my The Blog of Things To Have Come and Gone

One of the Many Functions of the DNA Vibrator: to relate experiences of life on the road, from the band that never really was.

Go To The Latest Blog entry:   10/16/08:   Preparing For The Worst...  
Go To Any Of This Month's Blog Entries:
  10/01/08:   Happy Birthday!   10/07/08:   Republicrats and Demicans...   10/10/08:   The Original Maverick?   10/14/08:   You Want Proof?   10/16/08:   Preparing For The Worst...  

Don't want to repeat DNA's mistakes of the past? Take a stroll through the Blog Graveyard, and read about blunder after faux pas made by the DNA Vibrator, thankfully aborted here and buried there each month.

Just click your heels three times and say, "There's no place like home..."

This page is like the tape deck in DNA's garage: A bunch of poorly produced old crap music is in it.

This is like a MySpace friends link page, except there is NO WAY that you would be friends with any of these people.

This actually IS DNA's MySpace page. See what creepy freaks have made it onto the page now. Or, be one of the creepy freaks on it.

Use email if you want to post comments to this blog. Put the blog post title in the subject line.
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->



This blog page removes what others may consider certain expected blog features, but removing those extraneous bits makes the blog more conducive to reading through from start to end, like a book. It is stripped down to the essentials. The DNA Vibrator may provide links to other sites or information it references ONLY if it suits the purpose of The DNA Vibrator.

Permanent Historical Record: 10/01/08

Happy Birthday!

In September, DNA recalled years past in a melancholic remembrance of the anniversary of this website, by reading the entire thing aloud, including archives, substituting the word "kiss" for the word "fuck" or its derivatives. You motherkissers!

To the girlie who makes my hair curly,
To the lady who deserves a parade-y
To the wife who's the love of my life,
To the chick who can suck a big......









.......beer down quick,
wait, what were you thinking DNA was going to say? What do you mean, what else rhymes with chick? You are all perverted little kissers, that's what you are!

Happy Birthday, La La! (or as DNA affectionately calls her, "Hon," which you might think is short for honey, but is actually spelled "Hun," and is short for Lara the Hun).

DNA wants to give you a big birthday

KISS!

Return To The Top of the Page

Permanent Historical Record: 10/07/08

Republicrats and Demicans...

In September, DNA recalled years past in a melancholic remembrance of the anniversary of this website, by reading the entire thing aloud, including archives, substituting the word "kiss" for the word "fuck" or its derivatives. You motherkissers!

The title of this week's blog post is derived from the joke among English lit people who dig Shakespeare that in Hamlet, the characters Rosencratz and Gildenstern are interchangeable, so much so that scholars purposely invented the spoonerism, Rosenstern and Gildencratz when referring to them. Damn, that shit is funny, isn't it? Ha ha ha ha hah ha ha ha! Wait for DNA, he is catching his breath right now. Ow, DNA's side hurts.....English professors are so clever and witty. This is why English lit professors generally are viewed as having huge intellectual sticks up their asses, because the shit they find funny isn't, unless of course, they come complete with spiraling out of control drug problems, or are sex addicts, or are somehow perverted and fucked up as human beings (thankfully, this accounts for about 95% of them). Then, their morose and self-deprecating attacks on themselves and everyone around them are pretty fun to watch.

Excepting this digression, the point stands, that the characters are interchangeable, and are symbolic of two things that appear to be different, but really are the same thing. DNA has long thought that Republicans and Democrats are the same thing, which is certainly not new, but DNA thinks that "Republicrats" and "Demicans," in the spirit of the bard, is a new way to express this frustration for the "two" parties in our political system.

Recently, DNA has had a series of interesting conversations with one of his co-workers, and also with DNA's brother. Both of these people are much further to the right than DNA on most political issues, but are willing to talk, instead of screech polemics, about our differences.

DNA has come to the conclusion that exactly what it means to be "left" or "right," liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, are all labels that have been so interbred and overused, diluted or confused, that they don't really have relevance in the public discourse anymore. What do you call someone like DNA, who is socially liberal (we should help those less fortunate than ourselves) fiscally conservative (don't spend a dime more than you have to) supports individual freedom (government needs to stay out of DNA's business) but also supports strong governmental oversight of big business (government better regulate and watch those bastards like hawks, or they'll fuck us over), hates the entitlement society and quotas, but realizes that without civil rights legislation, and even with it, we continue to perpetrate crimes against minorities? DNA is for legalizing almost all immigration, but requiring new citizens to speak English within a short time of their welcome into our country. DNA is for legalizing almost all drugs, but criminalizing the irresponsible behavior (i.e, driving under the influence, etc) so harshly that prison would be a cakewalk. DNA wishes that everyone who complains that gay people are assaulting the traditional cultural values that are exemplified by marriage could explain how hetero people have had a long track record of fucking up those sacred vows about half the time all by themselves, without any gay people weakening their moral fiber. DNA believes that the government has absolutely no right legislating any kind of definition or moral judgment about a person's sexual relationships. This cuts both ways. DNA could go on and on.

The long and short of it was that after realizing that DNA is fairly wishy-washy, he needed to do some research, if he were going to use terms like conservative and liberal and have them be relevant. So, DNA did some digging, and presents for your perusal, a discourse on the differences and similarities between the concepts, "conservative" and "liberal."

This first bit is by Geoffrey Stone, professor guy at the University of Chicago, and was written for the Chicago Trib, about two years ago (10/6/06).

What it means to be a liberal

By Geoffrey R. Stone. Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime."

October 10, 2006

For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."

Wikipedia provides a historical and etymological perspective on the terms. For those of you who think wiki is not a good source, did you know that wikipedia has statistically the same number of errors per entry as Encyclopedia Britannica? Take it either way---either they both suck, or are both good sources of information. Power to the people!

this passage is from the aforementioned wikipedia entry regarding "liberal."

Etymology and historical usage

The word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber ("free, not slave"), and is associated with the word "liberty" and the concept of freedom. Livy's History of Rome from Its Foundation describes the struggles for freedom between the plebeian and patrician classes. Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations writes about ". . . the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed." Largely dormant during the Middle Ages, the struggle for freedom began again in the Italian Renaissance, in the conflict between the supporters of free city-states and supporters of the Pope or the Holy Roman Emperor. Niccol� Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy, laid down the principles of republicangovernment. John Locke in England and the thinkers of the French Enlightenment articulated the struggle for freedom in terms of the Rights of Man.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) indicates that the word liberal has long been in the English language with the meanings of "befitting free men, noble, generous" as in liberal arts; also with the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action", as in liberal with the purse, or liberal tongue, usually as a term of reproach but, beginning 1776�88 imbued with a more favorable sense by Edward Gibbon and others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant." The first English language use to mean "tending in favor of freedom and democracy," according to the OED, dates from about 1801 and comes from the Frenchlib�ral, "originally applied in English by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness)." An early English language citation: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated."[5]

The American War of Independence established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. The more moderate bourgeois elements of the French Revolution tried to establish a government based on liberal principles. Economists such as Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), enunciated the liberal principles of free trade. The editors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, drafted in C�diz, may have been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales, to express their opposition to the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy.

Beginning in the late 18th century, liberalism became a major ideology in virtually all developed countries.

Trends

Within the above framework, there are deep, often bitter, conflicts and controversies among liberals. Emerging from those controversies, out of classical liberalism, are a number of different trends within liberalism. As in many debates, opposite sides use different words for the same beliefs, and sometimes use identical words for different beliefs. For the purposes of this article, we will use "political liberalism" for the support of (liberal) democracy (either in a republic or aconstitutional monarchy), over absolute monarchy or dictatorship; "cultural liberalism" for the support of individual liberty over laws limiting liberty for patriotic or religious reasons; "economic liberalism" for the support of private property, over government regulation; and "social liberalism" for the support of equality under the law, and relief provided by the government from suffering caused by poverty or natural disaster. By "modern liberalism" we mean the mixture of these forms of liberalism found in most First World countries today, rather than any one of the pure forms listed above.

� Liberalism wagers that a state . . . can be strong but constrained � strong because constrained . . . Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society. � Paul Starr, sociologist at Princeton University, The New Republic, March 2007 �

Some principles liberals generally agree upon:

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. Magna Carta is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or economic status. Political liberalism emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.

Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote, �The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. �

Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. TheNetherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today.

However, some trends within liberalism reveal stark differences of opinion: Economic liberalism, also called classical liberalism or Manchester liberalism, is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible. It advocates laissez-faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed privilege such as subsidy and monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the market. Some economic liberals would accept government restrictions of monopolies and cartels, others argue that monopolies and cartels are caused by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of goods and services should be set by the unfettered choices of individuals, that is, of market forces. Some would also allow market forces to act even in areas conventionally monopolized by governments, such as the provision of security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the economic inequality that arises from unequal bargaining positions as being the natural result of competition, so long as no coercion is used. This form of liberalism is especially influenced by English liberalism of the mid 19th century. Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are forms of economic liberalism. (See also Free trade, Neo-liberalism, liberalization)

Social liberalism, also known as new liberalism (not to be confused with 'neoliberalism') and reform liberalism, arose in the late 19th century in many developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Generally speaking, social liberals support free trade and a market-based economy in which the basic needs of all individuals are met. Furthermore, socially progressive ideas are commonly advocated by social liberals, based on the idea that social practices ought to be continuously adapted in such a manner as to benefit the substantive freedom of all members of society. According to the tenets of this form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler, since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. ; this concept of positive rights is qualitatively different from the emphasis that economic liberals place on negative rights. Social liberals believe that in order for all people to have substantive liberty, the provision of basic necessities to all citizens ought to be ensured by the political community through means such as taxation, towards ends such aspublic education, universal health care, infrastructure, and social security. Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on matters that economic liberals view as fundamental rights. For example, social liberals may favor minimum wage laws, which classical liberals view as violating of the liberty to contract. Social liberals argue that power disparities cause contracts to favor the rich. To which economic liberals reply, "Then don't sign." Of course, if a group did indeed refuse to "sign", as in a strike, the voluntary, mutual withholding of labor from an employer, economic liberals have employed--at least on a historical basis--totalitarian means, such as armed government soldiers to use force and coercion upon workers to "urge" them to "sign"; what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, apparently. (See, for example, the Homestead Strike, the Haymarket Martyrs, etc.)

The struggle between economic freedom and social equality is almost as old as the idea of freedom itself. Plutarch, writing about Solon (c. 639 � c. 559 BCE), the lawgiver of ancient Athens, wrote: � The remission of debts was peculiar to Solon; it was his great means for confirming the citizens' liberty; for a mere law to give all men equal rights is but useless, if the poor must sacrifice those rights to their debts, and, in the very seats and sanctuaries of equality, the courts of justice, the offices of state, and the public discussions, be more than anywhere at the beck and bidding of the rich. �

All forms of liberalism claim to protect freedom. They disagree only about the true meaning of freedom. Liberalism is so widespread in the modern world that most Western nations at least pay lip service to individual liberty as the basis for society.

Now, from a conservative web resource, we begin to first rebut or re-define the concept of liberal from a conservative viewpoint, and then, define conservative terms.

excerpted from http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-liberal.html

The Definition of Liberal

To understand the definition of liberal, it is first important to distinguish classical liberalism from modern liberalism. In fact, this distinction is so important that it is the basis for dividing the political spectrum into theright and left wings. This is not to say that classical liberalism is right wing while modern liberalism is left wing; rather, it is to point out that the definition of liberal is essentially a paradox.

Most encyclopedias define liberalism as a philosophy advocating individual freedom and "social progress." But what is "social progress"? When you delve deeper into what liberals mean by progress, what you discover beneath their philosophy is a deeply rooted desire for social and economic equalization. In other words, the definition of liberal is essentially the advocacy of both freedom and equality. This is inherently contradictory, since freedom and equality are frequently at odds. We can either be free or equal, but we cannot be both. Put simply, the difference between the classical liberal and the modern liberal is that the classical liberal of our age tends to be more concerned with freedom, while the modern liberal is more concerned with equality.

This should not be taken to mean that the classical liberal is not concerned with equality and the modern liberal is not interested in freedom. Indeed, because liberalism is at the very center of the political spectrum, it is more deeply concerned with both freedom and equality than any other political philosophy, so much so that the two ideas are often entangled and confused with one another in liberals' minds.

The terms classical and modern refer to the erroneous categorization of liberal ideas from the Enlightenment to the Great Depression as freedom oriented, and those from the New Deal to the present as equality oriented. In truth, liberalism has been at war within itself since the first liberal ideas began to emerge, and it is difficult to reconcile classical liberal thinkers like Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, and Alexis de Tocqueville, with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, and Auguste Comte, who are as modern as the liberal thinkers of today despite their classical categorization.

A slightly more useful classification of liberals are the terms negative liberal for classical thinkers and positive liberal for modern thinkers. These designations refer to the classical liberal's belief in negative rights, and the modern liberal's belief in both negative and positive rights.

Essentially, negative rights are those rights which require nothing from government except protection. These are rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. The government is not actively required to do anything other than to ensure these rights are not interfered with by other parties. A positive right, on the other hand, requires something to be provided by the government or by others, such as a right to health care or to education. Classical liberals tend to be skeptical of positive rights, and believe such rights must be limited exclusively to those that promote freedom. Modern liberals believe wholeheartedly in a growing list of positive rights, and believe that it is the responsibility of government to promote social and economic equality, which they often view as an extension of freedom.

Whatever the terms employed, the classical liberal is rarely referred to as a liberal today, but as a conservative, libertarian, or perhaps most correctly, a centrist. In truth, classical liberalism is something of an unattainable ideal, representing the perfect balance between freedom and equality; as such, those in pursuit of this paradox stand at a fork in the road, and must ultimately pick the path of freedom or the path of equality. The definition of liberal, then, as it pertains to the politics of our age, is a definition of the modern liberal. Henceforth, I will use the term liberal exclusively to mean modern liberal.

Modern Liberalism

The definition of liberal can be divided into 6 key principles:

1. Belief in positive law

2. Faith in utopianism

3. Preference for equality over liberty

4. Belief in the benevolence of government and individuals

5. Belief in the perfectibility of human beings

6. Belief in the communal state

The first of these principles, the belief in positive law, encompasses a broad array of beliefs within the definition of liberal, and I deliberately use the term ambiguously. In general terms, positive law refers simply to human or written law, as opposed to natural law which is law that exists independently of human beings, such as the law of God. I also use the term positive law to give a connotation of positivism, which is the belief in the supremacy of scientific knowledge, and of positive rights, which have already been discussed.

While it is true that liberalism was founded upon the idea that "life, liberty, and property" are natural rights, liberals do not believe in natural rights either as fervently or as literally as conservatives. For the liberal what is certain is not that rights and laws exist divinely or Platonically, but that we must govern ourselves as though they do. Whereas conservatives regard written law merely as a formality and an attempt to express the divine, liberals do not trust any right that is not expressly written in law, as they know that abstract rights are those most easily infringed.

Liberals stress that it is ultimately government that grants and guarantees rights, and in this the definition of liberal is essentially that of a spiritual pragmatist. While many, if not most, liberals are spiritual people, their spirituality is rarely conventional or orthodox, and they often distrust organized religion.

Tolerance is at the heart of the definition of liberal, and the liberal is not willing to assume the superiority of one person's perception of natural laws over another's. For this reason, liberals insist upon a strict separation of church and state, and favor a secular, positivist approach to governance. The second principle within the definition of liberal is a faith in utopianism. Liberals may disagree with one another on the possibility of a perfect world, but what they universally agree upon is that the world can be substantially improved from its present state.

"We have it in our power to change the world," John Kerry declared in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president, echoing the optimism of Thomas Paine some 200 years earlier.1 At the root of the definition of liberal is a desire to change the world, and to use government as a tool to better all humanity. What the conservative would preserve, the liberal would replace with economic and social experimentation.

"Let us resolve to make our government a place for what Franklin Roosevelt called 'bold, persistent experimentation,' a government for our tomorrows, not our yesterdays," President Clinton said in his First Inaugural Address.2 The third principle necessary to define liberal is the preference for equality over liberty. While it is true that some forms of equality such as equality of rights and opportunity serve to enhance liberty, most liberals are willing to curtail certain freedoms, particularly economic freedoms, to enhance equalities and promote positive rights.

"All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, and it is a maxim that the liberal takes quite literally, rejecting any and all claims to aristocracy or nobility whether based on birth, wealth, or merit. "The souls of emperors and cobblers are cast in the same mould," wrote Michel de Montaigne, and liberals hold emperors in no greater esteem than cobblers.

The fourth principle in the definition of liberal is a belief in the benevolence of government and of human beings. Liberals believe that human nature is essentially good, and that if an individual is corrupted it is usually the fault of some social or economic injustice. This modern liberal view of human nature is as old as liberalism itself and has taken many forms from the happy primitives of Rousseau to the phrenology of Franz Joseph Gall who posited the existence of an "organ of benevolence" in the human brain.

Moreover, the liberal believes that government can and should play a positive role in the lives of its citizens, particularly in the lives of the disadvantaged. Government, for the liberal, is a champion of the downtrodden and an instrument for the improvement of humankind.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little," declared Franklin D. Roosevelt in his Second Inaugural Address.

"The first duty of government is to see that people have food, shelter, fuel, and clothes," wrote the critic John Ruskin in a pamphlet addressed to Britain's working class. "The second, that they have means of moral and intellectual education."

It is through education, in its broadest sense, that the liberal aims to restore the human soul to its true nature. This faith in education belies the fifth principle in the definition of liberal, which is a belief in the perfectibility of human beings. Liberals believe that with the proper education and upbringing, all individuals can achieve their full potential in life and play a meaningful role in society. In this sense, education is not merely a matter of providing children with the proper schools but the proper society.

As the behavioral psychologist John B. Watson wrote, "What a rich and wonderful individual we should make of every healthy child if only we could let it shape itself properly and then provide for it a universe in which it could exercise that organization � a universe unshackled by legendary folk-lore of happenings of thousands of years ago; unhampered by disgraceful political history; free of foolish customs and conventions which have no significance in themselves, yet which hem the individual in like taut steel bands."

Finally, the definition of liberal depends upon a belief in the communal state, and a feeling that "we're all in this together." We have duties to each other before our duties to ourselves, the liberal insists, and the famous Musketeer motto of "one for all, and all for one" defines the liberal well. At the very root of the definition of liberal is not merely the desire for equality, but for the social harmony the liberal believes only an egalitarian society can achieve. "In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people," Franklin Roosevelt told the nation in his Second Inaugural Address, and his words define the liberal dream as much today as they did when he first uttered them.

At the bottom of the definition of liberal then, is an inescapable desire for the sort of unity only equality achieve. And for the liberal, to be united is to be truly free.





The Definition of Conservative

The definition of conservative used in college class rooms and political science textbooks often reduces conservatism to a blind adherence to the past. The root of the word conservative, i.e. to conserve, is overemphasized and the right wing's view of the world is reduced to a stubborn opposition to progress. A glance at the modern conservative movement in North America today quickly reveals that such a definition of conservative is out of date and probably more applicable to conservatism outside of the U.S. For example, Islamic fundamentalists are sometimes referred to as "conservative" in the sense that they want to conserve a medieval view of the world, but their underlying philosophy shares nothing in common with American conservatives.

So the problem with this classical definition of conservative is simply that it is far too broad to be meaningful. After all, to define conservatism as a desire to conserve the past merely inspires the questions, which past?and, whose past? Indeed, what many modern conservatives seek to conserve is actually some form of classical liberalism, which is hardly hostile to change.

While it is true that tradition and history are of profound importance to conservatives, they do not oppose progress blindly. Conservatives believe that change and progress can be either good or evil, and that as a society we ought to progress in such a way as to maximize both freedom and virtue.

Russell Kirk, a conservative very mindful of history and suspicious of progress, concedes in The Conservative Mind that "society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation."1 Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, shrewdly asks in the footnotes of The Conscience of a Conservative, "Have we forgotten that America made its greatest progress when Conservative principles were honored and preserved?"

The definition of conservative, then, is not an opposition to progress in itself.

Defining Principles

Just like the definition of liberal, the definition of conservative can be divided into 6 key principles:

1. Belief in natural law

2. Belief in established institutions

3. Preference for liberty over equality

4. Suspicion of power - and of human nature

5. Belief in exceptionalism

6. Belief in the individual

The first of these principles, the belief in natural law, means simply that conservatives believe in a higher order of things. Good and evil, justice and injustice, rights and responsibilities are not subjective concepts to conservatives. Human beings do not make the laws of morality, nor are rights conferred upon us by governments but rather by a higher power.

What conservatives agree upon is that these natural laws exist independently of human beings, and that we are subject to them even more so than written (or "positive") law. The majority of conservatives believe that these natural laws originate with God, whereas a minority believes they exist Platonically, which is to say above God and man.

As Russell Kirk put it, "Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems."3 At the very root of the definition of conservative is a belief in the importance of virtue.

The second of these defining principles is a belief in established institutions. American conservatives, for example, believe passionately that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are works of profound genius, and that they provide the best system of law and government possible. More broadly, conservatives believe in the Anglo-Saxon tradition of rule of law and good government.

A very important part of the definition of conservative is the deep respect conservatives hold for the cultural institutions of church and family. In an age in which faith and family values are under constant assault in the media, conservatives maintain that these institutions are critically important for the spiritual well-being of humankind and disdain any attempt to disparage and destroy them. Moreover, the conservative asks, with what can we replace them? "An ignorant man," observed the great Edmund Burke, who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers. Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of acting ill.

Such is the conservative response to those who would dismantle society and rebuild it to their whims. While the definition of conservative is not a blind opposition to progress, neither is it an open invitation for social experimentation.

The preference for liberty over equality is the most difficult part of the definition of conservative for most people to understand, particularly since liberty and equality are almost used as synonyms in our times. Put simply, all societies face a fundamental choice between emphasizing freedom or emphasizing equality.

The unfortunate reality is that we can either be equal or free, but we cannot be both. Though both the right and left wings claim to promote both freedom and equality, the right is most concerned with freedom and the left most concerned with equality. In the words of Barry Goldwater, "the Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?"

The fourth principle that defines conservatives is their suspicion of power and their hatred of big government. In his First Inaugural Address, President Ronald Reagan declared, Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?6 And yet, what separates conservatives from anarchists is their reluctant concession that government is a necessary evil, as without it the good are often at the mercy of the evil.

"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" asked James Madison. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Alas, men are not angels, and conservatives know as Madison did that we are imperfect beings and easily corrupted. For this reason, conservatives believe power must be spread out and decentralized, with adequate checks and balances to ensure that government does not devolve into tyranny. "If government is to exercise power," declared the economist Milton Friedman, "better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington."

The fifth and sixth beliefs of conservatives are closely related. Conservatives believe in exceptionalism because they do not believe in perfect equality. Conservatives realize that some people inevitably have superior abilities, intelligence, and talents, and they believe that those people have a fundamental right to use and profit from their natural gifts.

While it has become commonplace to regard the exceptional among us as "winners in the lottery of life" who are lifted up by the tired shoulders of average citizens, conservatives believe quite the opposite. Conservatives believe that exceptional people exist to lift us up, to improve our lives, and to give us hope.

Finally, conservatives believe in individualism. As Barry Goldwater explains, "Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings."

Conservatives know, like Dr. Stockmann in Ibsen's An Enemy of the People, that "the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone."

Freedom vs Virtue

Most conservatives believe in all of these principles to varying extents, but their way to see the world is inevitably dominated by just two or three. Ultimately, the conservative must choose whether to serve freedom or virtue, and this choice will inevitably determine his own personal definition of conservative and which of the 6 principles he holds most dear.

Social conservatives, for example, emphasize principles 1 and 2. Their definition of conservative is influenced by their faith. While they prefer liberty to equality, they despair that liberty also means the freedom to make poor choices; while they believe deeply in individualism and exceptionalism, they insist that as a society we must maximize virtue, sometimes even at the expense of freedom.

Fiscal conservatives, or "liberal-conservatives", are sometimes described as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." Principles 3 and 4 are of the greatest importance to them. These liberal-conservatives are usually classical liberals, who have become disenfranchised from liberalism, which they see as radicalism for the sake of radicalism. Their own definition of conservative emphasizes the economic life of the individual, as they believe the individual's spiritual life is out of the realm of government.

Such conservatives stress the importance of free markets and free choices. They vehemently oppose "equalization" schemes (i.e. the redistribution of wealth), which they contend weaken freedom and hinder progress. They are very often economists or businessmen, who see the government as a regulator and a referee. As Milton Friedman explains, "government is essential both as a forum for determining the 'rules of the game' and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on."

What often separates liberal-conservatives from libertarian- conservatives, who emphasize principles 5 and 6, is the degree to which they emphasize individualism. Liberal-conservatives very often have more faith in markets, which are a collection of individuals, than the individual alone.

On social issues, liberal-conservatives hold very eclectic opinions that are seldom governed by a single, overarching idea, and this is what differentiates them from libertarian- conservatives. For example, the liberal-conservative may or may not believe in assisted suicide or the prohibition of drugs and prostitution, whereas the libertarian-conservative vehemently opposes any intervention by the state into personal choices which do not harm other individuals or violate their consent.

If libertarian-conservatives have a motto, it is that government is no one's mother. Government, insists the libertarian, should not be in the business of saving people from themselves, which is what most modern government programs attempt to do. Moreover, they believe, an enforced morality is utterly meaningless. Human beings cannot be virtuous if they are not free to choose virtue, but rather have it forced upon them.

Natural law is just as important a part of the definition of conservative for the libertarian-conservative as for the social conservative, though libertarians are skeptical that virtue can indeed be maximized by restricting personal freedoms. They are equally passionate about established institutions, but they believe those institutions exist to maximize freedom, and that virtue can only be cultivated by the individual.

Finally, European conservatives are strongly attached to principles 2 and 5, which essentially amounts to a single belief in exceptionalism by established convention (i.e. a belief in nobility). These conservatives believe in the importance of an aristocracy, such as a monarch and a nobility, and are often skeptical of anything they see as a threat to those ancient titles, including rampant individualism and capitalism.

So while it may seem that the definition of conservative is inherently contradictory, behind modern conservatism lies a coherent set of principles that most conservatives believe. Ultimately, the definition of conservative is a fittingly individual one, as every conservative must define himself within the principles of conservatism.

The next section was lifted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative

Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. It is difficult to define the term precisely because different cultures have different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. (Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante). In a more general sense, politically, Conservatism often refers to Right-Wing politics.

Even within one culture, different definitions of what it is that constitutes a 'conservative' may be found: Martin Blinkhorn, for example, asks the question, "Who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of modern conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher?"[1]

Samuel Francis defined authentic conservatism as �the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions�[2]; Roger Scruton defines conservatism as the �maintenance of the social ecology� and �the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of a social organism�[3]; and Russell Kirkconsidered conservatism "the negation of ideology".[4]

Conservative political parties have diverse views. For instance, Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, Independent Democrat Union in Chile, and Conservative Party in the UK are all major conservative parties with varying positions.



Development of thought

Conservatism today is frequently the subject of debate and a topic often contradicted by association with various (and often opposing) ideologies or political parties. Generally, conservatives value traditional social norms and values, and are often opposed to rapid, sudden change or experimentation. However, there are many different types of conservatism. Scholar R.J. White once put it this way: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere � The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living."[5]

Although political thought, from its beginnings, contains many strains that can be retrospectively labeled conservative, it was not until the Age of Reason, and in particular the reaction to events surrounding the French Revolution of 1789, that conservatism began to rise as a distinct attitude or train of thought. Many point to the rise of a conservative disposition in the wake of the Reformation, specifically to the works of influential Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker � emphasizing moderation in the political balancing of interests towards the goals of social harmony and common good. But it was not until Edmund Burke�s polemic Reflections on the Revolution in France that conservatism gained its most influential statement of views.

Edmund Burke was an Anglo-Irish statesman, who argued forcefully against the French Revolution, but he sympathized with some of the aims of the American Revolution. His classical conservative position often insisted that conservatism has no ideology, in the sense of a utopian program, with some form of master plan. Burke developed his ideas in reaction to the 'enlightened' idea of a society guided by abstract reason. Although he did not use the term, he anticipated the critique of modernism, a term first used at the end of the 19th century by the Dutch religious conservative Abraham Kuyper. Burke was troubled by the Enlightenment, and argued instead for the value of inherited institutions and customs.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Some people, argued Burke, had less reason than others, and thus some people will make worse governments than others if they rely upon reason. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state, piecemeal progress through experience and the continuation of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church.

"We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence."

Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than 'metaphysical abstractions.' Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. Any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Also, Burke claims that man is unable to understand the many ways in which inherited behaviours influence their thinking, so trying to judge society objectively is futile.

However, conservatives do not reject change. As Burke wrote, "A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation." But they insist that further change be organic, rather than revolutionary. An attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society, for the sake of some doctrine or theory, runs the risk of running afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences. Burke advocates vigilance against the possibility of moral hazards. For conservatives, human society is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.

Conservatives strongly support the right of property. Carl B. Cone, in Burke and the Nature of Politics,[6] pointed out that this view, expressed as philosophy, also served the interests of the people involved. "As Burke had declared�this law ... encroached upon property rights... . To the eighteenth century Whig, nothing was more sacred than the rights of property, ... the protest could not be entirely frank, and it masked personal interests behind lofty principles. These principles were not hypocritically pronounced, but they did not reveal the financial interests of Rockingham, Burke, and other persons who opposed the East India legislation as members of parliament, as holders of East India stock..."

Schools of conservatism

Liberal conservatism

Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism, combining conservative values and policies with liberal stances. As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings.

Historically, it often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. In this way it contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.

Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments and this sense of the term "liberal conservatism" fell out of use, and "conservatism" was simply used instead. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered "conservative". In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" may become synonymous (as in Italy and in Spain). The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, for example in the writings of Russell Kirk).

A secondary meaning for the term that has developed in Europe, is combining more modern "conservative" (less traditionalist) views with those of "social liberalism". This has developed as an opposition to the more collectivist views of socialism. Often this involves stressing what are now conservative views of free-market economics and belief in individual responsibility, with social liberal views on defense of civil rights, environmentalism and support for a limited welfare state. This philosophy is that of Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and current British Conservative Party leader David Cameron. In continental Europe, this is sometimes also translated into English as social conservatism.

Conservative liberalism

Conservative liberalism[7][8] is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement.[9] The roots of it are to be found at the beginning of the history of liberalism: until the World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy.

Conservative liberalism is a more positive and less radical version of classical liberalism.[10] The events such as World War I occurring after 1917 brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.[11]

Libertarian conservatism

Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combines libertarian economic issues with social conservatism. Its four main branches are Constitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, small government conservatism and Christian libertarianism. They generally differ from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal and economic freedom.[citation needed] Agorists such as Samuel Edward Konkin III labeled libertarian conservatism right-libertarianism.[12][13]

In contrast to paleoconservatives, libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to the Federal Reserve and opposition to all business regulations. They are vehemently opposed to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention. Many of them have views in accord to Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

Ron Paul contends that illegal immigration is caused by the welfare state, so that should first be gotten rid of.[14][15] Ron Paul is more tolerant of gay marriage, although he thinks that marriage should be deregulated by the state and should be a church function.[16] However, many of them oppose abortion, as they see it as a positive liberty and violates the non-aggression principle because abortion is aggression towards the fetus.[17]

Cultural conservatism

Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture. The culture in question may be as large as Western culture or Chinese civilization or as small as that of Tibet. Cultural conservatives try to adapt norms handed down from the past. The norms may be romantic, like the anti-metric movement that demands the retention of avoirdupois weights and measures in Britain and opposes their replacement with the metric system. They may be institutional: in the West this has included chivalry and feudalism, as well as capitalism, laicit� and the rule of law. In the subset social conservatism, the norms may also be what is viewed as a question of morality. In some cultures, practices such as homosexuality are seen as immoral. In others, it is considered immoral for a woman to reveal too much of her body.

Cultural conservatives often argue that old institutions have adapted to a particular place or culture and therefore ought to be preserved. Others argue that a people have a right to their cultural norms, their own language and traditions.

Some cultural conservatives are willing to extend this right to tradition to other groups. The Aryan Nation, for examples, teaches that Blacks should band together to exclude Whites, just as they teach that Whites should band together to exclude blacks. Other cultural conservatives are unwilling to extend this right to tradition to other groups. For example, Muslim fundamentalists do not believe that woman in the west should have the traditional freedoms allowed by western culture.

Religious conservatism

Religious conservatives seek to preserve the teachings of particular ideologies, sometimes by proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times seeking to have those teachings given the force of law. Religious conservatism may support, or be supported by, secular customs. In other places or at other times, religious conservatism may find itself at odds with the culture in which the believers reside. In some cultures, there is conflict between two or more different groups of religious conservatives, each strongly asserting both that their view is correct, and that opposing views are wrong.

Conservative governments influenced by religious conservatives may promote broad campaigns for a return to traditional values. Modern examples include the Back to Basics campaign of British Prime Minister, John Major. In the European Union, a conservative campaign sought to constitutionally specify certain conservative values in the proposed European Constitution.

Because many religions preserve a founding text, or at least a set of well-established traditions, the possibility of radical religious conservatism arises. These are radical both in the sense of abolishing the status quo and of a perceived return to the radix or root of a belief. They are ante conservative in their claim to be preserving the belief in its original or pristine form. Radical religious conservatism generally sees the status quo as corrupted by abuses, corruption, or heresy. One example of such a movement was the Radical Reformation within the Protestant Reformation and the later Restorationists of the 1800s.

Similar phenomena have arisen in practically all the world's religions, in many cases triggered by the violent cultural collision between the traditional society in question and the modern Western society that has developed throughout the world over the past 500 years. Much of what is labeled as radical religious conservatism in the modern world is in fact an indigenous fusion of traditional religious ideals with modern, European revolutionary philosophy, sometimes Marxist in nature.

Fiscal conservatism

Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', articulated its principles: ...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

In other words, a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

Ideological interaction and influence

Many forms of conservatism incorporate elements of other ideologies and philosophies. In turn, conservatism has influence upon them. Most conservatives strongly support the sovereign nation (although that was not so in the 19th century), and patriotically identify with their own nation. Nationalist separatist movements may be both radical and conservative. They appeal to tradition and often emphasise rural life and folkways.

Patriotism

Most patriots appeal to national symbolism: the national flag, national historical icons, founders and emblems, the works of national poets and authors, or the representation of the nation by its artists. Conservatives often express admiration of the patriotic values of duty and sacrifice.

Conversely, some conservatives say that to defend their national identity, they may need to expose the hypocrisy of an existing regime. For example, G. K. Chesterton responded to Decatur in The Defendant, saying "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" Further, paleoconservatives and others say that in this era of the managerial state, there is no clear consensus on what institutions should be conserved; therefore, the term conservative can only mean that any idea or ideology or institution that preserves human rights, and the rights of other sentient beings to exist in peace, is what should be preserved.

Conservatism and economics

The phrases "economic liberal" and "economic conservative" seem to be antonyms, diverging from modern neoliberalism, and classical liberalism in the tradition of Adam Smith.[18] Some conservatives look to a modified free market order, such as the American System, ordoliberalism, or Friedrich List's National System. The latter view differs from strict laissez-faire in that the state's role is to promote competition while maintaining the national interest, community and identity.

Outside the United States, "liberal" often refers only to free-market policies. For example, in Europe "liberal-conservative" is an accepted term. Differences in meaning and usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have contributed to a great deal of confusion, and often the words seem to be used with no more meaning than "us" and "them". Conservatives and classical liberals are "allied against the common enemy, socialism," but classical liberals are less suspicious of big government than conservatives.[19]



This next section was lifted from a conservative blog, http://pseudoconservativewatch.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-does-conservative-really-mean-part.html

We find the following definition in the OED:

Characterized by a tendency to preserve or keep intact or unchanged; preservative.

The maintenance of existing institutions political and ecclesiastical. Characterized by caution or moderation.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines conservative as:

"PRESERVATIVE": tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions;

"TRADITIONAL": marked by moderation or caution; marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners".

Another way to discover the meaning in use of a term is to go back to a defining moment. The defining moment for the modern use of the terms �conservative� and �conservatism� was Edmund Burke�s critique of the French Revolution in 1790. The Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Burke captures a flavor of Burke�s conservatism. His view implies deep respect for the historical process and the usages and social achievements built up over time. Therefore, social change is not merely possible but also inevitable and desirable. But the scope and the role of thought operating as a reforming instrument on society as a whole is limited. It should act under the promptings of specific tensions or specific possibilities, in close union with the detailed process of change, rather than in large speculative schemes involving extensive interference with the stable, habitual life of society. Also, it ought not to place excessive emphasis on some ends at the expense of others; in particular, it should not give rein to a moral idealism (as in the French Revolution) that sets itself in radical opposition to the existing order.

Thus a look at dictionary definitions and the thought of the founding father of modern political conservatism yields these emphases: 1) a tendency to preserve or keep intact existing institutions; 2) respect for concrete �historical� process, i.e., those specific institutions that have been evolved through past history; a respect for tradition; 3) social change must occur carefully and be designed with moderation and prudence; 4) social change should be activated by specific felt needs rather than �large speculative schemes� for reordering society.

In addition to consulting dictionaries and examining defining moments, another way of discovering what �conservative� and �conservatism� mean is by examining the writings of more recent authors who espouse similar views and hark back to writers like Burke as a model. Writers like this include Clinton Rossiter and his book,Conservatism in America, Peter Viereck and his book, Conservatism Revisited and Claes Ryn and his book, America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.

Here I am going to focus upon some of the themes found in America the Virtuous (2003, Transaction Publishers) that define Claes Ryn as a genuine contemporary American conservative.

One theme of authentic conservatism is expressed in this quote from Burke: "All men that are ruined, are ruined on the side of their natural propensities."

Conservatives recognize that humans are possessed of evil impulses that need to be controlled; they would emphasize the human propensity to selfishness, pride, a will to power, ruthlessness, willfulness, self-indulgence, arrogance and belligerence, as examples of the evil human impulses that require control. Control takes place through an ethical emphasis upon self-control as well as the restraints of traditional moral doctrines and institutions (Ryn, p 3). It is the recognition of these potentialities for evil that made conservatives recommend prudent, moderate social change and mistrust the �large speculative schemes� of human reason that could so easily be a cloak for private ambition and will to power. It is not clear how one can deny this conservative observation; human impulses to power, self interest and self indulgence, ruthlessness, arrogance, pride and belligerence are difficult to deny.

Okay, are you still with me? After the research, DNA felt like mush. In the end, DNA poses this question to you? Which group, "liberals" or "conservatives," actively supported Jim Crow laws, actively resisted civil rights legislation, and currently include a large number of their public figures who proudly believe that evolution is not scientifically supported? Which group still claims the jury is out on man's impact on global warming? Which group would seek to overturn Roe V. Wade, while cutting budgets for social programs that might support the children those babies might grow up to be? Which group actively opposes "big government" and "big spending," but has actively grown both the size of government and the national debt to a point that each family in this country is now repsonsible for about $80,000 of our country's debt? Which group favors deregulation of industries which have polluted so many sites that a Superfund of hundreds of billions of dollars will not even dent the cost of environmental clean-up (not counting the long-term cost in human suffering from generations of cancers, genetic problems, increase in high incidence disabilities, etc)? Which group has dragged its feet for at least the last 8 years on efforts to explore renewable energy? The list could go on for dozens of more examples, but if you want a hint, the group name rhymes with "conspermative."

Lastly, DNA has long recognized that so many extreme right Christian conservatives really do believe that we live in the end times. The Rapture is right around the corner. Jesus will return shortly. In order to hasten this time, they seek to demonize Barack Obama, and cast him in the role of the anti-christ. Why else do you think McCain's own ads referred to Obama as "The One" (a thinly veiled reference to the anti-christ in the current popular book series "Left Behind")?

Is DNA being paranoid? DNA wishes he were, but fears he is not.

The reason the extreme right wants rank and file Christian conservatives to believe this is because the extreme right will be able to scare the rank and file into not wanting to vote for the anti-christ. But, here's the rub: These extreme folks really want to see prophecies unfold, they really believe that the end is at hand and signs from God are being fulfilled, and they really want to hasten the return of Jesus. So, why would they campaign so hard against Obama, unless, they realize that a McCain presidency is much more likely to fit their needs so much better than an Obama presidency. McCain is willing and ready to leave a fighting force in the Middle East for "100 years" (his words----and also the words of bilbical prophecy).

That scares DNA. The idea that a fairly one-dimensional religious idealogue might be one heartbeat away from nuclear force should make every one tremble--- Unless you are looking for a heavenly host and an avenging Savior with a flaming sword sometime real soon.

Jesus Loves DNA, too.

Return To The Top of the Page

Permanent Historical Record: 10/10/08

The Original Maverick?

While DNA is in the mood to be all political, he thought it would be a good idea to supply the definition of maverick, since one of our candidates is running on the idea that he is a maverick. This was all ripped off from some definition site, like Answers.com, but is all common knowledge. The definition comes from Answers.com and the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, if DNA remembers correctly. But, it is late. DNA could be making it all up.

maverick

(măv'ər-ĭk, măv'rĭk)

n.
1. An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.

2. One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.

adj.
Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence: maverick politicians; a maverick decision.

[Possibly after Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803�1870), American cattleman who left the calves in his herd unbranded .]

Not possibly, Merriam-Webster, it most certainly was coined because of the deceptive and plausibly deniable practice outlined below:

Origin: 1867

It was all the fault, or the bright idea, of Samuel Augustus Maverick, who lived from 1803 to 1870. Descended from an old and notable New England family, he sought his fortune in Texas and there inadvertently made a name for himself. He took up cattle ranching, which was quite a different proposition from raising livestock back East. In Texas cattle grazed on the open range, without fences to keep one herd separate from another, and thus there was much opportunity for theft and disputes over ownership. To identify their cattle, ranchers branded them, rounding up the calves each year for this purpose.

But Maverick put no brand on his cattle. Stories about "old man Maverick" give various reasons for his abstinence: he was lazy; he objected to the cruelty of branding. Whatever the reason, if he had been an ordinary citizen, this practice would have put him at the mercy of other ranchers, who would have appropriated his cattle and marked them with their own brands. But Maverick was influential: mayor of San Antonio, member of the Texas legislature, and holder of 385,000 acres, he was able instead to claim that any unbranded calf was his. And so, either in earnest or in jest, the name maverick was applied to all cattle without brands. In 1867 a writer complained, "The term maverick which was formerly applied to unbranded yearlings is now applied to every calf which can be separated from the mother cow--the consequence is, the fastest brander are accumulating the largest stocks."

It was too good a word to leave to the cattle. What better word to use for a politician who was "unbranded" by a party label, not "owned" by special interests? In 1886 a San Francisco publication called the California Maverick defined it: "He holds maverick views" means "his views were untainted by partisanship." A Massachusetts politician declared in 1905, "I am running as a maverick; I have no man's brand upon me." Maverick accords with our American inclination to admire someone who goes his or her own way. A loner (1947) may be loony, but a maverick is an independent thinker.

US Government Guide: mavericks

Although most members of Congress still follow the advice of Speaker Sam Rayburn (Democrat�Texas) that �to get along you have to go along,� a few senators and representatives made their career not by �going along� but by becoming legislative mavericks. Mavericks tend to represent a minority viewpoint within their own party and tend to refuse to bend their principles to prevailing attitudes. Mavericks are often showmen who enjoy the spotlight of publicity. They will employ disruptive tactics to stop or slow down action on a bill, trying to make the majority agree with their demands. They may show contempt for the rules, courtesies, and elaborate forms of politeness that other legislators adopt with each other.

Robert La Follette, Sr. (Republican�Wisconsin) would rather lose a legislative battle than to accept �half a loaf.� George Norris (Republican�Nebraska) challenged powerful Speaker of the House Joseph G. Cannon and was successful in reducing the Speaker's powers. Huey P. Long (Democrat�Louisiana) resigned from his committee assignments and devoted his attention to flamboyant speeches on the Senate floor, often mimicking and mocking other senators. Joseph R. McCarthy (Republican�Wisconsin) flaunted the Senate's rules and decorum until he was censured. Mavericks generally work outside of their party's official leadership. By contrast, Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican�Georgia) gained enough notoriety from his maverick stands to be elected one of his party's leaders in the House.

So, McCain is a maverick, a deceptive flamboyant showman who enjoys the spotlight------whoops, DNA means, an independent political thinker, like, let�s see, JOE MCCARTHY and NEWT GINGRICH!?!? Yikes! That�s like saying so and so is a great social activist like David Duke and Sirhan Sirhan. Fuck. DNA is glad he�s not a maverick.

And in case McCain didn�t know, or some folks don�t remember, James Garner was the original Maverick, not some politician.

The Rockford Files were cool, too.

Return To The Top of the Page

Permanent Historical Record: 10/14/08

You Want Proof?

A few days ago, DNA forwarded the theory that the far right Christian conservatives out there, the really far right, the ones that really believe that the Rapture is just a few scant days or months away, and really want to see that eventuality occur, because they believe they will be part of the group who ascends directly to heaven---those guys---well, they are actively trying to scare the shit out of main line less radical Christians who make up the majority of this country into voting for McCain. Their main tactic is to try to convince people that Barak Obama is the anti-Christ. Here is proof, an email that DNA received, unsolicited, and exemplary of several that are circulating around the world right now:

Remember, what you read next is not DNA's opinion, but the text of an email he recently received (tonight).

If after reading this email you disagree, Please, no need to reply back to me. Your opinion is yours and that's fine, just delete it.

*******************************

A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Pause a moment, reflect back.

These events are actual events from history..

They really happened!!!

Do you remember?

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists.

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists.

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists.

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists.

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists.

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists.

8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists.

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists.

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists.

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people... Absolutely No Profiling!

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's secur ity detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

According to The Book of Revelations:

The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.

And Now:

For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of America .. A Male of Muslim descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an extremist) and in his 40s.

Have the American People com pletely lost their Minds, or just their Power of Reason ???

I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama...

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other stupid attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.

As the writer of the award winning story 'Forrest Gump' so aptly put it,

'Stupid Is As Stupid Does'

Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it!

or again. . . just delete if you disagree.



See? DNA isn't making this up. There are those that are actively trying to scare people into not voting for Obama because he is the anti-Christ!!!

Are you stunned by this? DNA could spend all the time in the world discussing the logical fallacy of cherry-picking non-related events so that they seem to have some kind of relationship, (how conveniently data that doesn't fit the model, like non-muslim extremist attacks on America, including guys like Timothy McVey, the Unabomber, the dude who killed people with weaponized anthrax, is ignored for no explainable reason), or how an increase in mulsim extremist fueled terrorism seems locally and temporally significant, but in the long history of religiously fueled terrorism, and more generally, the in the modern concept of terrorism, muslim fueled terrorism is in balance no more or less prevalent or horrorific than other religiously fueled terrorism, (for example, the "ethnic cleansing" of muslims in Serbia by god fearing Christians) but those counter arguments require the ability to think.

So, again, DNA asks, why would good Christians who look forward to the end of days and the triumphant return of Jesus, people who actually believe or want you to believe that Obama is the anti-Christ, why would they want to thwart the prophecies which they are awaiting? The answer, DNA fears, is that they do not want to thwart this eventuality. They are purposely scaring people into not voting for Obama because contrary to the fear they monger, an Obama presidency will not forward their agenda.

DNA decided to read the Revelation of John again, because he could not remember the specific quote mentioned above, that the anti-Christ will be a Muslim in in mid-40's. Guess what? It ain't in there. So, DNA went to his favorite debunkers at snopes.com. Follow this link to see what they have to say. If you guessed that they say that this email is false bullshit, then you would be right. In fact, after reading the Revelation, DNA was struck by the fact that there is no mention at all of the anti-Christ in Revelation. In the letters of John there are some mentions of anti-Christs, (yes, plural, that is, more than one at a time, and many over the years, not just one, as in "the" anti-Christ) but those only mention that anti-Christs are folks who deny the divinity of Jesus---which Obama doesn't, so he doesn't meet the basic criteria of an anti-christ to begin with.

Stupid fucking fear mongers. Vote early, vote often, and take a moment to read the Bible. You might learn that it doesn't contain half the shit Christians think it does.

Return To The Top of the Page

Permanent Historical Record: 10/16/08

Preparing For The Worst...

For several years now, DNA has been posting on this fancy big website, which he pays a lot for every month. Since it looks like DNA's wife is getting an employmentectomy, he figures it is about time to cut his budget, and reformat the website, using the FREE resources available to folks on sites like blogspot. So, starting today, DNA will begin the long process of transferring over lots of old stuff to a new website. The address is to the NEW DNA Blog,

Twin Rockets Are A Go, Baby!

Go check it out. It looks similar, a little less flashy, but what you expect for free!?!?!

What do we lose in the process? Not a bit of DNA's witty banter, or socially relevant commentary, but we do lose some of the old photos strewn across the site like the remnants of a raccoon war over a rotten bag of garbage; we do lose quite a bit of the audio archived on the site, but DNA will begin the process of putting some of it up on his myspace page.

So, this new site is poised, and ready to go, but will not go active until DNA knows for sure that this old site is doomed.

The DNA Vibrator is Dead. Long Live The DNA Vibrator!

Return To The Top of the Page

Last updated on 10/16/08

<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->