I think that the '60s was the crucial decade, when more harm than good occurred. I discussed an aspect of that on the thread yesterday. Reagan helped to repair some of the damage, but there is still a way to go. However, I am less a "chronological conservative" than someone who believes in holding the line against certain allegedly progressive positions.
One begins with assumptions and values that provide the orientation for subsequent decisions. As I explained earlier, for example, I do not agree with libertarians that economic freedom is absolute, but I do agree that freedom is meaningless unless there is a high degree of respect for people conducting their affairs unmolested, and therefore that the bar against interference should be high. Similarly with local government: self- government depends upon decisions being made as close to home, by the affected parties, as possible, and therefore there should be a strong reluctance to take decision- making to a higher level, and the onus should be on those who desire to change venue. Again, democracy means that there is a strong deference to the will of the majority, and therefore that judges do their best to follow legislative intent rather than make law from the bench, including when interpreting the Constitution. These guidelines would, in common understanding, identify one as a conservative. To me, they are essential to sustaining America. Without such a set of guidelines, moderates are at a disadvantage in orienting themselves in controversies, and too easily persuaded by the last compelling speaker........ |
