I CANNOT fathom liberal and my name side by side

I’m traveling at the moment, so I don’t have all my reference materials with me. And I don’t know if Barry Goldwater said something similar in “The Conscience of a Conservative.” But back in the 1980s a friend of mine made an audio copy for me of “The Barry Goldwater Story,” a long playing (“LP”) phonograph record that was produced for Goldwater’s 1964 campaign. Both he and his dad had attended the 1964 nomiinating convention. (I realize this is ancient history for some of you and that you have never seen a phonograph let alone actually operated one!). On it, one of Goldwater’s speeches is played. I believe it’s his speech accepting the nomination, but it may have been an earlier one. I am paraphrasing, but one of his lines went something like this: Yes, I’m a conservative, But, actually, in the true historical sense of the word, I’m a liberal. Ffor I will never accept the terrifying possibility that the dark shadows of regimentation and control will inevitably blot out the sunlight of freedom.”

In that sense, I, too, am a Conservative Liberal.

Thank you.

Well thought out. The nature of Conservatism is traditionalism and resistance to change. In the case of America, all of our traditions are Liberal, since that was what our founding fathers were. The Conservatives of that day were known as Torys. You know, the side that lost. And Reagan refered to himself as a Liberal Democrat who didn’t leave his party, his party left him.

On the other hand, I prefer to think of myself as a Liberal period. Simply because I refuse to to allow the Left to define my ideology for me. A Reaganite, a believer in our original Constitution who refers to himself as Conservative is in my opinion akin to someone who opposes abortion on demand refering to himself as anti-woman/anti-choice, one who believes in secure borders refering to themselves as a xenophobe, or someone who belives in national security calling themselves a warmonger. The Left can only control the paradigm if we let them. And refering to them as ‘Liberal’ is playing their game.

than a conservative liberal. At least as I understand your understanding of the connection between personal property and individual liberty and the comingling of religion and tradition. You sound like you’re familiar with what I think Russell Kirk called an English conservative, or maybe the American variety of it.

Many people associate those calling themselves “conservative liberal” with “classical liberal.” I fear you might be grouping yourself into the unfettered market crowd of Richard Cobden and David Ricardo. You seem to see the order provided by state serving some divine purpose, hardly a liberal belief.

but there is a variance between what I believe and how I think most on this site would understand the term.

I don’t care for the democratizing or modernizing aspects of our foreign policy – whether exercised by Republican or Democrat. In fact, I understand them as errors of delusive good intentions, what historian James C. Scott has termed a “high modern ideology” whereby bureaucrats and planners rationalize the world and create a utopia on paper in the capitol and measure the world against their ideal, with only disdain for local and traditional practices.

Couldn’t agree more. Once upon a time, liberals were liberal. Now they’re statists. And we’re the real liberals.

Total government v No government – the conversation we should be having.

All apply to me. I consider them all pretty darn close to the same thing.

It truly is unfortunate that “the left” has stolen the term liberal, while many on “the right” has gravitated toward using “right wing” as a self-description.

There is an interesting discussion of the whole ideological spectrum and its evolution from the founding of the country through the early 20th century in the first chapter Murray N. Rothbard’s
For A New Liberty. It’s written from a classical liberal / libertarian perspective, and I think it offers a good explanation of the evolving political ideologies in America.

LJ

What you describe is probably more in line with the old time Constitutionalists point of view, one that I also endorse.

I also endorse the rule of law, and the role of what “umpires” as Chief Justice Roberts calls them for deciding what the great document means. I’m also probably not into a living Constitutional sort of point of view, but also think that there are issues that were never considered when the framers were working on the Constitution.

That’s why we need good “umpires”.

“The center don’t believe in socialism or royal rule, but they still think the government owns everything and makes it available to the people.”

That’s what scares me….if enough people think the above statement is true, it becomes true.

Recommended!

…your convictions can’t be all that deeply held. Sorry, but to me, that seems self-evident. If I’m even thinking about how others see me, or want to tag me, I’m not being true to myself.

That is the chief Republican failing right now. They don’t know what they believe, because they haven’t re-examined their beliefs often enough. They desperately, desperately want the press to love them, and they want their brainwashed kids not to hate them, so they try to chameleon their way out of everything. Weak tea, I’m afraid.

And Democrats have NEVER examined their beliefs since they were programmed into them.