A case for common sense conservatism
Shane Corsey lays out the case for what some may call “common sense conservatism”:
One of the reasons I am a proud conservative is because it comes closest to the belief of what our Founding Fathers had in mind for this country, and the values of that system give an equal shake to anyone who wishes to come here.
Unlike Mr. Corsey, I believe in God and I believe him to be something more than a mere Watchmaker. But he and I agree on the fundamentals: live and let live. Even the Bible agrees with this: “Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ” (and numerous other passages which espouse essentially the same idea: a Christian’s battle is spiritual and personal not worldly and political).
Some say conservatives should find a better name than “conservative”, because, well, in a twist of historical irony, it is the present-day conservatives who represent the classical liberals of the enlightenment era the best—I don’t think the Founding Fathers could even imagine the monstrosities present-day liberals concoct here and abroad daily.
In fact, some liberals exploit this apparent misrepresentation of labels by claiming that “liberal”, in essence, means “someone who advocates for change” and that “conservative”, in essence, means “someone who opposes change”. This is semantically correct, but in a political context, utterly inadequate—and misleading, as it deceives more people to declare themselves as “liberals” than they might have (everyone wants some sort of change in their lives), if they knew the true meaning of “liberal” and “conservative” in political context.
In the end, I like the name “conservative”, so I propose a counter definition, which, I hope, stays semantically correct and politically relevant. I would claim that a “liberal” is someone who either advocates changes for change’s sake or is unafraid of unintended consequences of changes he advocates. A “conservative”, on the other hand, is someone who would oppose new changes until it is proven to him that the change would be beneficial for him—or sufficiently beneficial for others that he cares about that he can accept the loss on his part.
The definition for “conservative” that I propose is also, I think, what some people might call “common sense conservative”. After all, if you gave someone (with common sense) above definitions for “liberal” and “conservative” and asked him to choose one or the other as description of himself, which one would he choose?