The artificial constraints of social media certainly hamper effective thought, but frankly I think Conservatism has failed to articulate a coherent, overarching philosophy. What single principle unites pro-life, low tax, traditional marriage, RKBA, property rights, strong defense, etc? And if we could articulate this principle, how would we distinguish the American (more libertarian) version from the on-its-deathbed European (more statist) version?
Hello
@HoustonSam - Nice to see you.
Of course there is no single principle, although if there was, it would be where American Conservatism starts, as you've recognized, in Goldwater libertarianism, original Constitutionalism, and federalism.
But Conservatism, at least the American strain, has always been factional, with each of the factions holding to, and conserving particular principles.
Those factions historically have been called the three-legged stool, but I would have you entertain the thought that is is actually four legs, as I believe it unjust to lump libertarianism in with fiscal conservatism as has historically been the case.
But be that as it may, historically, Goldwater Conservatism held factions comprised of civil libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and defense/foreign policy conservatives.
Each of these have immovable first principles that together make up the principles of Goldwater Conservatism.
Reaganism, or Reagan Conservatism was exactly like-in-kind, which should be no surprise, since Reagan hailed from the Goldwater wing of the Republican party... With two singular exceptions:
Reagan offered the Christian Right a seat at the table too, whose immovable first principles became the core ideology of social Conservatism.
And secondly, the idea that we must stand together to win, and therefore, candidates should be selected that embrace ALL the principles of Conservatism, and that only in that way can one be assured that no one is thrown under the bus.
There has been no change since Reagan. Bushes were not Conservative, and neither is Trump, holding to no first principles as historically defined, and certainly the same can be said of McCain't and Romney... The Bushes and McCain't came from the moderate wing, not the Conservative wing, and Trump and Romney are both liberals.
The traditional definitions of Conservatism frequently hearken back to Edmund Burke's reaction to the French Revolution [...]
Farther back than that, as
@Absalom will opine - And to which I would agree in part, though he would ground it in Greek philosophers (which is partly true), and I would hearken more toward Anglo-Celtic common law, as finally defined in English Common Law as defined by Blackstone...
Neither of which, nor Burke would apply with more than honorable history, shaping the legs of American Conservatism - In fact, American Conservatism is defined in Goldwater and Reagan. And it is not hard at all to discover the timeless truths that are the first principles of the factions there contained
.
The very debates that exist on this forum indicate that there is no single, understood definition of "Conservative", even among a fairly small, self-selected group of contributors who live in the same culture.
With my deep apologies to our Hostess,
@mystery-ak , Conservative principles are seldom argued here, or defended, but by a very few.