Just took this.

"New Era Enterpriser"

Everything is going according to my plan.

Would you be interested in elaborating for those (I mean me) less familiar with Oakeshott?

It's more about Trump than conservative principles in general, but there's some interesting references to the question in this Atlantic article about George Will's new book:

Which sounds like some kind of principle of social conservatism, but then in the new book...

Which sounds more like a principle of libertarianism?

Here is an interesting statement about conservatism as being in opposition to populism:

This strikes me as an interesting conservative principle.

Not a conservative but they believe that cutting taxes for wealthier americans produces more economic growth than it does to lower taxes on working class people. Similarly they are ok running deficits by lowering taxes because they argue it will lead to higher growth and "pay for itself" but are against spending on welfare because it is anti-growth

As I said, I don't consider myself a conservative in the sense that term is typically used in the US. Also, because of my background in philosophy, I tend to prioritize the intellectual rather than the more historical senses of "liberal" and "conservative." Thus, I'll sometimes describe myself as a conservative liberal, in that my primary ideological commitment is to liberalism, but I have also been persuaded by conservatives, both people I know personally or through books, to adopt some of the same heuristics they use to evaluate policy. An example is Chesterton's Fence, which says that before getting rid of a rule or law you should understand what purpose it was meant for. I also am suspicious of utopian thinking and have a pessimistic view of the ability of humans to effectively cooperate with each other without the help of social institutions like law, religion, government, civil society, and so on.

I also believe that for some while the Democratic Party has been the more conservative (in my sense) party. During the Cold War, the GOP relied on an ideological alliance based around opposing communism, but since the fall of the Soviet Union it has been adrift, without a unifying guiding purpose, and so vulnerable to takeover by self-interested and demagogic media corporations and personalities or grifters like Trump. This is also why nothing unites Republican voters more than sticking it to the libs, drinking liberal tears, and more generally opposing Democrats for its own sake - much of their own conservative ideology has become vestigial.

The Democratic Party on the other hand has long been more focused on fully realizing the vision of New Deal liberalism in providing good social insurance and welfare programs and the Civil Rights era in making the US less discriminatory and more fair to minority or oppressed groups. This means they are more invested in preserving effective US governance as a means to achieving these ends - i.e. less of a burn-it-all-down attitude towards our current social institutions.

I don't mind going into specifics, but I don't think policy views follow directly from basic principles as they often include controversial empirical claims as well. That being said, I don't have a strong view about Sanders' Medicare for All plan. I think the chance of any such plan passing in the next 8 years is 1% or less and so haven't bothered really studying it. I do think that single-payer systems tend to be less expensive than public-private mixed systems.

I supported the ACA and think it has so far been a success. I also support creating a public option, which I think is a more realistic next step than Sander's proposal. There are other changes I favor to shore up some of the holes in Obamacare created by the courts and GOP governors' intransigence towards accepting Medicaid subsidies.

I'm not sure how of this is really due to any conservative principles that I accept.

I still don't see why you are choosing this terminology for your views. While Chesteron was apparently responding to the socialist reforms of this time, this doesn't ring for me as a core principle of "conservatism". It seems more of a decent practice any policy maker should employ*.

I can't quite get a handle on what your views are here, despite agreeing with most if not all of your subpoints. I get that you aren't staking a position on the current political map, but it also doesn't seem like you are trying to do a sort of Burke vs Rousseau type of thing either. It seems like more of a vague feeling of caution regarding radical changes, which I share, but is this enough to claim being "intellectually" conservative? Could you be a bit more detailed on some of the principles** of conservatism you are adhering to beyond Chesterton's Fence?

*and one I wish Trump era conservatives applied employed more, it seems "did Obama do it?" is the more compelling metric for them.
**this doesn't seem like quite the right word, but it is the OPs word so leaving it for now

Actually this is inaccurate as measured as a percentage of GDP.




And yet Federal Government revenue increased, who wudda thunk it?

Federal Government revenue increased as a percentage of GDP?

Revenues for fiscal 2019 and 2020 are estimates but looks like it.

What about 2018?

Oakeshott's "On Being Conservative"

It is important to note the "core conservatives" and "country first conservatives" in your survey do not fit the description. They are actively trying to change the status quo. They are regressive reactionaries, not conservatives trying to preserve the status quo.

It is also important to note this Oakeshottian vision of conservatism is not actually opposed to change. It merely rejects change for change's own sake and imposes a burden of proof that proposed changes will actually be net positives.

Just quoting my boy Trump.

Unless he's a liar . . .

Trump a liar? That is quite a hot take. Do you have any evidence to back up this may be the case, or are you just spitballing?

Trump's total disregard for the truth is well documented. You have to be aggressively and willfully blind to deny Trump is a liar.

Back in the 1990's, a local writer penned a number of Op-Ed pieces for the Orange County Register in California.

One of these articles was titled "A Baker's Dozen or so Rules to Govern By", published on July 13, 1993.

Here were the writer's "rules" (I have omitted the article's brief commentary on each point):

1. "He'll is paved with good intentions." - Samuel Johnson
2. People have a right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor.
3. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."- George Santayana
4. Human nature cannot be improved by social engineering.
5. Only individuals, not groups, have rights.
6. The seriousness with which a problem is taken cannot be measured merely by the amount of money expended on its solution.
7. Government is not the institution to satisfy human desires.

To be continued....

Continuing....

8. High taxes are bad for the economy
9. People achieve ( or fail to achieve) success and happiness primarily as a result of their own initiative, intelligence, and integrity, and not as a result of their social class, ethnicity, race or gender.
10. Government policy should encourage wealth creation, not wealth redistribution.
11. A "societal" problem is not necessarily a "governmental" problem.
12. Public policy should promote and strengthen the "traditional" family.
13. Government cannot protect people from themselves.
14. Caution is always advisable, because even well thought-out policies invariably have unintended consequences.

Full disclosure: I was the author of this article. If need be I can prove my identity to a mod.

This is a good starting point for an actual discussion of the question (finally).

I'd be happy to pick some of these items and discuss with the conservatives here.

Let's start with #9. I would argue there are many examples to the contrary. Take Meghan McCain. Pretend that instead of having a US senator and a chair of a massive beer distributor as parents, she is born to a single mother in an economically depressed area. You think she "makes it" to The View?

Interesting. I'm a "New Era Enterpriser". Who knew?

lagtight,

How upset are you that the modern republican party conforms to ~0 of these rules?

simple solutions for complex problems -ism

I would argue the same thing.

I doubt it. But Ms. Oprah Winfrey was born to a single mother in an economically depressed area, and she is perhaps the most influential and revered woman in U.S. history.

The Republican party pays lip service to pretty much the whole list, but I agree with you that they (the politicians) actually conform to very few of them.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle by and large are mostly interested in power and money, not in promoting the agenda of their constituents. The important thing for them is to have the appearance of caring for their constituents.

I have virtually no respect for either of our major parties.

This

I'll take on number 13. Since 2002, rules on smoking in New York City have become increasingly draconian. And taxes on tobacco have continued to escalate.

Although the percentages fluctuate somewhat year to year, smoking has declined significantly in the city since 2002. Some amount of that decrease surely is attributable to changes in law.

We can debate whether the laws create an undesirable nanny state (maybe), or an undesirable regressive tax (almost certainly), but if the goal is to prevent people from giving themselves lung cancer, it would be hard to argue that government action has been unsuccessful.

Not sure I would count as a conservative to many, but I presume to most who post here I am so far right I can't be seen from the middle. In no particular order...

1) I want low taxes. The government has shown me repeatably it can't be trusted to make good fiscal responsibility, so I don't want them to have any money.

2) Flat tax. I will go to my grave not understanding my we don't have one.

3) I think voting should be pared with how much taxes you paid. If you paid 100 times as much as me in taxes, you should have 100 times the say of what should be happening with the money. I realize this sounds like wild and crazy time thought, but this is pretty much exactly how most households work in the world.

4) For most social issues, I just don't care. If a business wants to say use whatever bathroom, then just do what they say...it's their bathroom. If someone doesn't care what bathroom you use, then I don't care either. Basically, just go to the damn bathroom and don't make a big stink about it...so to speak.

5) I feel like we have a society, and that for a society to work, you have to have some laws. Now, we can change the laws, because we are the ones making them, but I don't like the picking and choosing what law is applied when and where.

6) In my world, a person has to actually burn down a building to be an arsonist, not just think about doing it. Everyone has bad thoughts time and again, and it is the inherent morality that stops most people from acting on them. Trying to demonize someone because they think a certain way about something to me is insane.

7) Marijuana, drugs in general. I just don't care, but I don't do them. If people want to, have the hell at it. I do wish all casinos were 100% non smoking, but if people want to smoke on the sidewalk, at home, in their car, or light up a bong at any of those places, go ahead. Seems like free taxes to me.

8) Term limits. I wish there was a one term limit on pretty much all elected offices. I want people doing their job, not trying to keep their job.

9) Gun control. As for rifles, shotguns....I want every gun in registered, and if they could register the bullets, I'm all for that to. I don't care if every person in America has a gun, assault rifle, howitzer, whatever. As far as I'm concerned. they could flat out issue M16's to every adult in the country, and I'm cool with it. I'd ban every handgun if I could, and anyone caught with one for any reason whatsoever could get the immediate death penalty if I was emperor. Anyone company that makes them would have to have strict policys on who they were sold to, and if any handgun they made is used by basically anyone in the US as part of a crime, the gun company would be held financially and criminally liable....which would basically end handgun creation in the US.

10) Immigration. If you're an illegal immigrant, in my book you don't have any rights. I presume I would have the same nonexistant rights if I illegally entered any other country.

Probably more, but that's all I can think of right now.