OK. You want to play. Let's play. But, let's make sure we know what we are playing with. Thus far, you are throwing around terms that have come to mean whatever some political entity wants them to mean.
The first conservative was the strongest caveman with the biggest club. He wanted to keep the status quo. Those who really didn't want him to have all of the power, food, and smoothest rock in the cave would have been the first liberals. When two or three of the pack overthrew the strongest in the cave, the might have been considered the first socialists. But, let's just deal with conservative/liberal for the moment.
In one revelation in Bones, Booth tells Brennan that he has always been the conservative. Had the Boston Tea Party occurred on his watch, he would have arrested them, and we would still be under King George. In a sane world, conservatism is simply a tendency (not a Divine order) to lean to the status quo, whereas liberalism is a tendency to look for improvements.
It is interesting that we refer to the time of absolute church control as the Dark Ages, primarily because there was little academic growth during that time. Yet, if you read HJ.G. Wells, "History of the world," you will become very aware that the world was advancing quite nicely. It's just that Europe wasn't. Indeed, it is just after that time that Marco Polo made his fortune by bringing back the wonders the rest of the world's growth to Europe, which had lagged behind. It would not be surprising to see some of the Islamic countries label this period as their Dark Ages a few hundred years from now. Localized restrictive religion of ten leads to regression, hence the Darkest Hour in the History of England (Churchill) occurred as the Puritans dominated England. After that debacle, they tended to want a place where they could be that powerful again, like a couple of colonies on a new continent.
It is interesting that Greece is the cradle of democracy. Since only the land-owning senators could vote, I think they would have regarded a modern democracy as socialism or communism. For the King, the transfer of his power to the noblemen in the Magna Carta was a liberal movement. Yet, it still retained the power in the hands of a few rich noblemen, some of whom were already more powerful than the King.
The point of all of this is that any progress would be considered liberal, and any tendency to retain the status quo would be considered conservative. In a sane world, these are tendencies, not dogmas. Conservatives may be liberal on some issue, and liberals may be conservative on some issues. Until 1965, Democrats tended to be economic liberals, but social conservatives. Republicans tended to be economic conservatives and social liberals. The Civil RIghts Act of 65 tended to change all of that.
But, political entities tend to make their own definitions for their own purposes. In 1936, conservative was a dirty word. In the 1980s, liberal was made into a dirty word. This was done for power purposes.
What is meant now by conservatism is not really conservatism. It is a power-structure, and is not really a part of the conservative/liberal conversation.
Now,let's deal with all of the people who insist that this country was founded for Christianity, capitalism, free enterprise, etc. We actually have a very definitive purpose for which this country was founded. Our forefathers spelled it out exactly.
"We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
Establish Justice,
insure Domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I don't know how it can be any clearer. There are six items on the agenda (including forming a union). It provided for courts for justice, some policing arm for tranquility, some entity for defense, and proposed protecting the liberty for ourselves and our posterity. The part that is usually ignored is that part about promote the general Welfare.
The country belongs to all of us. Theodore Roosevelt made it clear many years later when he said that he assets vital to the welfare of the nation should be under the control of the people of the nation. They thought that the assets of the nation belonged t the people, not to stockholders. If you go to Arlington National Cemetery, I don't think you will find one person who died to protect a corporation. The country isn't a stock which you own. It is an idea that belongs to us.
If you aren't aware, Teddy was a throw-in. The powers that be in the JP Morgan/Andrew Carnegie world wanted am an who had their ideas. They wanted McKinley. Teddy was a reform New Yorker that they put in as VP where they could shut him up. So, McKinley gets shot, and Teddy becomes president. The monopoly buster was now in charge. He set forth rules to protect the environment, and he busted up the giant trusts.
Prior to the creation of the FDA, there was actually a firm selling diet pills out of NJ by mail. They really worked. They were tapeworm cysts. Sure enough, if you have a few tapeworms, you will lose weight, perhaps too much. The FDA said you can't do that. That's what regulations do. They say business has to operate legitimately.
I realize that some think that regulations are evil. Well, you have been taught very carefully to believe that. Regulations are nothing more than a traffic sign for the business community. It says what is not acceptable. Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, realized that capitalism requires ethical behavior. But, money tend to counter ethics. So, you erect road signs, called regulations.
After 29, we erected quite a number of signs, especially with regard to banks. These were removed in the eighties and nineties. Result?? We got a trillion dollar bank fraud. My only real complaint with Obama is that he has not dealt well with re-instituting these road signs. If you don't have road signs, you don't have capitalism. You have financial anarchy.
Incidentally, Adam Smith also considered a military as a destroyer of capitalism. It doesn't make a product. It is a draqn on capitalism. Ayn Rand's failure is that she believed that all businessmen were honest, and all government is evil. Her family didn't fare well in the Russian revolution.
Go back to the preamble. The government is "we the people." When someone is anti-government, why? Are they against us? Who is it that has spread this idea that we the people are the enemy? Why did they do that? Who stands to benefit if we the people are discredited?
