Since tradition is a human thing it may reflect human vices as well as virtues. The same, of course, is true of relying on autonomous reason, or the "feel good" approach. In this century, anti-traditional theories supported by intelligent men for reasons thought noble have repeatedly led to the murder of millions of innocents.  For example, socialism – which is rooted not in tradition but what seems to be best at the moment – has had many forms including national socialism (promoted by the German National Socialism Labor Party known as the Nazis), communistic socialism (promoted by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin known as politics of the proletariat) and tribal socialism (as promoted by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). 

In each case, socialism resulted in millions of innocent lives being taken by the German, Russian and Cambodian governments based upon what “felt good” to their leaders at the time in question.  A more recent example, although one that has not yet taken significant lives, is the expropriation of General Motors by the United States in which labor union members who had contributed to the election of the current socialist regime were rewarded for their contributions while millions of shareholders who had purchased General Motors equity as retirement investments were wiped out – an economic death, if you will.  Such is the reward of following what feels good instead of following the tradition of honoring another’s property as set forth in our Constitution.

The issue therefore is not whether tradition is perfect but, rather, does it have an appropriate place in human life. To the extent our most consistent aim is toward what is good, and we err more through ignorance, oversight and conflicting impulse than through coherent and settled evil, as in the case of socialism, tradition will benefit us by linking our thoughts and actions to a steady and comprehensive system in which they can correct each other.

Thus, conservatism will secure and refine our acquisitions while hampering antisocial impulses. To the extent we consistently aim at what is evil, then tradition cannot help us much, but neither can anything else short of divine intervention.

• Add new comment

Liberals believe in establishing a one-world government, a worldwide currency, autocratic rule by a "big brother" group of liberals, that there is no divine creator of the universe and that one's faith should not be placed in God but in government.

Conservatives believe in the value of the United States as a protector of freedom and that one of the chief implements to use to protect freedom throughout the world is a strong dollar.  Conservatives believe that a good government is one that governs least.  Most conservatives are God-fearing individuals but, if they choose not to be, do not belittle those who do.

There are many other stark differences between liberals and conservative; however, the main difference is that liberals want to tell others what to do, how to do it and when to do it.  Conservatives want to be left alone.

The United States of America was founded on conservative principals and liberals know that the only way to undo what our Founding Fathers created is by mocking conservatives, telling lies about conservatives and creating an atmosphere so acrid that congeniality cannot survive in it.  At that point, liberals create false crisis in such manners that conservatives often take the blame.

Thus, it is liberals who cannot reconcile with conservatives for fear that if they do, their liberal cause will go down in defeat.

• Add new comment

 The emphasis of conservatism is honoring what has been passed down as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated. Thus, conservatism is a network of commonly accepted attitudes, beliefs and practices that has grown up through strengthening of things that have worked and rejection of things that have led to conflict and failure. It therefore comprises a collection of habits that have proved useful in a huge variety of practical affairs, and a comprehensive and generally coherent point of view that reflects very extensive experience and thought. Through it we know subtle and fundamental features of the world that would otherwise escape us, and our understanding of those things takes on concrete and usable form.

The usual alternative to reliance on tradition is reliance on theory. Taking theory literally can be costly because it achieves clarity by ignoring things that are difficult to articulate. Such things can be important; the reason politics and morals are learned mostly by experience and imitation is that most of what we need to know about them consists in habits, attitudes and im-plicit presumptions that we couldn't begin to put into words. There is no means other than tradition to accumulate, conserve and hang on such things.

Other considerations also support the wisdom of relying on tradition, if not specifically the wisdom of tradition itself. For example, tradition typically exists as the common property of a community whose members are raised in it. Accordingly, it normally unites more than divides, and is far more likely than theory to facilitate free and cooperative life in common.

• Add new comment