Everything That Conservatism Is Not

Related Link » The great peasant revolt of 2010
“[Democrats] understand [the stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts] through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim [people], led by the malicious [Republicans], vote incorrectly. Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks", because the people are "suspicious of complexity". Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here'". [...] Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them. That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest. [...] This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda — which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress, and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts — is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism. By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush — from Iraq to Social Security reform — constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism". No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. [...] For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail. The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It recenters. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.”
— Charles Krauthammer, February 5, 2010

Once again, the erudite Charles Germanicus Martel, made it difficult for me to quote just the essence of his latest post. His complete post is essential, and I urge my readers to read him.

Unless you have just returned from a round-trip journey to Planet Pelosi you know there is a fundamental socio-political divide (more like a chasm) in America. An exegesis has been published by another very insightful scholar, "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles" by Thomas Sowell.

Both ideologies can be (and have been) examined in great detail. My own view of conservatism can be summarized as follows.

Conservatism is a top-down approach to governance. Starting with the brilliant product of a handful of genius Founding Fathers, the Constitution of the United States is the kernel of our system of government. In a few pages of exposition, it has managed to guide, restrain, and legitimize the governance of a great multitude of people of diverse cultures, for more than two centuries of sometimes majestic struggles. The key to the Constitution's great success, I firmly believe, has been its implicit fundamental algorithm for innovation and modernization: incremental (and, thereby, well-considered) improvements to keep pace with ever-changing circumstances. The Constitution is short on specifics, but simultaneously rich in potential flexibility, while it constrains the government from usurping the fundamental rights of the governed. It is a masterpiece of social contracts.

Liberalism, as espoused by the American left, can also be briefly summarized. It is simply everything that conservatism is not.

Post #1,120 Everything That Conservatism Is Not