The USA has a fantastic constitutional system. Perfect? Perhaps not but even there it has room for fair amendment of which several have been made. It has a sound basis on other works like the Magna Carta. It’s structured on freedom. It balances power. It protects rights.. and it’s proven to be workable, not just a pie in the sky ideal.
Americans need to know their system and feel it works for them. Christians wish to impose political control and that serves them but their control needs to be opposed as do other religions. Judicial, legislative and executive roles need to be maintained. There has been too much crossover of the roles. Weaknesses in the election system have to be vigorously worked on. The Bush Florida ruling, ACORN and the problems with electronic voting are all discouraging. Most of all conservatives have to bring everyday Americans into the process.
To conservatives today I urge a proactive effort to encourage the strengthening of your ranks with action that encourages non-conservatives to reconsider their individual positions and become a functional and fulfilled part of society.
Most of the fundamentals of conservatism are sound; responsibility, freedom, the Constitution, discipline, honesty, individuality, capitalism, the American Dream, respect of self, of others and of your country.
Please understand here I’m pointing the way for a recovery of conservative America. I am not advocating the destruction of the Liberal side. It’s not actually possible. Nor by discussing Conserving Conservatism do I believe conservatism risks withering away to nothing. Even if the Democrats and Republicans were to somehow disappear tomorrow, conservatives and Liberals will simply reform themselves based on the same principles they always have. I am talking here about ensuring conservative values are widely upheld and make a strong basis of continuity.
You have a basis upon which to work. I’ve talked long here about the ins and outs of Conserving Conservatism but at the end of the day conservatives are ultimately responsible for maintaining conservative values. It’s up to you to step up the the plate and bring it about.
24/11/2008 at 4:49 pm Permalink
Aaron,
You say: “Christians wish to impose political control and that serves them but their control needs to be opposed as do other religions.”
I would argue that the Social Cons are conservative in that they are inherently reactionary. They perceive, rightly in my opinion, that the free expression of their faith has been under attack for generations. Having seen the left chip away at their faith by use of courts and legislatures for decades, they fought back. The Christian Right rose to prominence in the 80s. I would posit that their influence waned in the 90s and was almost wholly irrelevant in the general election this year. Further, I would argue that their efforts did not reverse the trend of political attacks on their faith, but merely mitigated some of the more extreme efforts to marginalize them and drive them from the public square.
24/11/2008 at 11:22 pm Permalink
Thanks for the comment. Does this mean Social Cons = Christian Right? I’m a bit confused there.
Well I do agree about the attack on their faith. It’s difficult to live with attacks on your core beliefs I know all too well. I guess all faiths even atheists are under constant attack these days. You would have more idea of their influence in the US in the past than I so I’ll take you word for it for now. A primary issue with the Christian movement is their defensiveness of their own free expression while actively quashing others rights to such. Not that this is unusual in any kind of movement.
I’m quite firmly supportive of the idea of separation of church and state. However I do think some of the recent Christian pressures are unrealistic like the issues with open celebration of Christmas. I think that goes beyond separation and into the realm of repression.
25/11/2008 at 1:16 am Permalink
While I admit there are some christians that would “repress” people. The vast majority wish no such thing. However, our founding fathers recognized that our great experiment would fail without a moral underpinning. The greater question is how to establish that morality in a age that despises religion?
I know atheists that have great morals. How did they get them? Christianity has provided the basis for freedom, inquiry, and morality for centuries. That is not to say that is is above fault. It is not. I as a christian want what is best for my nation 1st, and leave my practice of religion alone. (likewise I will leave yours alone too)
I would be willing to recognize morality in any form if the agnostic / atheist would be willing to recognize that some type of morality is required.
25/11/2008 at 10:36 am Permalink
I think Atheists could use the Humanism morality. This kind of morality is heavily grounded in philosophy. Or one could look for commonality in morals from various religions as well.
26/11/2008 at 4:03 am Permalink
Good post, Argent. I am in agreement with VMax’s thrust of logic. However, I would add a slightly different patina to his argument. In my opinion, the reason why The U.S. Constitution has stood the test of time is simple. It was draughted and implemented by Deeply Religious English Citizens who took to heart the teachings of 18th Century Liberal French Philosophy.
You see, few of us realize that the thirteen colonies were very different from one another. The Deep South (Georgia through Virginia) was largely Anglican. Maryland was largely Catholic. Delaware was mostly Lutheran; Pennsylvania was Quaker. New York and New Jersey, was Presbyterian. While New England was mostly Calvinistic in its roots. All deeply Christian, but very different from one another. How to forge one nation that has vastly different traditions, and not risk plunging into a fratricidal religious war in the future? Remember, the religious wars in Europe of the 17th Century, was recent in everyone’s memory.
Their wise solution was not to toss aside their religious up-bringing, but to meld it with The Universal Humanism offered by the minds of Rousseau and Voltaire. It was not Freedom FROM Religion, but Freedom OF Religion.
Oh, and one doesn’t have to be religious, to share the Judeo-Christian mores and values. Just because one doesn’t believe in Christ, doesn’t mean that one has to automatically reject the moral fundamentals found in the Sermon on the Mound.
Just one ‘Rican’s humble opinion
26/11/2008 at 12:02 pm Permalink
Well you may well be right about the Constitution. I think the US constitution has lasted so long and been so successful simply because *it works*. Your reason for *why* it works might be right.
One thing that does strike me as remarkable is though Christians and their nations have a past of very heavy sexism, racism, slavery, gay murder etc etc it is in Christian founded nations that such people have found more freedom. Something to chew on isn’t it?
28/11/2008 at 1:48 am Permalink
Christianity has evolved, no doubt about it. It has changed from killing people who disagree, to using logic. It fought the enlightenment then ultimately embraced the parts of it that it could. There will always be a tension between humanism and christianity, they are at odds.
That is where the morality comes in to play. If the humanists can agree to a morality as Boquisucio said of 18th Century Liberal French Philosophy. Then most thinking christians would have no problem with that.
Remember it was the christians that lead the charge against slavery and again racisim, we know in our hearts that sexism is wrong, but there some passages in the new testament that are now mostly glossed over. Likewise with the gays. No church had killed a gay in quite a long time. Preached against them yes.
Ultimately we are all free moral agents we can do as we like.
However in order for society to function we need a agreed upon set of values (morals) The constant redefining of these morals leads to problems and overreactions from both sides. The current gay marriage thing in California is one of the latest examples.
The moral relativism is killing our country and all of western civilization.
I am sorry we (the west) are better, and we can prove it.
29/11/2008 at 10:08 am Permalink
Hmm moral relativism, it’s something I want to look into and blog on sometime.
Oh yes I believe as much as you do in freedom. With responsibilities mind you. It’s one thing to yearn to take the rights and freedoms we like but it has to be coupled with responsibility. And perhaps a touch of self respect. Actually this is, or perhaps it is ‘was’, an area the West has been quite strong in.