I agree with this. Despite significant attempts I was never able to discern a conservative *philosophy*. It's nothing more than, as you say, a disposition to be cautious of change or perhaps that's a principle to follow. But there's no factual or principled basis for the sound bites which have passed for "conservatism" over the past, say…
I agree with this. Despite significant attempts I was never able to discern a conservative *philosophy*. It's nothing more than, as you say, a disposition to be cautious of change or perhaps that's a principle to follow. But there's no factual or principled basis for the sound bites which have passed for "conservatism" over the past, say, 90 years: keep the government out of the market; the focus on equal rights, whether for women, minorities, or LGBTQ+, is misguided; "law and order"; religion is the only solid basis for society and the government should demand it; guns; et al.
Instead what we see is "conservatism" as the public face of ethno-national authoritarianism. Those who move that agenda, no matter how softly, are making no contribution to Harvard or anywhere else.
I agree with this. Despite significant attempts I was never able to discern a conservative *philosophy*. It's nothing more than, as you say, a disposition to be cautious of change or perhaps that's a principle to follow. But there's no factual or principled basis for the sound bites which have passed for "conservatism" over the past, say, 90 years: keep the government out of the market; the focus on equal rights, whether for women, minorities, or LGBTQ+, is misguided; "law and order"; religion is the only solid basis for society and the government should demand it; guns; et al.
Instead what we see is "conservatism" as the public face of ethno-national authoritarianism. Those who move that agenda, no matter how softly, are making no contribution to Harvard or anywhere else.
This is the problem... Brad