Good.

It's time for conservatives to leave The Republican Party and start a new 3rd Party. The GOP is too far to the left now.

 There is nothing wrong with keeping what is good, but I think you should always challenge your own assumptions about what is good to make sure that they have a firm foundation.

 Keeping an open mind to change is the only way to progress as a society and an individual. The great advances of civil rights were achieved painfully, but their long term success was that they changed what was perceived to be right by the general people, changed the composition of the bedrock of societal norms.

Stability is wrong and boring. Let's blow up everything and have fun while doing it. And down we go...

.

TODAY ONLY! Free MP3s for Conservatives: Here's an Honest Christian and a Bible Message.

DrEntropy....fantastic post! I am glad that someone out there understands that Bush and this current crop of Republicans are NOT conservatives. 

"The government that governs least governs best"...Conservatives believe that people, not government, can do it better, and an aherence to the US Constitution. This is not to be confused with the so-called religious right; should not be confused with neocons.

Conservative all the way.

I think liberals are liberals because they fear being called heartless.
Conservatives are conservatives because they fear being called brainless.

Do the math.

Ah yes conservatism, something our country needs more of especially these days when liberals want control of everything.  We need another Ronald Reagan!

Liberals yell at us because we "dont want change" yet they contradict themselves when they yell at us for taking certain civil liberities away because we are in a time of war.

Who did New York City have to get to clean the intolerable crime situation when the city was so messed up from years of liberalism? They had to settle at least for Giuliani a social liberal who was conservative and tough on crime to get things back to some kind of sanity again. Businesses where fleeing in record numbers out of California to escape the killer liberal taxes, who did California have to get to clean up the corruption ,waste, taxes,spending and economic ruins? They had to fire a sitting Governor for (only the second time in US history) and had to settle at least for Schwarzenegger a social liberal who was at least semi conservative on taxes and spending.When liberals get the country in trouble Americans have to bring in someone who at least holds some form of a watered down conservative policy into get those intolerable problems under control.

The above description of conservatism is a good one, and worth quoting in full: "A disposition in politics to preserve what is established, the political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change, and the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change." This is truly a 5-star ideology. What is odd is how few people who call themselves Conservatives even come close to following these values. Modern Conservatism-and the supposedly Conservatism Republican party-is characterized by support for pre-emptive warfare (i.e. unprovoked invasion), the removal of all constitutional restraints on presidential power, encouraging mass immigration, replacing progressive taxation with regressive ones, addiction to destructive deficit spending, and-most of all-an endless stream of mindless anti-liberal, anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric. Except on social issues, there is very little that is 'conservative' about modern conservatism. Besides Flick01 and Eschew, hardly any of the 'conservative' reviewers below are really even conservative. Nowadays, most people who call themselves conservatives seem to be rather Social Darwinist Libertarians, Neo-Conservatives and Corporatists (at the top) or reactionary radicals (at the bottom). 5 stars for Classic Conservatism; 1 star for 'Really Existing Conservatism.'

Right is right. www.gty.org

times change, so should ideas

conservatism for me mean the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. all i am saying is there's a reason a wealthefare states have been instituted.

I got a problem with "the mans" view on America. My pops tells me to stop listening to "junk" and listen to Barry freaking Manilow and Randy Travis. Are you joking?? I aint down with those lyrics. This is America, I should be able to look, say, talk any way I want to want fear of penalty or ridicule. The peeps in my hood dont want to hear the truth. Anyway, Im gonna do what I do, love what is true, do what it do mayne. Freedom of speech is in effect, I repeat freedom of speech is in effect.

The conservative economic philosophy has much to admire and study. . .politically, it is allergic to inevitable social change. . .social and philosophical conservatives have made the argument against freeing the slaves (1) during the Revolutionary War and leading up to the Civil War, (2) conservatives trumpeted patience or belligerence when it came to issues of voting rights for women and Civil Rights for minorities. . .financially, conservatism has much to admire. . .politically and socially, it usually winds up on the wrong side of issues when the unkind glare of history points at it. . .remember, the conservative argument during the Revolutionary War would have been 'wait and see/respect traditional values' with dealings with King George. . .which gets you nowhere, nada, zilch. . .

I have many liberal friends, yet I would never stoop so low as to insult them just because we disagree on political philosophies. Instead, we choose to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Given that, only a complete, uneducated fool (like lollapalloo) would actually believe that conservatism are for those without education. But in looking at conservatism as an political/economic ideology, those who choose to practice it do so because they believe in social stability, tradition, and/or at least gradual/careful change based on past experiences; as opposed to liberalism which, at its roots, believe in a more progressive approach to issues (and a commendable belief in the goodness of human nature). I feel that both philosophies possess good qualities worthy of those who are passionate about the issues. But there are a few who give these philosophies a bad name/reputation; and stupid, shrill comments like the few here only reflect individuals' ignorance and/or immaturity. If anything, I would rather read comments based on intellectual thought and clarity by those from a broad political spectrum (such as those by edt4 and EschewObfuscation) as opposed to those who resort to the typical name-calling or insults.

For those without any education.

the only way america can survive is through true consevatism. Borders (Mexico and Canada), our national language of english, and our culture (american culture). I borrowed this statement from Michael Savage, I don't like sounding liberal and copying some ones elses ideas, but it is a good idea. I sure wish Bush would take note. America was brought up on conservative values and will last and eternity if it keeps them. America is the envy of the world and I hope it will always be. Chat with a legal immagrent and you will see that most are successful ,vote conservative, and on average do better than most american citizens because they know where the land of oppurtunity (not free liberal hand outs) can take them.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but in no stretch of the imagination is conservatism an ECONOMIC ideology!

Just another word for fascism. Christian, heterosexist, consumer addicted, family addicted, war addicted, fascism. It bases it's lies on this concept. You give a man a fish he will eat for a day...give a man a fishing pole he will it for life. But in reality, a small group of extrememly rich and powerful people own the fish, the pole and the mortgage on the man. The man has to stand in line to get to the stream because the population of the planet has exploded. He is then charged a fee for using the pole and the stream and a tax on the fish caught, which goes directly to officials who give it to those same few wealthy and powerful people. The water is polluted from corporate sludge and the fish have three eyes. But the wealthy few use their media to spin that tired old tale about the man and the pole and the fish. They tell the man with the pole to only believe Fox News or else he might think something that could get him into trouble. And trouble means going into the largest prison system ever built. This of course is also owned by the wealthy powerful few. The man with the pole is only given information brought to him by the wealthy few and anything the man with the pole says could and will be used against him if any of it dissents from the ideas of the wealthy powerful few. All of it works so well, until one day, the fish are all gone. Then the man with the pole wakes up from his little daydream and realizes he's been lied to and he's about to starve to death and the wealthy, powerful few are off on their own private islands drinking martinis. Then the shit hits the fan. And that's called liberalism.

Conservatives differ from liberals in this way... they want to give people the opportunity for aomeone to make money but liberals want to just throw money at the problem...which does not help anything You give a man a fish he will eat for a day...give a man a fishing pole he will it for life

MATHEW'S TOP TEN REASONS WHY CONSERVATISM (And conservatives in general) FAIL: These are a few examples, there are simply wayyyy too many to list--due to space limitations)... 1. Weapons (supposedly) in Iraq. Weapons in North Korea. Crazy dictator in Iraq. Crazy dictator in North Korea. Dictator in Iraq has done interviews with News Anchors in Iraq. Dictator in North Korea threatens the US and begins testing Nuclear Missles. Conservatives are good on going after Iraq, but are for "diplomacy" with North Korea No weapons found in Iraq. More water reacators (nuclear facilities) being built in North Korea (ummm .. for WHAT purpose? Peace Talks??) Conservatives view terrorism a threat, but North Korea amassing the largest amount of nukes known to mankind is 'okay'... We invade Iraq because it's a threat to the US. Um, Where's the logic here??!?!?!?! 2. Democrats support Afghanistan invasion. Democrats are against Iraq invasion. Conservatives say Democrats are "pacifists" and are "unpatriotic" Where's the logic here? 3. Conservatives are against abortion, but for capital punishment. Conservativs think it's wrong to kill a human, but then they say it's okay to kill a human. ??? Where's the logic THERE? 4. Generally speaking... Conservatives are against what they call "Big Government" Conservatives are for telling women what to do with their bodies, spying on US citizen's homes without a warrant or notice, ammending the constitution on any issue they deem necessary (lately, it was gay marriage.) So, were conservatives AGAINST big government before they were FOR it? Or what? Who's a flip flopper again? 5. Generally speaking... Bush, a self defined "conservative" stated in the 2000 Debates he was against nation building (check the transcript/I also have a DVD of it). Bush now states he believes in building Iraq. Oh wait... Republicans who support Bush on those decisions were against Bill Clinton for freeing people in Bosnia against Ethnic Cleansing. So are we against a political party? Or are we against nation building? Once again. There is simply no consistent logic to conservative views. 6. Generally speaking... Conservatives feel that Gay rights defenders cannot tell the churches to alter their views and include gay marriage--it's against the church's rights. Yet, conservatives are okay with churches stepping in and having their say and trying to stop civil rights of gay people wishing to marry. Are they for individual rights or against them? Or are they more for individual rights for only non-gays? Once again, conservatism fails the logic test. 7. Rush Limbaugh, the maha Rushi himself, publically stated that Bill Clinton is a sex addict. He also claimed that anyone with an addiction should step down not only permanently from their job, but from public life in general. Rush Limbaugh admits (flash forward) to being addicted to Oxy Coton. Does he abide by his own advice? Nope. So what is he now? An OXY MORON? Yep. Practice what you preach. Inconsistency and more lack of logic is yeilded from this conservative freak. 8. Conservatives cried out that lying to America is immoral, and Bill Clinton lied, so he should be impeached and lose his job. I guess though if you are Newt Gingrich and you steal thousands upon thousands of dollars from the same American people THAT"S OKAY! One man does something wrong, it doesn't affect me. Another man steals my tax dollars--but he's okay. ?!? Should I also mention Henry Hyde, and the other "dirty dozen" that wanted to "hang" Clinton? How about that Republican Conservative from Idaho with the illegit kid from an affair? I guess that's okay too, according to conservatives. No one tried to get her fired...I guess it's okay if you are only a governor--and of course, a Republican. 9. Sean Hannity, and his conservative radio show. People call in and constantly claim "You're a GREAT AMERICAN Sean!" to him. He also touts books with "americana" thematic titles.. "Deliver us from Evil" etc...complete with photos of flags behind him. Sean Hannity has never served in the US Services. Yet other people who HAVE he has criticized because they didn't agree with everything President Bush has done. So who is a great American again? 10. Joe Scarborough. He has served in Washington (check his stats, they are less than that of many others in Washington). He currently has a show called "scarborough country" on MSNBC. He has a little section of his show called "the real deal" Well, I would suggest if you want to come off as "real" you start by using your REAL first name--because it's NOT Joe! I believe it's Stephen, (or spelled Steven). Consequently, "Joe" does look like Macho Camacho TV Reporter when he's filmed in hurricane storms, but keep in mind, when he criticizes those that served and don't agree with Bush, he himself has also NOT served in the military. Sincerely, Mathew

ORIGINAL COMMENT 7/21/04: I find funny the tendency by lefties and far lefties (and others)to rate an ideology like this negatively and rationalize their judgement by their own caricature of the ideology. Some descriptions of conservatism are so ridiculous and far out, you wonder who they know who could possibly live up (or down) to such a silly list of attributes. As a conservative, I believe in thoughtful progressiveness, not the absence of progress but some thought to the ramifications of the change being implemented. That is the strain I look for in judging the merits of governmental policies. Here's my advice to all: strive to achieve a firm, logical and unemotional grasp on the subtle realities of each situation. It isn't conservative to oppose gun control, for instance, or abortion or to support the war effort, in each case. But applying the thought process to the proposed legislation, most conservatives come away with the same opinion on its merits. Take the personal attacks and shrill emotion out of your comments and you are left with analysis that encourages further discussion. (Edited back to the original)

AS time goes on, humans are being less and less Conservative. 100 years ago if you thought blacks should have the same rights as whites, you were a liberal. Face it, change is good. If everyone was still a conservative, no one would have any rights but white males with property.

The greatest problem people have with defining conservatism is they cannot define liberalism. People are so uneducated and lazy they take only the time to consume a patina of knowledge and regurgitate cliches to make themselves feel good. Thats what life is all about apparently making yourself feel good right? Classical liberalism as defined predominantly by the likes of Locke and Mill contains an inherent fault that when progressed forward naturally by contemporary liberals like Rawls it becomes evidently clear that the philosophy is untenable. Rawls undercuts first priority rights for second priority rights providing the proof that liberals are really despots cloaked in sweet linguistic slight of hand. Locke actually contradicts himself in Concerning Human Understanding from his Second Treatise particularly on property and family obligations tripping on his own empiricist path. The ideals of classic liberalism however were widely accepted by the Christian masses because they were predicated upon existing moral traditions that Locke and Mill attempted to jettison but never fully could. The linguistics- the venacular then evolved as a tenet in more grand political philosophy whereby reason was an axiom- a gift from the Creator. The idea of inherent God given natural rights and democratic principles fit well with the revolutionaries and those who wish to fight off the tyranny of Kings. The original arguments between the Federalists and Republicans were teleological discussions regarding the common good, this is the essence of conservative ideology. It can be argued that classical conservatism is nothing more than trial by error through existing traditions and institutions. When the premise for institutions conflict with existing moral axioms the evolution of thought processes and changes the ideology itself. Contemporary liberals attempt unsuccessfully to interpolate causative theory from their limited paradigm application. This leaves them to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them is either A) stupid B) misinformed or C) has some nefarious evil agenda. (see: any statements on George W. Bush) Out of necessity radical liberal theory becomes vastly complex but will never have any answers for contrary evidence other than A, B and C mentioned above. *****UPDATE It's amazing every time I read these comments on conservatism how off base some liberals are when defining it. Problem #1 Anyone who doesn't agree with their solutions to natural social inequities is FOR inequality because they are inherently evil. #2 They believe the world exists from ONLY their perspective and unsuccessfully promote a philosophy from exclusively the eyes of man- from their desire. I ask, how if you know someone's perspective is greatly different than your's can you assume to generate motive for that person? To help you out a conservative does not view the world through human desires rather the essence of each thing in its rightful place. After great social deliberation upon whether a thing or act exists as virtue within the frame work of humanity that then through tradition and culture can positive law be enacted for the promotion of the common good. Those laws are continually deliberated within the frame work of the virtuous existence of each act and thing for the growth of society. Liberals are so obfuscated by the concept of desire they opt for systems of value neutrality on the notion that it protects freedom- such is pure folly. The fractures created by such an insolted view of human existence denigrates mankind to social masturbation with no true grip on freedom. All this is lost on silly libs who insist that anyone who would limit human action is in some how an opponent of freedom when in reality it is those limitations that structures ORDERED liberty and allows us to be free. UPDATE: OH SF, the blessed irony.

"What is Conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" ~~~Abe Lincoln

I am not a conservative, but to each his own. There are many people I know who are conservatives, and they are fine people. I don't like Bush's brand of conservatism, but I had no serious problem with Reagan, and from what I hear, Eisenhower was a decent president. UPDATE: What was I smoking when I penned this review?! While I do know some Conservatives in my personal life who are fine people, Conservatism as it is practiced now is a pox on this country, based on an altogether repugnant combination of fear, intolerance, and rampaging militaristic imperialism. (OK El Rightoes, get out your Webster's Dictionaries to look up all the big words I used in this post!)

Closed minded sometimes...I don't always agree with them...but I'd pick them over liberals any day of the week

Conservatism these days has a problem: it has been hijacked by extremists who have nothing to offer than their own prejudice. I might have actually been inclined to give conservatism another star or two if it weren't for the fact that I am sick of what passes as discourse in this country. I am also disgusted by famous conservatives like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the like. I don't know what their problem is, but they seem to have serious issues about liberals. The only thing these people seem to contribute to political discourse is how immoral and stupid liberal are. Do you know how sick and tired I am of hearing "you liberals" this and "you liberals" that? Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and many others like them - they seem to make big money spewing as much hate and vitriol against liberals that they can. They write books about how stupid and immoral liberals are - lumping them together as though all liberals think alike - and conservatives who read garbage like that eat it up like candy. Conservatives in the media aren't the only ones who do this. FreeRepublic.com seems to make it their "patriotic" duty to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them. Recently, I found some pictures of one of their protests at a Democratic function. Maybe it's me, but the whole thing seemed quite childish. As far as I could tell, the Democrats in the picture had never done a single thing to ignite these conservatives' fury. They still, however, felt the need to stand around holding ad hominem attack signs. Another picture depicted a hateful little bake sale they held. The only point of this bake sale was to attack John Kerry and essentially call him a communist. I wonder why it is that these conservatives are so angry. And these are the same people who talk about the "angry left"! Do liberals do this? Most liberals don't. As much as Al Franken is vilified by conservatives for having the GALL to air his beliefs, I don't ever remember him attacking conservatives the way they attack liberals, except in joking. Michael Moore, who is an extremist that makes other liberals look bad, is a notable exception. Many conservatives seem to think that this entire phenomenon is simply a joke that liberals take too seriously. I'm sorry, but I don't find people constantly attacking and insulting me and claiming that I have a "mental disorder", because I'm not a conservative, funny. But maybe I'm just kind of weird that way; I've never found insults of any kind funny. It seems to me that people who must constantly attack the other side while proclaiming how moral they are only work to prove it to themselves. Why are conservatives so insecure that they must constantly attack and vilify "The Left" (even going so far as to calling liberalism a mental disorder)? In my opinion, politics from BOTH sides of the political spectrum desperately needs to get away from people that would bring only hate and ad hominem attacks to the table. This kind of one-sided tripe only serves to further divide the country. And it is not fair. I'm not saying that liberals can do no wrong. But I find it quite insulting when I am written off by some conservative who has never met me simply because I'm a liberal. I think that they'd feel the same way if our roles were reversed. Im also not saying that this hateful tone is purely the fault of conservatives. To be honest, however, the only books I saw on the current events shelf of the bookstore that seriously used ad hominem attacks against their opponents were written by conservatives. This hyperpartisanship needs to stop. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them scum. The sooner we realize that, the better off we will be. That is why I cannot rate conservatism much more than a single star. When the assassinations on my character from people who have never met me stop, I may be inclined to rate conservatism higher.

This was a MUCH more conservative nation when I was younger and there was much less crime, social and family breakdown and general ugliness in our society then!

Well, ya know, back in the good-ole days.....

good on values and family

In my view, "conservative" and "liberal" are two terms that have become essentially meaningless in contemporary discourse. Just read through the many comments on this list and you'll see why. Whether you take a conservative or a liberal approach depends on the context (social, political, moral, environmental, fiscal, etc.) and the issues involved. Many so-called liberals often appear stronger on energy conservation. Some so-called conservatives favor the liberalization of laws against marijuana use. One can claim to be a fiscal conservative and a liberal on moral and social issues, while, according to someone else's definition, acting in defiance of both! Many wish to identify "conservatism" with theocratic, biblical interpretations of moral issues; others see conservatism as having purely secular roots in the Rational Enlightenment. A self-styled liberal journalist claims the mainstream media is dominated by "the Conservative Right," only to be contradicted by colleagues who believe the Media has sold out to liberalism. Some who identify themselves with traditional or "historical conservatism" bemoan the fact that today's "right-wing religious conservatives" have taken totally distorted the conservative philosophy beyond all recognition. I could go on and on, but you get the point. With all of this overlapping and criss-crossing of stances, and the varying opinions of the experts and scholars on what constitutes a "true" conservative or liberal, how can anyone assert that they are such and such without stepping into a quagmire? I say, avoid the labels, the self-limiting group-think identifications, and the fearful demonization of people who see the world differently. Use your mind (whether you think it was created by God or is a product of the natural order of things), study hard, listen and learn from others different from yourself, and respond the best way you know how to the problems before you and our society. Then, show no regard to what others call you from their necessarily narrow and limited perspective? Be "independent"? Now there's a word that I'm sure both conservatives and liberals wish to corner the market on!

Consider the words of the philosopher and scholar F.A. Hayek about conservatism as a political system of thought. "It all depends upon WHAT you want to conserve." Broadly, I like conservatism, particularly its emphasis on the natural law tradition. There are certain moral constants that need to be preserved in order to maintain a semblance of civil society throughout all periods. However, change many times is the only constant that we can rely upon. Standards for behavior change; for instance, about 250 years ago, slavery was generally considered moral in the West. Today most societies, even non-Western ones, have moved away from such a conception; especially since the dawn of the Enlightenment with its emphasis on individual rights. I consider myself a conservative with reservations. Sometimes certain practices can become arcane, old alliances shift, new technologies arise, and paradigms, or ways of thinking, shift. Hayek's words under these circumstances have more poignancy. Conservatism, like liberalism, is way too broad of a concept to nail down. Some things ought to be conserved, others habits need to be put by the wayside.

Safe. Stagnant. You have to agree that the ideal that is trying to be conserved, matches your ideal, to be a conservative. All the other atypical people, the minorities, are better suited as liberals. Myself included.

The disgusting social policies overshadow any respect that I would have considering giving.

I can tolerate conservatism (the ideology, but not it's current or previous applications). The concept of self-initiative and responsibility I can identify with, but it's not progessive enough for me. I don't like morality being a commodity in the political domain, and as of late (some) conservatives have frustrated me with the rhetoric that morality and ethics can only be found in the religious heart. That notion is false, and creates a greater chasm in the conservative/liberal divide. Anyway, there's a glut of ideology nowadays, do we need so many -ISM's?

I would only rank conservatism a star above liberalism based on its constituents. Liberalism in this country is insane. I believe most of America is moderate/conservative in nature. However, the problem is, many of these people are either not very smart, misguided by religion or greedy business owners. Conservative ideals in this country are not actually that bad, if practiced properly. However, in America, many conservatives give the smart ones a bad name with their attitudes. That's why being conservative has equaled being unintelligent now. I prefer to call myself a moderate, any rational person should be. Going one way or the other is insane. But I prefer to deal with conservatives, I cannot stand liberals, they are the strangest birds I have ever met, and I'm a pretty open, nice guy.

real conservatives, which are very few in number now, are nice people. But the vast majority of people in america now , are Faux conservatives. True conservatives, much like true Liberals, are people who don't hate on the ways exhibited here.

Five years ago, if you had asked me about my political ideology, I would have certaintly responded with liberal. However, now, I have found that conservatism fits much more with what I believe in--and I'm actually secular (a secular humanist to be precise)! ^_^ I'm very much against the disturbing practice of moral relativism--because I believe that there absolute rights and wrongs in the universe, and that quite a few grey areas are created by the wrong people in a futile effort to confuse the right people. As for as politics specfically go, I find myself conservative on many levels. One major social issue to me involves television. I am for stricter control on television and support the efforts of the underrated TV watchdog group, the Parents Television Council. I am also against the legalization of marijana, which is a drug that is more deadlier than most people claim! I am also a supporter of gun control and stricter laws on the consumption of alcohol and tabacoo. I believe that people that commit devious criminal acts should not recieve welfare under any circumstances. Law-abiding citizens, in fact in my opinion, should recieve a financial reward each year for not breaking the law (just like I think academic people should make more money than athletic people). And, I am not for completely government-sponsored health care, because I've heard that it takes days to get ANY treatment in countries like Canada. And, in socalist countries like Germany, the employment rate is several percent less than here in the USA. I am not for taxing people into oblivion. Tax cuts have been proven to stimulate the economy. On the conserative side, as mentioned earlier--I am anti-drug, pro-decency, and for the promotion of positive rewards for doing the right thing. On the flip side, I am pro-choice, as I believe that women should have the right to do what they will with their bodies (However, I am strongly against the disguisting practice of Partial Birth Abortion) and I am for equal rights involving all minorities (regardless of race, sex, orientation, creed, or whatever). Finally, I am for the death penalty in extreme cases, but of course, I would certaintly hope that rehabilitation would be possible. I'm 100% behind Operation Infinite Justice (the former name of Operation Iraqi Freedom), because I know the Saddam Hussein was a mass-murderer (mass graves with 500 THOUSAND bodies, rape rooms, gassing chambers) like Hitler and had a NON-AGRESSION pact with the villains of Al Qaeda. I'm also for the freeing of Afghanistan and the defeat of the insidious Taliban (who shot women in stadiums for fun and treated women as if they had no minds).

As I have observed, in Australia, politics isn't as polarized as the U.S. I consider myself a moderate liberal (as in I vote Labour). My criticism of conservatism as applicable to Australia is it's fixture to the British Monarchy, attention to Upper-Class financial gain and the disenfranchising of the working classes. It was Conservative Australia that set forth the ill-fated White Australia policy many years ago. I take offense at LanceRoxas sweeping generalisations about liberals. Quoting ideological rhetoric, is almost indulgent. I am rating conservatism as to it's applications to reality. Neither Liberalism or Conservatism are to be given 5 stars. Both have limitations

Depends. I think most associate this with christians. The problem with this idea is that the change is so slow and I feel most who subscribe to the idea are not willing to entertain other views because they are clouded by the belief of a fairy tale.

why would you want to conserve the past? Mankind has not advanced by conserving anything. We need to be progressive, pressing forward, try new things. Wishing for some mythological better past time will result only in the stagnation and ultimate demise of humankind.

There is inherant value in conservatism, as there is in libralism. There are also inherant problems with both ideologies. Choosing a side and assuming that the other side are either idiots or evil, is one of the worst habits of North American politics, and that habit is well represented here. There are good things in conservatism, and there are also serious flaws. Keep your minds open. With a crowbar if necessary.

Conservatism is effective only as a counter-balance. In today's world, with new information and new ideas constantly being fed to the masses, a good amount of conservatism can keep things stable. Essentially, conservatism is a political, social, and cultural anchor. It can keep you from going forward, but it can also keep you from losing your way.

I find it odd that my liberal friends, as demonstrated by some reviews here, are supposed to be the most tolerant and open minded, yet they have fallen prey to stereotypical fallacies about Conservatives. I doubt that they have taken the time to look into the heart of Conservative principles. (of course many will tell you that they have, but I have my doubts. Please keep in mind that at one time I was a liberal so I have been on both sides of the fence) Instead of true tolerance and honest inquiry, I see them repeating all of the tripe and nonsense that has been fed to them by pundits who have their own agenda to promote. Although Conservatism takes some of its principles from a belief in God, atheists, agnostics and others who have no religion in their life can still be conservative for we are agreeing on principles, not deities. I don't know of any atheist or agnostic who promotes murder and stealing, yet these are two of the 10 Commandments. So one does not need to be religious to hold moral values. That having been said, Conservatives believe that there exists an enduring moral order. Human nature is constant and moral truths are permanent. A society in which people are governed by a belief in a moral order and a strong sense of right and wrong, will be a society that prospers. If people become morally adrift and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites,the society will ultimately fail. Conservatives champion custom, convention, and continuity because order, justice, and freedom are the products of long social experience, the result of centuries of trials and sacrifices. Necessary change should be gradual, never unfixing old interests at once. (I'm waiting for my liberal friends to chime in So conservatives would have gradually ended slavery or slowly implimented civil rights? History, especially in the 20th century, says otherwise) An example of why changes should be implimented gradually is some of our environmental laws. Rushing in with good intentions but without giving thought to long term consequences has resulted in huge fires which, because controlled clearing was not allowed, burned down the forests that the laws were trying to protect. Conservatives know that because mankind is imperfect no perfect social order can ever be created. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster. What we can reasonably expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, with prudent reforms to preserve order. If old institutions and moral safeguards are neglected then the anarchic impluse in humankind breaks loose. Those who seek perfection in man and society will forever live in their own private hell as they try to achieve that which is impossible. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, enforcement of laws are what Conservatives see as instruments of freedom and order. Conservatives know that change is essential to the social body just as it is to the human body. A body which does not renew itself will die. But if that body is to be vigorous, changes must occur in a regular manner, in harmony with the form of the body, or else change becomes a cancer which devours its host. Strong moral character, non intrusive government, personal responsibility for ones actions, gradual and orderly change, free enterprise, and the ownership of private property is the basic outline of Conservative principles.

Conservatism is in many ways a two-edged sword. Whilst it is a wise thing to examine the costs of progress, overexamination can lead to stagnation. And whilst it is occasionally a good idea to go back a bit when society seems to be heading on the wrong course, there is a powerful risk of idealizing a past that never existed. In addition, whilst liberalism, or as I'd much rather call it progressive philosophy technically allows, at least in theory, everyone to decide what they wish to do with their own life, within reason. Conservatives, even though conservatism as a philosophy does not dictate this, would often wish to push their values onto those who do not agree 'for the good of all.' In addition conservatism in the US has grown increasingly more towards the undesirable radical right. And whereas a sensible conservatism may have earned three or four stars from me, the current brand of semi-religious moralizing, with its creepy theocratic overtones, simply can't hold my personal approval.

Ok, I have a question. If it is true that conservatists are usually pro-life and then how is it that they can also be for the death penalty?

In Alabama...this word is usually synonymous with the following terms: white supremacy, racist, Jim Crow, hate, ass-backwards thinking,good ole boys, slavery, etc., etc..