Search Results For:

Search Results for: conservative libertarian – Page 2

If future conservative politicians are to have a conservative tradition in their heads, we need to finance programs that introduce college students to the conservative and liberal traditions through philosophy, history, literature, and art.
Economic liberty is necessary for achieving the real, non-economic goods of individuals and associations in civil society. Not the collectivist “we” of government, but the many “we’s” of civil society are the true ground of a just, and good, society.
The clash between Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion and that of the joint dissenters is best seen as a clash between two visions of judicial restraint, and two eras of the conservative legal movement.
Despite their disagreements, conservatives and libertarians often agree on many things. Resolving their differences, however, means rejecting philosophical skepticism and taking right reason seriously.
Libertarians and conservatives should not allow their differences to impede political cooperation against the common adversary: egalitarian liberalism.
Libertarianism offers the best defense of individual rights that government can employ.
Conservatives value individual liberty as much as libertarians, but they deny that freedom from coercion is the only form of liberty.
Libertarianism and conservatism are often lumped together, but there are fundamental differences between the two philosophies that make them incompatible.
Neither liberal nor libertarian, a principled conservative way of helping the poor.
Conservatives shouldn’t ignore or attack social justice, but must articulate sound principles of social justice.
When surveying the consequences of the recent election we should not think of the market as something disembodied from the rest of society. Its failure indicates a general failure of responsibility
It is impossible to make a political argument without also making a moral claim. Demanding tolerance often functions as a way to evade robust discourse about the merits of one’s principles.
With the current Second Amendment jurisprudence, its practitioners on the Court have utterly lost their way.  
Indeed, because our Constitution recognizes the right of both mother and father to the custody of their joint offspring, that Constitution surely permits—if not requires—all the states of our Union to publicly favor, once again, the lifelong “union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” 
An Augustinian reading of the present moment would help social conservatives resist both triumphalism and despair. The renewal and invigoration now visible among many social conservatives may be a genuine mercy: a sign that the moral imagination—worn down though it is by the exhaustion of ambient progressivism—has not been entirely extinguished, and that many still perceive the disorder produced when freedom is detached from truth, embodiment, family, duty, and the created order.  
Taken as a whole, Rosen’s book offers a learned and sober account of the relevance of Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s principles to America’s past, present, and possible future. 
Field’s account is eye-opening. At the same time, as a professed “liberal,” she exhibits elements of excessive partisanship that weaken her argument. 
The job of present-day conservatives isn't to tear down, lament, and criticize. Instead we should attempt to preserve the good, while mending those things that are broken.
Young conservatives can learn a great deal from Flynn’s account of Meyer’s life.
Commitment to America as a whole must come one of two ways—as a “community of communities” in which one’s sympathy for the nation comes channeled through a commitment to locality; or through ideological abstraction. 
This is the conservatism we need: not nostalgia and anachronistic social conservatism, not progressive liberalism with better branding, but a bold conservatism of clearly articulated ideals for human flourishing.
If nothing else, the ANES data should be yet another reminder that there is no longer any “great silent majority” of socially conservative voters. We are, at best, coalition partners with a political movement that has the tendency to default into a lifestyle libertarianism and the move-fast-and-break-things ethos of the tech bro.  
The question then arises: what do we do when the two kinds of truth and goodness come into conflict, especially in education? How are we to act when someone is a good teacher—someone who is a true buddy to a child in his or her care—but who at the same time says things in the classroom that are untrue and not capital-G Good in a deep way?
It is misguided to rest one’s opposition to medical killing on a vague allergy to greed and to profit in general, when cost-pressures are a reality whether “profit” is relevant or not, and—in some cases at least—the profiteers are a countervailing force.