The true definition of a philosophy is ultimately determined by the consensus of the intellectuals that help to shape that philosophy. Political philosophies are one of the most open and mailable schools of thought one can imagine. At any given moment, the definition of conservatism is being debated by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of scholars, politicians, comities, constituencies, and activists. The fact that bloggers are now part of the conservative equation should be some indication of just how wide open the door is when it comes to compiling an answer.

Part of the trouble of composing a true definition for exactly what conservatism is is the sheer variety in definitions depending on who you ask. It differs from place to place. Ask a Cuban or a Columbian what a conservative is and you’ll get a completely different answer than if you ask a Frenchman or a German what conservatism is and yet another answer from a Japanese man or a Korean. Even in America, the definition of conservatism differs dramatically. Ask Ron Paul what conservatism is and you’ll get a completely different answer than you would if you were to ask Mike Huckabee — and Sean Hannity would bash them both. The truth is that the definition of conservatism evolves and changes.

You can read the rest of the article here.

As a self-proclaimed “secular conservative”, I often confuse people when I take aim at policies that attempt to institutionalize an Atheist approach to governance. But why? If Atheists don’t believe in God, wouldn’t that be the perfect way to separate church and state? While a Godless republic on its face seems like a great secular idea, I take issue with the evangelical Atheists who would spread Atheism just as much as I take issue with the evangelical Christians who want to spread religion.

You can read the rest of the article here.

I recently outlined a rough framework for how I approach the question of who to support for President and why I was not particularly fond of the Republican candidate, John McCain. He got decent marks for his stance on taxes, but barely passed on the economy and failed outright on civil rights. Why then am I supporting him for President?

Because his opponent is Democratic Senator Barack Obama. Today I’m talking about Obama’s positions on the issues as I see them from my secular conservative point of view. It’s time to see how Obama stacks up when it comes to what I call the “big three” issues: taxes, the economy, and civil rights.

You can read the rest of the article here.