Conservative "principles" or "arbitrary interpretations"?

Before I dove into Monday's reading, "Ten Conservative Principles" by Russell Kirk, I assumed from the title of the reading that Kirk would outline definitive and inarguable aspects of conservativism, offering an explanation of the ideology.

I was wrong in this assumption. I found Kirk's principles to be not really principles at all, but more his personal interpretations of what a conservative ideology is, based on his experience. Of course, the only truths a person can know are all based on experience. But I was surprised to find I disagree with Kirk in many instances — not so much as to the definition of conservativism, but the beliefs it assumes about people and the world. Maybe because he's obviously conservative, and I definitely consider myself liberal? I don't know.

First, the first principle: the belief in an enduring moral order. I understand the order part, but the belief that moral truths are permanent? No. Different people hold different morals, and therefore different truths, based on their situation and experience. Not even all conservatives can possibly believe in one set of moral truths. That's like saying there is only one correct opinion about a certain topic.

Next, the second: that conservatives adhere to custom, convention, and continuity. Okay, got it. But this part didn't sit right with me: "the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly paradise." Yeah, change could be for the worse — but it could also be for the better. In making a change, a society makes that conscious choice to take that risk.

And finally (but these are not the only three parts of the reading I had issues with) the sixth principle, which states: "To seek for utopia is to end in disaster... we are not made for perfect things. All that we can reasonably expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk."

I actually completely and wholeheartedly agree with this statement. No one is perfect, therefore no society can ever be perfect, and yes, suffering is a natural part of life that will never go away completely. However, within the context of Kirk's writing, the statement assumes that because of this reality, there is no use in attempting to try to improve situations or cease the existence of some evils and suffering through change — just because we know they will always exist. I understand and agree with the "pick your battles idea," that changes should not be made just for the sake of change. However, choosing not to end suffering or rid society of obvious evils is like giving up.

Maybe conservatives are just lazy?

Sarah Palin is an idiot... and other related musings

So I was extremely excited for the VP debate tonight, not only because I'm interested in politics (a new development for me, mostly because of this class as well as the importance and relevance of the looming election) but also because I was looking forward to a good laugh.

Good 'ol (young?) Sarah Palin did slightly better than in interviews with Katie Couric this week on CBS. Or, from my point of view, she wasn't as hilariously stupid, but almost as stupid. Anyway, to relate tonight's debate to capitalist democracy and economic freedom — Palin failed to answer questions related to McCain's support of economic deregulation. Suprise, suprise!

Relating that to the Friedman reading, it got me thinking — why has the U.S. "conservative" economic view come to mean, what used to be, economic liberalism? As Biden brought up multiple times this evening, McCain has done the typical Republican "thing"by supporting economic deregulation.

To me, the reason why capitalism and economic freedom are Republican ideals is that those practices favor big business and the rich sector of the population, the same sector that most of the Republican party is made up of.

While economic freedom is a liberal view, conservatives will obviously condone the practices they benefit from. And deregulation is one of those.