What do you believe in that makes you a conservative? I would most manifestly classify myself as such due to my tastes in dress, toilette, politics, and economics. Every position I hold with regards to society is roundly called conservative by most people, so I hold it to my heart. There is nothing greater, to me, than the Liberty eschewed by Smith and Burke. Whether it finds expression in George Washington, Robert Cecil, or Winston Churchill, my love of it is deep and eternal.
Seconded! I'm conservative in politics and in attire. I dress like a 19th Century English Gentlemen. I also hold the concept of Monarchy very dear, and agree in free trade as advocated by Smith. I'm conservative in many other ways as well. Though I'm not particularly religious I believe religion to be necessary, and that it should be supported. I could name more ways but I don't feel like thinking them up now.
I am a conservative in every way. Economically, Socially, and Religiously,
Conservative in most ways. Not sure how to describe it.... except by saying I am conservative...
Monarchist, I hope I don't burst your bubble but Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Winston Churchill were all liberals. In the latter two actual members of the Liberal Party... Burke never even joined the Tories, stayed a Whig all his life, and Churchill only joined the Tories because the Liberal Party split in half and collapsed forever giving way to the socialist Labour Party. Churchill created the modern British welfare state for god's sake, he engineered the People's Budget of 1911 and even commissioned the report which created the NHS. What we once called liberalism, we now what we call conservatism... nothing changed but the name. Therefore some kind of fetish with calling oneself conservative and deriding viciously anything liberal is only the greatest and most hilarious irony of modern times and it amuses me endlessly, especially in your case Monarchist. We have an in joke in England whereby North Americans don't understand irony. Suffice to say I do consider myself a small c conservative, since I left the Tory party I am no longer a big C conservative. I am a fiscal conservative in that I believe in a balanced budget and surpluses first and foremost, I am a social conservative... but I'm also a civil Libertarian in that I believe that disagreement to my perceptions are allowed and to be respected.
I don't think you understand me properly, Rome. Either that, or you're being dreadfully shabby for no reason but to amuse yourself. How germane is it to this friendly group to deride all North Americans? You think we're all lacking in some essential quality that makes you superior, just because you're a Homelander. We're all conservatives or Conservatives here in some manner or another, so your petty, snotty insults are not appreciated. What's the point of joining a common society and lobby if you're going to be so vindictive? Your small in-joke is not appreciated. Acting as if we're all provincial types out here is not a respectful, conservative, just thing to do! Churchill's conservatism obviously extended in a direction which was different from economics. What of his position on the Empire? What of his positions on Irish Union and Home Rule, early on? He surely had more varied views than you pity we colonials with understanding. Obviously the N.H.S. was a liberal progression in Churchill's time, but most Conservatives I meet now are pro-N.H.S., albeit in a less expansive fashion than are the Labour people. Conservatism is more than just anything before 1902. I myself use the term conservative to denote my support for and adherence to aristocracy, ultra-royalism, reactionary policies, and ideas such as Obligatory Royal Assent. If that is not conservative, nothing is; however, one may be a conservative, in some sense, without believing in any of those things I just listed. This group is for the varied and variable human beings who call themselves conservatives, not for snotty, condescending yobbos. Either you are true to your word and respect the beliefs of your peers, or you are hypocritical and say we're a bunch of idiots with no understanding of irony. I vastly prefer that we be unified in our wide web of diverse opinion. Perhaps you should put down your Mighty Stick of Wisdom and condescend to mingle amongst the mortals. Jupiter himself cannot be everywhere at once.
I think it's very unfortunate that you've taken what was supposed to be a tongue in cheek comment as some kind of assault on your whole continent. If it rubbed you the wrong way, I apologise. Which is a lot more than can be said of you. Seriously Monarchist, do I have to quote your open and plain degradations of the various people's in the worlds? Your own disparaging comments about Americans, Canadians, British people and Europeans? MUST I quote you? I might not post much in the D&D any more, but I am still blessed with the ability to read your post you know. Please don't try and make it out as it if I came in here specifically to insult you, or as if I think I am better than everyone else, and certainly don't try and exaggerate your offence to it... what I said was a compliment compared to your own past comments, and I was being more than humble compared to your frequent declaration of superiority be it over Muslims or women. On Conservatism, if you intended this group to be some kind of circle jerk and ego stroking off a bunch of Toffs telling each other how awesome they were... then sorry to inject a little down to earth discussion to it. No two conservatives can sit down and agree on everything in real life, so no two should be able to here. Back to the topic at hand. The main trouble you're having Monarchist is you're not English... and have an Amero-centric idea of ''Conservative and Liberal''. In that Conservatives are right wing and Liberals are left wing. This is not true in the UK and is not true of British history. Using Churchill as an example... support or lack thereof of the Empire is not a Conservative or non-Conservative idea. It would be deeply disingenuous and inaccurate of you to suggest that no matter what your desires were. The NHS was not liberal is any manner whatsoever... it was however BRITISH. All parties were signed up to an NHS after the War, as during the war they had all agreed to it. The Tories only turned against it out of political opportunism as the elites in society opposed it. Onto conservatism... no... many people would laugh out loud at your designation of 'conservatism' as ''support for and adherence to aristocracy, ultra-royalism, reactionary policies, and ideas such as Obligatory Royal Assent'' particularly American conservatives.. even British conservatives who are now Libertarian and neo-Liberal. Your 'conservatism' seems to me to just be a euphemism for 'turning back the clocks to the 1700's Britain... where the King and aristocracy ruled supreme. This is not the belief of ANY British conservatives or American conservatives... so I personally question your definition of conservatism with the utmost rigour. Even if you did somehow support the liberal and free market economics of the modern conservatives... you'd be contradicting your little Victorian conservatism as the free market liberal capitalists were the ones who destroyed the aristocracy in this country, and forged our democracy from oligarchy. Personally I'm confused.
Rome and I being in the same group gives me warm feelings. I agree that the fact modern conservatism is classic liberalism is very funny, how did this name swap even happen? And He is right on the issue of monarchies and aristocracy.
Greetings fellow Conservatives, I am here to show my solidarity with all of you who are not afraid to proclaim openly that you stand firmly for your Conservatives values. I am the same, we share the same values and ideas!
I would classify myself as a conservitive, infact it's a small D democrat. A fiscal conservitive and social libertarian, with a vision of a Jeffersonian society. The "leave me alone and let me be me" party. As a fiscal conservitive I would like the government's role in planning for it's citizens future diminished if not done away with completly. Noboby on this planet would willingly hand over money to someone else every week to hold onto, interest free, for 30, 40, 50 years just to have it rationed back out to you later in life because somehow we, as citizens, are not smart enough to make our own investments, our own weath. Social security, medicare/medicade all should be done away with entirely and everyone that has money left should be cut a check for the difference tomorow. A fiscal conservitive wouldn't want a government run heathcare plan, no matter how noble the reason for it. Insead of trying to get everyone insured by diminishing the service that some currently enjoy as an acceptable solution; a fiscal conservitive looks for ways to reduce costs in the market, by freeing up restrictions on commerce and trade within the country. It's not equality to discriminate based on anything, including weath. A fiscal conservitive would promote charity over welfare, but wouldn't grumble too loudly over welfare in general other than to score a few political points with thier base. Personally I see humans as extremly giving people. How many of you have seen any front page storys about someone that got jobbed by a big buisness, say an insurance company, and thier not going to pay for that 20,000 dollar operation and the story is splattered all over the local newspaper or tv? Do you notice that after just a day or two the paper will run a follow up story about how it collected from an overwhelming generous society enough to pay for the operation three times over? I wouldn't even object to the government running the charity as welfare, it's the symbolism of being forced to help rather than wanting to help. Too tie libertarian into the mix, no discrimination of any kind. Society must be free to make choices and free to fall on thier face. Society would also be right to acost people from not wanting to help yet should never turn to the government as a solution to force someone to help. It's all about peer pressure. NO DISCRIMINATION IS EVER ACCEPTABLE: Flat tax percentages for everyone and buisnesses are extentions of people, anything less is class discrimination. Affirmitive action, and reverse racism must never be law of the land. How it ever got into the books is beyond me. Sonia Sotomayor should be ashamed of herself and so shouldn't those congressmen that approved her nomination. Ruling against a group of firefighters because the skin color of those that passed the test were all white is incredulous. I thought we hired the most qualified canidates, not how much diversity the workforce has. Defence of Marriage act. How can fellow conservitives be for defining what marriage is? Marriage is such a subjective word and to define it as something that someone else may not agree with doesn't seem to fit into my conservitive libertarian views and respect for all types of religions. A Catholic certainly wouldn't want the government defining marriage as two women or two men, so why is it acceptable to define it at all? Civil unions for all can be the only answer that is fair and equal to all people. If liberalism is accuratly defined in wiki, then I understand. The belief and importance of liberty and equality. However as an American I point to a discrepancy in the first paragraph that doesn't fit, secularism. That's not something that I agree with. America does have a strong separation of church and state however we are a multicultural society and thus the opposite of a secular, assimilated, western european country. The one and only rule you could call assimilation is our insistance of English as a first language, other than that you are free to do and be what you want to be. The leave me alone and let me be me party. A Jeffersonian.
agreed, on the marriage aspect, its not governments job to determine.
Born and raised a Conservative Republican Catholic! Several years ago however, my family and myself left the Republican party. My father started buying into the falsehood that "nobody listens to the citizens anymore." Now, I won't deny it, I bought it for a little while too, mostly because I was too young to really understand what was REALLY going on, and I just figured that whatever daddy did was right. However, watching the Republican speeches on the night of the healthcare vote really brought it home for me. The Party of No is the party for me!
Agreed on marriage thing, I'd prefer it if marriage were eliminated from goverment recognising it and leave it as a private sector issue. If some people of certain lifestyles want to form their own religion that gives marriages to them thats their business not mine. I'll still disagree with their choice but I at least now the state wont recognize marriage and only by those in public life who recognize it.
It's nice to see fellow conservitives against government discrimination in the form of Defence of Marriage Act. Now if the politicans can see that law as inherintly discriminatory. Marriages should stay private and the government should issue everyone a civil union, I think that would solve that problem forever. Now on to crush affirmitive action!
I'm a Conservative in that I want to preserve the laws and essence of Europe, which is, and has always been, freedom and equality, as opposed to Far Right barbarism, and Communist and Anarchist stupidity and authoritarianism. I oppose all these forces that want to change too much of this fabric, from every corner of the political spectrum. I also always find it amusing how many ''Conservatives'' oppose the term Liberalism, even though that term is technically accurate to describe them. If we were to use the actual, original definition of ''Conservative'', it would apply to many who call themselves such. Most of them advocate representative democracy and free trade, a la late 18th century Enlightenment. This is Liberalism by very definition. True Conservatism are the ideas of men like Metternich and Bismarck. Everything based on pragmatism, not idealism. These were men who were too intelligent to dogmatically cling onto doctrines. Metternich had absolutely no problems with a parliamentary system when it made sense. Both advocated systems considered Socialist when they were necessary.
Calling far right barbarism well thats a bit pointless considering: For that matter I could say I think euro-social democrat partys are far left barbarics but I dont and I dont think their barbaric at all. I do however think its a far left form of politics yes. America was founded under classical liberalism and our conservativism is about preserving the traditional ways of free markets, low taxes, Liberty, country and people. This is why most american conservatives hate Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Socialism as they are all forms of giants goverment control and tyranny, the Nazis were less Left wing on economics than the Communists but they are still Far left compared to our main political partys of today and yesterday. I'm for Economic and personal Liberty.
Far Rightism is barbarism because it advocates unEuropean policies that are pulled straight out of some Third World , to combat Third World -ness. It's completely ridiculous and anyone who advocates laws that only Asiatic and African despotisms implement deserves to be called an unpatriotic barbarian in my opinion. If you think that Social Democrats are ''far left'' then there's something a bit wrong with your left-right scale. The Nazis were hardly ''far left'' economically, because they embraced the same kind of corporatism and military keynesianism that Reagan endorsed. They didn't implement any new welfare policies, they simply built upon the earlier policies. But anyway, using terms like ''left-right'' is pointless anyway. It's a sign of shallowness to use it. Dividing the political spectrum across two abritrarly drawn and vague zones is stupid, hence why I prefer not to use those terms. Modern American conservatism seem to be either Liberal idealists or Statist hypocrites, both of which are undesirable, both of which are unpragmatic. Let's be fair here, the Republicans have probably been the biggest expanders of the government under Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan and the two Bushes. In Europe, a stronger base of authority is necessary in my opinion. A greater amount of respect and reverance, the integration of the individual into the state and vice versa. L'etat, c'est moi is a good slogan. L'etat, ce sommes nous is a better one.
I'm a conservative, but a distinctly American one. Because I've "worn" so well over almost 62 years, I'm able to dress like a considerably younger person, but there's nothing conservative about that. If the wife and I go out, I'll put on my best suit. I'm a religious, social, and fiscal conservative. They all find their roots in my religious beliefs. I found conservatism at the 1964 GOP Convention, where I was totally blown away by the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater. I've been a conservative, ever since, rejecting the excesses of my generation, and embracing the true "rebels" of my time ... conservatives. Thanks for the invitation. I'll come back quite often.
I consider myself a conservative because of my strong belief in monarchism and traditionalism. Also my entire family is conservative so that is probably where I have been influenced from.
I am an Evangelical Christian. Need I say more? Haha! I will anyway. I am morally/socially, economically/fiscally, and "religiously" a conservative. And when I say conservative, I mean the current, modern American definition of it. And I put "religiously" in quotations because I do not consider myself a religious man. I am a Christian, which means I have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Religion is a denomination or a church, which I have neither of, nor am affiliated with either of. I am not a monarchist. A democratic republic is the best way to govern, in my opinion of course. I consider myself a gentleman, though I do not wear suits and tuxedos. I am a gentleman in attitude and morality. Wearing clothes makes not a gentleman.
