The Core of Conservatism?

[Universe Prince]

In a recent column, Michael Medved, movie critic and conservative pundit, had this to say about the core convictions of conservatism:

Most of the common efforts to define the fundamentals of conservative thinking fall short in their explanatory power. For instance, it’s impossible to say that conservatives want “small government” above all, when most of us want expanded governmental efforts to crack down on terrorists, crooks and illegal immigrants. Yes, we generally favor “less regulation” but we also want more restrictions on abortion, pornography and desecration of the flag. It’s true that most conservatives and Republicans describe themselves as religious and we certainly recognize the value of organized faith, but nearly a fourth of GOP’ers remain proudly secular and there’s no obvious religious basis for, say, backing lower taxes on capital gains. The essential instinct behind modern conservatism goes beyond a desire for small government or any religious impulses, and animates our approach to politics, culture, foreign policy, family life, child-rearing, the business world and much more. Above all, conservatives feel impelled to make clear distinctions between right and wrong. We reject all notions of moral relativism. Though we’re obviously imperfect, and (like all human beings) often fail to do the right thing, we try to draw lines between the beneficial and the dysfunctional, between productive and destructive. In policy as well as personal life, we seek to differentiate between good and bad behavior, and we want all of society (not just government) to encourage the good and discourage the bad. In other words, conservatives insist on making distinctions, giving the individual broad latitude to choose, and then recognizing that choices must carry consequences. A decent society supports and rewards good choices and discourages bad ones.

Whole article at TownHall.com.

Medved seems to be saying the core of conservatism is a desire for moralistic and authoritarian control of society. Is this true? Am I misunderstanding him? Is he wrong?

If you are a conservative and agree or disagree with Medved, would you care to try answering a few questions brought up by Jacob Sullum as part of his response to Medved's column?

As a libertarian who used to work at National Review and who counts conservatives among my friends and political allies, I have long searched for the unifying thread that ties together the seemingly disparate positions typically advocated by people on "the right." Why does opposition to gun control tend to go hand in hand with support for drug control (National Review's editors being an honorable exception on that score)? What does banning flag burning have in common with repealing restrictions on political ads? Why does pro-life on abortion and assisted suicide become pro-death on capital punishment? How does support for freedom of contract jibe with opposition to gay marriage? What do lower taxes have to do with prohibiting cloning? How is support for free markets reconciled with bans on migrant labor and online gambling?

The rest of Jacob Sullum's response is at Reason Online.

Any answers are welcome. I am not out to attack anyone. I will not argue with your answers or criticize them in any way. Possibly I might ask for clarification of a statement, but I will not be sarcastic or antagonistic about it. I just want to see how people address this issue.

[BT]

They are both wrong.

One size doesn't fit all, yet they both start from that premise.

Groups don't define the individual. Individuals define the group. And people change with circumstances.

One person might have smoked pot in their youth and lost a young adult offspring to meth a generation later. My guess is their attitudes towards drug laws would change under those different circumstances.

[Plane]

  Conservation in literal terms is keeping something rather than getting rid of it.

  Very few people wolud be so conservative that they would want society to never improve with changes , but I think it is tipical of a conservative to want to preserve the bird in the hand.

    While change can be very attractve , it is by it nature uproven .

   

[Michael Tee]

<<Medved seems to be saying the core of conservatism is a desire for moralistic and authoritarian control of society. Is this true? Am I misunderstanding him?>>

No, that's exactly what I got out of reading that quote.

I'm sort of with plane on this - - from a literal interpretation of the root word, "conserve," the essence of conservativism is resistance to change.

[sirs]

I'm sort of with plane on this - - from a literal interpretation of the root word, "conserve," the essence of conservativism is resistance to change.

And yet so often, we find it's the left perpetuating the status quo, resistant to any form of reform, be it tort, tax, SS, or Medicare.  Go figure

[Xavier_Onassis]

My guess is their attitudes towards drug laws would change under those different circumstances. 
 
Anyone with a brain would conclude that Meth is what kills, not pot.

========================================
The core of conservatism is GREED. Conservatives are Ferenghi-Americans.\

They want to keep laws that help them keep special favors that enable them to screw the rest of us.

They oppose laws that would cause them to lose part of their ill-gotten gains, or prevent them from getting more.

They aren't about "conserving" anything, except their exhalted monetary position.

They are Scrooge McDuck and everyone else is either a sucker or a Beagle Boy.

[Amianthus]

The core of conservatism is GREED.

And the core of progressism is CONTROL. They want to tell everyone else what to do, when to do it, and take their money away from them to pay for it.

[Michael Tee]

<<The core of conservatism is GREED.>>

I think greed is the core of many conservative beliefs but it doesn't apply to anti-choice, anti-drug, militarist and anti-evolution conservatives.  Their core is control, not greed.

What you have in the present "conservative" movement is an alliance of control freaks and greedheads.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The very wealthy who have some social conscious often become a benefit to the rest of us. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and any number of artistic types like Bono have done a lot to end diseases and such.

The less imaginative fatcats like Richard Scaife are a very small elite of less than 1% that control a HUGE amount of assets. They could not be elected doigcatcher, so they hire actors like Reagan or Juniorbush to front for them. This increases the base a bit, but lately they have made this unholy alliance with the less educated fundie types who think the 1950's were great and want to go back to those happy times.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And the core of progressism is CONTROL. They want to tell everyone else what to do, when to do it, and take their money away from them to pay for it.
===============================
WRONG!

The core of progressivism is PROGRESS. The idea is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

This is an improvement over pure capitalism, which provides economic control over the majority by a tiny minority of successful capitalists who have managed to improve their lot by being monopolists.

Theodore Roosevelt and Bob LaFollete were among the first progressives.

The monopolists love to tax people so they can build major league stadiums that they can sell with the teams to make millions. This was Juniorbush's only business triumph.

Progressives would prefer to build bridges and highways over sports stadiums.

[Amianthus]

WRONG!

Not really.

The core of progressivism is PROGRESS. The idea is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

That's what they claim, but they're lying through their teeth when they say it.

[Michael Tee]

<<This is an improvement over pure capitalism, which provides economic control over the majority by a tiny minority of successful capitalists who have managed to improve their lot by being monopolists.>>

Well, that's why we have to be careful in claiming that control is one of the main motifs in conservatism (the other, of course, being greed.)  While they want total control over the proles and the middle classes, even extending into their sex lives,  they want to be free themselves of all control and oversight, particularly in their economic depredations.

[The_Professor]

modern conservatism, and I am referring to that currently espoused by the neocons surrounding the Presidency, are an abomination of purist conservatism as advocated by purists such as William Buckley. So, dealing with labels can be dangerous ( and yet we all do it, somewhat understandably).

And to indicate, as others such as XO have here, that conservatives represent greed, is patently false. Conservatives are people and simply cannot be labelled in such a manner.

This being said, there is an apparent schism underway. The country club Republicans (many of whom are neocons) represent one influential block of conservatives, others are the voters as loosely represented by the term Religious Right. Ad there are still the purists of the Buckley mold who espouse the traditional conservative positions of smaller government, less government interference in the affairs of both individuals and businesses (an example being an overly intrusive OSHA). So, conservatism as if "liberalism" is composed of many influential blocks and they obviously continually vie for prodominance.

[sirs]

Though we may disagree on the war in Iraq, you couldn't have summized it better Professor.   

[domer]

In one sense that may shed light on the tropisms that form political life, basic personality types, be they formed through nature or nurture, do, I speculate, correlate to political affiliation in identifiable ways, such that, for example, one disposed to exploratory pursuits is more likely to lean left while one disposed to structure and precedent would be more inclined to lean right. I propose -- again, as a speculative matter -- that such divisions of sensibilities, grossly considered, can be a useful tool, in addition to ideology and other usual indicators, to explain political tendencies. The supposition, indeed, the hope, is that the traits mentioned are distributed evenly enough throughout society so as to produce a workable stability though not a stasis, and that they are fluid enough (adaptable enough) to coalesce into novel blocks and alliances during periods where transformation becomes a societal mandate.