Skip to main content

Conservative Principles Defined

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

Before retiring, Jack worked at IBM for over 28 years. His articles have over 120,000 views.



Having had some interactions with other hubbers on this site, I have come to the conclusion that there is a misunderstanding of conservatism. I hope to set the record straight. The classic definition of what a conservative stands for is just too simplistic and even wrong. A label is too generic to describe a whole philosophy. I tried not to judge others by labels though it is hard at times. I hope you will do the same and keep an open mind.

I want to make a simple assumption. I assume all of us want the same things pretty much. We just have different ideas about how to best achieve them. To illustrate this, let me present an example of what I mean.

- June 2015

A Case in Point - NSA Spying

I chose the NSA case because it is less controversial than some of the other issues. There is less of a divide between the left and the right. After 9/11, the country decided to beef up security and surveillance to prevent another attack on the homeland. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress and it gave our security agencies some powers that did not existed before. We were told that these powers were limited to foreign communications and a FISA court would have oversight on its operations. It took a whistle blower by the name of Ed Snowden to expose what the NSA was really doing. We found out that the NSA was capturing all metadata of all people in the US related to phone calls and storing them on a huge data complex in Utah. They believe this will help them with future terrorist investigations and prevention. I believe this is the wrong approach and in fact it is also illegal as ruled by the Supreme Court. Even if it wasn't illegal, I still believe it is the wrong approach. To be effective in this type of work, you need to target or "profile" most likely suspects. By narrowing the search field, you will have a much better chance of finding the possible culprit. This is an example of two very different approaches on trying to solve a big problem. My point in this discussion is highlighting the fact that there are different approaches to almost any problem that we face. What we need as a country is to come up with the right solutions that have real results.

Common Goals

I believe all reasonable people want the same things. We want peace and happiness and prosperity for our family and our community. We want justice for all and a safe environment to pursue our dreams. If I'm wrong, please correct me. What is in debate is policies that will bring about the results that we all want. Some believe that government should play a major role while others believe the individual and local community should play the bigger role. That is the major disagreement. Conservatives believe in the latter and I will go into more details later.

Learning From History

It is George Santayana who said “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. It seems to me that we have failed to learn from history. Every so many years, we seem to re-fight the same battles that was settled before. Unfortunately, our schools have failed to teach the new generation the lessons of history and the founding of our country. The term "American Exceptionalism" comes to mind. Young people today take the country for granted and do not understand how unique our country is from its inception. In fact, recently, a school in California, banned the distribution of a copy of the "Constitution" on campus. Checkout the link to the story at the end. How will the next generation "protect and preserve" our heritage if they are not even taught what it is?


Conservative Principles

Here is my list of Conservative Principles -

  • Follow the Constitution
  • Believe in divine providence
  • American Exceptionalism
  • Limited government (federalism)
  • Living within our means
  • Self Reliance
  • Strong National Defense (peace through strength)
  • Secured borders
  • Equality of opportunity
  • Blind Justice
  • Judged by Content of our Character not the color of our skin (MLK)
  • Believe in the Rule of Law
  • Defends the innocent and defenseless
  • Free enterprise and capitalism is the best path to prosperity

Some Common Misconceptions (demonization)

Here are some common misconceptions -

  • Conservatives wants to go back to the good old days...
  • Conservatives are racists
  • Conservatives wants dirty air and dirty water
  • Conservatives are judgemental
  • Conservatives are anti women
  • Conservatives are anti gay
  • Conservatives are anti immigrants
  • Conservatives are bigots

In reality - they are none of the above.

  • Conservatives are the most generous - check out the link below.
  • Conservatives are optimistic
  • Conservatives have common sense

My Personal Conservative Views

Not all conservatives think alike. My general principles are aligned with most conservative thinkers. I have a few personal experiences that reinforces my beliefs. Everything is not based on theoretical ideals. Let me share a few examples.

I was fortunate enough to visit and see many parts of the world. My job with IBM allowed me to travel to many countries and see and experience first hand other countries and cultures. It is undeniable that the America is the best country in the world. There are many places that we may visit and take vacations and enjoy the sights but there is no place like the USA. On one such trip to Germany in the 1990s, I learned first hand what happened to a country that was under communism rule. This was shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. I landed in Berlin and see a thriving city with modern buildings and booming economic activities. After driving a few miles and crossing into East Germany, I see many buildings in disrepair. People are dressed plainly with looks of despair on their faces. How is this possible? After WWII, Germany was divided into two parts - West Germany which adopted a Democratic government and East Germany under the influence of the Soviet Union adopted Communism. After almost 50 years of experiment, the results are as clear as day and night. With everything else being equal, Capitalism wins over Communism.

My second career was working for a Non-Profit organization that deals with people with disability. It It is very rewarding to see people helping themselves become independent and contribute to society. One of the business is a Document Scanning Service Bureau that help business convert paper to digital format. The production workers are paid close to minimum wage and most are happy with the work. The workload various depending on available customers. Sometimes, when we are busy, we would require more hours from the worker to get the job done on time. However, the number of work hours per employee are limited. This is because they would loose some of their other benefits if they make more than a certain limit - set by the State. Only a government bureaucracy can come up with a scheme to discourage people from work even when they are willing and able.

My brand of conservatism stress tradition, Constitution, "conservation" and not reactionary. Conservation in the sense of "protection" of traditional values, of Constitutional mandates, of our resources and the environment. These principles stands the test of time.

Scroll to Continue

Some Issues and Conservative Solutions

Given the Conservative principles, let's examine a few issues and conservative solutions. For brevity, I will only present a rough outline of the solutions. You can read the details in some links.

  • Taxes - Our tax system is too complex and have grown too big and ladened with all sorts of exemptions by special interests and incentives that favor one group over another.
    The Conservative solution is the Fair Tax proposal.
  • Healthcare - The ACA (Obamacare) bill was passed in 3/23/2010. It has over 2000 pages. This comprehensive bill is unreadable. It is so complex, no one person know what's in it. How can Congress vote on a bill they can't even read? That is one major problem. Here is the Conservative proposal alternative. In my mind, any bill should not be so comprehensive. I challenge anyone to read the original bill and can make sense of it.
  • Immigration reform - We do not need a comprehensive immigration policy. What is needed is common sense solutions to our current legal immigration policy. If the process of legal immigration is drastically improved, the natural illegal immigration will slow. We need to secure our borders not only for stopping illegal entry but to stop potential terrorist and for potential spread of communicable diseases.
  • Public Education - Our public Education system especially in inner cities are failing. The Conservative solution is to offer alternatives such as charter schools and vouchers to help parent decide what school to send their kids. Trials have been tested with many positive results. Yet, some of our elected officials and the Teacher's union are against it. Why?
  • Energy policy - We have an energy policy that is too restrictive. The Conservative proposal is to allow all forms of energy development domestically. That includes oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind and hydro. Let the free market system work to deliver the most efficient energy. Energy drives the industrial age. We need affordable energy to produce the quality of life for all. Our government has no business favoring one over another with tax credits.
  • Climate Change (AGW) - The topic of climate change and human caused global warming is politicized to the point where I have little confidence in the science. We need to get back to the basics and determine the best way to deal with climate change. Any solution must be based on facts that are sound and pass a cost/benefit analysis. My hub on being a skeptic of AGW.
  • National Defense - One of the enumerated power of the Federal Government is to provide national defense. Conservatives believe in the Reagan motto - Peace through Strength. The best way to have peace is to have a strong military ready and able.
  • Gun Control - The second amendment give us the right to bear arms. Underlying that basic principle is integral to the survival of our republic. Yes, I do believe there should be limits on who can bear arms and registration and background checks. However, some have gone as far to ban guns in the pursuit of safety. That is misguided. Our freedom and individual rights is protected because we have the 2nd amendment. Not only for individual protection but for the protection of our country as established by the Constitution. It is the last line of defense against tyranny.
  • Welfare policy - Our current welfare policy is working against the family unit. It pays un-wed mothers to have children and removes the father from the equation. Here is the conservative solution by the Heritage Foundation.

Sometimes There Is No Solution

Conservatives believe that sometimes there is no solution. Government can't fix everything. One issue, in my opinion, is the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. There has been conflict between those two groups for thousands of years. It is naïve to believe that we can solve their problems that are deep rooted. The best we can hope for is a peaceful coexistence. We may just have to defer to a higher power. That is one luxury that people of faith has.


The Two Party System

Currently, our political arena consist of two major parties, Democrats and Republicans. Even though Conservatives have a close affiliation with Republicans, in recent years, it has been challenging to say the least. In my view, the two party system has melted into a one party "big government" party that believes in tax and spend and seems to ignore the American people. During the last days of the Bush presidency, a poll shows that the majority of the American people believes the country in heading in the wrong direction. After 2 major election cycles, and the election of President Obama, the latest poll shows that the American people still believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. How can that be? The answer is obvious. Both parties have put up a good show but underneath, they are controlled by the same groups that works against the wishes of the American people. I believe if this persists, there will be a need to create a third party. One that will be more responsive to the wishes of the American people.

Some Famous Conservatives Past and Present

To learn more about Conservatism, you can read about famous conservatives both past and present. Some of them have written excellent books. Some are on talk radio. Some have regular columns in newspapers.I challenge you to seek out and listen to some of these conservatives. Don't accept what some other people's impressions but hear for yourselves.

The Past -

  • Ronald Reagan
  • William F. Buckley Jr.
  • Bob Grant
  • Andrew Breibart
  • MLK

The Present -

  • Rush Limbaugh
  • Michael Savage
  • Mark Levin
  • Laura Inghram
  • Michelle Malkin
  • Glenn Beck
  • Clarence Thomas
  • Sean Hanity
  • Thomas Sowell
  • Bill O'Reilly
  • Dinesh D'Sousa
  • Matt Drudge

A Tribute to Ronald Reagan

One of our greatest President is Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States. He is the embodiment of a great leader and he is a Conservative and he is my hero. Many young people today have little knowledge of history and the great accomplishments of President Reagan. He single handed restored America to greatness in the 1980's. In conversations about politics, you will hear some people say "I am a Reagan Conservative" and few people today knows what that means. I will list some of his accomplishments and let you be the judge. He was known as the Great Communicator. He gave some great inspiring speeches. Unlike some politicians today, he wrote most of his own speeches and did not just read off from a teleprompter. His policies had long lasting effects globally even to this day.

  • He gave us the Star Wars missile defense system. (saving thousands of Israeli today).
  • He brought down the Iron Curtain between East and West Germany.
  • He ended the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union without firing a shot.
  • He ended a recession that included double digit inflation rates and brought forth an economic boom that lasted over 20 years.
  • He reformed our Tax system
  • He took on PATCO, the air traffic controllers union and won.
  • He believe in peace through strength (trust but verify).

By no means is Reagan a perfect human being. He had his faults just like any of us. However, on the big issues, he got it right and the US and the world benefited. What else can you ask for?

Groups Pro and Con

It is said that we are defined partly by who we associate with. Here are some list of groups that I support and some I oppose.


  • Red Cross
  • Catholic Charities
  • Veterans group
  • Police/Fire Fighters/ EMS
  • Right To Life
  • NRA


  • United Nations
  • ACLU
  • Soros Open Society Institute
  • Tides Foundation
  • SEIU
  • IWW

Who Should Embrace Conservatism?

It is obvious to me that everyone should embrace conservative principles. However, there are a few groups of people that I believe should embrace conservatism for their own good. Here are the groups.

  • The millennials - they are being burdened by the huge deficits which must be paid by them in the future for years to come. Check out the National Debt clock in the link section. It is currently over 18 Trillion Dollars.
  • Black Americans - some are being trapped in generational entitlements. I believe it is the failed welfare policies that have created a permanent entitlement class and lead to the breakdown of the family.
  • New immigrants - want to have a fair shot at the American dream. They are the ones that will benefit from a limited government regulations. They will also benefit from a common sense solution to our immigration policy.
  • The poor - believe the government will take care of them (Katrina disaster proofs different). They will learn to be self reliant and not depend on a government that can't help them when real disaster strikes.

I would encourage all to learn their history and learn about civics and how our republic should work. There are many on-line courses. Check out the link below.

We Are a Nation of Immigrants

America is unique. We are a melting pot of immigrants. With each new wave of immigrants, our country is made better and richer and stronger. Have you ever wonder why so many various nationalities have come and succeeded and yet many black citizens seems to be left behind. How is it that an immigrant who can't speak our language, arrive here with little resources and yet after a few short years become successful? What is their secret? Why can't some of our own citizens achieve the same? My personal believe is that our current social policies have stifled the poor and trapped them in a perpetual state of poverty.


I have tried to explain what conservatism is all about. I hope I've made the case. Even if I haven't, I hope you will have a better understanding of where conservatives are coming from. We are not your enemy as some on the left will have you belief. I hope we can have a real debate on the merits of the issues and not demonize each other when we disagree. That is the best way to solve differences.

In 2015, Conservatives do not want to turn back the clock, return to the good old days or keep the status quo. It is counter intuitive but Conservatives wants to change the direction of the country. If our principles and ideas are adopted, it will lead to a dramatic new improved government and I believe lead to new prosperity.

My parting advice to young people is to learn your history and participate in the electoral process. It is the one thing that you can do to effect change.


Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on April 09, 2016:

JackELee, did you happen to take the quiz near the middle?

"... charities. They will do a better job because they have the right motivations ..." That is nice in theory, but the only reason gov't got involved is that rarely has the private sector been able to handle the load; especially during hard times. Further, private charities, churches, and other public service organization generally only cater to their kind. Poor black churches, give to poor black families; rich white churches give to poor white parishioners (there aren't very many rich black churches for some reason). It is not that this hidden discrimination is purposeful, although sometimes that is the case, it is just a matter of human nature.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on April 09, 2016:

My esoteric, I remember reading your hub before and I disagree with some of your characterization of conservatives but if I had to choose one, I guess the closest to my views would be "liberal conservatism". However, I disagree with some of your interpretations - for example rule of law. To me follow the law is the only way to have order. If one disagree with a specific law, then work to change the law. Our history is filled with bad laws that later were changed or rescinded. With regard to Obama's executive action on immigration, that is a prime example of an un-Constitutional act. He himself being a lawyer have held that position for the first 6 years of his presidency. He changed his mind after loosing the 2014 mid term election. If he wanted to do it, why didn't he pass a law in the first two years of his administration where he had the majority in Congress? His action is being challenged in the Courts right now as it should and it has made solving the problem harder.

Finally, with regard to helping single mothers, I outlined some solutions in my hub above but conservatives believe that some things are better left to private charities. They will do a better job because they have the right motivations. There mission is to help people in need and help them get out of dependence. Whereas a government welfare system will only enable poor choices to continue and grow unchecked. Our current sad state of inner cities as Chicago and Cleveland should be proof that the welfare state does not work. We conservatives are looking for solutions and not to continue the failed liberal policies.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on April 09, 2016:

Conservative 2.0, fair enough. Can I talk you into taking the quiz at

I think you will find it very interesting. Please let me know the results.

"In the item - follow the rule of law,..." - I'm not saying that conservatives don't follow the rule of law, clearly they do, but they do it blindly, without compassion and whether the outcome is fair/just or not. "Rule of Law" is a concept originated with the American Constitution. Each of your examples are specific applications, each of which is subject to interpretation. Your issue on immigration - I argue the opposite that Obama is following the Rule of Law, applying the Executive Order power given to him by the Constitution in deciding how to specifically spend the resources appropriated to various executive offices by Congress; it so happens his decision to prioritize DOJ spending advances he (and I) believe to be just. The most "activist" Courts have been the conservative Supreme Courts throughout the 1800s and early 1900s; Jim Crow being the worst of these. The Rule of Law with the 14th and 15th Amendments where the last words in each tell Congress to enact implementing laws. Those Courts I mention eviscerated almost all of those implementing laws and returned blacks to virtual servitude and loss of their right to vote (turns out, the laws created by the conservative states to get around the 14th and 15th, also add a new group to coexist in the same unAmerican condition ... poor whites)

"I disagree strongly that your interpretation of a racist is one who espouses certain policies that were deemed racist." ... and you should, but that isn't what I said. What I actually said was that "belief in conservative principles enables racism." Barry Goldwater was not a racist, but the policies he promoted plays into the hands of racists; the best known is his principled opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

"For example, if I disagree with the welfare benefits going to help single mothers as a way to fight poverty, that does not make me a racist since a high portion of single mothers are black." - I agree, it doesn't. But on a different note, what would you do with this group of people, let them and their children suffer more than they do receiving assistance?

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on April 08, 2016:

My esoteric, thanks for the detail explanations. I must take exception on a few of your points. But first, the reason I call myself a conservative is because I've examined the current landscape and taken consideration the historical past and came to the conclusion that conservatives are the best fit for my beliefs. It is not a perfect fit as it would be for any other group as well. It come down to what majority of traits are agreeable and acceptable to me. If you insist of being a purist, what if I say that my particular form of Conservatism is a better version of the conservatives you think you know and I call it Conservatism 2.0. Does it change anything?

In the item - follow the rule of law, I don't agree with your claim that liberals are the one's abiding by this. I can cite many areas where liberal policies are contrary to following the rule of law. In immigration, it is liberal policies that ignores our current laws and allow for illegals to stay and protected in sanctuary cities. It is liberals who pick and choose which law they like and which they don't. It is liberals who violates the Constitution when it use the courts to implement policies that are not of the majority and could not be won in the ballot box.

On the subject of racism, I disagree strongly that your interpretation of a racist is one who espouses certain policies that were deemed racist. That is completely subjective. For example, if I disagree with the welfare benefits going to help single mothers as a way to fight poverty, that does not make me a racist since a high portion of single mothers are black. A conservative like me want to solve the poverty problem in the inner cities by standing up for families and better education and not incentivize having child out of wedlock. This is clearly a different of policy and have no relation to race. I believe this policy is color blind and will help all people regardless of race. It is just a better way for our government to help its citizens. Does this make any sense?

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on April 08, 2016:

I would say labels are important because for a word to be useful as a label, its meaning must be consistent over time. Without that, people cannot communicate. Both conservatism and liberalism, as philosophies, have central, unchanging world views. To be a liberal, you must believe in, for example, egalitarianism. To be a conservative, you must reject egalitarianism and argue that a societal hierarchy is a necessary ingredient for a stable society.

To not believe in egalitarianism, you can't really be a liberal, you must, by definition, be something else. Same, same for not thinking a societal hierarchy means you really don't believe in fundamental conservative principles and likewise must call themselves something else, in your conservatism v2. Much of what you say you believe highlights liberal principles, not conservative ones. To take your lists from above:

Conservative Principles

Here is my list of [American] Conservative Principles -

Follow the Constitution (because it is established law and now tradition)

Believe in divine providence

American Exceptionalism

Limited government (federalism [this is too general a term as it doesn't necessary limit size)

Living within our means (a principle held by both liberals and conservatives although borrowing with an ability to pay back is accepted by liberals)

Strong National Defense (peace through strength)

Secured borders (this is not a principle, just a policy held by both sides)

Equality of opportunity (no, conservatives do not believe this, liberals do)

Blind Justice (liberals believe this as well but within the context of compassion and fair play)

Judged by Content of our Character not the color of our skin (MLK) (that is clearly not a conservative value, frankly, conservative history is replete with examples, starting with slavery)

Believe in the Rule of Law (as do liberals; keep in mind that it was liberalism which was behind the concept as reflected in our Constitution, a document which conservatives opposed.)

Defends the innocent and defenseless (wrong again, conservative's "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" is the hallmark of a Social Darwinist)

Free enterprise and capitalism is the best path to prosperity (most liberals agree so long as the regulations are in place to keep the free market free; pure capitalism quickly devolves into the destruction of the free market)

Some Common Misconceptions (demonization)

Conservatives wants to go back to the good old days... (this is the definition of being a conservative; liberals are the ones who want to move forward)

Conservatives are racists (true, conservatism in and of itself is not racist, but its values lead many people to become racist and or bigoted.)

Conservatives wants dirty air and dirty water (they don't "want" it, but they oppose doing anything about it at the government level; therefore they enable it)

Conservatives are judgmental ( as are far-left liberalsl; it is only moderates who can overcome that human tendency)

Conservatives are anti women (but they do relegate, as part of their world-view, to second place status as the natural order of society)

Conservatives are anti gay (conservatives most often are religious fundamentalists and fundamentalists are vocally and actively anti-gay as a matter of their faith.

Conservatives are anti immigrants (but conservatives are "exceptionalists" and "nativists"; which implies anti immigrant)

Conservatives are bigots (see above)

In reality - they are none of the above. (yes they are)

Judging from what you list as what conservatives are not, and therefore you are, then you are clearly not a normal conservative; more likely a minimal-state liberal.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on April 08, 2016:

My esoteric, I feel like deja vu, we've been here before. I think you may be too hung up on the label conservative. It may have a history as you say but there is no law that said a philosophy cannot evolve. What if I coin a new term and called my brand of Conservatism - Conservative 2.o you know just like Web 2.0

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on April 08, 2016:

As you have pointed out earlier, you shouldn't conflate a party label with a political philosophy. While conservatism and liberalism has been a constant throughout American history, which philosophy ruled the Democrats, Whigs, and Republicans over the same period has changed several times.

The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative party for they stood in opposition to the Democratic Party of the day. While today, after almost all of the conservative Democrats have either been defeated or become Republicans, the liberal Democratic Party stands in opposition to the extremely conservative GOP.

So, my comment about conservative obstructionism to improving the human condition stands.

BTW, my sources for what conservatives believe in are Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and William Buckley Jr.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on April 07, 2016:

My esoteric, your view of conservatives are biased and misguided. It was a Republican President that ended slavery. It was southern Democrats that supported the KKK. Conservatives have no problem with changes but they want it done the right way and follow the constitution. It is the democrats that want to change by way of judicial fiat because they know they can't win in the ballot box.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on April 07, 2016:

I have to agree with Adagio. MLK is the antithesis of everything conservative, almost by definition. Every single conservative in Congress in 1964 voted against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts; an idea to which many who followed MLK gave their lives and freedom, as would MLK have himself.

Conservatism has opposed, sometimes violently, without fail every move to expand liberty, freedom, and suffrage beyond that which was prevalent when the Constitution was ratified. Several liberal states, after ratification, actually gave women and blacks the vote; most didn't even require citizenship as a prerequisite. That didn't last long, however, because during the conservative revolution in the early 1800s each of these states were forced to role back these liberties they gave their citizens.

That, JackCLee, is the history of conservatism in America, and it has never changed nor does it agree with what you profess conservatism actually is. Conservatism is not the liberalism upon which this country grew up saying it believes in.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on April 07, 2016:

Adagio, We have to disagree on this. No one person has a exclusive claim to one policy or another. I am not trying to co-opt anything. I am mere stating the as a conservative, I agree totally with Dr. King's view on this. I don't subscribe to everything he stood for. And don't confuse Republicans with Conservatives... They are not one and the same. I have criticized many Republican policies and disagreed with many in the current leadership. My hub is about Conservatism and trying to clear up some miss conceptions. I'll be happy to explain them or debate.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on April 07, 2016:

@Jack: "Some Famous Conservatives Past and Present

MLK; Judged by Content of our Character not the color of our skin (MLK)

Martin Luther King? A Conservative? ?

MLK, is the guy that said we are to be "judged by the content of of Character, not the color of our skin." Not only have you attempted to co-opt Martin Luther King as something that he wasn't, you now want to steal his maxim, and claim it as a conservative principle, and therefore that makes King a conservative. That's a pretty dishonest thing to do to this historical figure. Its historical revisionism at its worst.

King said this about the Republican Party in general and the Conservative ideology specifically.

King said this:

" The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade."

"Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy."

That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Goldwater and Conservatism. In fact, it's the complete opposite. King wanted NOTHING to do with Conservatism. He'd seen it up close an personal throughout the South which is the most conservative region of our country. He'd seen it from inside Birmingham Jail where he wrote his famous Notes form Birmingham Jail. For you to claim that Martin Luther King Jr, was a conservative is a blatant lie, or else total ignorance of who the man was.

"... Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal." He's talking about conservatism here.

Conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act, Jack. Right down the line. Goldwater was a Conservative. All those Southern Democrats that voted against it were conservatives. The South has always been conservative. It used to be Conservative Democrats. Today it's Conservative Republicans. But what hasn't changed is that they are still conservative.

Claiming King as a Conservative is an absurdity that can only be seen as a lame attempt to attract blacks to the movement. Just claim that King was a conservative and maybe blacks will find it as a reasonable claim to make, and adopt conservatism as their own. That demonstrates just how little you know or understand about King, and about African/Americans in general. They know that King was no Conservative and that it was conservatives that opposed him every step of the way. Read what he said about conservatism in his own words regarding the 1964 Republican campaign. He urged people of color and whites of "good will" to reject an ideology that gave a home to the very hate that he'd been fighting against to the day he was a conservative from the South.

If you want your Hub to be taken seriously, then you can start by removing any reference to King as a conservative. He wasn't, and claiming that he was only undermines your entire thesis.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on April 07, 2016:

Elvisa, thanks for stopping by and reading. I don't expect to convince everyone but I do want to set the table and have honest discussions. I have studied this topic for a long time. If you read some of my other hubs, it was a long journey. Part of my belief is that most people have a superficial view of conservatism and it is frustrating to explain in detail what the true beliefs are and to refute the common misconceptions. The media is the main culprit by demonizing all conservatives. In my personal case, I decided to focus my energy on millennials and hope to influence a new generation. The people of my generation are too set in their ways and cannot see the forest through the trees.

Elvisa M from Saint Louis on April 07, 2016:

WOW!! Best thread of comments I have ever read in my life! I agree completely, word for word, with Adagio and My Esoteric. Jack, you are one of few that actually wants a conversation on why we disagree. I wish you would take time and actually see the passion in these people. Take Dr. Spencer for example whom you have cited as a credible source and I hope to hear what you think now that My Esoteric has provided a skeptical link regarding the Dr. I think that Conservatives and Liberals have drastic differences in many areas but do overlap on some views. I with I had more time to reply to each sentence as Adagio has but I do agree with him. I am stunned at the replies and their depth. Well done! Seriously, best thread ever!

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 07, 2015:

Thanks for the link, although it was very short on details. However, here are a couple of opinions regarding Dr. Spencer.

And this article destroys Spencer's analysis almost equation by equation. How so smart a man, as Dr. Spenser clearly is, can do such a sloppy computational analysis is beyond me ... unless he has an agenda. One might suspect that if you know he is libertarian and dropped evolution for a faith-based creation fable.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 07, 2015:

Here is a link to the failed models -

If AGW is true, I would want a "real" effort along the same track as putting man on the moon by NASA.

The point on Al Gore is that he is a hypocrite. He makes a lot of money pushing the global warming agenda (such as carbon credits) and yet does not try to do his part. What does that tell you?

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 07, 2015:

I could find that model, what is your source? All the ones I saw didn't look like that.

Actually, China is finally getting on board.

In any case, from the remarks you have made so far and you believed AWG to be true, you wouldn't want gov'ts to do anything about it.

I don't care ab0ut the carbon footprint of any individual, I care about the large quantities of people.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 07, 2015:

my esoteric - You might be interested to know that this is one topic that I have completely change my mind on. I used to believe in all this global warming and have even written about how to save the planet by planting trees...I also bought into the environmental activism of Rachel Carson with the book Silent Spring. Until I learn about the good that DDT did in third world countries. I started to research on global warming and discovered it was hijacked by environmental extremists.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 07, 2015:

my esoteric - You fail to address the fact that climate scientist are clueless as to why we have not experience the warming projected by all 42 models. Climategate emails exposed the fact that they are baffled by the lack of warming. You want to believe scientists with long range projections, it's your right. I just don't think they should impose drastic measures on the rest of us to combat something that is within natural variation. Besides, China is the biggest contributor to green house gas and they are not doing anything. BTW, Al Gore doesn't seem to follow his own advice. His carbon foot print is bigger than anyone.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 07, 2015:

1) I live on a high spot in the North middle, I'll have beach front property (actually the coast would end up sort of where it is on the Atlantic side because the land rises somewhat fast, but on the Gulf side, it will be a hell of a lot clower) and 2), I am 67 and will be dead before the water gets here, so will my wife's children, but I suspect her grandkids will have to move.

I didn't say it was too late to fix climate change, far from it. What I am saying is the disappearance of the Marshall Islands, Miami, and places like that will be gone (actually, parts of Miami proper will be an island because it is more than 8' above sea level. Already they are having flooding in the streets from backed up storm drains during very high tides; that wasn't true 10 years ago. 6 to 8' in the South Florida area is the expected rise by 2100, assuming something is done.

Having said that, I just finished an article which says some of the CO2 abatement programs that have been going on since the mid-1970s, as well as a major reduction in deforestation is having a noticeable effect ... they think. One thing that points to this is once could count on without fail in the past many decades is that every Summer brings with it a higher and higher presence of atmospheric CO2 as the world economy picks up after Winter. It then goes back down as Winter approaches. In 2014, it was different, there was very little increase for the very first time.

Europe is getting the most bang for their environmental buck with a 6% decline; America was still up, but only a little bit.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 06, 2015:

my esoteric - One more thing. I can't help noticing you are from Florida. How can you live there if you truly believe in the melting ice cap and rising oceans? If you claim it is too late to fix climate change, wouldn't you move to higher ground states?

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 06, 2015:

my esoteric - I don't want to get off topic but you brought up climate change and now the 98% consensus and I have to respond. This has been debunked as a poor study. I can send you the reference. If you wish to continue this discussion, please check out my 3 hubs here -

I have been following this for quite some time.

As a person who values numbers and stats, how do you explain the failures of all the many climate models to predict our climate?

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 06, 2015:

As to climate change, it is settled science with only a small handful of politically motivated scientists disagreeing that it is happening, and only a few more who don't think it is happening much faster than it would have normally if it weren't for the industrial revolution and all that came after it.

I am a trained analyst, so I can recognize phony statistics when I see them, and there is nothing phony about what 98% of climate scientists are saying is happening.

So, yes, it is a done deal. The Marshall Islands will disappear before 2100; Miami will be mostly underwater by then as well. There is nothing man can do to stop it. Man only has time to stop Little Rock, AR from becoming gulf-front property; for that is what will happen if the oceans rise 216 feet. That is what will happen if man lets all of the ice melt.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 06, 2015:

Then you, BizWhiz, stand by taking liberty and freedom away from American citizens for no good reason. That seems like something you would accuse the Left of. Besides, studies, as well as anecdotal evidence shows it does suppress the vote, that is the very reason the Red states are doing it; it was effective in 1950, it will be effective again in 2016.

Show proof that voter fraud by people without proper ID at the registration occurred since the 1960s elections (which wasn't illegal immigrants, by the way, but ID carrying citizens). I don't think you can find even one where it even came close to affecting the outcome of an election at the national level.

Just because it is part of life doesn't mean the government can take away one person's right to vote without just cause. Just google "Examples for Voter Suppression" and you find many examples of people or classes of people where voting was needlessly made more difficult if not impossible. Since is America, denying even one person their right to vote makes the principles upon which we stand null and void.

On the other hand, if you google "Examples of Voter Fraud" you get plenty of examples of fraud at the school board level but extremely few at the national level. Unlike denying someone their right to vote, proving what voter fraud there is as being material to an election requires many more examples than the articles mentioned can come up with.

Unlike the Right, the Left doesn't think one punishing all for the misbehavior of a few is the American thing to do.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 06, 2015:

thebizwiz - It does boggle the mind that our Supreme Court can rule on a simple open and shut case regarding voter ID and get it wrong.

TheBizWhiz on July 06, 2015:


I stand by my statement. Requiring people to show ID's to vote is no oppressing a certain segment of the country except those who intend to perform voter fraud. Requiring ID's to prove who a person is is no more suppressing someones rights than the government requiring me to pay taxes is financially suppressing me. It is just a part of life living in a modern society. We don't live in the wilderness anymore. Our nation continuously has examples of voter fraud. It is just a part of our political history. I don't think requiring someone shows an ID is forcing them to "jump through hoops", which is a bit melodramatic.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 06, 2015:

The problem with Greece is sooner or later with socialism, you run out of other people's money. I'm surprised by your answer. I do have the conservative solution. They have a democracy and the people vote their future. If they reject the austerity measures, they will suffer. It's a hard lesson of life and unfortunately, it has taken too long for them to reach this point. If I was giving advice to the EU, I would put Greece on notice. They need to shape up or they will be out. It will send a strong message to other EU members who are heading in the same direction such as Spain...

You brought uo climate change in passing as if it is a done deal. I have studied this issue for quite a while. I have written about it in my other hubs. If you care to learn another view point. Climate science is in crisis now. They have overplayed their hands and it is only a matter of time before they must retreat and admit they just don't know.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 06, 2015:

No, Greece faces three major problems, 1) debt way in excess of GDP, 2) a small economy(and population base), and 3) a non-functioning gov't not willing to do what is needed. The US has only one of those problems, the last one.

I have no idea what their solution is now, other than complete collapse and rebuild. They got into this problem, of course, like virtually every other country (and state, for that matter) by betting on the come that the good times would keep on rolling ... this time around; then 2008 happened.

It was then that complete restructure was needed; instead they did nothing until it was too late. While cutting their bloated social bill was required, so was reinvesting in infrastructure (something America needs and is not doing either) The terms of the bailout required only the former. Without the latter, there was no foundation from which their economy could grow. It is like climate change, they finally reached their point of no return.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 06, 2015:

My esoteric- I'm watching the news this morning and see the crisis going on in Greece and the EU. Just curious on your take on this situation. What would your solution be? and do you see the same path for the US down the road considering our ever increasing debt? I have a strong opinion on this but just want to know your view before giving my.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 05, 2015:

my esoteric - You are mistaken thinking, I and the Right that you label us, want government to work like private businesses. We want government to limit its reach. Government serves a function but it does not have the mission of equal distribution of profits. I want to know what you consider a fair tax rate for the people? is it 30%, 40%, 50% or 75%...When is it enough for government to tax and spend and getting little to show for it?

I for one are willing to pay a share of my income for say public roads if it can be assured the money is well spent. That is not the case right now. Our taxes are being used for all kinds of social engineering and have little to show for it. There is never enough money and endless taxes and fees and they still borrow more besides. That is why we have accumulated the large debt.

The bottom line is this. Conservatives believe most things are better left to local government and private industries. Social issues are better left to charities and extended family to help out.

You seems to belief the pie is fixed and if one group gets a bigger slice, another group must get less. That is not the case if the pie grows. When the pie gets larger, everyone can get more...

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 05, 2015:

Until the Right stops trying to convince everybody governments need to work like private businesses, then my comparison is quite valid. While most private businesses fail, most government programs, and the government itself for that matter, succeed.

If the Right comes to understand governments are a horse of a different color and will actually fail if run like a profit making business, then I will stop proving them wrong.

The inequity is this. When, back in 1970, (and I am just creating numbers to prove the point) 15% of that $500 would go to factory labor, 15% would go to profit, 20% would go to middle management, 30% would go to upper management, and the remaining 25% go to non-labor expenses; very few people argued this wasn't an equitable distribution.

But in 2010, the distribution changed, say to 7% for factory labor, 15% to profit, 23% to middle management, 35% to upper management, and the same 25% to non-labor costs. Now, while my example isn't exact, the inequity in its distribution is right on point.

Why didn't the distribution remain approximately the same over the 40 years?

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 05, 2015:

I don't understand, TheBigWhiz, why someone must jump through hoops because somebody else (the Right) is paranoid. In THIS country, people cannot have their liberty impinged unless there is valid social reason; and in the case of voting rights, no VALID reason has been proven to make it necessary to interfere with someone's right to vote.

Since there is no legitimate reason, the ONLY legitimate reason Red states are passing all these Pre-Voting rights Act laws is to reduce votes for non-conservative Democratic candidates; which is the same reason similar laws were passed in conservative states between 1870 and 1965

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 05, 2015:

My esoteric - You can't compare the failed 80% in the private sector to government. The 80% is normal operations for capitalism. That is what competition is all about. The individual capitalist risk his own money to start a business and the risk and reward is what makes the system work. Government's main problem is there is no accountability when things go wrong. They use the tax payers money and waste it and when they are caught, they don't get reprimanded or removed.

No one claims capitalism is perfect or fair. It is however the best mechanism for prosperity. If people are willing to pay $500 to Apple for an iPhone, that's great for everyone...(the workers, the consumers and the stockholders and even the government in getting more tax dollars. Where is the inequity?

TheBizWhiz on July 05, 2015:

Adagio said: "Getting on a plane is not a constitutional right. Voting is."

You are correct in saying that voting is a right, so that is even more reason to require someone to prove they are a registered voter. This way we can guarantee the sanctity of that right and not "water it down" so to speak.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 05, 2015:

By design, this government is inefficient; many of us that worked in it wish it were not so, but my first management course convinced me the founders got it right.

Ineffective is another matter, but has nothing to do with having an active or limited state government, but, it has a lot to do with the rules and quality of those hired to carry out Congressional intent. However, given the huge rate of failure of private enterprises, what is it 80% of all start-ups fail?- I must wonder if you aren't casting the "ineffective" stone at the wrong party.

I worked in the Dept of the Air Force for over 20 years and government/military service for another 10 and I saw all sorts of effectiveness and ineffectiveness; my particular office, which attempted to keep our major suppliers honest, was fairly effective until budget cuts wiped us out. Some of the procurement programs we monitored were ineffective and at least one was dishonest; but by-and-large every civil servant I dealt with was trying to do a good job within the means provided.

So you think social programs like SNAP (formerly food stamps), TANF, and Medicaid are failed programs? There are millions of children and elderly who think you are quite wrong.

Your statement "Government does have a role in keep the system fair and honest and provide a safety net for those who can't help themselves. " is quite true. But, the argument revolves around "how much involvement".

Does the gov't step in to prevent rampant job discrimination? Minimal-state liberals and regular conservices say 'No'. (Liberal conservatives would say yes, but keep them in their place.)

Does the gov't step in to prevent price fixing and other anticompetitive practices, I (and Adam Smith) would say 'Yes' but my opposition says 'No'.

Should the gov't step in to stop usurious interest rates to people who don't have the clout to demand lower rates? I say it should, but most States have ended the practice.

Back to discrimination, should the gov't step in to make sure educational institutions let in a diverse mixture of Americans, again, I am 'Yes' and my opposition says 'No'.

Should the gov't step in when an industry is destroying the environment, I say "of course" but limited-state liberals and conservatives say 'No Regulation, it hurts business'

As to income distribution. Since I know, and can prove, a capitalist system, by its very nature, creates income inequality by transfering money from the poorer to the richer (that doesn't make capitalism bad, but one needs to be aware of it). Then I do not see an issue with transferring it back to where it came from in the form of higher taxes on the rich. I also see higher taxes on the rich as their fee for the benefits, not available to people of lesser means, accrued simply because of the influence that large sums of money, and the power that goes with it, can extract; that shouldn't be welfare for the rich, they should pay for it.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 05, 2015:

My esoteric - I agree with some of what you say but it seems to me, your idea of government is more close to my idea. Government does have a role in keep the system fair and honest and provide a safety net for those who can't help themselves. That is the conservative view of limited government. What I disagree with strongly is the liberal progressive policies of trying to level the playing field with income redistribution. This is a failed policy that hurt the poor more than the 1% that they are trying to punish. As I have cited in my hubs, the government is mostly inefficient and incompetent. What government agencies have done something so well that you would want them to do more of? I can't think of any. For most if not all the social programs, I believe they can be better administered by either the private sector or by local charitable organizations. They have both the incentive and the "heart" to do the right thing. The latest news coming from the VA is just one such example of failed government agency.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 04, 2015:

Actually, that is what I am, somewhat fiscally conservative but definitely socially liberal. That is to say, I think the gov't, any gov't, is responsible to the People who create it to protect them from exogenous harm. That harm can come from the actions external to the nation, the United States in this case, or internally from individuals, entities, or gov'ts. The only harm that a gov't does not have a play in, broadly speaking, is harm to oneself.

However, in providing that protection, it must be done in the most fiscally responsible manner possible.

One phrase stands out in your reference that undermines the libertarian conservatism regarding small and inconsequential gov't. That is "... but also upholding cultural conservatism in social thought and behavior."

Why? Because that phrase is one of the core values of conservative thought, but, it requires a very active government to ensure all of the people hold to the particular moral code, or "social thought and behavior" being espoused by that particular group of conservatives.

In my view, Libertarian Conservatism are oxymorons. When liberalism was first created in the day of Hobbes and Locke and it was done in opposition of the conservatism which ruled the day. And libertarianism is just one wing of liberalism which opposes the control over the non-aristocratic individuals which is entailed in conservatism believe in controllingly social thought and behavior.

By the way, Adam Smith was a flaming liberal by today's standards; he absolutely saw a role in the government insuring the free market was not abused by business or labor.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 02, 2015:

my esoteric - I took a look at the description of minimal state liberalism and I must say it does not quite match my philosophy even though there are some overlaps. Thinking more about my own beliefs, I did a little more searching and found "libertarian Conservatism" to be more closely aligned with my views. Here is the link -

I also was influenced by some past thinkers and their writings. Here is a short list of people that I learned from - EF Schumacher, Thomas Paine, CS Lewis, Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, Ayn Rand.

I am not a fan of "labels" because they don't necessarily define the total person. Many people say they are fiscal conservative and social liberal and I can't see that. They are closely linked. Conservative are both economic and social policies. They reinforce each other. I hope this is clear.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 01, 2015:

Thanks, I'll check it out and get back to you.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on July 01, 2015:

Try this one, JackCLee -

What they call Classical Liberalism is what the Professors I listen to call Minimal-State or Limit-State (as in limited gov't) Liberalism. What they call Social Liberalism is what was described as Active-State Liberalism.

I am glad you asked because I had never seen this site before. I like its detail and can use to to flesh out my own hub about it.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on July 01, 2015:

my esoteric - I tried to search on "minimal state liberalism" and could not find much. Can you send me some references on this philosophy? I still not sure what it is and whether it matches with my thinking. Thanks.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 27, 2015:

To your comment "Now he argues because it is too disruptive for millions of people, he ruled based on "intent" rather than the wording of the law. " The error justices make is not looking at Congressional intent, All justices do that; consider Scalia in his ruling in Heller. While I don't disagree with the outcome and think it could be done just as well by making logical conclusions of the current wording. While "self-defense" wouldn't have been added to the amendment, the effect would be the same. Instead, Scalia, one who believes in using only the words in front of him, sought long and hard to find justification for his ruling, in this case it was British law that he settled on.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to "interpret" the Constitution to make sure the "intent" of Congress was not unconstitutional. To do that a good justice is required to look beyond the mere words. A long standing cannon of judicial rulings is NOT to overturn Congressional intent unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 27, 2015:

There is no question, many, if not most things are not about race; but when they are, it is.

I remember living through OJ stupidity as well, but was not surprised by the verdict. The jury very well could have thought OJ guilty, but did not think that the prosecution proved its case beyond the very high bar of reasonable doubt. This is exactly what happened in both the Trayvon Martin manslaughter trial and the Casey Anthony not guilty verdicts. In the former case, the prosecution bungled it and in the latter case, the State law is very flawed. In both cases, the jury thought the defendant guilty of at least manslaughter, but the state failed to prove its case even though everyone and their brother knew the defendants were guilty. Happily, that is the way American justice is supposed to work even though we don't like the outcome.

Was the OJ trial race-based? I really doubt it, but did police actions indicate a racial bias, well that is where the defense poked a gaping hole, as they are required to do. To me, there are two principal reasons for the not guilty verdict, a very screwed up prosecution and the police allowing race to enter their investigation.

Does money but innocence? No question about it; if you are rich (mostly white people both in numbers, duh, but percentage as well) the probability you will pay for your crimes is very low.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 27, 2015:

adagio and my esoteric -

I apologize for the long posting but bear with me.

I have a personal experience regarding the OJ case to relate. It was Oct. 3, 1995. The verdict, after a long and high profiled trial, was being rendered. It so happened that I was working in the Capital Building along with 2 of my IBM colleagues. We were there to install some equipment for the project we were working on with the Library of Congress. My colleagues were one white American and one African American by the name of OJ believe it or not. He often referred to himself as the “good” OJ when introducing himself. Anyway, we were gathered at the cafeteria where there were about 200 people watching the TV monitors waiting for the verdict announcement. As you know, it was a high profile case at the time and everyone was engaged. The trial being broadcasted live became a circus. We often discuss the case over lunch among ourselves and it was clear to most of my colleagues including OJ that OJ was guilty of murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. The evidence was overwhelming. The “good” OJ was in the minority among blacks that we had engaged with. The case became a racial case when the defense attorneys play the race card. For the most part, it broke along racial line. If you were white, you thought he was guilty and if you were black, you give him the benefit of doubt. Given all that history, we were not prepared for the reaction of the people in that cafeteria. I could remember that moment to this day – some 20 years later. The approx. 200 people there, mostly African American employees at the Capital, (approx. 80% black, 20% white), broke out in loud cheers when the “not guilty” verdict was announced. We sat there stunned not only at the poor verdict but the reaction of the blacks there. It tells me that the race problem in our country have a long way to go and I guess history since proofed me right unfortunately. The thing that struck me from the beginning was that this case was and should not have been about race. It was about a celebrity who had been accused of committing a crime of passion against his ex-wife and her boyfriend. It should have been an open and shut case. It became a circus when race was brought into the picture and the case was mishandled by the judge and prosecution attorneys and when the “dream team” high rolling defense

attorneys play the race card from the bottom of the deck.

I was reminded of this incident recently when I heard Ann Coulter talking about this on radio. She was a guest on some talk radio station and she brought up the OJ case in passing as the defining moment. She wrote a book recently about immigration and she was interviewed about the book which appears here –

Here is a good summary of the case on Wikipedia -

The moral of my story. Sometimes, it is not about race.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 27, 2015:

Adagio and my esoteric - I have a question for both of you since we are discussing about race issues. I make the claim that some people see race in every problem. I want a truthful and honest response. Do you think the OJ case was race related? Not the trial and the news coverage part and the aftermath but the criminal case itself.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 26, 2015:

My esoteric - Did you have any problem with the way the Supreme court ruled in the Obamacare case? I know you support the bill but taking that aside, how Chief justice Roberts used circular reasoning to justify his decision. Remember, it was Roberts in 2010 that uphold the ACA law by calling the penalty a tax. Now he argues because it is too disruptive for millions of people, he ruled based on "intent" rather than the wording of the law. I guess it comes down to "the end justify the means." I was against the ACA law in the first place. I opposed it because it was such a poorly written monstrosity. I would have preferred an incremental approach to fixing the healthcare system. There were various options that could have been debated and ironed out as it should be in Congress. Instead, Obama and Reid pushed it through by changing the rules. I doubt many people even read what was in the bill before voting for it. Jonathan Gruber was right. The American public is too stupid. Just based on his admission, I would have thought the Supreme Court would rule against the bill for deceiving the public (misrepresenting the cost...) and passing it in the first place. Anyway, I am not against reform, just not in the way it has gone down. As it turned out, I was right, given all the problems with the website and the delays and the cost of lost jobs... There will be more missteps ahead.

The worst of it is the way the Constitution was shredded in the ruling on this case. What about all future cases? Will words have no meaning any more? What's the point of arguing over details of any bill if they don't mean anything. I hope you see what I'm talking about. It's a sad day for our country. I hope and pray I am wrong about this but I don't think so.

Next year, 2016 is when the full effect of Obamacare kicks in. There will be many hurdles ahead.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 26, 2015:

Thank you, JackCLee, I try to be as thorough and balanced as I can, given the filter I look at the world through.

I guessed the 6-3 verdict on Obamacare correctly, but missed the Marriage Equality by one, I thought that would be 6-3 as well with Roberts siding with the majority.

In both cases my feeling is "Its about time". As you would suspect, I am a big supporter of Obamacare because I believe it is the duty, by virtue of the Constitutions Preamble, to "ensure" basic rights are "available" to all citizens. And like Locke, I think "health" is one of those inalienable rights, along with life, liberty, and, in our case, the pursuit of happiness. (In the Preamble that translates to Justice, Tranquility, Defense, general Welfare (where health falls), and liberty.

So, having a system that makes available to all citizens a selection of competing health insurers and subsidies, if needed, is one of those duties. The hogwash about the mandatory insurance or penalty being a violation of individual liberty is just that, hogwash. The penalty is there to do three things, 1) to incentivize free-loaders to get insurance, 2) reduce the cost of health care premiums, and 3) collect up-front a fee to pay for the health costs they will more than likely burden the health care system with when they get sick or injured to the extent they can't (or won't) pay for it out of their own resources (a conservative idea I happen to agree with, btw).

As to marriage equality, I would say I can't believe it has taken this long; but then I remember how long it took to give non-propertied white males the right to vote, then to free the slaves, then to give women the right to vote, then to eliminate most of the barriers thrown up to prevent both groups from casting their ballots (that brings to the mid 1960s), then to allow whites and blacks to marry (1967 can you believe). After remembering all of this, it amazes me now how fast it was for the Court to once again remind conservatives this is a free country where people should have the liberty to do what they like, so long as it doesn't hurt someone else and that civil and human rights are not a state issue (via the 14th amendment) but a national one that speaks to the core of this country's moral code.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 26, 2015:

Answer me this Jackclee, if requiring picture voter IDs at the poll does not reduce fraud, which study after study shows it doesn't, why burden a citizen with the requirement for such a fundamental right? The Supreme Court ruled in 2013, that the federal form that attests to citizenship is sufficient for people to register for federal elections. But it left an out which Red states (why only Red states?) are jumping through that still allows them to require documentation some people simply cannot produce for various reason. Most of those affected are elderly and minorities and it has been proven in other court cases that it is easy to disenfranchise this set of voters.

It is the embarrassing history of this country that conservative-oriented people, except for a brief time in the 1960s and 70s, attempted, often successfully, to legally prevent voters, mainly black, from voting by making it too onerous or expensive (think poll tax that up until the 1960s, legal! Why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to end this form of discrimination by conservatives, voter suppression was not a real issue?)

And yes, I agree with Adagio, racism is built into the fabric of this country and wishing it away, or burying your head in the sand regarding, will not make it go away. Given a chance, study after study shows a person's race makes all the difference in the world in many decisions affecting their lives when dealing with whites. This includes housing, employment, education, and yes, even voting.

Until there are laws in place that punish people for discriminatory behavior in the public realm, until the education system focuses on counteracting the lessons taught by racist parents to their children, until a many generations go be where not being a racist is the watchword of the day; racism will continue to find ways to rear its disgusting head.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 26, 2015:

adagio - If that's your thinking, you have sealed the fate of race relations for a long time. Basically, you have no solution and I'm sad for our country. My opinion on voting is stated in my hub - How to vote. I don't believe mandatory voting is the answer. I do believe an "educated electorate" is necessary to preserve our republic.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 26, 2015:

"You need an ID to get on a plane,"

Getting on a plane is not a constitutional right. Voting is.

" In fact, it is condescending to assume one particular group can't get an ID to vote"

That's a very weird form of reverse thinking. I don't know what condescending has to do with this. The issue is over whether these laws place an undo hardship on a segment of the population that is exercising it's right to vote. Are the laws placing hurdles that are unnecessary? There is no evidence of voter fraud anywhere in the country that demonstrates in-person voter fraud. Plus the laws are reducing the number of days people can get to the polls. What purpose does that serve, other than to restrict voting? We should be encouraging people to vote. Not discouraging them.

"You see race in everything and I don't."

I know the history of my country very well. Race always plays a factor. It has from our beginning. It's deeply embedded into the ideology of a major political party and plays a prominent role in most of our legislation.

"Here is the main reason to have voter ID. It insures that the person voting is a citizen. That may not mean much to you but it means everything to me."

But it also has the reverse effect of restricting the right to vote for a large segment of the population for reasons that have nothing to do with the stated goal. It introduces a new requirement that imposes a hardship to exercise a right. It's placing a road block on our ability to exercise a right. Our laws on purchasing a gun are not as restrictive as these laws on voting. When it's easier to get a gun than it is to vote, there is something fundamentally wrong with the motives for the law.

"Some states have allowed undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition while citizens must pay out of state tuition in State funded colleges. Is that fair?"

If the undocumented immigrant lives and works and pays taxes n a state why would he have to pay out of state tuition? And no citizen of any state pays out of state tuition to go to a a school in the state he is a resident of. I don't know where you come up with this. If I lived in Texas I would pay in state tuition to attend UT.

"t is a shame that half of the Americans don't care enough to show up on election day to vote. It is a couple of hours and yet many won't take the time. In my mind, if you don't vote, you have no right to complaint."

Yes it is. And I agree with you on your whole statement. There are a couple of ideas being floated by some candidates, I think Hillary might have been one of them, that want to make voting mandatory, and that registration become automatic when you reach 18 years. The mandatory voting thing might not sit well with those claiming that it violates a right, NOT to vote. An issue of Free Speech. I'm not so sure. Maybe voting should be seen as a civic obligation. A responsibility that comes with citizenship. I could see that argument being made. We used to have a draft where all males registered with Selective Service when they reached 18 and got a draft card. We ended that practice after the Viet Nam experience, but I could see the idea being applied to voting.

" I didn't realize how deeply race is ingrained in some. I guess that is why we still have unresolved issues..."

It's our original sin. It was codified into the constitution. We fought a bitter civil war over it. And those emotions don't go away because a law is passed.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 26, 2015:

my esoteric - This may be a little off topic but I'm interested in your take on the latest Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. We disagree on many topics but I value your input since you seem to be a deep thinker.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 24, 2015:

adagio -

I wrote a hub on fixing the electoral process. I know you disagree with my solutions but check it out anyway.

With regard to Voter ID law, I believe there is nothing wrong with it and certainly not institutional racism. Every other nation have some form of it. You need an ID to get on a plane, to serve on a Jury (part of our civic duty) and a million other things... In fact, it is condescending to assume one particular group can't get an ID to vote. It is their civic duty to follow the law.

You see race in everything and I don't.

Here is the main reason to have voter ID. It insures that the person voting is a citizen. That may not mean much to you but it means everything to me. As a citizen, we are granted certain rights. Without those rights, what is the value of being a citizen? In fact, recently, it seems not being a citizen have some advantages. Some states have allowed undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition while citizens must pay out of state tuition in State funded colleges. Is that fair?

It is a shame that half of the Americans don't care enough to show up on election day to vote. It is a couple of hours and yet many won't take the time. In my mind, if you don't vote, you have no right to complaint.

I believe we get the government we deserve. The current state of our union is a prime example. I wrote a hub that too.

You won't convince me and I guess I won't convince you. It is still good to air out our differences respectfully. I have learned from these dialogs believe it or not. I didn't realize how deeply race is ingrained in some.

I guess that is why we still have unresolved issues...

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2015:

@! Jack: "Did you actually take the time to read my hub?"

You're asking me if I read your Hub? If you mean this one, yes of course I read it. I pulled specific points out of it for criticism.

"If I had change one thing and leave out the "conservative" label, would you proceed to make the same comments?"

My criticism is directed at Conservatism and what I see as illogical and erroneous reasoning and assertions that you've made.

"what part of my hub did you object to? what policies that I propose you disagree and have an alternative proposal? on the merits."

My criticism is directed at the entire ideology of conservatism itself. Your policies are coming from a conservative ideology are they not? Are you voicing liberal policies? I haven't seen any. Conservatism governs your policy views. I don't think you understand. Your ideology is flawed to begin with.

"I'm just wondering if we have a miss communication because of the "baggage" of the label conservatism"

Well...that could be. But your Hub is titled Conservative Principles Defined, and that's what my criticism is about. Not any specific policy, but Conservatism itself. As for "baggage", a lot of Conservatives are now calling themselves "classical liberals". Sort of like Liberals calling themselves "Progressives". The use of words like liberalism and conservatism immediately raise questions of definition. Today, each view tends toward defining the other in the most negative of terms.

What you should have noticed is that I never defined Conservatism. You did. It's the very title of your Hub. I simply critique that definition. I never define conservatives. I let them define themselves and then critique the definition. Conservatives ( just like you) are always looking to define others. Liberals are this. Liberals are that. I leave it to conservatives to tell me what they are. When they do, ( and they always do) they leave that definition open to criticism, which is when I jump in. I don't even define Liberals, because they're all over the map and have different views on almost everything. They do tend to share a common form of reasoning that is different from the conservative. I've found Liberals for more inclined toward deductive reasoning while conservatives lean toward inductive reasoning.

"I challenge you to cite one law that is "institutional racism" in our country today."

If I had to choose one example, I'd say it's the Voter ID laws. The question that comes up is who benefits and who gets hurt? The argument FOR the ID Laws is that it would curb in - person voter fraud which is non-existent, and for a good reason. Nobody is going to risk a prison sentence and a huge fine for committing a crime with nothing to gain. Passing yourself off as somebody else isn't going to sway an election and if your caught, you go to jail. There's nothing to gain and everything to lose. So if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. But more than that, the Voter restrictions now cut the number of days in which you can vote. Why? In Vermont where I live, we have 30 days to vote. In other states Republicans have cut the days from a week down to two or three. They've eliminated Sunday voting which is traditionally a way that Blacks have voted. After church the congregation would head off to vote. Those people who have always had the proper ID and credentials must now obtain NEW ID's and credentials or be dropped from the rolls and denied the right to exercise their franchise. Who benefits by making it harder for blacks to vote? Republicans of course as stated openly by the head of the Pennsylvania GOP when he said that new Voter ID laws would get Mitt Romney elected. Blacks generally vote Democratic so reduce the number of black voters.

The SCOTUS gutted part of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County Alabama claimed that years had passed since they were being douche-bags, and were held to standards for changing voting laws that other states weren't held to. Since there was no incidents of voter intimidation, that law was no longer needed. So the Court shredded the VRA, and of course Alabama jumped at the chance to change their laws. The court never seemed to recognize that the reason that Alabama hadn't been able to intimidate voters was precisely because of the VRA. It's the very thing that blocked Alabama from voter intimidation. And the Court removed it, opening the door that Alabama wanted opened to do what they always intended on doing.

Institutional racism today is far more subtle. It's not in the form of Jim Crow laws on the books. But it's done by individuals that hold racist attitudes and work in positions of authority like the police which allows them to enforce laws that they like, and not enforce those that they don't. Or shoot to kill when other options are available. Shooting a young black boy in Cleveland for waving a toy gun is insane. Shooting a black man 8 times in the back and planting evidence near the body is a way of using the authority of the institution to attack those you have a prejudice against. Killing a black man by having the police gang up on him, put him in a choke hold on him and pin him to the ground in front of the entire country to see, and not being indicted by a prosecutor is a demonstration of institutional racism.

Anytime we see social injustice directed toward a particular racial group, we're seeing institutional racism in action. It's an example of the law not being applied equally. Blacks being sentenced to longer prison terms than whites for the same crime.

"You can believe what you want. I am trying to come up with solutions."

I don't operate from beliefs. And I certainly don't live under they illusion that some belief system is going to solve our problems.

"If you check most of my hubs, I have proposed solutions and fixes. That is my primary concern. I have no interest of dredging up past sins.

That's the only way I know on making progress."

Well....tossing ideas into the mix is always a good place to start. But I'd caution you to not be wedded to any particular idea. And never look for things that support the idea. That's inductive reasoning and induction never proves an argument. Look for all the things that would falsify the idea. What are the reasons it wouldn't work?

You have no interest in dredging up the past. I can see that, but it's important not to repeat the same mistakes from the past. If you want to make progress then be willing to try something new and different. Maybe it won't work, but at least you'll know what doesn't.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 24, 2015:

adagio - Interesting. Did you actually take the time to read my hub? If I had change one thing and leave out the "conservative" label, would you proceed to make the same comments? what part of my hub did you object to? what policies that I propose you disagree and have an alternative proposal? on the merits.

I'm just wondering if we have a miss communication because of the "baggage" of the label conservatism.

I challenge you to cite one law that is "institutional racism" in our country today. Not the "inherent" racism you claim. You can say that about almost anything. It solves nothing.

You can believe what you want. I am trying to come up with solutions.

If you check most of my hubs, I have proposed solutions and fixes. That is my primary concern. I have no interest of dredging up past sins.

That's the only way I know on making progress.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2015:

@Jack: "Your obsession with race is what's preventing you from being objective."

You confuse "obsession" with observation. Being able to observe racism, does not equal being obsessed. I can observe that it's raining outside. That doesn't make me obsessed with rain.

"For your information, just because someone agrees with certain principles (such as Conservatism as defined by my hub) does not imply one or another about racism. "

For your information, I didn't make up the rules. I didn't lay out the 6 Canon's of Conservatism and follow that with The 10 Principles of Conservatism. Russell Kirk did and he's the guy that influenced your hero Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:   “As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From ... Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.” — Ronald Reagan, 1981.

"I have mentioned very little about race."

You don't have to. Actions speak louder than words.

"I get it. We had a checkered past."

That's a start. But the fact is that the entire country has a checkered past. The question becomes "what are we going to do about it? A good start might be examining the thinking that promoted that kind of attitude and being critical of it whenever it appears again so that we can recognize hate when we see it, and in the name of tolerance...refuse to tolerate it.

"I too understand that many of my ancestors have suffered under tyranny both at home and here in the US back in the 1800's. No different than Jews, and Irish and Italians and most other immigrant groups."

Actually quite different.

" I realized they don't compare to slavery that blacks suffered. However, we have changed and for the better."

We've moved in a positive direction, but the change is not complete and there is still a very long way to go. Nobody flipped a switch and turned off racism. Sure things have changed, but other things demonstrate that we have a long way to go. Confederate Flags still fly in the South at State Capitols. And those flags symbolize White Supremacy. And most of them began flying in the 1960's as a conservative backlash to Brown v Board of Education, and the Civil Rights movement.

"For you to claim that we are still a racist nation is just wrong. I am not saying there are no racists. There will always be individual bigots. I choose not to let that get me down. I celebrate our nation as imperfect as it is. What other nation today can stand up to ours? Think about that."

I've argued that there is racism embedded into a major political ideology in America, and that keeps this country in the grip of racism. There is no escaping that unless there is radical reform of that ideology and I don't see that ever happening, since the ideology is predicated on maintaining and preserving those traditional institutions and that would include the ideology itself.

The individual bigots are a problem of course. Lone wolves like Roof. But what about actual politicians that pander to those individual bigots? And what about the politician that actually IS one of those individual bigots ? Strom Thurmond was one such bigot, and had a position of power. Jesse Helms was another. Just because a person sits in Congress doesn't mean that he/she might not also hold those views.

Examine legislation. Who benefits and who gets hurt?

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 24, 2015:

My esoteric - Thanks for the comment. I am still looking into this "minimal State Liberalism". Will get back to you...

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 24, 2015:

While I disagree with Adagio that conservatism is racist, it is not. But, as I mentioned earlier, the prejudice and bigotry (which is not racism) which is inherent in Kirk and Burke's' writings, is a "fertile breeding ground" for racism.

That same thing cannot be said for liberalism. Why? Because egalitarianism is a canon of liberalism. One of the ideas not part of egalitarianism is humanity, by necessity, is naturally classed based. On the other hand a direct reading of Kirk says class structure is a natural and necessary characteristic of human nature and he, as a conservative, embrace that notion.

Now, if you reject that part of conservatism, that puts you one step closer to being a minimal-state liberal (which is somebody that accepts the principles of liberalism, but rejects the idea of anything but the local community promoting it through action.)

And, to be honest, that is exactly what I am reading into your dialogue.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 24, 2015:

I just published a new hub that address some of what you say - it is just too long to react to all your comments.

Check this out -

For your information, just because someone agrees with certain principles (such as Conservatism as defined by my hub) does not imply one or another about racism. I have mentioned very little about race.

Your obsession with race is what's preventing you from being objective.

I get it. We had a checkered past. As an Asian, I too understand that many of my ancestors have suffered under tyranny both at home and here in the US back in the 1800's. No different than Jews, and Irish and Italians and most other immigrant groups. I realized they don't compare to slavery that blacks suffered. However, we have changed and for the better. For you to claim that we are still a racist nation is just wrong. I am not saying there are no racists. There will always be individual bigots. I choose not to let that get me down. I celebrate our nation as imperfect as it is. What other nation today can stand up to ours? Think about that.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 24, 2015:

@Jack: "I can lead you to water but I can’t make you drink."

That's because your water is poisoned Jack. I don't drink that juice. You didn't address any of the points I brought up. Perhaps you didn't understand what I demonstrated. Conservatism is an illogical and irrational ideology. I already know that. If that’s not enough, Racism is embedded into its ideology. That alone is reason enough to know that it’s wrong.

However, let’s look at your points.

“One of Soros’s front group – Media Matters is one of the smear merchants.”

You mean like you’re doing right now?

Two things:

1. A front group is covert. It’s common knowledge that Soros funds liberal organizations, and that Media Matters is one of them. So what? If it were really a front group it would be “covert”, meaning we wouldn’t know that. He's not hiding that.

2. Media Maters and David Broch are the liberal equivalent of Media Research Center and Brent Bozell. They are characterized as “smear merchants” because they fact check Fox News and expose their lies and hate. So of course the right is going to hate them and call them “smear merchants”. What you really don’t like is that there is a liberal counterpart to Bozells Media Research Center, and Soros made that happen. If the Koch’s did that you’d have no problem at all.

The link you provide is for a conservative web site. You’re giving me a biased source. I told you specifically “Provide a link for me. And let’s hope it isn't from some right wing site or Fox Noise.” And you give me a right wing web site. Their self-description: Human Events; Powerful Conservative Voices.

The end of their hit job on Soros (no smear coming from these guys) they say this:” As it is, one of the wealthiest men in the world is using his billions to impose a radical agenda on America.” Sort of like two of the wealthiest brothers in the world are using their billions to impose a radical right wing agenda on America with them writing the laws that go to serve their own interests. How do you manage to ignore that?

“Gallup poll shows 38% consider themselves conservative. Are they all racist? “

Probably and most likely aren’t even aware of it. Do you know how to recognize racism. It’s when you’re overly sympathetic to your own group, and overly skeptical of another. Anything that would promote the concept of White Supremacy is racist. Where does the idea of White Supremacy come from? In this country it came from slavery. Slaves were only considered 3/5 of a person. Whites were superior. Slaves were inferior. That was institutionalized in this country. The very idea of White Supremacy and Slavery is embedded into our constitution. Conservatives always preserve traditional institutions. That’s a huge part of conservative ideology. Slavery was a traditional institution in this country and they were willing to fight a civil war to preserve it. They lost, but they’ve never conceded the cause. The attitude of White Supremacy was still intact. Jim Crow laws were enacted to inflict as much damage on former slaves as they could bear, and often more than they could bear.

Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. Flying the Confederate Flag demonstrates that.

The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea of White Supremacy, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.

The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.

Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.

The Conservative Citizens Council has donated money to a large number of Republican politicians including several that are running for President. Once it was made public that Dylann Roof, the racist that gunned down 9 blacks in a church got his inspiration to kill blacks from the Conservative Citizens Council web site, the candidates all sent the donations back rather than be tainted by the overt racism of the CCC. They were all willing to take the money from a racist organization until someone actually pulled the trigger.

If you’re known by the company you keep, then we have Republicans cozying up to racist organizations.

Racism is a view that is held as necessary to maintain and preserve the traditional institution of White Supremacy which is a racist view to begin with.

1.Conservatives always preserve traditional institutions

2. White Supremacy is a traditional institution


C: therefore; Conservatives preserve White Supremacy.

1. Conservatism supports White Supremacy

2. White Supremacy is a racist value


C: therefore; Conservatism supports a racist value

“If you truly want to change things, you should join with conservatives and work towards real change.”

“Real Change” is not a part of conservative ideology. The conservative mind embraces a narrow point of view. It doesn’t like being challenged. It resists new information. A liberal mind by definition is open to change, but change always threatens the existing order, so the liberal is not to be trusted. He is feared, and hated because he challenges the existing order. Conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. That fundamental posture by the conservative contradicts the idea of “real change” when real change is always a challenge to an established social order. You know this. You grasp that this is embedded into the conservative ideology. Resisting change is what defines a conservative point of view. Burke pointed that out. Kirk pointed that out. The Heritage Foundation points that out. The Confederate Flag issue in the southern states is a perfect and immediate example. Taking that flag down and removing it from display on State Capital grounds has always been resisted. It’s a traditional institution. It has been resisted for decades, until the horror of what that flag represents comes into our very homes. Only then does the conservative back down and recognize the impact of a hateful ideology.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 24, 2015:

It was a 5-4 decision with the conservative side winning.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 24, 2015:

While you and Adagio battle over money in politics (BTW, for every Soros of the D side, there are 5 Kochs on the C side and no, the parties don't get money from the same politically oriented source, just from big business, and that is weighted toward whoever is in power.), I'll move on to your comments on

You open with what is, for the most part, the truth when viewed at its core - "I believe all reasonable people want the same things. We want peace and happiness and prosperity for our family and our community. We want justice for all and a safe environment to pursue our dreams. If I'm wrong, please correct me. " I see no need to correct you.

We have empirical evidence from over 200 years of American history to test each others theories. I will assert that from the day our Constitution was ratified until shortly after WW II; life for the average middle or poor economic class individual was not fun. It was constant struggle often under draconian conditions, especially during the frequent major recessions and depressions, to put basic food on the table for their family. Women were, for the most part, legal slaves who were not allowed to participate in society (those that did often came from well-off families) Non-white minorities such as blacks nationwide and Asians on the West coast were treated like crap as well as being either an actual slave or at a minimum, sharecroppers (which includes the poor whites) when slavery was banned, and indentured servant (in the case of Asians, it was indentured railroad workers.)

Before WW II, there was only a small middle and merchant class, probably an equal sized (now I am going to have to look up the numbers) wealthy class and a huge poor class; poverty ran higher than 40% prior to WW II.

What is common throughout that period with only minor exceptions was that conservative, sometimes very conservative ideology was firmly in control of our governments social and economic policies.

Things changed after WW II when the conservative grip loosened and a more progressive social and economic policy was allowed to flourish. The middle class bourgeoned, poverty rates fell, income and wealth inequality was lowered to acceptable levels (it will always be there as a function of human nature, even under socialism), major recessions and depressions were eliminated (meaning, until 2008, there wasn't even one), and life, even among many of the poor, was thought to be good ... until 1981.

From that point on, conservative ideology began to replace progressive in both social and economic policy and the data clearly shows America regressing to pre-WW II conditions.

And you opposing view is?

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 23, 2015:

adagio - Just so happen in the news, George Soros funded Ferguson protest.

One of Soros’s front group – Media Matters isone of the smear merchants.

Some other Soros enterprises…

Gallup poll shows 38% consider themselves conservative. Are they all racist? I am telling you straight out. I am not a racist and I know many conservatives that are not racist. It does not compute.

As I pointed out in my hub, the current Democratic and Republican parties are supported by the same group of people. They use their money to gain influence and the people are being played.

If you truly want to change things, you should join with conservatives and work towards real change.

The people in power wants to divide us the people by race by sex by economic status…

I can lead you to water but I can’t make you drink.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 23, 2015:

@Jack: "In case you don't know, I am Chinese. I immigrated to America when I was 10 years old. I am not white but I am conservative."

Congratulations. What's your point?

"With regard to Soros, did you know his organization paid protesters in Ferguson? "

And you got this from where? Provide a link for me. And lets hope it isn't from some right wing site or Fox Noise.

"Did you think people just show up on the streets carrying signs that are professionally printed on a whim?"

They weren't. Most of them were hand printed. There certainly were tee shirts and the like, but so what? What happened in Ferguson was bullshit and the Cop should have been indicted, just like the Cops in Staten Island that killed Eric Garner. And what makes you think that Soros foundation had anything to do with it?

"You can defend Soros but anyone who hides behind shadow organizations in my opinion is dishonest."

Really? Then what's your take on the the Council of Conservative Citizens? Do you take issue with them? They said this: ""God is the author of racism. God is the One who divided mankind into different types. ... Mixing the races is rebelliousness against God."

— Council of Conservative Citizens website, 2001. An admittedly racist Conservative organization.

Do you have a problem with "Koch Family Foundations consist of the David H. Koch Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation,and the Knowledge and Progress Fund.

They fund an organization called American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC for short. They write legislation for congressmen sympathetic to their political views that they pay through campaign contributions to bring to those bills to the floor. All the heavy lifting is done. The congressman just needs to bring the already written bill to the floor. Those bills always support Koch ideology and interests. Do you have a problem with that as well?

Actually they fund a long list of organizations with very patriotic sounding names like, Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, Institute for Justice, Reason Foundation, John Locke Foundation. I could go on but it's a long list and you get the idea.

" I have no problem with people who have a different philosophy than I. Let's debate it on the merits. I don't like people hiring others to do their dirty work. Soros wants to bring down America. If you agree with that, you are so misguided. "

There can be no debate when your mindset is the way you present it. First of all Soros does NOT want to bring down America. I not only disagree with that notion, I also reject the idea that I would agree with bringing down America as well as the idea that Soros thinks that way. Here's where you fall apart. You pretend to know what George Soros wants as if you can read his mind. You can't. And George Soros is a billionaire and is not wanting for anything. His foundation is committed to the concept of the Open Society which is something you oppose. That means that you support a closed society and I don't think you really understand what that means. Coming from China I would think you would, although China has changed a lot since the days of Mao. And your reasons for opposing it are absurd. You have never read The Open Society and its Enemies. You've probably never heard of Karl Popper, and you're going to tell me what is in Soros mind and heart? The Open Society opposes totalitarian states. That's Karl Popper in a nutshell. Soros was so taken by Poppers philosophy that when he became a billionaire he created a foundation that would help support those ideals of free speech and open society. Your description of it demonstrates that you know nothing of it.

" Let's debate it on the merits."

As for the merits, what do you think I've been doing all this time? I've presented a critique of conservatism throughout. I've told you were it comes from, ( Edmund Burke) I've told you why I disagree with Burke and Kirk, I've told you that it's an ideology that springs from an attitude of Anti-Enlightenment. This country was founded upon the Enlightenment principles of Locke and others. Burke opposed that. So this country doesn't come from a Burkean outlook which is exactly where the modern conservative in America draws his ideas from. Traditional Conservatism. If you look to the right of this discussion, you will see a book called Political Logic. That's mine. I wrote it. It shows A Critique of Conservatism. I probably know a lot more about your ideology than you do. I know where it comes from, who it's important voices were and the contradictions that it embraces. I know that it's a foundationalist ideology and Foundationalism collapsed when Einstein came on the scene. Prior to him philosophy used inductive reasoning to validate their ideas. Einstein changed the way we view the world, and foundatonalism collapsed. Conservatism is based on a foundationalist view, and it's a view that relies on authoritarianism, ( which is probably why you oppose an open society. Authoritarianism isn't compatible with an open society) If Conservatism is questioned it must justify it's position. It must defend it. In order to do that it must demonstrate that its based on something. But once you do that, you concede that things require bases. That being the case, what then is the basis for the basis? What justifies the basis for the basis as a basis cannot justify itself. It needs something else to base itself on. This is a condition known as Infinite regress v dogma. As long as you hold the conservative position dogmatically, you will constantly need to find another justification for yet another basis. The only way out of that infinite regress is to STOP and say I believe it because I believe it. And that is resigning to circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy,.

The problem is actually solved be recognizing your own fallibility Once you do that, you can see that any man -made idea or theory such as conservatism MUST itself be fallible as you cannot produce an infallible product from a fallible source. In other words... Conservatism is prone to error. It just might be wrong about a lot of things.

Liberalism doesn't have that problem because it has no position to defend irrationally. It already knows it could be wrong. If it is, then it changes or corrects the mistake. It's not hung up on dogma. Because of that it's not an ideology. It's open ended with only truth as its goal. It never claims to own it. That's for conservatives and they never disappoint when it comes to claiming that they own the truth.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 23, 2015:

@Jack. "You want to cite history and I can cite as many Democrats who in the past have been racists."

I'm sure you can but the difference between us is that you're pointing to a party, and you said yourself, don't confuse the party with the ideology. I'm not pointing to Republicans. I'm pointing to Conservatives. The parties don't have minds of their own. It's the ideology that drives the party. Those racist Democrats were conservatives Democrats, and they were all over the South. It's not about the parties and never was. It's all about the ideology that tells the party what it stands for. Like I said, the parties don't have a mind of their own. MLK, the guy that you cited as somebody you admire, told you that in 1964. What part of that don't you understand? Looking at the parties is grasping at straws, and the sign of a guy whose argument is falling apart. The parties are nothing without the ideology that steers them in a direction.

" Can we agree that education (improved public education in the inner city) is a good start? What is the liberal solution to this? Conservatives believe in giving parent the choice of charter schools and vouchers. Your turn."

I don't believe in vouchers at all. Parents have always had school choice. When I was growing up we had public schools and parochial schools. Most private schools are religious. We don't fund religion in this country. If you want to send your kid to a private religious school, then go ahead, but don't expect the tax payer to pay for it.

Private ( and we're really talking about religious schools, since probably 90% of them are...we aren't going to pay to send little Johnny to an exclusive prep school or boarding school) are a way to segregate. A private school can decide who it takes and who it doesn't. It can discriminate. It's another way for segregationists to keep blacks or minorities from going to school with your kids. How convenient. We'll just dress it up as "school choice". Segregation by any other name is still segregation. The object should be to have school systems that are capable of offering an equal education opportunity for everyone. There are courses that should be part of that curriculum. The arts should be available because our kids learn to think in abstract concepts. Ethics and informal logic or critical thinking skills should be mandatory. so that they learn how to function in a society that believes in social justice. And all students should be taught civics. When I was young we had to pass a state constitution test to pass 7th grade, and a US Constitution test to graduate 8th grade and move on to High School. I don't know if that's even required anymore. Most of our people in congress seem clueless when it comes to that. They talk about the constitution and haven't got a clue as to what's in it.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 23, 2015:

adagio - In case you don't know, I am Chinese. I immigrated to America when I was 10 years old. I am not white but I am conservative.

With regard to Soros, did you know his organization paid protesters in Ferguson? Did you think people just show up on the streets carrying signs that are professionally printed on a whim? Wise up. You can defend Soros but anyone who hides behind shadow organizations in my opinion is dishonest. I have no problem with people who have a different philosophy than I. Let's debate it on the merits. I don't like people hiring others to do their dirty work. Soros wants to bring down America. If you agree with that, you are so misguided. I love America and what it stands for. It has done a lot for my family. It is not perfect and no where else is perfection. You name me one country that is superior to America? that has tried to do millions of people from tyrants...and supports democracy...

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 23, 2015:

@Jack. "I know a lot about Soros and his foundation. Yes I am opposed to open societies."

Well that tells me all I need to know then. You're opposed to open societies.

"He is undermining our democracy by funding political groups that smear people he disagree with (Conservative organizations and politicians)."

You mean like you're doing right now, with the help of Fox Noise that hates him? So, you smear him. You really don't know anything about Soros or the Foundation other than what you get from Fox News. The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. Sounds like a rational idea to me. You object to that? I have a good friend who worked for Soros' Foundation. His job was to go into former Soviet states and help build Democracies which was something they had no experience in. Soros was a student of the great Scientific Philosopher of the 20th Century, Karl Popper at the London School of Economics, who wrote a famous book titled The Open Society and it's Enemies. I guess that would include you. That's what the foundation is named for. Those are the principles behind the Foundation. Popper was completely opposed to totalitarian states. You oppose that? I suppose from your view, a little totalitarianism is good for people. Apparently you prefer a closed society. The open society is committed to the principles of free speech. Something you don't get in a closed society.

I can see clearly where you are coming from, and I don't think there's much more to say. You don't think critically Jack. You should start doing that some time soon.

P1. Conservatives believe in traditional values

P2. White Supremacy is a traditional conservative value.


C: Conservatives believe in White supremacy as a traditional value.

That's not emotion Jack. That's logic. It's a deductive syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 23, 2015:

You want to cite history and I can cite as many Democrats who in the past have been racists. I won't because it does no good to move the discussion forward. I am interested in solving the problem rather than place blame. I believe the conservative policies will help reduce the problems of our society. You think different. Why don't we start from there. Can we agree that education (improved public education in the inner city) is a good start? What is the liberal solution to this? Conservatives believe in giving parent the choice of charter schools and vouchers. Your turn.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 23, 2015:

@Jack: "What is your "solution" to the race problem?

You’re asking me what is my solution to racism? That’s the problem you know. We have a very long history of racism in this country. I’ve told you that racism is embedded into the conservative ideology, and what’s more I’ve given you reasons for my saying that, which have yet to refute.

“I disagree with you when you say “Racism is embedded into the Conservative Ideology”. Our country has come a long way and there is no institutional racism in America today.”

Sure we have. But we still have a very long way to go. Simply saying we’ve come a long way doesn’t mean that we’ve arrived. That’s no argument.

I know that you disagree with me on Racism and Conservatism being the same thing in America, but MLK saw it and pointed directly to it in 1964. He stated up front that he could not support any ideology that gave an umbrella of cover to the racist or the KKK.

And institutionalized racism was found to exist in the Ferguson Police Dept. There are so many ways around that kind of thing it’s ridiculous to take the time to go into how it is applied despite the laws that forbid it. A cop in Charleston shoots a black man 8 times in the back and then plants evidence next to the body to suggest that it was a righteous shoot. The problem is he was caught on camera doing it and today sits in a jail cell right next to the racist that shot and killed 9 blacks in a church because they were black. They were “raping our women, and trying to take over the country…and they have to go”. His manifesto stated clearly that he was trying to start a race war. He gets his ideas from the Council of Conservative Citizens. Many of the themes promoted on the council’s website resonate through an online manifesto apparently written by Dylann Roof, who has been charged in the killings last week in Charleston.

The manifesto traced the motivation for the shootings to a twisted epiphany: a Google search that led to the council’s website, where “pages upon pages of brutal black on White murders” were tallied and described.

“I have never been the same since that day,” the manifesto attributed to Mr. Roof said.

Since it rose in the 1980s from the ashes of the old and unabashedly racist White Citizens’ Councils, the Council of Conservative Citizens has drifted in and out of notoriety. But it is clearly back in: Last weekend, three Republican presidential candidates — Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky — announced that they were returning or giving away donations from the council’s president, Earl Holt III. Since 2011, Mr. Holt has also contributed at least $3,500 to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who is expected to run for president. A spokesman for Mr. Walker said he would donate the money to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund, which is helping families of the Charleston massacre. All told, Mr. Holt, who did not return calls for comment, has given at least $57,000 to Republican candidates for federal and state offices.

But the manifesto attributed to Mr. Roof, posted on a website called, suggests that the council continues to have influence among followers of so-called white power ideology.

But the group also endorses causes dear to the far right for decades, including abandoning membership in the United Nations, maintaining the United States as a “Christian country,” denouncing homosexuality and opposing sex education, multiculturalism and property taxes.

In a conservative Southern heartland already roiled by federal intervention on civil-rights issues, the council early on was seen less as an outlier than a defender of states’ — and whites’ — rights. The support could cross party lines: In the late 1990s, one council member boasted that 34 members of the Mississippi Legislature, mostly Democratic, were council members as well.

In a 2010 interview with the conservative journal The Weekly Standard, Mr. Barbour cast the accusations of racism against the group as an exaggeration. No Haley. It was no exaggeration. “Up north, they think it was like the K.K.K.,” he said. “Where I come from, it was an organization of town leaders.”

Where you come from, they killed three civil rights workers, (Shwerner, Goodman and Cheney) and Ronald Reagan launched his presidential campaign telling those very people, that he was “all in” with states rights, and in Yazoo City where you come from, they lynched 16 blacks. Overall in Mississippi, the place you come from, they lynched 173 blacks. No Haley. No exaggeration here.

In Huntsville in 1999,” a women attending a rally, said, “and there was everyone from hard-core neo-Nazis to David Duke to Don Black and others like that.” Mr. Duke, 64, is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan; Mr. Black, 61, is a former Klan official who runs a well-known racist website, Stormfront.

This group funds Republican Conservatives running for office. They are racist to the core.

You ask me; “What is your "solution" to the race problem? There is no solution to it as long as the conservative ideology exists. Conservatism perpetuates racism. It always has. Just look at the history of race in the South, the most conservative region of the country. Look at the history of slavery, the Civil War itself in which all the Confederate States issued their articles of secession and stated slavery as their reasons for secession, Jim Crow, Segregation, racial terrorism in the form of bombing or torching black churches, lynching blacks or killing those sympathetic to black issues. Obstruction and opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act. All of it is Conservative. None of it represents a liberal idea of how to coexist with people. Racism is at the very core of Conservatism in America. So, the solution is the demise of an ideology of hate, and that’s not likely to happen during anybody’s lifetime in the foreseeable future.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 23, 2015:

adagio - I know a lot about Soros and his foundation. Yes I am opposed to open societies. It is another word for One world order. I believe in the sovereignty of nations and American exceptionalism. Soros is a convicted criminal and has made his money manipulating currency. He is undermining our democracy by funding political groups that smear people he disagree with (Conservative organizations and politicians). You should do some research. You will be shocked.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 23, 2015:

@Jack: "Soros Open Society Institute"

Jack...what do you know about the Open Society Foundation? You oppose it? What do you know about it? Are you opposed to open societies? Do you prefer a closed society?

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 23, 2015:

The terms MSL and ASL, I learned from a series of lectures on the subject.

And so long as widespread bigotry and racism exists in this country, it MUST play a major role. While you are right, any policy should be good for all people, they are not. Chief Justice Roberts' gutting of the Voting Rights Act led to a flurry of activity in primarily Red states to create laws to limit minority (who primarily vote Democratic) voters from reaching the polls. They are the modern day equivalent to poll taxes and armed vigilantes standing at polls intimidating voters of old.

And please forgo the argument of voter fraud. Study after study shows the rate of that is less than 1% and has not had a material effect on any election since Kennedy and Chicago.

I live in rural Florida and it feels like my wife and I are the only non-racists here; and that includes her family and relatives (who I am glad don't like hubs) Said another way, racism is palpable here, you can smell it in the air.

BTW, what do you think would happen to student scores if you put the faculty and resources given to a school district in Watts, CA (a black area in LA) to the school district that contains Beverly Hill High; and did the same in reverse, give BHH's faculty and resources to Watts?

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 23, 2015:

my esoteric - I have not heard of the term minimal state liberal. I will check it out. I doubt that is what I believe but will reserve judgement. I was never a fan of labels. The conservative label fits me the best but it is not 100%. I guess if I were to qualify my label, it would be "color blind Conservative". Since we are making up terms as we go...why not. I don't think race should play a major role in our policies. Any policy we adopt should be good for all people. Equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity to advance but not necessarily equal outcome.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 23, 2015:

adagio - Thanks for checking my hub. I must have struck a nerve. It is good to have this conversation.

Assuming you are correct about liberalism and their policies. How do you explain the decline of the black family? the high single mother birth rate? and the recent events in Baltimore? and the high crime rate in inner cities...

What is your "solution" to the race problem?

Do you support the likes of Reverend Sharpton who try to stir up race every chance he gets? At the end of the day, it's not what the good intentions that solve problems. It is results. I support Dr. Ben Carson's views and I wish other blacks will pay more attention to what he has to say. He has done more to help black people than anyone. He is a proud conservative. In fact there are many black conservatives and minority conservatives. How do you explain that? are they racist for their believes?

Something to think about...

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 23, 2015:

You might look at to see differences in types of liberals. If you take the included quiz, which is turning out to be fairly accurate, my bet is that based on your comments so far, you are a minimal-state liberal and not a conservative.

To some of you points above, one of the basic tenants of liberalism is "egalitarianism". This notion is clearly rejected by true conservatives, but not active-state or minimal-state liberals. Both Burke and Kirk concretely think egalitarianism simply leads to disorder.

Historic examples of minimal-state liberals are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Examples of conservatives are Andrew Jackson and John Calhoun. Active-state liberals would be John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 22, 2015:

@Jack: "Liberals rules by emotion rather than logic"

You'd be as far off base on that as you could get Jack. To begin with you can examine Kirks Canon's of conservatism.

American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty. Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:  

1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society.

2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity.

3. Civilized society requires orders and classes.

4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected.

5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason.

6. Society must alter slowly.

Each of Kirks canons requires and emotional investment to sustain them. You can begin with #1. A Divine intent. A divine intent pre-supposes not only that a divinity is at hand, but that its intent can be determined. A personal conscience is, of course, a matter of subjectivity. A religious view appears to be essential to conservative thought. And religious beliefs are all emotion based. Not logic.

In contrast, “to understand the Enlightenment ( which is where liberalism comes from) and the foundations of democracy is to know that doctrinal substance was less important than overall philosophy. The real power of reason lay not in the possession, but in the acquisition of truth. The ideal for knowledge was a further development of 17th century logic and science with an emphasis on:   • The particular rather than the general.

• Observable facts rather than principles.

• Experience rather than rational speculation.

Point 1. is referring to deductive reasoning as opposed to induction.

Point 2, is self explanatory

Point 3, is about fact based information...not speculation and generalities which brings us back to #1.

Liberalism is more easily recognized for what it is not, than for what it is. Conservatism stands for something. It presents a positive methodology and attempts to justify itself through authoritarian means. It's always an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. Even experts can be wrong. It also follows that conservatism must always defend its position and its positive methodology as being rational, something that it cannot do.

Liberalism doesn’t actually stand for anything. It operates from a negative methodology and attempts to peel away things that obscure the truth. Above all, it appears to be found in the application of critical thinking.

American liberalism, in Schlesinger’s words, feels that “realism is the source of strength, and that illusion, while productive of momentary enthusiasm, will be in the end, a source of catastrophe.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

“The basic difference was between the party of the past and the party of the future, between the party of memory and the party of hope. It is still true that the American liberal believes that society can and should be improved, and that the way to improve it is to apply human intelligence to social and economic problems. The conservative, on the other hand, opposes efforts at purposeful change — especially when they threaten the existing distribution of power and wealth — because he believes that things are about as good as they can be reasonably expected to be, and that any change is more likely than not to be for the worse.”

You say this: "They believe that government is the solution even though as I cited they have failed in numerous cases." But you'd be wrong. You wouldn't be the first to be mistaken here. "It is still true that the American liberal believes that society can and should be improved, and that the way to improve it is to apply human intelligence to social and economic problems." That doesn't mean that it's up to the government to make that happen. You also have the same confusion about "government". The government isn't some monolithic thing with a mind of its own. The government simply implements the policies of whatever party is in power. It doesn't make policy. It follows policy and that comes from Congress because they make our laws. The executive administers those laws. The government serves both Republican AND Democratic administrations. They come and go, and the government does what they tell it to do.

You say this: "They believe that government is the solution even though as I cited they have failed in numerous cases."

And they've succeeded as well. We put a man on the moon not once but several times. Nobody else has come close. But more to the point, are you looking for a Utopia?? Our system is man made. It's fallible. It makes mistakes. The difference with the two parties and ideologies is that conservatives know that they're right, while liberals know they could be wrong. Which approach is closer to the truth?

"Liberal do not like to be judged for personal behavior even though some of those behavior are destructive to society"

Who appointed you as judge of anybody? Perhaps it's that they don't care to be judged by you. You're making a value judgement right now. I could cite conservative behavior that supported slavery, the civil war, Jim Crow, Racial terrorism spanning 80 years including lynchings, mutilations, burning people alive, castration...maybe liberals don't think that conservatives have any room to judge anybody and should begin by directing that judgement at themselves.

"Many liberals looks thru life with color glasses, meaning seeing race in issues where race has nothing too do with it."

Many conservatives think the earth is 6,000 years old. As for race, we see race issues when they rear their ugly head such as what we just saw in Charleston. We see it in policies that have a negative impact on specific groups of minorities. We see it in Donald Trump claiming that Mexico is "sending their people here who are all rapists and drug dealers". But there might be a few that are ok. Otherwise Mexicans are rapists and drug mules. If you think that 2 - 300 years of racism has suddenly disappeared because we elected a black president twice, you're fooling yourself.

"Liberals seek to change society by fiat rather than follow the Constitution."

That's simply false. The difference is that we understand the constitution. We don't just wave it in peoples face and claim to understand it. We actually know it beyond the 2nd Amendment.

"Liberals claims to be inclusive and tolerant except when you disagree with them..."

That's your own misunderstanding of tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

We should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. There is no paradox of tolerance. We claim in the name of tolerance the right to meet intolerance head on.

"Society do require order but not classes."

Actually it's Kirks quote, but it could just as easily be Burke since that's where his ideas come from. And that is still conservative ideology.

"I wish we can move towards a color blind society as MLK envisioned. Unfortunately, given the history and on-going social problems, it seems that is not going to come easily."

You don't have to be color blind. You just have to stop thinking it matters.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 22, 2015:

My esoteric - Thanks for checking in. I have not heard the term limited state liberalism but here is what I believe liberals do believe based on what policies they support. They believe that government is the solution even though as I cited they have failed in numerous cases. Liberals rules by emotion rather than logic. They have good intention but many of their policies do more harm than good. Liberal do not like to be judged for personal behavior even though some of those behavior are destructive to society. Many liberals looks thru life with color glasses, meaning seeing race in issues where race has nothing too do with it. Liberals seek to change society by fiat rather than follow the Constitution. Liberals claims to be inclusive and tolerant except when you disagree with them...

With regard to Burke's quote, I disagree with that statement in today's society. It might have been true in the past. Society do require order but not classes. I don't believe the white race is superior or any race for that matter. I wish we can move towards a color blind society as MLK envisioned. Unfortunately, given the history and on-going social problems, it seems that is not going to come easily.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 21, 2015:

Very good and thoughtful hub.

Ah! So many things to respond to; where do I begin? Maybe with the question "What is liberalism in your mind?" Have you heard of "Minimal-state or Limited-state liberals"?

The one question I will take on at this time is the discussion you and @adagio are having regarding "“Racism is embedded into the Conservative Ideology”. "

I agree with you, Jack, that racism is not embedded into conservatism. Conservatism does, however, of necessity breed bigotry and sometimes racism when different races are involved. And, it all springs from Canon #3, "Civilized society needs order and classes". As Adagio said, that is straight out of Burke.

Burke used this to justify why the English aristocracy must rule because only they have the ability to do so. In addition, Burke's conservatism saw it proper that the aristocracy create the rules and provide for (not the way we mean it today) the working, merchant, female and lower classes. He very much opposed the mixing and in effect supported a caste system similar to that in India today. In fact, Burke made no bones about being "prejudiced" (his word, not mine) against the lower classes.

And that, in my opinion, necessarily breeds racism (when implemented in America) and bigotry in general.

Another tid-bit. John Locke clearly believes in a god, and maybe the God; but he conflates that with his "state-of-nature" (he is a tough read!) as the only above it, if that is the right word. Conservatives reject out-of-hand the idea of Locke's state-of-nature and substitutes divine guidance and tradition in its place. (I don't think I said that quite right, but it is close enough for government work)

It is that division in idea of the origins of men's liberty, or lack there of, that drives today's debate between liberals and conservatives.

Jack Lee (author) from Yorktown NY on June 11, 2015:

So what is your solution? Bring up past wrongs does not solve any problem and if anything, just persist the victim mentality. If Barack Obama and Dr. Carson and Clarence Thomas and others can rise above it and succeed, why is it not apply to other blacks?

If you believe the ACA is a good policy, I can't sway you. Time will tell and the Supreme Court will make it's ruling shortly...This is one experiment that will be resolved in the near future. For me and my family, the ACA has been a huge disappointment. I did not live up to the hype.

Conservatives believe in tradition and that is a good thing. It is time tested ideas that has kept our society on the right path. It may not be fast enough for liberals but it is better than rushing into something and having to deal with unintended consequences.

When I get a chance, I will expound on the idea of tradition with a new hub.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on June 11, 2015:

@Jack: "I disagree with you when you say “Racism is embedded into the Conservative Ideology”. Our country has come a long way and there is no institutional racism in America today."

You're talking about two different things Jack. One is whether racism is embedded into conservative ideology, and the other whether there is institutionalized racism in America today. Whether we've rid ourselves of institutionalized racism has no bearing at all on whether racism is embedded into the conservative ideology. All that means is that conservatism lost that battle, but it doesn't mean that they gave up on the war.

"Conservatives that I know are not racists. They value tradition but they believe change should come slowly and when the time is right. On the big issues, the Constitution provides a mechanism for change – the amendment process."

Right. That would be straight out of Burke, and of course Russell Kirk. Change comes at a glacial rate, if it comes at all. I think that racism is built into conservatism due to it's total reliance on traditionalism.

Conservatism is the product of the anti-Enlightenment ideology of Edmund Burke and the re-affirmation of it by Conservative writer Russell Kirk. Burke was a traditionalist conservative as was Kirk and traditional values are held fast by conservatives.

In his chapter on southern conservatism, Kirk writes “that while human slavery is bad ground for conservatives to make a stand upon, yet the wild demands and expectations of the abolitionists were quite as slippery a foundation for political decency”.

Describing “Negroes” as “the menace of debased, ignorant and abysmally poor folk” he argued they “must tend to produce in the minds of the dominant people (re:white)an anxiety to preserve every detail of the present structure, and an ultra-vigilant suspicion of innovation”.

According to Kirk, “In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.” Kirk is justifying prejudice here and we have many examples of conservatives over the years taking that justification to heart.

This is the ideology of conservatism as presented by those who gave the conservative movement it's name. Racism and prejudice are embedded into it, and conservatives must grapple with this as long as they call themselves "conservative".

If we looked to a logical syllogism for a clue we could present it like this:

1. Conservatives believe in traditional values.

2. White Supremacy is a traditional value

3, Conservatives believe n white Supremacy as a traditional value.

Russell Kirk the author of The Conservative Mind tells us this:

“In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice. He's justifying prejudice here.

"When you get a chance, I recommend you read about Dr. Ben Carson. He is conservative and a Christian. He has done more to help bridge the racial divide in our country than anybody."

I know about Ben Carson. He claims that Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to America since slavery. He may be a brilliant neuro-surgeon but he's terrible with politics. Somehow getting health insurance for millions of people is worse than slavery. That's the most overblown and stupid statement I've ever heard in light of 9/11, the Viet Nam war, Jim Crow, the civil war itself. I'm not a fan of hyperbolic statements that are gratuitous and this one certainly qualifies. Getting health insurance for millions of people is worse than slavery?? Yeah right.

"However, they do not compare to the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII. The interesting question is why did all other races rise above it and succeed in spite of the challenges and yet, black Americans seems to have difficulty even having the advantage of being a citizen?"

The answer should be pretty simple. None of the other otrocities included enslavement of an entire race of people over hundreds of years. And then an attempt to integrate those people into society as equals while some resisted the very idea of equality to those people. That is the history of the country and that stigma remains with all of us. 3900 black people were lynched in the south between 1870 and 1960. They were hung, castrated, burned alive, mutilated and of course enslaved. So, the dynamic is entirely different and you can't compare what took place in Nazi Germany or Japan with what took place here. You're looking for a one size fits all solution. The history here can't be talked about without including slavery. The freeing of the slaves didn't go over well with the defeated south, and Jim Crow went into effect along with decades of terrorism to enforce Jim Crow.

"The recent incidents between police and the black communities are very troubling."

They certain