Fearing and Misunderstanding Conservatism

Many say that the government preys on our fears.

Casual political conversations by citizens do the same thing.

I was listening to a local sports station discuss the Michael Vick story. As they talked, one person chimed in with a "Yeah, but that's the 'right' talking" regarding Michael Vick's new founding of Jesus. While the majority of people would have ignored or realized the comment, I did.

It was one of those typical broad, elusive statements that have become all to familiar these days.

So, that's the right talking? Come again? What "right"? Are they one, big monolithic group? For the love of Edmund Burke, please get the terminology straight!

I know. Why am I bothering to comment about a sports radio for his ruminations on theology and religion?

I'm not sure I can answer this. It intrigued me. However, it does satisfy two things: 1) content for the blog and 2) it does reveal something interesting in the way people view conservatism. By extension, how we tend to do the same thing for other issues.

Often, we hear how some claim to be "open" when they discuss matters of politics and its surrounding offshoots like religion - because religion and politics (and sports for that matter) do indeed mix every now and then. Man, well, is kinda a political mammal.

I don't want this to be a discussion on the evolution and diversity of conservatism. Nonetheless, it can be suggested that those who make such assertions often tend to be self-appointed progressives. The interesting observation made is that they too succumb to blanket statements they criticize others for making.

Here's one I personally came across. Recently, someone took me to task for writing a book review about Ronald Reagan. Oh, the humanity! As he went on and on with his personal opinions about the former President, I detected a general intolerance in the tone. One particular comment especially caught my attention and it relates to the discussion here, was how "Reagan was a precursor of the neocons."

Reagan was many things to many people - that much is clear. However, notice the general assumption: Reagan - conservative - dumb - natural lineage of neo-cons.

Of course, if anything, neocons were disaffected liberals. In any event, neo-cons (the new pink in political parlance on the streets) held little sway under Reagan's administration.

That's not the point here. The point is that we proceed without careful thought just how profound an ideology can be. Conservatism is one of them.

Too often we read our favorite column, books, commentators and rarely deviate to another perspective.

It keeps us comfortable and happy. That's why the right keeps talking.