My favorite description of conservatism comes from Roger Scruton's dialog with Hamza Yousef. He said, the left sees things that need to change, and they come to hate those things, and seek to destroy them. After awhile, that hate gets into their heart and they come to only see things that they hate and wish to destroy. Conservatives see things that they love and cherish, and seek to find ways to preserve those things. This description has made it easy for me to talk to my children about conservatism: "Choose love, not hate."
You should talk to an actual leftist and/or read radical/revolutionary thought because you'll find that they are motivated by things that they love, such as equity, justice, non-exploitative relationships, fair wages, accessible housing, etc. Think of MLK and Jesus Christ. They would be deemed as "woke" by today's conservatives. I find that conservatives don't so much love or cherish a former historical reality but rather an idealization of that. Like an attitude of "we used to be a proper country." Oh really, you mean when Christians openly lynched blacks and published it in newspapers as a form of terrorism, or when we had barbaric labor laws, or when women were relegated to second class citizenry? When exactly was this golden age that you'd like to harken back to? Today's conservatives are more interested in dismantling a functioning state so as to narrow legal and economic privileges to a handful of the deserving chosen.
I like your sentiment, but dont use lefist phrasing. Its a form of acceptance. Like calling libtards the real racists. Dont use their frame, use a conservative one. And i dont mean fox news conservative.
I consider myself a conservative, although i was born and raised in the USA i personally am not patriotic at all. I think our culture is rotten to the core I would rather live in a small poorer country with old fashioned values. I understand every nation has serious issues but from my own travel experience i feel that life is much more simple and (conservative) in a nation like Poland for example. That all being said God placed me in the USA so thats where i am and I'm okay with that.
5 Principles of Classical Conservatism, in this video: (1) Reform, over revolution. revolution always leads to Tyranny. t=4:08 (2) Recognise value in the inheritance of institutions, customs & culture. t=6:43 (3) The inevidablity of hierarchy (& that it isn't inheriantly evil or exploitative, but can & does have positive expressions). t= 8:47 (4) Belief in a universal human nature (& natural law (even undiscovered?) ) t= 11:33 (5) Realism t=13:55
Funny thing is, when I watch this video here, i agree with all of those Principles, so i can call myself a Classical Conservative. Yet I watched a video by Second Thought (loosely Socialist) "what is Socialism", and I recall I agreed with all or most of that. But the basic principles mentioned in each are about different things, but don't seem to conflict, for the most part. I do believe reform is better than revolution, but as a fact of human nature & history, not because it is more appealing. The overall goal of politics to me is to create the conditions that promote human flourishing.
The way i see it, whether liberal, conservative or marxist, they all came out of real life concerns & have real value, but also tend to have particular sins that often go with it too. (A) Liberal = loves freedom & personal responsibility, but tends to ignore that freedom leads to exploitation & social responsibility; or enable bad systems by always blaming personal responsibility alone. e.g. Housing crisis being exploitation coming from Liberal values. (B) Conservative = values the 5 principles mentioned here esp (2); but tends to be closed to new ideas or paradigms. (C) Marxist = Values preventing exploitation, values all humans & equality & Working Class; contributing to society & deomcracy; open to new ideas. But tends to throw out the baby with the bath water; throw out what was good; anti-authoritarian but not understanding that revolution can lead to authoritarianism. Can be driven by Resentment.
I'd love to know what you thought of my comparison there Dr Cooper, or anyone else not overly "ideologically possessed", even if they feel rooted in one.
@@pebblepod30 I realize your comment is at least a year old but I thought I would make a couple of comments anyway. I think you are wrong when you say Liberals love freedom and personal responsibility. If you were talking about Classical Liberalism I would agree but in today’s world liberals like the Democrats in the U.S. and the Liberal Party in Canada have moved away from being centrist parties in favour of farther left, socialist policies and seem to loathe freedom and create more and more social programs taking away people’s need for personal responsibility. All the time you see and hear more people and politicians arguing for the government to be responsible for almost everything in our lives. The thought that most of these folks are neo-Marxists enters my mind. You also state that Conservatives tend to be closed to new ideas or paradigms but I disagree with that as well. As opposed to liberal ideology, most Conservatives do not support change just for the sake of change. There has to be well thought out reason for the change and at least an attempt to analyze what unintended consequences may come from it. Liberal governments tend to push through change that they may feel is needed to fulfill their ideologies whether the people want it or not. As Thomas Sowell says, Conservatives have a constrained view and understand that everything results in trade offs and the goal is to try and get the best result from those trade offs while liberals have an unconstrained view. Anyway, that’s the way I see things coming from a perspective where I consider myself a small ‘c’ conservative, mostly centrist although I believe in the value to society of well thought out, effective and efficient social programs while also harbouring some Libertarian views such as believing in small government with lower taxation and more personal freedoms to choose how to spend my earnings and more personal responsibility to take care of myself and my family. I don’t fit neatly into any political box.
After watching this, I'd love to see you give an in-depth review of Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind." Your insights are always valuable... and appreciated!
While reading Kirk's list of conservative principles, the thought occurred to me that if Don Corleone were reading this, he would be nodding along and agreeing to every point. This is one of the reasons why I do not buy into Burkean Conservatism, despite being a bioethical conservative (being against abortion, LGBT, and such).
@@babylonianexile7624 The problem with Burkean conservatism in practice seems that in the last 200 years it accomodated by "slow reform" almost everything that would have been revolutionary in the time or Burke himself. First (economic) liberalism that dissolved all traditional bonds in favor of relations of exchange (as famously noted by Marx). And afterwards, roughly in the last 50-70 years all broadly "leftist" reforms that were usually either based on the ideas of the more radical 18th century figures, like Rousseau or were reactions to mitigate the destruction of tradition brought about by 19th century style capitalism. So it somehow mostly degenerated into the caricature "we do the same as the leftists/radicals only worded differently and 20 years later". I am not sure about the US but LGBT is really a "condensed symbol" for this decline. Less than 40 years ago the centrist position would have found "same sex marriage" absurd and conservatives would have been abhorred (cf. many conservative reactions to the HIV epidemic in the 1980s). Today at least in Western Europe virtually all nominally conservative parties support it. The core problem here seems to be that many Burkean conservatives did not hold to the contents of the traditional concept of human nature or they abolished the idea of universal human nature altogether. Or maybe that they were temperamentally usually moderates and simply got dragged along with the shifting Overton window.
@@bartolo498 This is a rather important observation. I have seen some discussion of this on some right-wing blogs. In many respects, though not all, mainstream conservatives are simply the last generation's liberals. I think this has to do with the fact that Burkean Conservatives regard eccentricity as a vice (in fact, as the fountain of many other vices). Moreover, while they distrust the masses to make important decisions, they believe that public opinion has inherent value (this relates to Burke's remark that "the species is wise"). By thinking in this manner they have essentially locked themselves into the Overton Window. The Burkean view of relationships, intimacy, and trust as being inherently aligned with the good (rather than being tools used by both good and evil forces) leads to some interesting paradoxes from the perspective of non-Burkeans like myself. For instance, they tend to distrust people who are unpopular, even if the people imputing the unpopularity are themselves of questionable moral character. In the same vein, they often feel grudging if not open respect for charismatic criminal leaders (this phenomenon is discussed by David Graeber inter alia). They show leniency of judgement toward group-crimes, while strongly stigmatizing lone-wolf crimes. At the end of the day, I think it is important for people who believe in the Word of God to realize that they have other options besides the false dichotomy of LGBT versus Burkeans.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers! Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people. Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not. Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph. STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable... Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS! s
I have come to this realization that Conservative's want or Need to maintain the Religious Dogma at all cost. If I want to pursue something that doesn't fit in to their mold then the thought process is its wrong an needs to be destroyed. I don't think religion has a place in modern society anymore, It is just a stepping stone to Peoples back and oppress them.
I don't think morals have a place in modern society anymore, it's just a stepping stone to people's back and Judge them. 𝗘𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗡𝗶𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 Sub-premise 1a: Atheism does not believe in gods. Sub-premise 1b: Atheism does not believe in other supernatural validation of moral claims. (e.g. Dao, Dharma, Divine Logos) Premise 1: Therefore, Atheism does not believe in supernatural validation for moral claims. Sub-premise 2a: The eventual objective consequence of all actions is Entropy. Sub-premise 2b: Death eradicates all subjective experience of and caring about consequences. Premise 2: Consequentialism/Utilitarianism cannot justify short-term over long-term priorities. Premise 3: Furthermore, Hume's guillotine refutes all moral claims derived from observable facts. Sub-premise 4a: It is not morally wrong to lose interest in (or even to totally change) one’s value judgements. Sub-premise 4b: It is not morally wrong for societies to change value judgements. Sub-premise 4c: It is not morally wrong for individuals to change or resist societal value judgements. Premise 4: Therefore, it is not morally wrong to do anything for or against value judgements; value judgements do no validate moral claims. Conclusion: No validation for moral claims remains; Moral Nihilism is the only rational outlook for Atheism.
How to be conservative: 1. Pick a problem in society 2. Instead of seeking a solution, point to the problems with the people trying to solve the problem 3. Scream out to world "look at these peoples problems!" 4. Use that to justify doing NOTHING about the original problem in society 5. *bonus* use this logic to justify supporting the people actually making the problem worse! Did I get this right?
I think it's interesting when people like Dave Rubin call themselves conservatives, yet insist that their "marriage" of a man to another man is actually a conservative virtue.
I don't think he does, actually. He acknowledges that he's a very unlikely and non-traditional conservative. Whether or not one agrees with that particular part of his life-- which he himself considers being gay an insignificant aspect over the grand scheme of his person-- I am refreshed by a sane voice such as his in the sphere of the internet.
@@AZVIDE0Z I suppose. But practicing homosexuality is in no way, shape, or form "insignificant" to a person's overall character. It is an abomination. On economics, he's pretty good I suppose. But compromise on such issues as the basics of human sexuality isn't really a non issue.
@@mromero120 preservation and recognition of tradition is a conservative virtue. The institution of marriage is as Traditional as it gets. The fact he embraces the left changing the definition of marriage makes by definition a liberal
I am converting from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism. I have gone through the telephone book and found the two Lutheran churches nearest my home. One calls itself "Evangelical Lutheran" and the other simply "Lutheran." I asked a current Lutheran, and they told me: "Stay away from the " Evangelical" lutherans, because they are "liberal." My politics tends toward conservative. My father worked for the defense contractor who made the B-2 "Spirit" bomber during the "Reagan" years and in general I believe that the individual who makes the money, best knows how to spend it. Do you have any advice to help me choose my new church? Thankyou! 🤗
Dr. Cooper, I would love to hear more of your thoughts on Edmund Burke, especially with his opinions on hierarchy during his time. Burke seems to defend the existence of aristocracy within the feudal system (peasants --> nobles --> kings), which might be an anachronistic conservative belief in today's largely democratic liberal world order. It would also be interesting to hear Burke's opinion on religion and its role in society.
Politically, I'm libertarian but I like conservativism as a temperament. I prefer reform over revolution. I also like traditions and culture, much like Ron Paul with paleo libertarianism. I don't like hierarchies at all though. If we could get power down to the local level, the people could veto laws and intimate their own ideas. We could have bodies like a mayor and city counsel but the people would function as a body alongside them as a direct check of them.
Do you think that Reformed eschatological Postmillenialism is definitionally incompatible with Burkean Conservatism? It seems to look that way... Thought I'd throw this is here: Tolkien often spoke of the "Long Defeat" as the Christian/Conservative approach to history (very much placed in contrast to the idealistic modernistic utopianism of Sauron).
I think postmillennialism is hard to fit into Burke's conservatism both for its somewhat-Utopian leanings and its common rejection of natural law (at least in the modern Bahsen variety).
@@DrJordanBCooper I think Burkean Conservatism is fundamentally at odds with the old Puritan worldview (which of course was connected to the Postmillenial school mentioned above by Evangelical Catholic) because the latter was, to the best of my understanding, socially dualistic (they assumed that evil people were organized and sociable, and had bonds of intimacy with each other) whereas Burkean Conservatism follows Aristotle and Cicero in regarding moral virtue as concomitant with intimacy, trust, and friendship. Do you have any issue with this statement? What would you say to someone who repudiates the Burkean Conservative school while upholding morally conservative positions such as opposition to abortion and LGBT?
@@siegfriedkircheis9484 Yep. Postmillenialism began with the Puritans, was transferred to the United States, and during the 19th century became the predominant eschatological theory, especially in the Northern states, only to decline sharply during the 20th century.
God bless thee, and thy works. Pr. Cooper, I have a question: Do thou thinkest that it is appropriate for a Lutherans to call their pastors frairs like Roman-catholics? Because we in our Church do, in Slovak it is "farár". (Slovak Evangelical of Augsburg Confession Church in Serbia)
In your language, do you mean "father" or "friar"? A friar is an ordained monk (priest + monk), whereas "father" is an honorific term used for all ordained clergy.
@@vngelicath1580 In Slovak father is "otec" while friar is "farár". We don't usually call priests fathers, but we do call them frairs. Because it was the tradition before reformation, and after it, it sticked.
Dr. Cooper, I was wondering if you found there to be a tension between belief in "human nature" which appears to be an abstract concept and conservative emphasis on realism. Likewise, is there not therefore a tension between conservatism and a belief in a universal moral law based upon this abstract concept. I am thinking of a famous line from de Maistre to the effect of "I've met a Frenchman, an Englishman, and a Russian, but I've never met this ideal 'man' which is talked about." If, however, you grant the universal concept of man, and the ability to rationally deduce a universally binding moral system based upon this concept, then don't you end with a form/version of liberalism? It seems almost telling that the proto-forms of liberalism emerged among late scholastic thinkers e.g. Marsillus of Padua, Suarez.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers! Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people. Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not. Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph. STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable... Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS! w
This is a very good point of course the shadow of Rousseau looms large over this but there's also a different type of idealism that you point out as well which I think is worthy of critique; for example the French and Russian literature/religious traditions are also very different and I find the Analytic philosophical tradition quite vacant and lacking. Austrian Economics can't feed the soul!
I think many conservative critiques of right-libertarianism (and to a certain extent social democracy and Marxism as well, although I still think the latter two are wrong) fall flat precisely due to conservatism's stubborn opposition to ideology as such. "Utopia is not achievable in this world" is an interesting (and correct) observation, but it's not really an argument that addresses the sanctity of property rights (or their exploitative nature in the other two ideologies). If taxation is theft, then to support its legality is wrong (assuming the conservative agrees theft should be illegal, which most do, to my knowledge). If property is theft, then to support its legality is wrong. It is irrelevant whether the elimination of taxation is utopian (I don't think it is), or whether the elimination of property is utopian (I'm inclined to think that it is). To use the analogy of the church without bishops, the answers to the questions of whether a church should establish bishops and whether a bishop-like figure will inevitably emerge anyway do not necessarily depend on one another. Thus, in order to effectively counter either the right-libertarian or the Marxist perspective, the conservative must put forward some reason as to why the central claims of these ideologies are *incorrect*, not merely why their implications are impractical. A conservatism that is averse to ideology per se cannot properly do this.
I believe that there are two main forms of Conservatism: (1) belief in personal surrender to some body of sacrosanct writings, also known as Moral Conservatism; (2) belief in the sacrosanct nature of friendships, relationships, trust, and intimacy, also known as Burkean Conservatism. Confucianism has both. Muslims have the first but not the second. Puritanism was in a similar position. Jordan Peterson focuses on the second. Baptists and Presbyterians have both forms. William F Buckley, Edward Feser, and Sir Roger Scruton profess both in theory, but in practice they focus on the second.
Have you read the writings of Friederich Julius Stahl, translated by Ruben Alvarado? If not you would enjoy it. A Bavarian Jewish convert to Lutheranism, servant to the king, scholar, and a hero as far as I am concerned.
A very interesting figure, though I have not read his works myself. Maistre is far more dogmatic than Burke, and is also firmly committed to the authority of the Pope, so I would clearly have some significant points of disagreement.
@@DrJordanBCooper Very true. I don't mind his writings on the Pope, but that is because I am Catholic. He is very Augustinian in his anthropology though, so you may want to give him another shot. His "St. Petersburg Dialogues" are simply fantastic, and "Against Rousseau" is also great!
Conservatism defined as positive reform rather than bloody revolution is something which I think most people instinctively agree with, but the biggest blind spot of this criticism when applied to the French revolution, as well as other revolutions such as those in China and Russia, is that the on the ground reality of the governmental systems of those countries made anything close to the needed level of reform impossible to put into practice. The uniting factor in what led to the violent and horrific revolutions in these countries were systems which gave enormous amounts of privilege, including an outsized influence on policy, to a group of people who naturally were opposed to anything that might diminish the money, prestige, and political power they felt was basically their God given right. They had grown into it from childhood, and all it's prejudices steered them towards believing in the rightness of it. The nobility of France and Russia, and the Land owning class of China all had grown accustomed to seeing the state as an outgrowth of their own personal power. Looking at France in particular, the event the precipitated the tennis court oath was this exact intransigence, the first and second estates felt that, yes, the peasants should be forced to purchase a pounds of salt they didn't need, yes, tithes should be mandatory and arbitrarily set, yes, all of the privileges accumulated through generations of royal patronage were something which rightfully needed to continue. Because without them, the First and Second Estates would be destroying the chance for their children to live a life as prosperous as their own, as well as causing all sorts of havoc to their own immediate budgetary concerns. Revolution is something that common people don't adhere to out of boredom, it's something which they view as absolutely necessary. The French state mostly didn't give a damn if a peasant starved to death because 80% of his product was stolen by his Seignor, the king never had to see the peasant writhing in his cottage, but he did have to confront the Nobles and Clergy who made up his power base. The United States and Great Britain both had the advantage of receiving a governmental system which already had dealt this sort of detrimental accumulation of privilege at the top in the English Civil war. The Nobility had stripped the king of most of his power, and something like the English governmental system that exists today was basically in place before the beginning of the 18th century. And that had only been possible because a kings power had been checked on the battlefield, and he had faced the consequence, the executioners block. It's very easy for Burke to criticize the Terror because he could not understand what had driven it, the belief that those who had oppressed the great mass of the french people for their own benefit, even to the point of starvation, were going to reintroduce it at the point of a German bayonet. Millions of French men chose to take their chances under gunfire rather then see that happen. The would rather be atheists then pay another tithe to a bishop who spent it on prostitutes in Paris. They would rather burn down the entirety of the structure that had robbed them and made them serfs then ever see it take power again. And the Russians said the same in 1917. They had been thrown into German machine guns by the millions while their wives and children starved at home, and any attempt at gaining autonomy in their lives was viewed as basically sedition. When political systems start's being used as ways to get rich, reinforce the power of people who already have it, and deliberately ignore the mass acknowledgment of the need for reform, you're on the way to a bad time. And the people who will ignore it the most fervently are usually the ones who have the capability to change it.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers! Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people. Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not. Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph. STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable... Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS! x
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers! Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people. Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not. Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph. STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable... Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS! u
In his autobiography, Whitaker Chambers talks of conservatives versus communists. He says that conservatism offers no real solution to communism because a communist is a revolutionist and once a revolution has begun, there is really nothing left to conserve. The revolution by its nature destroys what a society and governmental system has been. He said that the only answer to a revolutionist is a counter-revolutionist. As time has passed, I've come to respect and understand this perspective. As I look at the current state of things in our country, I believe that we are dealing with a leftist revolution that is trying to destroy all that we have. The old conservative ways of perfect adherence to forms and fair play is ineffective in fighting these people. If we are to win, we must bring the same single-mindedness and dedication to the fight. I think that the best path in most things is a path of balance. Some things need to be thrown down forcefully. Other things need to be allowed to wither and die. In those cases, the old ways and old forms need to die in a way that will be a warning to the future. Even if well-meaning people brought an institution to the place where it is today, a gentle reform is not enough to send the message that the corruption has become too deep. In other cases, more gentle reform from within is a good solution. You mentioned churches without a formal hierarchy as an example of the natural hierarchical structure that organizations will assume. I agree that people have a natural inclination to fall into these hierarchies. On the other hand, the degree of formalized structure decides what the cost of objection will be. If a group of churches loosely following particular pastors because of his success or personality isn't bound formally, then individual churches have much more freedom to change course if those leaders go in the wrong direction. If the formal connections are loose, the cost of refusing to follow a bad path will be much less. If the churches are bound to some hierarchy, then the cost to each church can become much greater when formal leaders are wrong. I see strengths and weaknesses in both kinds of organizations. I suspect that this means that I'm a moderate on your scale of conservatism versus liberalism. In that sense, I'm happy to be considered a moderate.
A good video summary though I think the "Left-Right" distinction in the US is mostly meaningless due to our history and relationship to land settlement. Both parties are inarguably liberals (centre right and centre left). As far as I know these terms didn't even enter in the American lexicon until the recalibration of the two parties under FDR/Grear depression. In continental Europe I believe Conservative usually denoted the ideology of someone like a du Maistre who believes heavily in the rejection of enlightenment absolutism, deference to aristocratic privilege, and austere adherence to the rule of law and the Catholic church. This is what conservative described and was understood as until 1914 for most people from my understanding. All of the major ideologies of modernity seem to be a reaction to the French revolution (except for fascism). Even Marxists trace their lineage through the radical jacobin Babeuf.
During the 1964 presidential campaign, there were many things I “liked” about Barry Goldwater. As the deadline for voting in November grew near, however, I realized he was WAY more “hawkish” than I was. I guess you could say I’ve been a moderate ever since. That means, among other things, that my “conservative” friends don’t think I’m conservative enough and my “progressive” friends don’t think I’m progressive enough. I figure if I’m not trusted by members of either of the two major parties (U.S.) I must be doing something right. I lean to the right on some issues and to the left on other issues. I admire the protesant reformers but I don’t idolize any of them. If I could be persuaded that our income tax system could be “reformed”, I’d like to see that happen but almost every suggestion - from either major party - involves making the tax system even more complex than it is already - which is why, ever since the early ‘80s, I have promoted a clean-sheet-of-paper approach. Presumably, my conservative friends decide my ideas are too “radical” before they even consider how much better the economy would be under a system that is: Far less complex and Minimizes the disincentives of the current welfare system without making complex changes to it.
Two of my comments seem to be have been censored. This is not the first time that such has happened. Dr Cooper, if you are the one removing them, as opposed to this being some glitch on TH-cam's part, please let me know so I can avoid posting similar ideas and sentiments in the future.
It's hard to know what words and phrases trigger the algorithm. If you really wanna post your comment: 1. Open two windows. On in your account, one incognito. 2. Write a sentence. Post it. 3. Check it in incognito. 4. Click edit. Add another sentence. 5. Repeat until your comment becomes invisible or TH-cam refuses to post. 6. Try synonyms and euphemisms.
Austro-Libertarian here philosophically....(Mises Institute) some culturally conservative leanings, Burke, Roger Scruton very good. Not so sure about Kirk....need to approach a second time again. French Revolution very bad. Cheers!
I have never asked someone's political position to judge if we can be friends, I don't care about their opinions, I care about their personality and if we get on well together.
The challenge with conservatism in the US is its unconservative nature. The main figures today conserve nothing in the name of global capitalism. Local markets and local communities and local flavor (culture) are paved over by conservatives and liberals in the US. So are local parks, local mountains are destroyed, local commons are sold to those folk in big cities who could care less how shared space has been used by a community for centuries. The best thing a conservative can do is read Marx with an eye not toward his global solution, but toward conserving those things he wanted to conserve, the things the Luddites wanted to conserve in rural England. Those things destroyed by US conservatives and US liberals. God's nature is the start.
But this historical and Burkean conservativism is not what many Americans think of as their Conservativism today. In my New England town we rejected the building of a Wal-Mart and followed up with upgraded zoning regulations to prevent that kind of development from ever occurring in the future. Roger Scruton would commend us and local Republicans were mostly on board with those decisions too. However, I do know Republicans who consider themselves conservatives who said go ahead and build that Wal-Mart because we need growth. "Too bad for your historical sentimentality and refined aesthetics." They considered me a "liberal" for opposing that Wal-Mart. If I moved to Germany, I would join the Free Democratic Party, which is the liberal party. The same would be true for Ron and Rand Paul and Tom Massie. We all would be considered "liberals" in Germany, since the word there is still rooted to its original meaning. John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, Montesque (sp?) are all philosophically "liberal," so is Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of independence. However, this understanding is completely lost to Americans on both the Left and Right. They do understand this completely at the Mises Institute. The way we use these terms is all messed up.
@@DrJordanBCooper Funny thing is Dr Cooper, when I watch your video here, i agree with all of those Principles, so i can call myself a Classical Conservative. Yet I watched a video by Second Thought (loosely Socialist) "what is Socialism", and I recall I agreed with all or most of that. But the basic principles mentioned in each are about different things, but don't seem to conflict, for the most part. I do believe reform is better than revolution, but as a fact of human nature & history, not because it is more appealing.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers! Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people. Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not. Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph. STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable... Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS! v
This is an excellent video and a great explanation. I am glad you referenced it from both the philosophical and theological frameworks. I teach the students in my Government/Political Science classes that they need to step away from the "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" labels they see associated with modern US politics and understand the terms, from their root, as a philosophy, more than a political ideology. A "Conservative" at it's simplest definition, is one who wants to conserve (or preserve) a traditional culture, value or idea. One who hesitant to new ideas and less willing to change. A "Liberal" at its core, is one who is willing to deviate from a traditional culture, value or idea. One who is open to new ideas and welcomes change.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers! Mathew 19:12 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. 🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused. 🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people. Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not. Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph. STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable... Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS! t
Pure Human Nature? This sounds massively utopian! Ignore the wish of a peaceful togetherness, is excusing tyranny as well. No conservative politician convinced me of not being a selfcentered social ignorant, who's just joining other conservatives, as long he can profit the other. And Your explanation was a bit plausable, but vague.
and I think the difficulty for Christians with the last three is determining when you're upholding human dignity, and when you're upholding the right of someone who looks like Jacob Reese-Mogg to shove children in a coal pit to bring up black gold so he can have a four story house with italian nudes on the ceiling. A very tricky business sometimes.
American academia is left-wing, but it also respects hierarchy. The federal civil service is also left-leaning, but likewise there is extensive hierarchical organization.
@@babylonianexile7624 In practice, a lot of left wing or left wing dominated organizations are very hierarchical. See also the various Communist parties of the 20th century, despite their explicitly stated goals. So, welcome to left wing hypocrisy, my friend.
For those of us who were reading Bill Buckley in the 70s, I would posit that this is a good philosophical overview of the basics but misses conservatism in its economic, social and political contexts.
If this were an all-encompassing channel, that is a great point. Dr. Cooper is primarily a scholar of Religion. He seems to me to be pretty careful not to speak beyond his qualifications. I wish more public speakers, pundits, etc. would practice the same restraint.
My favorite description of conservatism comes from Roger Scruton's dialog with Hamza Yousef. He said, the left sees things that need to change, and they come to hate those things, and seek to destroy them. After awhile, that hate gets into their heart and they come to only see things that they hate and wish to destroy. Conservatives see things that they love and cherish, and seek to find ways to preserve those things. This description has made it easy for me to talk to my children about conservatism: "Choose love, not hate."
You should talk to an actual leftist and/or read radical/revolutionary thought because you'll find that they are motivated by things that they love, such as equity, justice, non-exploitative relationships, fair wages, accessible housing, etc. Think of MLK and Jesus Christ. They would be deemed as "woke" by today's conservatives. I find that conservatives don't so much love or cherish a former historical reality but rather an idealization of that. Like an attitude of "we used to be a proper country." Oh really, you mean when Christians openly lynched blacks and published it in newspapers as a form of terrorism, or when we had barbaric labor laws, or when women were relegated to second class citizenry? When exactly was this golden age that you'd like to harken back to? Today's conservatives are more interested in dismantling a functioning state so as to narrow legal and economic privileges to a handful of the deserving chosen.
I'm guessing you don't think poor people deserve healthcare, in which case I call BS on your "choose love" crap
I wholeheartedly agree, I'm also a fan of Scruton
I like your sentiment, but dont use lefist phrasing. Its a form of acceptance. Like calling libtards the real racists. Dont use their frame, use a conservative one. And i dont mean fox news conservative.
Thank you for your description. Very well said.
I consider myself a conservative, although i was born and raised in the USA i personally am not patriotic at all. I think our culture is rotten to the core I would rather live in a small poorer country with old fashioned values. I understand every nation has serious issues but from my own travel experience i feel that life is much more simple and (conservative) in a nation like Poland for example. That all being said God placed me in the USA so thats where i am and I'm okay with that.
5 Principles of Classical Conservatism, in this video:
(1) Reform, over revolution.
revolution always leads to Tyranny.
t=4:08
(2) Recognise value in the inheritance of institutions, customs & culture.
t=6:43
(3) The inevidablity of hierarchy (& that it isn't inheriantly evil or exploitative, but can & does have positive expressions).
t= 8:47
(4) Belief in a universal human nature (& natural law (even undiscovered?) )
t= 11:33
(5) Realism
t=13:55
Funny thing is, when I watch this video here, i agree with all of those Principles, so i can call myself a Classical Conservative. Yet I watched a video by Second Thought (loosely Socialist) "what is Socialism", and I recall I agreed with all or most of that. But the basic principles mentioned in each are about different things, but don't seem to conflict, for the most part. I do believe reform is better than revolution, but as a fact of human nature & history, not because it is more appealing.
The overall goal of politics to me is to create the conditions that promote human flourishing.
The way i see it, whether liberal, conservative or marxist, they all came out of real life concerns & have real value, but also tend to have particular sins that often go with it too.
(A) Liberal = loves freedom & personal responsibility, but tends to ignore that freedom leads to exploitation & social responsibility; or enable bad systems by always blaming personal responsibility alone.
e.g. Housing crisis being exploitation coming from Liberal values.
(B) Conservative = values the 5 principles mentioned here esp (2); but tends to be closed to new ideas or paradigms.
(C) Marxist = Values preventing exploitation, values all humans & equality & Working Class; contributing to society & deomcracy; open to new ideas.
But tends to throw out the baby with the bath water; throw out what was good; anti-authoritarian but not understanding that revolution can lead to authoritarianism. Can be driven by Resentment.
I'd love to know what you thought of my comparison there Dr Cooper, or anyone else not overly "ideologically possessed", even if they feel rooted in one.
@@pebblepod30 I realize your comment is at least a year old but I thought I would make a couple of comments anyway. I think you are wrong when you say Liberals love freedom and personal responsibility. If you were talking about Classical Liberalism I would agree but in today’s world liberals like the Democrats in the U.S. and the Liberal Party in Canada have moved away from being centrist parties in favour of farther left, socialist policies and seem to loathe freedom and create more and more social programs taking away people’s need for personal responsibility. All the time you see and hear more people and politicians arguing for the government to be responsible for almost everything in our lives. The thought that most of these folks are neo-Marxists enters my mind.
You also state that Conservatives tend to be closed to new ideas or paradigms but I disagree with that as well. As opposed to liberal ideology, most Conservatives do not support change just for the sake of change. There has to be well thought out reason for the change and at least an attempt to analyze what unintended consequences may come from it. Liberal governments tend to push through change that they may feel is needed to fulfill their ideologies whether the people want it or not. As Thomas Sowell says, Conservatives have a constrained view and understand that everything results in trade offs and the goal is to try and get the best result from those trade offs while liberals have an unconstrained view. Anyway, that’s the way I see things coming from a perspective where I consider myself a small ‘c’ conservative, mostly centrist although I believe in the value to society of well thought out, effective and efficient social programs while also harbouring some Libertarian views such as believing in small government with lower taxation and more personal freedoms to choose how to spend my earnings and more personal responsibility to take care of myself and my family. I don’t fit neatly into any political box.
After watching this, I'd love to see you give an in-depth review of Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind." Your insights are always valuable... and appreciated!
“The Wise men know…” is another great Kirk book and if free to listen to on audible btw.
While reading Kirk's list of conservative principles, the thought occurred to me that if Don Corleone were reading this, he would be nodding along and agreeing to every point. This is one of the reasons why I do not buy into Burkean Conservatism, despite being a bioethical conservative (being against abortion, LGBT, and such).
@@babylonianexile7624 The problem with Burkean conservatism in practice seems that in the last 200 years it accomodated by "slow reform" almost everything that would have been revolutionary in the time or Burke himself. First (economic) liberalism that dissolved all traditional bonds in favor of relations of exchange (as famously noted by Marx). And afterwards, roughly in the last 50-70 years all broadly "leftist" reforms that were usually either based on the ideas of the more radical 18th century figures, like Rousseau or were reactions to mitigate the destruction of tradition brought about by 19th century style capitalism.
So it somehow mostly degenerated into the caricature "we do the same as the leftists/radicals only worded differently and 20 years later". I am not sure about the US but LGBT is really a "condensed symbol" for this decline. Less than 40 years ago the centrist position would have found "same sex marriage" absurd and conservatives would have been abhorred (cf. many conservative reactions to the HIV epidemic in the 1980s). Today at least in Western Europe virtually all nominally conservative parties support it.
The core problem here seems to be that many Burkean conservatives did not hold to the contents of the traditional concept of human nature or they abolished the idea of universal human nature altogether. Or maybe that they were temperamentally usually moderates and simply got dragged along with the shifting Overton window.
@@bartolo498 This is a rather important observation. I have seen some discussion of this on some right-wing blogs. In many respects, though not all, mainstream conservatives are simply the last generation's liberals.
I think this has to do with the fact that Burkean Conservatives regard eccentricity as a vice (in fact, as the fountain of many other vices). Moreover, while they distrust the masses to make important decisions, they believe that public opinion has inherent value (this relates to Burke's remark that "the species is wise"). By thinking in this manner they have essentially locked themselves into the Overton Window.
The Burkean view of relationships, intimacy, and trust as being inherently aligned with the good (rather than being tools used by both good and evil forces) leads to some interesting paradoxes from the perspective of non-Burkeans like myself. For instance, they tend to distrust people who are unpopular, even if the people imputing the unpopularity are themselves of questionable moral character. In the same vein, they often feel grudging if not open respect for charismatic criminal leaders (this phenomenon is discussed by David Graeber inter alia). They show leniency of judgement toward group-crimes, while strongly stigmatizing lone-wolf crimes. At the end of the day, I think it is important for people who believe in the Word of God to realize that they have other options besides the false dichotomy of LGBT versus Burkeans.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people.
Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not.
Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph.
STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable...
Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS!
s
Looking forward for the Burke philosophy video!
Would love to hear your thoughts on Thomas Carlyle’s (revolutionary right) thought as opposed to Edmund Burke’s (conservative right)
I'm a little familiar with Carlyle, but I'd have to familiarize myself with him a little more before having anything of substance to say.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Totally spot on. Good job.
I have come to this realization that Conservative's want or Need to maintain the Religious Dogma at all cost. If I want to pursue something that doesn't fit in to their mold then the thought process is its wrong an needs to be destroyed. I don't think religion has a place in modern society anymore, It is just a stepping stone to Peoples back and oppress them.
I don't think morals have a place in modern society anymore, it's just a stepping stone to people's back and Judge them.
𝗘𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗡𝗶𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺
Sub-premise 1a: Atheism does not believe in gods.
Sub-premise 1b: Atheism does not believe in other supernatural validation of moral claims. (e.g. Dao, Dharma, Divine Logos)
Premise 1: Therefore, Atheism does not believe in supernatural validation for moral claims.
Sub-premise 2a: The eventual objective consequence of all actions is Entropy.
Sub-premise 2b: Death eradicates all subjective experience of and caring about consequences.
Premise 2: Consequentialism/Utilitarianism cannot justify short-term over long-term priorities.
Premise 3: Furthermore, Hume's guillotine refutes all moral claims derived from observable facts.
Sub-premise 4a: It is not morally wrong to lose interest in (or even to totally change) one’s value judgements.
Sub-premise 4b: It is not morally wrong for societies to change value judgements.
Sub-premise 4c: It is not morally wrong for individuals to change or resist societal value judgements.
Premise 4: Therefore, it is not morally wrong to do anything for or against value judgements; value judgements do no validate moral claims.
Conclusion: No validation for moral claims remains; Moral Nihilism is the only rational outlook for Atheism.
How to be conservative:
1. Pick a problem in society
2. Instead of seeking a solution, point to the problems with the people trying to solve the problem
3. Scream out to world "look at these peoples problems!"
4. Use that to justify doing NOTHING about the original problem in society
5. *bonus* use this logic to justify supporting the people actually making the problem worse!
Did I get this right?
Please do a video on liberatism vs conservative
I think it's interesting when people like Dave Rubin call themselves conservatives, yet insist that their "marriage" of a man to another man is actually a conservative virtue.
What is conservative virtue? Virtues can not be liberal or conservative, they are virtues regardless of politics or faith.
I don't think he does, actually. He acknowledges that he's a very unlikely and non-traditional conservative. Whether or not one agrees with that particular part of his life-- which he himself considers being gay an insignificant aspect over the grand scheme of his person-- I am refreshed by a sane voice such as his in the sphere of the internet.
@@mromero120 Let me rephrase: "a *perceived* virtue."
@@AZVIDE0Z I suppose. But practicing homosexuality is in no way, shape, or form "insignificant" to a person's overall character. It is an abomination. On economics, he's pretty good I suppose. But compromise on such issues as the basics of human sexuality isn't really a non issue.
@@mromero120 preservation and recognition of tradition is a conservative virtue. The institution of marriage is as Traditional as it gets. The fact he embraces the left changing the definition of marriage makes by definition a liberal
I am converting from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism. I have gone through the telephone book and found the two Lutheran churches nearest my home. One calls itself "Evangelical Lutheran" and the other simply "Lutheran."
I asked a current Lutheran, and they told me: "Stay away from the " Evangelical" lutherans, because they are "liberal."
My politics tends toward conservative. My father worked for the defense contractor who made the B-2 "Spirit" bomber during the "Reagan" years and in general I believe that the individual who makes the money, best knows how to spend it.
Do you have any advice to help me choose my new church? Thankyou! 🤗
LCMS Confessional Lutheranism FTW
Thank you Sir.
God bless you! 🤗
Dr. Cooper, I would love to hear more of your thoughts on Edmund Burke, especially with his opinions on hierarchy during his time. Burke seems to defend the existence of aristocracy within the feudal system (peasants --> nobles --> kings), which might be an anachronistic conservative belief in today's largely democratic liberal world order. It would also be interesting to hear Burke's opinion on religion and its role in society.
As a conservative calvinist, I approve of you 5-point scheme
You and I are kindred spirits 🙏🙂
Politically, I'm libertarian but I like conservativism as a temperament. I prefer reform over revolution. I also like traditions and culture, much like Ron Paul with paleo libertarianism. I don't like hierarchies at all though. If we could get power down to the local level, the people could veto laws and intimate their own ideas. We could have bodies like a mayor and city counsel but the people would function as a body alongside them as a direct check of them.
Do you think that Reformed eschatological Postmillenialism is definitionally incompatible with Burkean Conservatism? It seems to look that way...
Thought I'd throw this is here: Tolkien often spoke of the "Long Defeat" as the Christian/Conservative approach to history (very much placed in contrast to the idealistic modernistic utopianism of Sauron).
I think postmillennialism is hard to fit into Burke's conservatism both for its somewhat-Utopian leanings and its common rejection of natural law (at least in the modern Bahsen variety).
@@DrJordanBCooper many of us postmills reject Bahnsen, thankfully.
@@DrJordanBCooper I think Burkean Conservatism is fundamentally at odds with the old Puritan worldview (which of course was connected to the Postmillenial school mentioned above by Evangelical Catholic) because the latter was, to the best of my understanding, socially dualistic (they assumed that evil people were organized and sociable, and had bonds of intimacy with each other) whereas Burkean Conservatism follows Aristotle and Cicero in regarding moral virtue as concomitant with intimacy, trust, and friendship. Do you have any issue with this statement? What would you say to someone who repudiates the Burkean Conservative school while upholding morally conservative positions such as opposition to abortion and LGBT?
Isn't postmillennialism associated with American whigs?
@@siegfriedkircheis9484 Yep. Postmillenialism began with the Puritans, was transferred to the United States, and during the 19th century became the predominant eschatological theory, especially in the Northern states, only to decline sharply during the 20th century.
God bless thee, and thy works.
Pr. Cooper,
I have a question:
Do thou thinkest that it is appropriate for a Lutherans to call their pastors frairs like Roman-catholics?
Because we in our Church do, in Slovak it is "farár".
(Slovak Evangelical of Augsburg Confession Church in Serbia)
In your language, do you mean "father" or "friar"? A friar is an ordained monk (priest + monk), whereas "father" is an honorific term used for all ordained clergy.
@@vngelicath1580 In Slovak father is "otec" while friar is "farár".
We don't usually call priests fathers, but we do call them frairs.
Because it was the tradition before reformation, and after it, it sticked.
@@vngelicath1580 Friar means brother in Latin( lat. Frater)
While Padre has been used as father.
Could you please address Frank Violas book Reimagining Church and the whole house church/ leaving institutional church movement in general.
Dr. Cooper, I was wondering if you found there to be a tension between belief in "human nature" which appears to be an abstract concept and conservative emphasis on realism. Likewise, is there not therefore a tension between conservatism and a belief in a universal moral law based upon this abstract concept. I am thinking of a famous line from de Maistre to the effect of "I've met a Frenchman, an Englishman, and a Russian, but I've never met this ideal 'man' which is talked about." If, however, you grant the universal concept of man, and the ability to rationally deduce a universally binding moral system based upon this concept, then don't you end with a form/version of liberalism? It seems almost telling that the proto-forms of liberalism emerged among late scholastic thinkers e.g. Marsillus of Padua, Suarez.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people.
Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not.
Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph.
STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable...
Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS!
w
This is a very good point of course the shadow of Rousseau looms large over this but there's also a different type of idealism that you point out as well which I think is worthy of critique; for example the French and Russian literature/religious traditions are also very different and I find the Analytic philosophical tradition quite vacant and lacking.
Austrian Economics can't feed the soul!
I think many conservative critiques of right-libertarianism (and to a certain extent social democracy and Marxism as well, although I still think the latter two are wrong) fall flat precisely due to conservatism's stubborn opposition to ideology as such. "Utopia is not achievable in this world" is an interesting (and correct) observation, but it's not really an argument that addresses the sanctity of property rights (or their exploitative nature in the other two ideologies).
If taxation is theft, then to support its legality is wrong (assuming the conservative agrees theft should be illegal, which most do, to my knowledge). If property is theft, then to support its legality is wrong. It is irrelevant whether the elimination of taxation is utopian (I don't think it is), or whether the elimination of property is utopian (I'm inclined to think that it is). To use the analogy of the church without bishops, the answers to the questions of whether a church should establish bishops and whether a bishop-like figure will inevitably emerge anyway do not necessarily depend on one another.
Thus, in order to effectively counter either the right-libertarian or the Marxist perspective, the conservative must put forward some reason as to why the central claims of these ideologies are *incorrect*, not merely why their implications are impractical. A conservatism that is averse to ideology per se cannot properly do this.
Interesting stuff! I agree with most of it.
Attempts have been made to create a conserative manifesto. Fairly recently, Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conserative Manifesto
Who did you vote for in 2016, Pr Cooper?
I believe that there are two main forms of Conservatism: (1) belief in personal surrender to some body of sacrosanct writings, also known as Moral Conservatism; (2) belief in the sacrosanct nature of friendships, relationships, trust, and intimacy, also known as Burkean Conservatism.
Confucianism has both. Muslims have the first but not the second. Puritanism was in a similar position. Jordan Peterson focuses on the second. Baptists and Presbyterians have both forms. William F Buckley, Edward Feser, and Sir Roger Scruton profess both in theory, but in practice they focus on the second.
Dr. Cooper, still anxiously waiting for that Edmund Burke video.
Have you read the writings of Friederich Julius Stahl, translated by Ruben Alvarado? If not you would enjoy it. A Bavarian Jewish convert to Lutheranism, servant to the king, scholar, and a hero as far as I am concerned.
Or simply ‘a fearful person’.
Any thoughts on Joseph de Maistre's political thought as opposed to Burke?
A very interesting figure, though I have not read his works myself. Maistre is far more dogmatic than Burke, and is also firmly committed to the authority of the Pope, so I would clearly have some significant points of disagreement.
@@DrJordanBCooper Very true. I don't mind his writings on the Pope, but that is because I am Catholic. He is very Augustinian in his anthropology though, so you may want to give him another shot. His "St. Petersburg Dialogues" are simply fantastic, and "Against Rousseau" is also great!
@@terratremuit4757 Thanks for the recommendation. I'll have to check those out.
Love this, but what about Locke, Adam Smith, De Tocqueville, etc? 😭
Conservatism defined as positive reform rather than bloody revolution is something which I think most people instinctively agree with, but the biggest blind spot of this criticism when applied to the French revolution, as well as other revolutions such as those in China and Russia, is that the on the ground reality of the governmental systems of those countries made anything close to the needed level of reform impossible to put into practice. The uniting factor in what led to the violent and horrific revolutions in these countries were systems which gave enormous amounts of privilege, including an outsized influence on policy, to a group of people who naturally were opposed to anything that might diminish the money, prestige, and political power they felt was basically their God given right. They had grown into it from childhood, and all it's prejudices steered them towards believing in the rightness of it. The nobility of France and Russia, and the Land owning class of China all had grown accustomed to seeing the state as an outgrowth of their own personal power.
Looking at France in particular, the event the precipitated the tennis court oath was this exact intransigence, the first and second estates felt that, yes, the peasants should be forced to purchase a pounds of salt they didn't need, yes, tithes should be mandatory and arbitrarily set, yes, all of the privileges accumulated through generations of royal patronage were something which rightfully needed to continue. Because without them, the First and Second Estates would be destroying the chance for their children to live a life as prosperous as their own, as well as causing all sorts of havoc to their own immediate budgetary concerns. Revolution is something that common people don't adhere to out of boredom, it's something which they view as absolutely necessary. The French state mostly didn't give a damn if a peasant starved to death because 80% of his product was stolen by his Seignor, the king never had to see the peasant writhing in his cottage, but he did have to confront the Nobles and Clergy who made up his power base.
The United States and Great Britain both had the advantage of receiving a governmental system which already had dealt this sort of detrimental accumulation of privilege at the top in the English Civil war. The Nobility had stripped the king of most of his power, and something like the English governmental system that exists today was basically in place before the beginning of the 18th century. And that had only been possible because a kings power had been checked on the battlefield, and he had faced the consequence, the executioners block. It's very easy for Burke to criticize the Terror because he could not understand what had driven it, the belief that those who had oppressed the great mass of the french people for their own benefit, even to the point of starvation, were going to reintroduce it at the point of a German bayonet. Millions of French men chose to take their chances under gunfire rather then see that happen. The would rather be atheists then pay another tithe to a bishop who spent it on prostitutes in Paris. They would rather burn down the entirety of the structure that had robbed them and made them serfs then ever see it take power again. And the Russians said the same in 1917. They had been thrown into German machine guns by the millions while their wives and children starved at home, and any attempt at gaining autonomy in their lives was viewed as basically sedition.
When political systems start's being used as ways to get rich, reinforce the power of people who already have it, and deliberately ignore the mass acknowledgment of the need for reform, you're on the way to a bad time. And the people who will ignore it the most fervently are usually the ones who have the capability to change it.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people.
Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not.
Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph.
STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable...
Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS!
x
This was a good video!
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people.
Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not.
Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph.
STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable...
Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS!
u
In his autobiography, Whitaker Chambers talks of conservatives versus communists. He says that conservatism offers no real solution to communism because a communist is a revolutionist and once a revolution has begun, there is really nothing left to conserve. The revolution by its nature destroys what a society and governmental system has been. He said that the only answer to a revolutionist is a counter-revolutionist. As time has passed, I've come to respect and understand this perspective. As I look at the current state of things in our country, I believe that we are dealing with a leftist revolution that is trying to destroy all that we have. The old conservative ways of perfect adherence to forms and fair play is ineffective in fighting these people. If we are to win, we must bring the same single-mindedness and dedication to the fight.
I think that the best path in most things is a path of balance.
Some things need to be thrown down forcefully. Other things need to be allowed to wither and die. In those cases, the old ways and old forms need to die in a way that will be a warning to the future. Even if well-meaning people brought an institution to the place where it is today, a gentle reform is not enough to send the message that the corruption has become too deep. In other cases, more gentle reform from within is a good solution.
You mentioned churches without a formal hierarchy as an example of the natural hierarchical structure that organizations will assume. I agree that people have a natural inclination to fall into these hierarchies. On the other hand, the degree of formalized structure decides what the cost of objection will be. If a group of churches loosely following particular pastors because of his success or personality isn't bound formally, then individual churches have much more freedom to change course if those leaders go in the wrong direction. If the formal connections are loose, the cost of refusing to follow a bad path will be much less. If the churches are bound to some hierarchy, then the cost to each church can become much greater when formal leaders are wrong. I see strengths and weaknesses in both kinds of organizations.
I suspect that this means that I'm a moderate on your scale of conservatism versus liberalism. In that sense, I'm happy to be considered a moderate.
A good video summary though I think the "Left-Right" distinction in the US is mostly meaningless due to our history and relationship to land settlement. Both parties are inarguably liberals (centre right and centre left). As far as I know these terms didn't even enter in the American lexicon until the recalibration of the two parties under FDR/Grear depression.
In continental Europe I believe Conservative usually denoted the ideology of someone like a du Maistre who believes heavily in the rejection of enlightenment absolutism, deference to aristocratic privilege, and austere adherence to the rule of law and the Catholic church. This is what conservative described and was understood as until 1914 for most people from my understanding.
All of the major ideologies of modernity seem to be a reaction to the French revolution (except for fascism). Even Marxists trace their lineage through the radical jacobin Babeuf.
During the 1964 presidential campaign, there were many things I “liked” about Barry Goldwater. As the deadline for voting in November grew near, however, I realized he was WAY more “hawkish” than I was. I guess you could say I’ve been a moderate ever since.
That means, among other things, that my “conservative” friends don’t think I’m conservative enough and my “progressive” friends don’t think I’m progressive enough. I figure if I’m not trusted by members of either of the two major parties (U.S.) I must be doing something right. I lean to the right on some issues and to the left on other issues.
I admire the protesant reformers but I don’t idolize any of them.
If I could be persuaded that our income tax system could be “reformed”, I’d like to see that happen but almost every suggestion - from either major party - involves making the tax system even more complex than it is already - which is why, ever since the early ‘80s, I have promoted a clean-sheet-of-paper approach. Presumably, my conservative friends decide my ideas are too “radical” before they even consider how much better the economy would be under a system that is:
Far less complex and
Minimizes the disincentives of the current welfare system without making complex changes to it.
Two of my comments seem to be have been censored. This is not the first time that such has happened. Dr Cooper, if you are the one removing them, as opposed to this being some glitch on TH-cam's part, please let me know so I can avoid posting similar ideas and sentiments in the future.
No, I have not removed any comments.
It's hard to know what words and phrases trigger the algorithm. If you really wanna post your comment:
1. Open two windows. On in your account, one incognito.
2. Write a sentence. Post it.
3. Check it in incognito.
4. Click edit. Add another sentence.
5. Repeat until your comment becomes invisible or TH-cam refuses to post.
6. Try synonyms and euphemisms.
@@Mygoalwogel I appreciate the advice.
Austro-Libertarian here philosophically....(Mises Institute) some culturally conservative leanings, Burke, Roger Scruton very good. Not so sure about Kirk....need to approach a second time again. French Revolution very bad. Cheers!
I have never asked someone's political position to judge if we can be friends, I don't care about their opinions, I care about their personality and if we get on well together.
The challenge with conservatism in the US is its unconservative nature. The main figures today conserve nothing in the name of global capitalism. Local markets and local communities and local flavor (culture) are paved over by conservatives and liberals in the US. So are local parks, local mountains are destroyed, local commons are sold to those folk in big cities who could care less how shared space has been used by a community for centuries. The best thing a conservative can do is read Marx with an eye not toward his global solution, but toward conserving those things he wanted to conserve, the things the Luddites wanted to conserve in rural England. Those things destroyed by US conservatives and US liberals. God's nature is the start.
But this historical and Burkean conservativism is not what many Americans think of as their Conservativism today. In my New England town we rejected the building of a Wal-Mart and followed up with upgraded zoning regulations to prevent that kind of development from ever occurring in the future. Roger Scruton would commend us and local Republicans were mostly on board with those decisions too. However, I do know Republicans who consider themselves conservatives who said go ahead and build that Wal-Mart because we need growth. "Too bad for your historical sentimentality and refined aesthetics." They considered me a "liberal" for opposing that Wal-Mart. If I moved to Germany, I would join the Free Democratic Party, which is the liberal party. The same would be true for Ron and Rand Paul and Tom Massie. We all would be considered "liberals" in Germany, since the word there is still rooted to its original meaning. John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, Montesque (sp?) are all philosophically "liberal," so is Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of independence. However, this understanding is completely lost to Americans on both the Left and Right. They do understand this completely at the Mises Institute. The way we use these terms is all messed up.
I think us New England conservatives have quite a bit of a different understanding of the term than many other parts of the country.
As a conservative Pentecostal Christian person who believes in God, i approve of you 5-points scheme.
So you're not a Lockean?
Far less of one than I used to be. At this point I have quite a bit of skepticism about the entire liberal project.
@@DrJordanBCooper I'm curious about why.
@@DrJordanBCooper Funny thing is Dr Cooper, when I watch your video here, i agree with all of those Principles, so i can call myself a Classical Conservative. Yet I watched a video by Second Thought (loosely Socialist) "what is Socialism", and I recall I agreed with all or most of that. But the basic principles mentioned in each are about different things, but don't seem to conflict, for the most part. I do believe reform is better than revolution, but as a fact of human nature & history, not because it is more appealing.
@@DrJordanBCooper thanks for making this video
Hi
Hello.
@@DrJordanBCooper I just watch this episode. Furthermore I have just re sub to your channel. God bless you ❤️🙏
I prefer the term Traditionalist. Roger Scruton lays it out beautifully. This Kid Rock conservatism is a joke.
good vid btw, I like you and think you're a good man, which is exactly what you want in a Christian leader.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people.
Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not.
Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph.
STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable...
Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS!
v
This is an excellent video and a great explanation. I am glad you referenced it from both the philosophical and theological frameworks.
I teach the students in my Government/Political Science classes that they need to step away from the "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" labels they see associated with modern US politics and understand the terms, from their root, as a philosophy, more than a political ideology.
A "Conservative" at it's simplest definition, is one who wants to conserve (or preserve) a traditional culture, value or idea. One who hesitant to new ideas and less willing to change.
A "Liberal" at its core, is one who is willing to deviate from a traditional culture, value or idea. One who is open to new ideas and welcomes change.
Malachi 2 PROVES Malachi 3:8-11 is prophetic instruction for the thieving fake ministers to return the money and God will end Covid. But all the fakes love money more than listening to God. Murderers!
Mathew 19:12
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender.
🏳️🌈 Eunuchs made that way by others were abused.
🏳️🌈 Those that choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex but opposite in gender.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6. Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people.
Anyone collecting money for ministering in any way is now blacked out from the Holy Spirit and will be until they either repent or wait too late and die. Same goes for anyone teaching same sex marriage is a sin when it is not.
Male or female is determined by gender, located in the brain. I am the forerunner to the return of Jesus, who was transgender and will return as a woman. Most of the famous prophets from the Bible were transgender as well, including David and Joseph.
STAY OUT OF THE FAKE CHURCHES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. You choose to go there then you are supporting their evil and will also be held accountable...
Wake up everyone! I am the forerunner to THE LITERAL RETURN OF JESUS!
t
There is no such thing as a single universal human nature. It’s too complicated. Of course it goes back to the beginning of the Old Testament. 😕
U lost me in the first 40sec .
Pure Human Nature? This sounds massively utopian! Ignore the wish of a peaceful togetherness, is excusing tyranny as well.
No conservative politician convinced me of not being a selfcentered social ignorant, who's just joining other conservatives, as long he can profit the other. And Your explanation was a bit plausable, but vague.
and I think the difficulty for Christians with the last three is determining when you're upholding human dignity, and when you're upholding the right of someone who looks like Jacob Reese-Mogg to shove children in a coal pit to bring up black gold so he can have a four story house with italian nudes on the ceiling. A very tricky business sometimes.
Conservatism basically has two strains: 1. resistance to change; and 2. belief in a hierarchical order.
American academia is left-wing, but it also respects hierarchy. The federal civil service is also left-leaning, but likewise there is extensive hierarchical organization.
@@babylonianexile7624 In practice, a lot of left wing or left wing dominated organizations are very hierarchical. See also the various Communist parties of the 20th century, despite their explicitly stated goals. So, welcome to left wing hypocrisy, my friend.
A Conservative is someone who's not a Spazmonkey!! 😂
Conservatism: Attachment to power, even when it is not had
Progressivism: Detachment fron power, even when it is had
From where are these definitions?
@@dave1370 me
For those of us who were reading Bill Buckley in the 70s, I would posit that this is a good philosophical overview of the basics but misses conservatism in its economic, social and political contexts.
If this were an all-encompassing channel, that is a great point. Dr. Cooper is primarily a scholar of Religion. He seems to me to be pretty careful not to speak beyond his qualifications. I wish more public speakers, pundits, etc. would practice the same restraint.
The word conservative - HOARD AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO YOURSELF - the absolute opposite of the gospel.
Interesting you say this when studies have shown conservatives give more to charities than people who claim to be liberal