Comments on: Sometimes We’re Wrong

By: Conservatism and Slavery « The Other Right

Conservatism and Slavery « The Other Right — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:30:02 +0000

[...] de la League responds: I think it’s quite possible to argue that there were no good conservative answers to slavery or [...]

By: Scott H. Payne

Scott H. Payne — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:35:15 +0000

I suppose it depends upon which strain of conservatism you happen to be speaking. I wouldn’t disagree with you whole heartedly, but neither would I agree with you entirely.

Conservatism, like any relatively robust ideology, is not a monolith, it has parts, veins, conflicting thinkers, and competing interests. That people have trouble telling you exactly what conservatism is right now is a good thing in my mind. It points to a real consternation afoot at the present, which is wholly warranted and needed.

It always bears pointing out that successive conservative administrations have grown government, the last being the most stark. But there is a difference between shrinking government and limiting government, in this commenter’s opinion, and it is the former to which I am referring as a helpful element of conservatism that seems to lie at the heart of the perspective.

That this needs to be applied in a more consistent fashion is, I think, a fair point to make to conservatives, so I’m inclined to tell you to continue making it. But it doesn’t render the underlying helpfulness of the predilection moot.

By: Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Thursday Highlights

Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Thursday Highlights — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:06:52 +0000

[...] Stating the obvious. [...]

By: matoko_chan

matoko_chan — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:07:34 +0000

But that doesn’t seem to part of conservatism at all.
Conservatism seems to be totally about growing government of uteruses and penises.
Call meh skeptical.

By: Scott H. Payne

Scott H. Payne — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:46:07 +0000

A healthy skepticism about the limits and role of government?

By: matoko_chan

matoko_chan — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:51:19 +0000

Srsly…what does conservatism provide that we actually need anymore?
No one can even tell me what conservatism is.
Small government for the markets and big government for uteruses and fallopian tubes and penises?
That is sure what it looks like from here.

By: matoko_chan

matoko_chan — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:48:44 +0000

Every generation says that.

And sometimes it is true. Like the Whigs.

By: introvert.net » Interesting Items for 6/10/2009

introvert.net » Interesting Items for 6/10/2009 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:14:01 +0000

[...] that segregation was also evil, but resolve to nothing about it which might upset its supporters.Sometimes We’re Wrong [ordinary-gentlemen.com] I think it’s quite possible to argue that there were no good [...]

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:44:40 +0000

This is the sort of answer, non-answer, I thought would be offered, “If you’re talking classic Burkean conservatism, though, I suspect that the answer is harder to give. Not because it’s wrong, but because its nature is such that its successes are measured by what doesn’t happen more than what does. Since you never know what didn’t happen, there’s often no way of saying for certain that the worldview proved successful.”

The problem with such a response, as I see it, is:

1. Not a practicle political platform.

2. Rebublicans and conseratives don’t even try to convince
the public of the wisdom of the above proposition.

By: Bob Cheeks

Bob Cheeks — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:21:22 +0000

We seem to be having a really difficult time recovering the broken symbols, MC’s comments being illustrative.
“Truth experienced can be excluded from the horizon of reality but not from reality itself. When it is excluded from the universe of intellectual discourse, its presence in reality makes itself felt in the disturbance of mental operations.”