For Conservatives, Mission Accomplished

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it is a principle, it is this: "we should resist radical change when it is likely to produce bad consequences or unlikely to produce catastrophic ones, and we should embrace it when the reverse is true". That's just basic decision theory which everyone agrees on.

But for modern conservative theory the 'embrace it' doesn't factor in. They NEVER like rapid change. In fact a good argument can be made that conservatives did not like rapid industrialization and would have prefered a slower change, where instead the liberals who were in control at the time were pushing for the change.

[Agathon]

But for modern conservative theory the 'embrace it' doesn't factor in. They NEVER like rapid change. In fact a good argument can be made that conservatives did not like rapid industrialization and would have prefered a slower change, where instead the liberals who were in control at the time were pushing for the change.

Thank you for proving my point. It's just silly never to like rapid change. Sometimes we need it - like in WWII with the transition to a war economy, and now with impending ecological catastophes.

I don't actually buy your definition of conservatism as wholesale resistance to change. Sure a lot of people are like this, but either it's an irrational fear, or a false belief. That doesn't impugn other people who might argue against change based on the merits of a particular case - but it's an open question in most cases, which is to be resolved by appeal to the desirability and probability of good or bad outcomes.

Rational decisions are weighted by multiplying the desirability of an outcome with the probability of attaining it, and comparing this with the same done for alternate strategies or for refraining from doing anything. That is how rational decisions are made. Simply saying "change is for the most part bad" doesn't tell us very much about what we are to decide in particular cases. And since we always deal with particular cases, such generalizations are next to useless.

If resistance to change is what conservatism really is, then it's plain silly as it violates rational norms of decision making that everyone agrees with in practice. That's why conservatives are better served by looking to principles rather than defining themselves in terms of decision making.

[GePap]

"Liberal" is only sometimes related to "rapid" change- liberal means a connection to a set of intellectual theories and thinking that these theories hold the key to a better society-if these theories are the norm, then your "liberal" would completely support the status quo and oppose any change, given than any change would upset the theory you think should be in power. This does not then make a liberal "conservative", only part of the status quo. The only people who might seek radical revolution all the time are radicals.

And conservatives are rational-If a system has been in place for 5000 years, why on earth would anyone claim it did not work? Of course it works- it had 5000 years to fail and it did not-it kept on going. NOW,the result may not be "nice", but then, life does not ask for "nice" endings. To say conservatives invariably operate on fear is false-htye have a set and they can back it up with rational arguements (even if many are rather annoying in doing so)

[Berzerker]

I don't know what conservatism stands for, they supposedly oppose big government and then they get into power and maintain, and even sometimes expand what the liberals have done. It's easy for conservatives to talk about their so called principles but they just don't have any when they get into power. It's just spend and spend more, then they pat themselves on the back for taking issues away from the liberals. Well, isn't that liberalism? Phooey...

[GePap]

The opposition to big government is not based on theories, which makes this "conservative principle" just another practice arrived by theoretically. If it is the path for the government to grow through practice, then this should be OK with real conservatives-ideological opposition to "Big Government" is a liberal theme...


The fact is "True" conservastives are trully marginal-the fact the original liberals are now termed conservatives gives you an idea of how the goalpost has moved in the last 250 years.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
"Liberal" is only sometimes related to "rapid" change- liberal means a connection to a set of intellectual theories and thinking that these theories hold the key to a better society-if these theories are the norm, then your "liberal" would completely support the status quo and oppose any change, given than any change would upset the theory you think should be in power. This does not then make a liberal "conservative", only part of the status quo. The only people who might seek radical revolution all the time are radicals.

But Imran is the one who has been claiming for a while now that conservatism is about resistance to change. I'd claim that both Liberalism and conservatism operate through moral principles, but that doesn't make "resistance to change" any less of a stupid principle.

And conservatives are rational-If a system has been in place for 5000 years, why on earth would anyone claim it did not work? Of course it works- it had 5000 years to fail and it did not-it kept on going.

That's a ridiculous position to hold, since change forces itself on us. Moreover, a system like slavery "worked" after a fashion, as did preventing women from having the vote. There's no inference from "it works" to "that's the best we can do".

NOW,the result may not be "nice", but then, life does not ask for "nice" endings.

"Life" doesn't ask for anything, people do. And if you are anything less than a monster, you want the best we can do given practical constraints.

To say conservatives invariably operate on fear is false-htye have a set and they can back it up with rational arguements (even if many are rather annoying in doing so)

They do. It's standard operating procedure. The left tend to talk in terms of moral goals, the right appeal to individual selfishness and fear of the "other". Bush has made an art form of this in his calls for tax cuts and his Islamophobia and Homophobia.

I'm not claiming that conservatives never argue, just that the position held by Imran is completely senseless. Other than that it's not clear what they stand for other than inequality. After all, they claim to stand for "freedom" but interpret it in such a way that it is compatible with the worst forms of oppression.

Apolyton is a good example of the intellectual poverty of conservatives. If you argue with them about principles they always retreat back into (a) relativism; (b) selfishness, (c) religion, or (d) might makes right.