Da undertegnede ved en anledning omtalte absurditeten ved at ikke-sosialistisk side – da eksemplifisert med de Norske partiene Høyre og FrP – i så stor grad har akseptert sosialisters definisjoner, responderte Ekte Nyheters redaktør med:
‘..men det har de gjort i århundrer! ‘
Dette rant meg i hu, i en nylig debatt som inneholdt blant annet Konservatisme/ konservativt vs Sosialisme/ sosialistisk.
Konkrete eksempler på dette er f.eks. definisjoner for hva og hvem som er på «venstresiden» vs «høyresiden», hva som er rasistisk, diverse varianter av «..fobisk» og ikke minst «hat» – dette ord som har mutert fra å være navnet på en av de mange menneskelige følelser, til også å være et begrep som til tross for å være svært ullent og abstrakt, like fullt har blitt formalisert og det helt inn i nasjonale og internasjonale lovtekster, og i økende grad genererer konkret og tyrannisk maktbruk, i stadig mer absurde situasjoner, og attpåtil gjerne basert på løgn.
Og så da «alt konservativt».
Det er frustrerende å se sosialister – i skoleverket, kulturlivet eller de sosialistisk dominerte MSMediene – om og om igjen portrettere filosofien bak, samt selve den politiske Konservatisme, som kun variasjoner over begrepet «konservere» – og da helst i betydning; hindre enhver endring.. konservere ved å fryse til is, om man skal lage en mer bokstavelig analogi – alternativt (det å være) «streng«.
Og dette gjør de enda hyppigere implisitt, gjennom egen bruk av «konservativ»/ «konservative»/ «konservativt» i diverse sammenhenger; typisk i beskrivelser av noe eller noen (f.eks. religiøse grupperinger) som skal settes – noen ganger fortjent – i et dårlig lys.
Jeg kan naturligvis ikke påberope meg objektivitet for definisjon av Konservatisme jeg heller, men jeg hevder det er objektivt rett, å vurdere politisk Konservatisme etter samme lest som man vurderer andre politiske retninger, som Sosialisme eller Liberalisme (Libertarianism evt. Classical Liberal på «Nord-Amerikansk»).
Det innebærer at hvis man henviser til tenkningen fra de bredt ansett som ideologiens innflytelsesrike personer, for å definere Sosialisme dvs. Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels samt et knippe som f.eks. Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Bertrand Russell & Dora Black, Margaret Sanger, Noam Chomsky, ..
og for Liberalisme et knippe som f.eks. Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, ..
..så må man også henvise til tilsvarende for Konservatisme dvs. åpenbart Edmund Burke, samt et utvalg som f.eks. Abraham Lincoln, Otto von Bismarck, Benjamin Disraeli, Winston Churchill, Russel Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr, Margaret Thatcher, Thomas Sowell, Roger Scruton, ..
Og gjør man det, må man – fortsatt objektivt er min påstand – erkjenne, at tenkningen fra Konservatismens hovedpersoner er langt bredere enn noen tolkning av «å konservere» eller «streng«.
Tolkning av Konservatismens mest betydningsfulle er naturligvis også subjektiv og det er dessuten passert et par århundrer siden Edmund Burke’s tid (1729-1797), men oppsummeringer av konservatismens «pilarer» tolket av nyere tids bredt anerkjente «tungvektere», mener jeg må veie særdeles…tungt.
Det følgende er hentet fra:
- Ten Conservative Principles av Russel Kirk (1918–1994) med mange referanser til Burke.
- What All Conservatives Can Agree On av Frank S. Meyer (1909-1972)
som er en oppsummering med bakgrunn i bidragene fra hele 12 tungvektere – blant andre William F. Buckley, Russel Kirk og Friedrich A. Hayek (mao. ikke nødvendigvis selv konservative) – til Meyers bok; What Is Conservatism?
Liberalister fatter kanskje ekstra interesse av billedteksten i artikkelen;
‘..Meyer reminds us how much common ground libertarians and traditionalist occupy. ‘
(Minner også om at Nord-Amerikanere vanligvis mener hhv. folk på- og «venstresiden»/ sosialistisk side, når de snakker om Liberals og Liberal.)
Ten Conservative Principles av Russel Kirk
- First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
- Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless.
- Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.
- Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.
How did Thomas Sowell become Conservative?
Mark Steyn speech:
«The facts of life are Conservative»
- Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.
- Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.
- Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth.
- Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.
- Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.
- Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects.
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
What All Conservatives Can Agree On av Frank S. Meyer
1. However varied their religious commitments, the contributors to What Is Conservatism? all accept, implicitly or explicitly, the existence of an objective moral order based on what Eric Voegelin has called “the constitution of being”—that is, the existence of immutable standards by which human conduct should be judged.
This conservative acceptance of hard truths imbedded in reality clashes directly with the Liberal dependence upon the instrumental as the foundation and justification of political theory and practice. The Liberal’s faith is in “democracy” (the rightness of whatever is desired by 50 percent of the population plus one), or in “progress” (the rightness of the direction in which events have been and are moving and, therefore, the rightness of whoever has the power to move them), or in “enlightened up-to-date experts” (the rightness of the intellectual fashions of the age) . . . or in a combination of all three.
Boken Meyers oppsummering er basert på:
2. For all of the contributors, the human person is the necessary center of political and social thought. Whether their stress is upon his freedom and his rights or upon his responsibilities and his duties, it is in terms of the individual person that they think and write.
They affirm the primacy of the person in contradistinction to contemporary Liberalism, which is essentially concerned with collectivities (“the people,” “minorities,” “new nations”), instrumentalities for the submergence and manipulation of the persons who make them up.
Whether conservatives conceive the fulfillment of the person primarily in terms of individual autonomy or in terms of community, they reject the ideological concept of collective entities.
3. This is seen most clearly in the contrast between the conservative and the Liberal attitudes towards the state.
While there is great divergence among conservatives as to the degree to which the state must be limited, they all share, in contrast to contemporary Liberals, a distaste for the use of the power of the state to enforce ideological patterns upon human beings. However much they may differ on the modes by which, and the extent to which, the power of the state should be limited, they are in full agreement that it is but one institution among many and that when its role is aggrandized it becomes dangerous beyond measure.
4. The “planning” of human life, so characteristic of the Liberal ethos, is anathema to every one of the contributors. That instrumental outlook in which human beings are conceived as faceless units to be organized and directed in accordance with the blueprints of the social engineer can be held only when men ignore the separate integrity of each human person as a focus of value and the existence of immutable moral laws not susceptible to ideological reconstruction. The libertarian and the traditionalist emphases within conservatism alike reject the centralized power and direction necessary to the “planning” of society.
5. The spirit of the Constitution of the United States [slapp av, prinsippene er generelle] as originally conceived pervades conservative thought: the limitation of government to its proper functions; within government, tension and balance between local and central power; within the federal government, tension and balance between the coordinate branches.
6. Throughout What Is Conservatism?, sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, runs a devotion to Western civilization and an awareness of the necessity of defending it.