conservatism is not being against change it is doing change carefully. Libralism jumps head first into the water while conservatism examines the water and surroundings. One is for ripping the bandaid off fast , the other is slow. Both have their good points and both have their bad points. We need both to balance.
A large swath of the modern conservative ideology doesn’t even consider investigating. They are more stuck in the mud than they are proceeding carefully. The anti-science conservative-ism that halts investigation on principle is not interested in continuing debate.
Exactly, something I have always believed. It takes two to tango, two branches to make a healthy political system, like in DNA.
you are talking religious conservatism not political, not that the two don’t intertwine somewhat. But one should not be confused for the other.
Absolutely. That’s why I said “large swaths”. It’s really unfortunate, but much of modern political conservatism is religious conservatism. The two are far from identical, but somehow they have become strange and dangerous bedfellows.
They do at that,
We have a frighteningly conservative religious relatively young man running for Gov. His first commercials were all based on ultra conservative religion, now since that has come under attack, his handlers deftly changed his tune to ultra conservative blue collar republican politics and good old fashioned mudslinging. Frankly there is not one candidate that makes me feel real comfortable. They all reek of Southern religious, political bigotry and conservatism to the Nth degree. No balance, no honesty at all. But, they do tell a good tale.
I am not voting simply because, they are all at the same level of evil, it really makes no difference which one gets it. They all suck equally and will screw this state equally.
Cats can’t vote anyway!
Point 1: agreed.
Point 2: Conservatives do place great stock in tradition, but we are not opposed to rejecting tradition when the tradition is bad- slavery for example. Conservatives are not opposed to change when change is necessary.
It isn’t just a matter of adhering to tradition. The traditions involved are also important. Thus you have conservatism of process and conservatism of values. Someone in Russia that supports communism would be a conservative by process because communism is Russia’s most recent tradition. But, American conservatives reject communism as a matter of values.
Point 3: agreed.
Point 4: agreed.
Point 5: agreed with the proviso that mobility between classes and states of material condition must be allowed without either undue restraints or undue impetus. Society must allow mobility as a matter of justice, but it isn’t always necessary or wise for society to take collective action, i.e., government action, to facilitate this mobility.
Point 6: The impossibility of utopia should not be an excuse for allowing poverty to propagate or injustice to inundate. Burke and his succeeding conservatives have all known the dangers presented by extremes of both wealth and poverty. Allow poverty to run rampant and the property of the wealthy is put at risk by social upheaval and revolution. Allow wealth to concentrate and poverty cannot help but increase.
I am not saying that government should be encouraged to deal with poverty and injustice, or even that government can effectively deal with these problems; private efforts are usually better suited to these tasks. What I am saying is that conservatives have a responsibility to society to take private action against the social ills of poverty and injustice.
Point 7: Agreed with the proviso that neither property nor freedom can go unchecked, human nature being what it is. Eliminate restraints on property and freedom of the individual and you put the property and freedom of everyone in jeopardy.
Point 8: Not necessarily agreed. Human civilization is based on cooperative efforts. Without cooperation human civilization collapses and the very existence of the human race is imperiled. Point 8’s cabin-in-the-woods mentality is part and parcel of libertarianism, not conservatism. Society must have the ability and the right to enforce its norms on individuals as long as these norms are reasonable and just.
Point 9: incompatible with point 8. The ability to exercise restraint over the power and passions of individuals is contingent upon the ability to compel collectivization. If society cannot compel an individual to conform to its standards, point 9 is impossible. If society can compel an individual to conform, point 8 is impossible.
It should also be understood that power is power regardless of its source or nature. The political power of government and the economic power of big business can both have the same detrimental effect on an individual’s liberty. Conservatism must address all power issues, not just political ones.
Point 10: ties in with point 2. They should be combined.
flaja Good points. But where did these point you refer to originate. You agree with points 1,3 and 4. But what are these points.
[/b]
From the Kirk article linked to in the first post in this thread.
That’s right! I forgot. 
Folks without political parties can’t vote in candidates in some states either. We are not allowed to vote in primaries. Bunch of crap, because we can’t choose possible candidates only Dems and Reps are allowed to do that. Oh and in primaries you must vote a straight ticket… Now see, that is how we get stupid, greedy moric pain in the butt sold their soul to the devil candidates. Yea , I know thats the ideal politician, 
Florida has closed primaries and this is a good thing since it prevents people from one party raiding another to help nominate a candidate just because he has little chance of winning in November. Just think if all of the Republicans in 2004, who didn’t have a presidential primary of their own, had voted in the Democrat primary and had nominated someone like Kucinich.
Florida collects qualifying fees from all candidates, who don’t qualify by petition, regardless of party affiliation and then uses the money to pay for the Republican and Democrat Party primaries. Third parties in Florida are not entitled to a government-sponsored primary election procedure. This is very bad.
In Florida you cannot vote for someone as a write-in candidate if the person hasn’t registered with the state as a write-in candidate. This is even worse.