All these wonderful, supposedly moralistic folks have been awful quiet while their two evil boys Bush and Cheney have destroyed this country and the rest of the world- in the name of God, of course. Is this the remaining 26% brainwashed republicans we're talking about?

What percentage of GOPers can define conservatism? For that matter, can Mr. Montanaro? He seems to be tied to the more current usage, sorta a McConservatism, which believes the term has something to do with legislating from church pulpits. I see it this way. The Democrats often lean toward using government to expand the safety net and ensure equal access. The Republicans often lean toward using government to enforce laws and morality and to provide security. Not saying either approach doesn't have its moments, but neither is conservative.

They are the party of POWER AND MONEY.
God wouldn't have a one of them in his fold.
THEY spell morals..G R E E D!
THEY spell GOD...O I L!

The problem is nobody represents true conservatives, who by the way, don't agree with the republicans in office. Unfortunately the far right, far left, and special interests groups/lobbyists control both political parties. The government has truely become un-representative of the citizens.

republicans used to use government to enforce laws and morality and to provide security.  Now they use the government to subvert the law, enrich themselves and their cronies, and to reinforce partisanism.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA / conservatism seems to have morphed into fascism, they're are no conservatives among the media backed repubs, I ain't sure that rudy and hillary are'nt the same person, has anybody seen them in the same place at the same time? I think not

Even though the two parties have had their differences in the past they used to represent similar traits prior to the 60's. This country is a fundamentally pragmatic country and the parties are mainly controlled by a narrow group of ideologically driven leadership. That's why guys like Hannity, Rush, and Jerry(on this blog) are characatures..a cartoon representation of an average republican. And usually online you often hear from the more extreme anyway..joe six pack doesn't care enough to preach their views online day in and out.

I have meet exceedingly few Republicans who were conservative; nearly all were radicals who don't really believe in the constitution, rule of law and our system of government. Most of the conserveratives seem to have ended up in the Independent, Libertarian and Democratic camps.

So CJ what does that say about you regular Liberal bloggers? Are you just "caricatures" too? Most of you sound like Rosie Odonnell, Michael Moore, and a couple others to me. At best you sound like a "caricatures" of what you said yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that. Ask Joe in Philly how insulting it is to be spell checked by me. :-)

Don't fool yourself with a conception that Republicans are in favor of small government and libertarian principles.  Today it's about establishing an authoritarian government and using that government to crush anyone who disagrees with the Unitary Executive.

Rudy G---Just what the country needs---another joker!!

And so what party and their leader(W) have caused such a horrendous divide between parties? Bush and Cheney of course and that was the whole idea in the first place. To make it a one party nation forever. Sick, scarey administration. They all must go, and it wont be soon enough.

I hesitate to speak for "most Republicans," or even "most conservatives," and I think several posters here have hit on parts of what it means to be a "conservative," although nobody seems (to me, anyway) to have it totally right.

As an unreconstructed Goldwaterite "conservative," here's how I use the term:

True modern (i.e., Goldwaterite) conservatives believe that the purpose of the national government is not to protect us from everything that might go wrong.  Government, particularly the national government, is not "in loco parentis."  True conservatives are the heirs of the Jeffersonian tradition of limited national government, strong State governments, and a maximization of individual liberty, even at the expense of uniformity and security.  As such, we believe that the Constitution means what it says when it created a government of limited and delegated powers, and left everything not delegated to the national government to the States or the people.  We don't believe that State inaction (or an unwillingness on the part of the States to do their jobs (as in education, welfare, urban problems, crime, disaster relief, etc.) constitutes a basis for the national government to act in any of these areas, whether by default or otherwise (the proper approach for the national government incase of State failure is to send the people back to their State governments).  We don't want the government to police our morality--we're capable of doing that ourselves.  We don't elect public officials to be censors, or determiners of what is "right" or "wrong," "good" or "evil," "moral" or "immoral," "proper" or "improper," so long as our actions don't hurt anyone else.  We don't need government to protect us from ourselves, or the consequences of our own stupidity.  We don't ask government to protect us from life's hard knocks, or to tell us how to protect ourselves or our loved ones--we can figure that out for ourselves, and, if we don't, we're only hurting ourselves.  Government's role is strictly limited to protecting us from others, and protecting others from us.  To that extent, we are "strict constructionists" when it comes to the Constitution--in the classical sense of that oft-abused term.

Conservatives don't expect government to solve all of society's problems or fix all of its shortcomings.  We know that it can't, and we know that much of what it attempts won't work, anyway.  We're willing to take our chances.

Conservatives believe that their assets, including their income, is theirs.  They recognize that government has to spend funds on matters which are truly necessary, effective and cost-effective, so long as they fit within the concept of a government of limited and delegated powers.  We don't want to see the expansion of government, since we know that any government which expands to the point of trying to provide everything people want will take everything everyone has to do so--the essence of Socialism (which conservatives know is a failed political philosophy which cannot work absent a homogeneous society or a jackboot).  In short, we want government to reduce, not expand, its activities.

In the area of foreign policy, conservatives want to defend the United States and its institutions.  We aren't particularly messianic, although we believe that our system is the worst there is--except for all the others.  Other societites can choose their own forms and institutions of government, but if those governments attempt to foment trouble with their neighbors, we need to be willing and able to project our power to control such impulses.

With respect to civil liberties, many conservatives are religious, and we recognize that religion has a place in society.  We do not necessarily agree with the "high wall of separation" theory of church-state relations, but we don't want public policy made by theologians or theocrats either.  Most of us take a fairly expansive view of the Bill of Rights, as that promotes a maximization of liberty.  We do not, however, believe that the 14th Amendment permits government to tell us how to act in private (it applies only to "State action," after all).  We are NOT "politically correct."

I'm sure I'm leaving some things out, but I think that gives at least an inkling of what conservatives (at least this conservative) believe(s).  Modern Republicanism has given conservatism a bad name, and in some ways has come to look more like its (supposed) antithesis--modern liberalism, which is paternalistic, intolerant, and very much into using government for other than its intended purpose (that each would use the government for different purposes doesn't change that fact at all).

The more traditional conservative political values include small government and no budget deficits.  That would support no govt interference in private lives, smaller & fewer "entitlements" and balancing the budget.  Meanwhile, bushco has intruded into private lives (warrantless wiretapping), expanded government (i.e., Homeland Security Dept added) and run the largest deficit in US history.  Just on the budget issue alone, bush would be in with the best spending dem admins in history.  so, I believe the current GOP is not politically conservative based on traditional conservative positions.

Oh gee Richard I'm sure you didn't miss a thing.

Mark Y:  You and I are essentially in agreement.  HP: I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I know I missed at least one thing--as a conservative, I oppose with equal vigor No Child Left Behind (and any other Federal education initiatives), the prescription drug benefit under Medicare (as well as Medicare itself, Social Security and any nationalized health care program), the USA PATRIOT Act, and any attempt to dump a definition of marriage into the Constitution.  These latter four points pretty much sum up why I voted against George Bush in 2004--he's no conservative in my book!

Richard, from your description it sounds like conservatives are an endangered species, at least not to be found in the Republican party. As a liberal person I find myself agreeing with most of what you say. I think I am more conservative that most Bush Republicans if that makes sense. I thought Jefferson was a liberal. These labels drive me nuts.

Russell: Jefferson was a "liberal" in a classical sense, in that he believed in what was necessary to be a "liber" (Latin for a free man).  The labels got switched around in the 1930s when "liberal" came to stand for New Deal quasi-Socialism, and "conservative" for opposition thereto.  The distinctions blurred further during the 1960s, and then more with the rise of "moralist conservatism" a la Reagan, Falwell, Robertson and George Bush the younger.

The moralist movement, by definition, is not classically liberal, and it is not classically conservative, either.  Goldwater conservatives are, however, the lineal descendents of Jefferson, Madison, and other Locke-Rosseau "liberals."

They are only conservative on three issues and the 1st two don't count. Hence leaving Abortion as the only one that seems to play. Gays and Immigration are the other two.

Good posts on conservatism. My view is its a view that government is innefficient and shouldn't try to do things that can be done outside of government. Its not anarchy - government is necessary. But we all know government doesn't do much well, and conservatism is perhaps best characterized by a cautious view of public solutions. If you aren't sure you have to; don't do it. Look before you leap, etc. Its a risk adverse approach that holds the first job of government is to do no harm (like running up debts, irritating the rest of the world, creating incentives for organize crime to recruit sales people in every school, etc.). Liberalism is a willingness to take a chance for change; it might be better than what we got. Pure conservatism isn't good because it won't act when it has to. There has to be a balance between the two, with conservatives tending to want that balance closer to the C side, and liberals wanting it closer to the L side. Reactionary is when people want to roll back liberal changes, and there's a place for that, too (despite the usual negative connotations). That's my two cents on the issue.

Good posts on conservatism. My view is its a view that government is innefficient and shouldn't try to do things that can be done outside of government. Its not anarchy - government is necessary. But we all know government doesn't do much well, and conservatism is perhaps best characterized by a cautious view of public solutions. If you aren't sure you have to; don't do it. Look before you leap, etc. Its a risk adverse approach that holds the first job of government is to do no harm (like running up debts, irritating the rest of the world, creating incentives for organize crime to recruit sales people in every school, etc.). Liberalism is a willingness to take a chance for change; it might be better than what we got. Pure conservatism isn't good because it won't act when it has to. There has to be a balance between the two, with conservatives tending to want that balance closer to the C side, and liberals wanting it closer to the L side. Reactionary is when people want to roll back liberal changes, and there's a place for that, too (despite the usual negative connotations). That's my two cents on the issue.

Those were very good explanations. Thanks Richard and Paul. In high school I read Goldwater's book "Conscience of a Conservative" and decided I was a conservative. Growing up in Louisiana I seemed to be middle of the road. When I got to a Northeastern college my fellow students thought I was very conservative. After graduation I went to work in the defense department and my fellow workers said I was liberal. I didn't think I'd changed. There seems to be either a great deal of relativism or the criteria have changed over the years. I call myself liberal because conservative no longer has a clear meaning but I lean toward Paul's suggestion that it is related to accepting or resisting change. I also think it is related to fear.

Russell: There is indeed a great deal of "relativism" in the labels (today Goldwater might be deemed a "moderate" because he would, I think, have trouble embracing the moralist agenda on abortion, gay rights, etc.].

At one time there was a discussion concerning "positional conservatives" (those who didn't want change at all) and "ideational conservatives" (who want change, but based on an ideological position).  Most Goldwater conservatives were ideational; most "liberals" were actually positional conservatives since they were happy with the activist government status quo and didn't want to change it (or feared changes in it).

Because of the relativist nature of the terms "liberal" and "conservative," I for one don't find them particularly useful.  I prefer to think of myself as a constitutionalist, or perhaps even a Federalist (not in the Hamiltonian sense, but rather in the sense that I firmly believe in the federal system and the importance of State sovereignty).

Paul, you captured most of the essence of what I tried to say in a lot fewer words than I used, and I appreciate your input into this discussion.

Now if we could only find candidates that understood all this and believed it.  I don't see any in the current group of Presidential wannabes (of either party).

Richard Have you been listening to Ron Paul?

I'm having trouble finding out what he stands for.  The amount of information out there about him is minimal, and his web link (from the Politics pages of MSNBC) is just as minimalist.  Based on the little I've heard, he might be the type of candidate I'm looking for (although his characterization of himself as "pro-life" tends to put him into the "moralist" camp, and I definitely don't favor moralists).

Still, I'm anxious to give rep. Paul a good look--if I can get some data that makes sense to me.

Thanks, D M Herzer, for the suggestion.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):