Particularly noteworthy are A Parliament of Whores and All the Trouble in the World.

O'Rourke would best be described as a free-market libertarian instead of a Republican Party shill.

I know it's Yale, but suck it up. It's the grail of the conservative movement in the US.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I have not read all the comments above. However, I want to address a few things in your original post.

"So why is it that I should sacrifice civil rights, religious freedom, tolerance, and acceptance, and my social consciousness to espouse conservative beliefs?"

I don't get your underlying assumption. I think conservatives belief in colorblindness and meritocracy is the leading edge of the civil rights movement today. It is arguably combating large special interest groups who gain from racially categorizing people and doling out jobs and school seats based on race rather than achievement. Further, the school choice movement should be the forefront of the civil rights movement. It would give a more equal opportunity for all students rather than sticking with the unfair system where poor students are stuck in monopoly schools and rich students get to choose where to go to school. But teachers unions and special interest are more important to many Democrats than civil rights.

On religious freedom, I see the intolerant left impeding on it much more than the right. The most recent example was Massachusetts not allowing Catholic Charities to conduct adoptions unless they agreed to place children in gay homes. The church believes children in their programs should be placed in traditional homes, but the state of Massachusetts would not let them do that. That imposition of values on the church should be a violation of the separation of church and state. But alas, most don't see it that way. I support gay rights initiatives, but this one is also limiting religious freedom. I can see why churches are worried that if marriage is redefined, then they will be forced to change their views as well.

Similarly, I see very little tolerance or acceptance on the left with respect to religious individuals. The level of hatred on Kos and other left blogs for religious people is stunning. I remember when the Pope died, the type of posts that were written about one of the biggest leaders of peace and anti-communism in the world. On the right, there is resistance to redefining marriage but I think there is a surprising amount of support for extending more rights to gay Americans. I expect civil unions will get high levels of support from Republicans as long as they don't assign any special rights. Many on the right are worried that there will be future affirmative action laws for gays and the country will move further from a meritocracy and more towards a special interest driven quota system. Finally, I think many conservatives believe the legal rights of marriage can be extended without redefining the longstanding institution of marriage.

Finally, if you think teaching about the morality of homosexual activity is similar to racism, then you are being intolerant of many religions. Churches have every right to argue that homosexual activity is immoral (ditto premarital sex, alcohol, war, etc). No matter what your view on the morality of homosexuality, I hope you would be open-minded enough to realize that as an issue of morality it is a highly debated topic and that one who finds homosexuality immoral is not necessarily homophobic or mean-spirited.

If you are seriously interested in opening your mind to listen and consider conservative views, I encourage you to start by trying to get past your past assumptions about conservatives. It seems you think that conservative views are based on the Bible rather than philosophy, political science, and past experiences. It seems you think conservatives are politically driven more by their religion than by their views. I highly recommend some of the books mentioned above that explain conservatism often with no reference to religion at all.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

"First, I'll note that nothing anyone can say can possibly convince me that it's OK to discriminate against BGLT people or deny them the right to marriage"

If you begin by assuming that "bisexual-gay-lesbian-transgendered people" is a distinct entity then you doubtless cannot be persuaded. If you figure out that "gay/lesbian people" is a false label for a supposedly distinct status, one that has no more empirical validity than the old pseudoscience of phrenology, then you may start to grow more open minded.
Yes, no one should be a "homophobe" -- but for the same reason no rational person should fear unicorns.

Marcus Aurelius' "Reflections." It is one of the oldest intact works still in publication; much else from the Classical period is fragmentary or of questionable authenticity. I offer it so that you may compare and contrast the philosophy of a Roman Stoic who does not rely on the Judeo-Christian tradition of thought, yet arrives in much the same place.

In Vino Veritas

P.J. O'Rourke was my gateway to coservatism. Irreverence has always been a trait I admire, and I love both of the boks previously reccommended. I found an article attributed to O'Rourke that might be helpful to you: How to explain Conservatism to your Squishy Liberal Friends.

Cheers.

...because I've often observed that the primary determinant of opinion in grad students and post-docs is not reasoned argument, but rather the illusion of same presented by people (like professors) whose authority has been accepted a priori. This young person didn't come here to have his mind changed, but rather to have his existing beliefs confirmed.

Still, my first question for the young person is: whither conservatism? Are we talking about politics, economics and foreign policy? Or about far more important things, like personal morality, ethics, and each individual's relationship to his community?

When I hear liberals talk (especially those in universities, where the intellectual Grundlage is an implicit and unchallenged Marxian one), I often find that their approach to the latter set of questions is driven by their approach to the former. With conservatives it's the other way around.

Another (more obvious) point: liberals (especially those who call themselves "progressive") believe that man and society can be improved, in the manner of engineered artifacts. Believing this as they do, they consider it immoral not to try. Conservatives are generally cognizant of the contingency of human life, and are hesitant to break the eggs needed to make the proverbial omelet, for fear of creating still greater evils. (Mass murder and starvation, to take but two recent examples.)

How's that for a hyper-reductive summary of reams and reams of circular and unconvincing argumentation?

Mostly, you are suffering not so much from a hostility to conservatism, but a hostility to a liberal misrepresentation of conservatism. For example, you express, rather well, if I may say so, some conservative views on racial discrimination.

Nobody is asking you to give up any civil rights. Many of the things that young people in particular fear in terms of government aggressing on their lives are things they should fear from the left. Take the issue of the draft, for example. Liberals and the media like to present this as a threat that the right makes against young people. Polls showed that the majority of young people who voted for John Kerry were influenced, in part, by a fear that a re-elected Bush administration would institute the draft. The under 30s were the only demographic group in which Kerry showed an increase in percentage terms compared with Gore. The draft 'issue' was probably a key factor in this.

And yet it is conservatives who oppose the draft on both practical and ideological grounds. Donald Rumsfeld, in his first stint at the Pentagon, was the guy who abolished it. The only support for the draft is on the left - Rangel, Murtha, etc - and it is a minority fetish even among Democrats.

So, do not fear that anyone here is going to ask you to give up your rights. Fear that from Kos instead.

Regarding your fears of discrimination against BGLT people, it depends what you mean by discrimination. If you are talking principally about marriage, you are quite welcome to support gay marriage. You will be in a minority here, but you won't be alone. I am planning to attend a gay wedding in a few weeks.

If you are talking about discrimination in employment, that is a different matter. I have not the slightest interest in exercising economic discrimination against gay people, but I believe I have the right to contract with whom I want. If I wish to attend gay bars, or not, that is my decision. The same goes for employment.

You won't find many conservatives advocating general discrimination against gay people in employment, but you will find people - such as I - who believe these are private decisions and governments should keep out of them. There was a proposal to introduce a general policy of discriminating against gay people, by banning them from working as teachers, that was promulgated as an initiative in California in the 1970s. One of the main figures campaigning against the plan was former governor, Ronald Reagan. If you think that sort of discrimination is what conservatives generally stand for, you are mistaken. (In passing, it is doubtful that any American President before or since has had as many gay friends as Ronald Reagan. I can't prove this, of course, as in his generation (even in Hollywood) very few people were openly gay, but it seems likely that there are more gay people living in Hollywood than in Little Rock, Arkansas).

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net