It does? I heard this comment just the other day.
A huge problem with political discussions is created, when people habitually conflate political parties with political philosophy. They’re not the same, even if they’re closely related. If you want to get clarity and truth: separate the two in every discussion.
I recall vividly an example that I learned in the 7th grade, about how information is distorted through translation. We started with a short story written on a small piece of paper. The first student in a row read the story, and then turned around and quietly repeated the story by whispering in the next student’s ear. This continued until we had gone through about twenty students, and the last student had to stand up and repeat the story as he understood it. It sounded nothing like the original written story, as you probably surmised.
As you move from the written word of philosophy, to political parties, to political labels or self-identification, and on to political actions of individuals – what I actually say, you often end up with little to no resemblance to the original written definition or word.
Philosophy or definitions of such are pure – they are written, and people may or may not follow them to the letter, either out of a conscious decision or out of ignorance. Ann as an example may believe that she’s a conservative. She may be a member of the Republican party, or at least vote for Republican candidates. She may vote for these candidates irrespective of whether the party or the candidates actually resembles conservative ideals. She may state that she believes in little or limited social welfare, implying she agrees to some social welfare, which already means she has redefined what conservatism means – whether she acknowledges this or not.
Conservatism has nothing to do with big business. Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and Richard Weaver to name a few in the conservative ranks, never mentioned anything to my knowledge – explicitly, about the size of businesses, or even which size businesses they favor.
The Republican party being historically and logically associated with conservatism, doesn’t dynamically redefine the ideas behind conservatism, when the party’s beliefs or actions stray from core principles. Call it something new. Don’t call it conservatism!
[Mirrored at Patterns to Truth]