Posted by
Virginia Daddy on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:35:31 PM
In this part of my discussion on what defines a conservative deals with exactly that: definitions. See, one of the key components of conservatism is maintaining definitions. Some folks around here have recently posted good pieces exemplifying what I am talking about, Scottie at Heartland Patriot and Cynewulf at Lost Tales of Exeter (both links in my blog role). In short, the left has sliding definitions of wards and moves arguments to prove their point and does not honor the original definition or logic behand an argument. In contrast, they create new definitions to distort conventional logic.
I am not sure I can offer much that they have not already put out there, but it is important to note the importance of intent, which is really what is behind the change in defining words. Conservatives honor definitions. They honor original intent. The most simple example is the Constitution. Liberals like to call it a living breathing document that changes with the times. Conservatives tend to look at what the Founders meant when they wrote it. The same is true with many buzz words out there, and I suggest you go to Scottie's piece for some great examples. As to the logic, Cyne posted an article that expands on the definitions.
But politically, the ramifications are huge as conservatives look more to the past to find intent, lessons, as well as positives from what happened before us. We maintain what worked well and discard what was wrong. I do not know a single conservatibve who would go back to Jim Crow. Nor would we force women to stay home, though we acknowledge there are lessons to be learned from having a mother at home...
We keep definitions because we acknowledge that there was a reason for it to begin with. Things were not just picked randomly to suit the needs of an inventor. Virtually everything out there was devoloped over long periods to suit specific needs. There was a reason for everything, and conservatives choose to acknowledge that reality.
Liberals throw out that reason, and choose to define life for themselves. In other words, there is no meaning. People can be anything they want because anything is whatever they want it to be. Kind of hard to grasp, but it is important to try. 'Who cares that deviant sexuality has negative consequences? "I" am happy' they say. 'And what are consequences anyway?'
This is very much related to my rules in part 2, but it is a different component. They may say they play by the rules, just as we do, but they play by changing the rules as they go. They can do this because they can change the definition of a word in an instant to suit their needs.
Conservatives should not allow this to happen, though in ever increasing numbers, they are giving in. "Compassionate Conervatism" for instance. Waht exactly is that? Conservatism should be compassionate by its very nature in that we acknowledge nature for what it is: a world of good and evil, where good must work to overcome the evil.