Tuesday, November 20, 2012

To be or not to be Conservative

As a life-long "liberal" in support of most of the political issues on the left side ... anti-war; anti-corporatism; in support of a "green" working and living environments; preservation of natural ecosystems; an early advocate of alternative energies to displace the harmful power-grid system through local, on-site production and use; in favor of boycotting violence in movies and mass-media; advocating for states' rights rather than federal dominance in laws; opposed to incarceration of persons who use marijuana for recreation and or medicinal aims; resentful and strongly against the corporate dominance of our "food" industry that has poisoned soil, water and nearly all living animals; dismayed at the disease-care industry that has grown since the Nixon years to profit from keeping people increasingly ill; a strong preference for small, family-owned businesses rather than large corporations; the freedom to follow one's sexual orientation as it comes naturally, without harassment; and the freedom to practice or not practice any religion that one deems right and suitable without interference or ridicule ... I know it is exceedingly apt to ask the question: To be or not to be, or, to defend or not to defend "conservatism." 

It appears that a majority of voting Americans believe that a "conservative" holds views in direct opposition to a self-proclaimed "liberal" or "progressive." Not all "liberals" are "progressives," although all "progressives" are "liberals." 
  
Of these three groups, those who claim to be "progressive" reveal an egoistic arrogance regarding their assumed roles in human civilization, as if to proclaim, "the social and political progress of humankind depends upon agreement with me on most issues." Another way to put it: "Follow me so that human civilization can progress towards perfection." 

Fortunately, again, not all "liberals" are "progressives." 

Still, the enormous error persists: To hold views in opposition to "liberal or progressive" political/social tenets makes one a "conservative." And, as one relative repeats excessively, "Republicans and conservatives like you just don't get it." [For the record, I've never voted Republican.]

Thus is exposed the narrow-mindedness of those who habitually, vociferously denounce "conservatism" and "conservatives" as if they are humans of a lower development on an evolutionary scale. Yes, even adherence to unproven and partially disproven evolutionary theories reveals arrogance within some "liberal progressives." The less-than-subtle implication is that, as a "progressive," one has also become so due to higher intelligence on an evolutionary path, while "conservatives" adhere to ideas perhaps more relevant to the daily life of a Neanderthal. 

As if blindly believing in evolution is proof enough of its validity, despite sufficient evidence to the contrary.

If a "conservative" is not merely the opposite of an enlightened, highly-evolved, super-intelligent "liberal," what makes a true conservative?

A true conservative is someone who believes that nature provides the best possible model for preserving life for a species, thus, we should strive to emulate nature in our developed systems, our arteries of transportation and communication, and we should preserve, as much as possible, the natural world in which we live and upon which our lives depend.

A true conservative believes that some answers to our problems will come through science, yet it is far too early to say that technology is the answer or will be the answer to human problems applicable universally. The antithesis of this is found in the arrogance of "liberal-progressive" thinking: Science and technology hold the key to solving all the problems of human civilization, and this justifies Monsanto Corporation, as an example, to create new organisms to feed the world as if it is true that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe for consumption.  

A true conservative is able to glean wisdom from traditional religious writings and beliefs. Yet, a conservative need not be religious in order to be right about the most prudent course to take individually or as a society. 

There are few atheistic conservatives, while many "liberals" or "progressives" are agnostic or atheistic in tenets or practice. It is as if "liberals" and "progressives" outgrow religious beliefs (and related wisdom) just as one outgrows childhood clothing. It follows that "conservatives" are described as if it were true they still wear their childhood clothes in public. 
 
A true conservative believes in thrift but not in debt as the prudent way to finance our present and future projects. 

A true conservative is frugal, believing that conservation of personal and community resources is prudent and wise. These resources include natural gifts of the earth, its minerals and life-supporting ecosystems, but also the resource of knowledge, traditions and wisdom accrued over countless generations. And, yes, sometimes wisdom is found in the writings of major religions, some traditions held as a resource to be passed down to later generations. 

A true conservative understands that religion functions as a school through which knowledge, wisdom and moral lessons are to be transmitted to younger generations. Those who understand this also discern the difference between this essential function of religion and how it is represented, quite falsely, by "progressives," who represent religious teachings as equivalent to lessons of a dog-obedience school. On this point, conservatives earn a right to say accurately of "progressives" and "liberals," ... "You just don't get it." 

And yes, there are many who call themselves "conservative," adhering to a very limited understanding of their own religious tenet of free will, who as a consequence also accept their own religious teaching as if it is comparable to a dog-obedience school. They just don't get it.

A true conservative believes in preserving life and freedom for all, not merely for those who come first. That is to say, a conservative is able to discern the contradiction of being opposed to harmful substances in food, in baby formula, in water, and opposition to weapons of war used against unarmed civilians nearly everywhere they are imposed ... and a "liberal-progressive" advocating for abortion as a convenient method of birth control under the delusion/deception of "a woman's health." 

To be or not to be a conservative? 

I believe in free will. This is not the same as believing in total freedom to do whatever one chooses to do, or as some liberal progressives will advocate, "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law." Those who profess this as "true" may or may not know that it was Aleister Crowley, who proudly proclaimed himself the most evil man alive, who made that assertion. 

I believe that adults should be allowed to freely grow and use "recreational" or medical marijuana as a conservative exercise of free will. 

I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to fully practice a religion without interference or intimidation from institutions or ridicule from the increasing social networks of the general public. Of course, it follows that all should be free to express themselves at any time and place unless the mode of expression interferes with reasonable peace of others. 

I believe in collective effort to resolve social problems such as hunger and homelessness, but not in collectivism in any form as means to the same end. 

Blind are those on both sides of the liberal-conservative divide who persist in demanding that our largest institutions, corporations and federal governments, resolve the high-unemployment phenomena by "creating jobs." The solution to this problem lies in restoration of past practices, the same past practices that "liberals" are in a hurry to "progress" away from: those that made small towns in America prosperous hubs of commerce from the local vicinity of small family-owned farms, local "savings and loan" banks, owner-run small businesses, cohesive families, and church-based charities that met of the needs of a community's down-and-outs through communal care. And importantly, most counties required doctors to provide assistance to county-run clinics for indigent persons in need, pro bono.

The majority of people who agree with these definitions are excluded from the ranks of the upper-middle class and the wealthy elite in this country. The great majority of truly conservative people are poor, or are struggling to maintain a stable position in the economic quagmire of this decade. 

To be or not to be a "conservative" is best approached by first expanding one's view of what "conservative" means beyond the confines of the popular yet exceedingly misleading definition written and broadcast by enemies of the merits of a conservative lifestyle. Among these ranks are atheists, anti-family advocates, a growing population of narcissists (see a future blog on narcissists) and hedonists, an increasing number of poorly educated victims of the dumbing-down of American education, and a swelling population of "entitled" persons whose maturing process has been retarded by excessive satisfaction of desire combined with lack of accepting personal responsibility. {If you have contributed to unemployment insurance or social security or Medicare payments and need these, or qualify to draw down from them, these are not parasitic entitlements, but your due. Corporations receive the vast majority of "entitlement" payments, tax breaks and "profits" through deceptively favourable legal means.} 

The demise of the concept of sin applicable to human behavior, an atheist-modernist modification, has significantly contributed to mass-denial of personal responsibility

It follows that a large majority of abortions performed as a convenient means of "birth control" are motivated by a woman's (or other family members') desire, or demand, to avoid personal responsibility for a child. It is no surprise that "progressives" equate a "woman's health" with her "right" to obtain an abortion on demand. Taking personal responsibility for a baby, even very short-term until an adoption may be arranged, is an inconvenience that conflicts with the "progressive-modernist" redefinition of the gift of free will. {"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law."} And, the use of the birth-control pill has proven to be disastrous for a great number of women whose health has severely deteriorated as a result of The Pill. The deception is monumental. 

Taking personal responsibility is the crux of the matter of deciding, if it is indeed an option, to be or not to be a conservative. The human herd is stampeding toward avoidance of personal responsibility. The recent and growing demand that big business and enormous government "create jobs" or provide for the needs of tens of millions of people living (existing, often) on the margins is evidence of this trend away from personal responsibility. Both corporate "persons" {the designation of which by the United States Supreme Court is a heinous crime against humanity} and governmental organizations lead the world in the failure to take responsibility and to be held accountable for actions detrimental to human beings. Those who plead with these organizations for "jobs creation" and "economic solutions" directly abdicate personal responsibility and free will applicable, and significantly essential to equitable resolution. 

A wiser population would be raising a voice for independence in thought, words (mass-media) and actions towards a free society in which personal effort and ingenuity can and will be applied to resolve individual and collective problems. Then, the merits of conservative lifestyles would become universally evident.