Well, as Winston Churchell so nicely put, If you're young and a conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and you're a liberal, you have no brain.

 

Anyways, I wonder if you can elaborate a bit more on that middle passage of yours dealing with the decline of conservatism and the national priority. What sort of needs are you referring to and to what social, economic or political equilibrium are you hoping can be reached by placing the national need above individual need? Do you value national growth, freedom and health above individual ones? What is the difference?

 

Before I know your response, I can't add more of what I think. However, from a socioeconomic point of view, I'm inclined to believe that there are forces at work in society that ultimately converges self-interest together into public benefits despite the collection of criticism at the theory. If true freedom is what you seek, then you must know that the freedoms of people to put themselves first do possible produce cooperation without intention.

<br>Well, as Winston Churchell so nicely put, <i>If you're young and a conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and you're a liberal, you have no brain.</i> <br>

<br>

Anyways, I wonder if you can elaborate a bit more on that middle passage of yours dealing with the decline of conservatism and the national priority. What sort of needs are you referring to and to what social, economic or political equilibrium are you hoping can be reached by placing the national need above individual need? Do you value national growth, freedom and health above individual ones? What is the difference?<br>

<br>

Before I know your response, I can't add more of what I think. However, from a socioeconomic point of view, I'm inclined to believe that there are forces at work in society that ultimately converges self-interest together into public benefits despite the collection of criticism at the theory. If true freedom is what you seek, then you must know that the freedoms of people to put themselves first do possible produce cooperation without intention.<br>

<br><br>What you wrote in your last paragraph is what I used to believe, but not anymore.<br><br>Call it an end to my old naivete in conservative ideology and my realization on the issue surrounding it.<br><br>I value the nation as a concept that ties us together and hold us to certain principles. A nation is an entity as well as a concept though, it lives and it dies by the sum of its parts. <br><br>While a collective interest in common goals like wealth, quality services, and improvements on outcomes may lead to a convergence, what we have today are not common goals, nor common ideals in the United States. The breaks in commonality between individuals and a lack of focus on national goals offer a dark future.<br><br>Think of the Tea Party groups and people like Donald Trump and Koch Brothers as the prions of mad cow disease. Once infected, the other proteins breakdown and deform in a chain reaction, ultimately ending the death of the Brain and the person. I know some liberal will hate me for making a comparison that "conservatives" are the brain (which gives you guys as the heart ), but the analogy works out quite well.<br><br>It's a tragedy that the old conservatives have either been dismissed as elitists or have died out completely, but they were onto an interesting notion on the roots of Anarchy. Human civilization is fragile, because we work together for common interests up to only a certain point as the results may offer rewards. This process has offered us several thousand years of relative integrity, until the advent of new, or old depending on your view, thought. <br><br>The freedom, which many of these people are asking for with or without understanding it, is not "freedom" in the respect of what we understand in terms of rights and obligations; it is a freedom to abandon both in order to make your own way and leave all human society behind. <br><br>I think I am moving more towards the social conservative way of thought, because what this "freedom" ideal is asking for is nothing short of anarchy, a return to the natural system and an end to humanity. <br><br>It is in such a world that thieves are heroes, killers are idols, and the law is silent. I am a strong believer in justice as well as honor and integrity. Some might have abandoned those principles, but they are still here. <br><br>In essence in terms of economics, I think the reason why Adam Smith's invisible hand hasn't worked out as well as it should is this form of human arrogance and self love. The hand has basically been jerking it's own cock every now and then. If enough hands in the society do that, then we no longer have any hands at work as an analogy of course.<br><br>What I am defending, the concepts of civilization and national unity, the notion of rights and obligations, and the rule of law. Those things are all classic conservative points. <br><br>What I would like to see, a nation that is united together seeking to improve itself. Yes, I hate liberals, but only ideologically as I value their input and enjoy the arguments with them. In such a nation, we can't have lawmakers performing like it's the "must watch TV" fiction world that reality television has created. When a politician must be an orator, he had better have a strong point to defend and not a sound bit for 7 PM news. People must be willing to make sacrifices and I do mean all people, rich and poor. <br><br>As I said earlier, a nation is the sum of its parts, at it's basic unit is people joined together in common goals. <br>

I'm not going to argue with you in a straightforward sense, but I am going to add a few thoughts.

 

-It's all too common to view former selves as more naive than present selves, but you have to remember the movement from one party to another goes both ways. Former members of A who are now members of B looking condescendingly upon Present Members of A who are Former Members of B and look condescendingly upon them. What motivated you to be liberal is not what motivates all present liberals to be liberal.

 

-When you say Conservatism is this or that, you mean YOUR Conservatism is this or that, and in a way blind yourself to the idea that it's the same ideal held by many liberals.

 

-When you say "The American people is letting it die, because they want to be loud an angry," it sounds like your extending the problems of a few to the many. Why give agency to a populace as a whole? Who are you to say what they want?

 

-The anecdote of the stealing seems kind of like a non sequitur. Someone stole from me therefore I became conservative?

 

-Conservatives are more than "Jesus lovers, Screamers, Saber rattlers, and spend cutters," but they are ALSO that.

 

There's more along this vein but basically: I want to steer you away from seeing the transformation from liberal to conservative as from naive to learned (or some other such enlightened state). I think of the housing developments near where I live, how all the signs in front of them support conservative candidates, and how it seems appropriate that none of the houses of a housing development face outward. They all face inward. Isn't there something naive in that kind of world view? "Everyone in my immediate every day life can get ahead by working hard, therefore everyone can."

 

 

The difference between the two political ideologies is one of core truths. Conservatism is supposed to be a hard foundation to support the society. Liberalism is the material to build the society. Material should be flexible and easily changed, foundations should not.

 

What we have in the United States is a group of individuals, who outright seeks revolution in the guise of conservative foundation. Society is not bound by rights and rules, for every action you take, there is a rule behind it.

 

Movement beyond the old to the new is common, but movement from openness to protective defense is another concept that is known without much exploration unless you have traveled the road. I was more libertarian, when I was in colllege. I wanted to believe that people can reach mutually good outcomes on their own. However, I forgot that mankind is irrational and excessive. We hold our selves far too high and our ability far too great.

 

Conservatism is not a personal belief, it is an ideology founded at the heart of civilization. Anarchist ideology are not the same, but some have foolishly tried to combine them in order to win a stalemate between liberalism and conservatism. Anarchism abandons the need for obligation or rules in order to further the individual. Conservatism holds the rules and obligations to maintain order and create greater peace.

 

As for the point that I am attacking only the few. I fear that the few are growing too strong now.

 

Imagine each political figure like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin as the prions of Mad Cow disease. It does not take many bad protein combination to destroy the brain, all the process needs is merely one bad molecule. The copying process would just keep going and going, then the holes will begin to form from the thin material lining their ideas, ending in brain death and mortal death as well for the political Body of the United States.