This is the first in a series that I hope to write regarding various issues used by
infidels in their attacks on Christianity. The intent of these posts is
"For-Your-Information" background information.
There are many places I could begin this work. One might think that I would begin with
a general discussion of the Bible. Not only is that the ultimate standard, it is also the
focus of this newsgroup. I have been wanting for quite some time, though, to post
information regarding the role that Christianity and conservative Christian values have
played in the lives of various people. One of the goals of the infidels is to portray
Christianity as a superstitious and ignorant pursuit of the ignoble, contrasted with the
supposed moral and intellectual superiority of the non-religious. It is good to recall
that Christianity is the basis of our civilization; the infidels destroy civilization.
The cultural battle between the Christians and the infidels has been fought in the
United States since its founding. Quite often, these battles have been fought under the
banners of Conservatism and Liberalism. The Puritans were conservative Christians, as were
most of the Founding Fathers of the United States. German Rationalism began to influence
the United States around the beginning of the 20th Century. Many of the changes in the
world and the United States in the 20th Century have been the result of the acceptance of
Rationalism.
The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" has an excellent article on Conservatism,
which I would like to paraphrase here with my comments.
Conservatism is characterized by its preference for precedence and thus for continuity
and stability. This is slightly different from fundamentalism, which is a return to
original or "pure" beliefs. Modern Conservatism generally is traced to Edmund
Burke, who presented it in his 1790 essay, "Reflections on the Revolution in
France." Burke had earlier supported the American Revolution on the grounds that the
colonists were fighting for their traditional rights (the same argument used by the US
patriots). When the French Revolution still appeared to be a bloodless utopia, Burke
predicted that it would enter a phase of terror and dictatorship because it devalued both
tradition and inherited values.
Conservatism and Liberalism often appear similar in action, but are very different
philosophically. Conservatism, for whatever reason, tends to assume the Christian doctrine
of humanity’s inherent depraved nature. Liberalism believes in the inherent goodness
of mankind. What French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau denounced as the
"chains" impeding man’s natural goodness are praised by the Burkians as the
props that make man good. These "chains" (society’s traditional
restrictions on the ego) fit man into a rooted, durable framework, without which ethical
behavior and responsible use of liberty are impossible.
Conservatism distrusts human nature, "rootlessness," and untested
innovations. It trusts unbroken historical continuity and traditional frameworks. However,
Conservatism does not argue for a static society. Burke said that "A disposition to
preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a
statesman." Conservatism sees society as a contract with people past, present and
future; Liberalism, as embodied in Rousseau’s 1762 "Social Contract,"
argues for constructing a society only of those now living. (Perhaps this is a reason that
Liberals insist that the unborn child is not presently a living human being?)
Conservatives argue that society has to be held together by religion, idealism, shared
historical experiences, commitment to long standing political institutions, and by the
emotions of reverence, cooperation and loyalty. They condemn Liberalism for producing an
artificial, disjointed and rootless society. The latter may result from materialism, class
war, excessive laissez-faire economics, greedy profiteering, overanalytical
intellectuality, subversion of shared institutions, insistence on rights above duties, and
by the emotions of skepticism and cynicism.
The influence of Conservatives in making the US Constitution is revealed more clearly
by the attempts of the Liberals of the period. The Liberals wanted a constitution that
could be easily and rapidly amended and would be sensitive to mass pressure. They wanted
unchecked popular sovereignty, universal voting rights, and a single parliamentary body.
They wanted liberty to be based on a long list of a priori abstractions.
The Conservatives succeeded in foiling each of these Liberals goals. Amendments to the
US Constitution were made slow and difficult and voting rights were restricted to
landholders. They created a congress composed of two parliamentary bodies. Liberties were
based mostly on traditional British precedents. The branches of government were not to be
directly selected by the people, with the partial exception of the House of
Representatives (it wasn’t until 1913 that the intentionally undemocratic election of
Senators was amended). The complex system of checks and balances was designed out of
distrust, not only of the powers of government, but of the inherent evil tendencies of
humanity in general.
There have been several branches of Conservatism:
Coleridge (early 1800s) began as a utopian liberal praising the French Revolution, but
he soon became disillusioned and reacted against liberalism and rationalism. He considered
businessmen often subversive, not conservative, for eroding Christian monarchy by
substituting the religion of economic profit.
Metternich disdained the liberal revolutions of the 1820s and 1830s in Italy, Spain and
Germany as being unhistoric and unrealistic. He commented that, "The English
constitution is the work of centuries … there is no universal recipe for
constitutions," as the Soviet Union later learned.
The United States’ only consistently conservative party was the Federalist Party
of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. After the death of the Federalist Party in the early
1800s, two mutually hostile kinds of political conservatism emerged: that of the New
England Brahmins and that of the Southern semi-feudal landowners. The South, including
both Republican and Democratic parties, is still dominated by the authority-based
Conservatism of John Calhoun. The famous radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, clearly has
been strongly influenced by the Southern form of Conservatism. Many people in the United
States do not even realize that Conservatism exists outside that brand.
I hope that it is clear for the forgoing that the United States achieved its strength
of government from its Conservative principles and that the US Founding Fathers were far
more Conservative than Liberal. I also hope that people realize that being a Conservative
does not mean that one must be unquestionably pro-business, pro-states rights or
pro-tobacco, as a certain radio entertainer would represent the issue.
—
Richard Alexander
Richard’s Electronic Kingdom
Discussion
No comments for “Conservatism”